Translated from Philip Schaff's History of The Christian Church

第四章修道制度的兴起与发展

希腊文史料：苏格拉底 (Socrates)：《教会史》(Hist. Eccles.)，第iv卷，第23章及后。索佐门 (Sozomen)：《教会史》(H. E.)，第i卷，第12–14章；第iii卷，第14章；第vi卷，第28–34章。帕拉丢 (Palladius，起初是修士，为小马卡里乌斯的门徒，后来由金口约翰按立，任庇推尼的赫勒诺波利斯主教；卒于431年)：《劳苏斯传》(Historia Lausiaca，Ἱστορία πρὸς^* Lau'son，劳苏斯是狄奥多西二世手下的一位宫廷官员，本书即题献给他)，约于421年写成，作者根据亲身交往，以热烈的钦慕之情记述当时埃及最著名的苦修者。狄奥多勒 (Theodoret，卒于457年)：《修道史，或苦修生活方式》(Historia religiosa, seu ascetica vivendi ratio，φιλόθεος ἱστορία^*)，记述东方三十位隐修士和修士的生平，大部分出于亲身观察。老尼鲁斯 (Nilus the Elder，西奈山的隐修士，约卒于450年)：《论苦修生活》(De vita ascetica)、《论修道操练》(De exercitatione monastica)、《书信集》(Epistolae) 355封，以及其他著作。
拉丁文史料：鲁菲努斯 (Rufinus，卒于410年)：《隐修史，或教父生平》(Histor. Eremitica, S. Vitae Patrum)。苏尔皮基乌斯·塞韦鲁斯 (Sulpicius Severus，约400年)：《对话录三篇》(Dialogi III.；第一篇生动而饶有趣味地记述了他所访问过的埃及修士；另外两篇论述图尔的马丁)。卡西安 (Cassianus，卒于432年)：《团修制度》(Institutiones coenobiales)及《教父谈话录》(Collationes Patrum，东方修士的属灵谈话)。

此外，希腊教父中还有亚他那修 (Athanasius) 的《安东尼传》(Vita Antonii)，以及巴西尔 (Basil)、拿先斯的贵格利 (Gregory Nazianzen)、金口约翰 (Chrysostom)、尼鲁斯 (Nilus)、佩卢西乌姆的伊西多尔 (Isidore of Pelusium) 的苦修著作；拉丁教父中则有安布罗斯 (Ambrose)、奥古斯丁 (Augustine)、哲罗姆 (Jerome，其隐修士传记及书信)、卡西奥多鲁斯 (Cassiodorus) 和大贵格利 (Gregory the Great) 的苦修著作。

后世文献

L. 霍尔斯特尼乌斯 (L. Holstenius，1596年生于汉堡，原为新教徒，后归信罗马天主教，并任梵蒂冈图书馆馆员)：《修道规章汇编》(Codex regularum monastic.)，初版，罗马 (Rom.)，1661年；后有增订版，巴黎 (Par.) 及奥格斯堡 (Augsb.)，6卷，对开本。较早的希腊文《月录》(Menologia，μηνολόγια^*) 和《月课经》(Menaea，μηναῖα^*)，以及拉丁文《圣日历》(Calendaria) 和《殉道者录》(Martyrologia)，即教会的历书或圣徒纪念日（在世之死日与在天之诞辰）的索引，附有简短传记，供礼仪使用。P. 赫伯特·罗斯韦德 (P. Herbert Rosweyde，耶稣会士)：《教父生平，或隐修史》(Vitae Patrum, sive Historiae Eremiticae)，共x卷，安特卫普 (Antw.)，1628年。《普世所敬奉的诸圣行传》(Acta Sanctorum, quotquot toto orbe coluntur)，安特卫普，1643–1786年，53卷，对开本（由耶稣会士博兰杜斯〔Bollandus〕创编，由其会中数位学者续编，他们被称为博兰派学者〔Bollandists〕；所编已达圣徒纪念日历的10月11日。长期中断后，于1845年由泰纳〔Theiner〕等人恢复编纂）。达舍里 (D’achery) 与马比永 (Mabillon，本笃会士)：《圣本笃会诸圣行传》(Acta Sanctorum ordinis S. Benedicti)，巴黎，1668–1701年，9卷，对开本（记至1100年）。Pet. 埃利奥 (Pet. Helyot，方济各会士)：《修会与军事修会史》(Histoire des ordres monastiques religieux et militaires)，巴黎，1714–’19年，8卷，四开本。阿尔班·巴特勒 (Alban Butler，罗马天主教徒)：《教父、殉道者及其他主要圣徒生平》(The Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, and other principal Saints；依天主教历编排，完整编至12月31日)，初版1745年；此后屡次再版（最佳版本为伦敦〔Lond.〕1812–’13年版），12卷；另有巴尔的摩 (Baltimore) 1844年版，4卷。吉本 (Gibbon)：第xxxvii章（修道生活的起源、发展与影响；评价极为不利，以高踞哲学立场的轻蔑态度写成）。昂里翁 (Henrion，罗马天主教徒)：《修会史》(Histoire des ordres religieux)，巴黎，1835年（S. 费尔〔S. Fehr〕改编为德文，蒂宾根〔Tüb.〕，1845年，2卷）。F. v. 比登费尔德 (F. v. Biedenfeld)：《东西方所有修会的起源等》(Ursprung u. s. w. saemmtlicher Mönchsorden im Orient u. Occident)，魏玛 (Weimar)，1837年，3卷。施密特 (Schmidt，罗马天主教徒)：《修士会、修女会与宗教骑士团，附会规及插图》(Die Mönchs-, Nonnen-, u. geistlichen Ritterorden nebst Ordensregeln u. Abbildungen.)，奥格斯堡，1838年及后。H. H. 米尔曼 (H. H. Milman，圣公会徒)：《古代基督教史》(History of Ancient Christianity)，1844年，第iii编，第11章。H. 鲁夫纳 (H. Ruffner，长老会徒)：《沙漠教父》(The Fathers of the Desert)，纽约，1850年，2卷（以通俗形式提供大量奇闻资料）。蒙塔朗贝尔伯爵 (Count de Montalembert，罗马天主教徒)：《从圣本笃至圣伯尔纳的西方修士》(Les Moines d’Occident depuis St. Bénoit jusqu’à St. Bernard)，巴黎，1860年及后（拟共出6卷）；英译本：《西方修士》等 (The Monks of the West, etc.)，爱丁堡 (Edinb.) 及伦敦，1861年，2卷（第i卷叙述圣本笃以前的修道制度史，第ii卷主要论述圣本笃；以雄辩的笔调颂扬修道制度，并为之辩护）。奥托·策克勒 (Otto Zöckler)：《苦修批判史》(Kritische Geschichte der Askese)，美因河畔法兰克福 (Frankf. a. M.)，1863年。另参提勒蒙 (Tillemont)、弗勒里 (Fleury)、施勒克 (Schröckh，第v、viii卷)、尼安德 (Neander) 及吉泽勒 (Gieseler) 著作中的相关章节。

§ 28. 基督教修道制度的起源：与其他苦修形式的比较

霍斯皮尼安 (Hospinian)：《修道制度的起源与发展》(De origine et progressu monachatus)，第vi卷，苏黎世 (Tig.)，1588年；增订版，日内瓦 (Genev.)，1669年，对开本。J. A. 默勒 (J. A. Möhler，罗马天主教徒)：《修道制度起源及初期形成史》(Geschichte des Mönchthums in der Zeit seiner Entstehung u. ersten Ausbildung)，1836年（收入其文集，雷根斯堡〔Regensb.〕，第ii卷，第165页及后）。艾萨克·泰勒 (Isaac Taylor，独立派)：《古代基督教》(Ancient Christianity)，伦敦，1844年，第i卷，第299页及后。A. 福格尔 (A. Vogel)：《论修道制度》(Ueber das Mönchthum)，柏林 (Berl.)，1858年（载《德国基督教科学杂志》等，Deutsche Zeitschrift für christl. Wissenschaft）。P. 沙弗 (P. Schaff)：《论修道制度的起源与性质》(Ueber den Ursprung und Charakter des Mönchthums)（载多尔纳〔Dorner〕等人编《德国神学年鉴》〔Jahrbücher für deutsche Theol.〕，1861年，第555页及后）。J. 克罗普 (J. Cropp)：《修道制度的起源与成因》(Origenes et causae monachatus)，哥廷根 (Gott.)，1863年。

第四世纪初，修道制度出现在教会历史中，从此占据显著的地位。它起源于埃及，以不可阻挡的潮流传遍东方和西方，直到宗教改革时期一直是基督徒生活的主要寄托之所；时至今日，在希腊教会和罗马教会中，它仍是一项不可或缺的制度，也是培育圣徒、祭司和宣教士最富成果的园地。

正如一般的苦修倾向一样，修道制度这一特殊形式也绝非仅见于基督教会；在基督以前和以后，其他宗教中也有，尤其是在东方。它出于宗教上的认真、热忱与抱负；出于对世界虚空的感受，也出于高尚心灵对独处、默想，以及摆脱肉体束缚和世界诱惑的向往；但它使这种倾向过度占据优势，压倒了宗教中群体交往、实际行动和改造世界的精神。在印度人中，苦修制度几乎可以追溯到摩西的时代，肯定早于亚历山大大帝 (Alexander the Great)；他到达那里时，发现这一制度已十分盛行，而且其基本特征与今日所见相同。¹让我们略加考察。

《吠陀》(Vedas) 的部分篇章可追溯至公元前十五世纪；《摩奴法典》(Laws of Menu) 则在佛教兴起以前，即公元前六七个世纪已经完成。这些经典以及印度宗教的众多其他圣书，都以榜样和训诫要求人使思想完全超脱，离群遁世，并实行各种悔罪而积功德的自我苦待。虔修者藉此自傲地凌驾于庸俗的凡人之上，最终融入一切存在的神圣本源。苦修制度对于婆罗门教 (Brahmanism) 和佛教 (Buddhism) 同样不可或缺；二者是印度宗教彼此对立而又同源的两个分支，在许多方面，它们之间的关系类似犹太教与基督教，或罗马天主教与新教之间的关系。佛教是后来对婆罗门教的一次改革；它可能始于公元前六世纪（另有记载则认为早得多），虽然后来被婆罗门逐出印度斯坦 (Hindostan)，其信徒却比任何其他异教都多，因为它支配着后印度、几乎所有印度诸岛、日本、西藏、中国的大部分地区，以及直至西伯利亚边境的中亚地区。然而，这两个宗教的出发原则相反。婆罗门教的苦修²出于一种泛神论的世界观，佛教的苦修则出于一种无神论和虚无主义、却十分认真的见解；前者受绝对却抽象的统一观念和鄙弃世界的情感所支配，后者则受绝对却不真实的多样性观念，以及对一切存在的空虚和虚无深感悲哀的情感所支配；前者主要是客观的、肯定的、唯心的，后者则较为主观、否定而现实；前者旨在融入梵 (Brahm) 的普遍精神，后者则始终以归入虚无为目标——如果佛教确实以无神论而非泛神论或二元论为出发点的话。一位近代研究此题的作者说：³“婆罗门教回望开端，佛教则展望终局；前者喜爱宇宙起源论，后者喜爱末世论。二者都拒绝现存世界；婆罗门鄙视世界，因为他把世界与梵天 (Brahma) 更高的存在相对照；佛教徒哀叹世界，因为它并不真实；前者在万有中看见神，后者在万有中看见空。”然而，正如一切极端终必相遇，婆罗门教抽象的全有与佛教同样抽象的非有或空，最后归于同一结果，也可能导致相同的苦修实践。婆罗门教的苦修更多趋向隐修，而佛教的苦修通常以有规制的修院共同生活这一群体形式存在。

印度的修士，或希腊人所称的裸体哲人 (gymnosophists)，住在树林、洞穴、山上或岩石间，过着贫穷、独身、节制、缄默的生活：他们睡在稻草或赤地上，匍匐而行，整日踮足站立，任凭大雨浇淋或烈日曝晒，四周还燃起四堆火；他们外貌野蛮可怖，却深受群众，尤其是妇女的敬重，又施行神迹；他们还屡屡投身火刑柱或恒河 (Ganges) 波涛之中，以自杀完成其苦修。古代作家和近代旅行家就是这样描述他们的。佛教僧侣不如印度的瑜伽行者 (Yogis) 和法基尔 (Fakirs) 那样狂热而走极端。他们主要靠禁食、祈祷、吟诵、专注默想和鞭打，来制伏悖逆的肉体。他们有一套与僧职相联的、发展完备的修道制度，有大量寺院，也有供女性虔修者居住的尼院。佛教修道制度，尤其是西藏的制度，其独身、贫穷和顺服的誓愿，共同进餐、诵读及各种虔敬操练，与罗马天主教会的修道制度极为相似，以致罗马教会的宣教士认为，只能将其解释为魔鬼的仿造。⁴但原本总在歪曲的摹本之先；印度的苦修制度早在基督教传入之前就已完备，即使我们把基督教的传入追溯到圣巴多罗买和圣多马，也仍是如此。

希腊异教固然不如东方异教那样严肃而好默想；然而，毕达哥拉斯派 (Pythagoreans) 却是一种修道团体，柏拉图 (Plato) 关于物质和身体的观点，不仅构成诺斯替派 (Gnostic) 和摩尼教 (Manichaean) 苦修的基础，也与俄利根 (Origen) 及亚历山大学派 (Alexandrian School) 的伦理思想大有关系。

犹太教除古代的拿细耳人 (Nazarites) 之外，⁵在巴勒斯坦还有艾赛尼派 (Essenes)，⁶在埃及则有治疗派 (Therapeutae)；⁷不过，这些派别显露出外来成分侵入摩西宗教的痕迹，因此《新约》并未提及它们。

最后，众所周知，伊斯兰教 (Mohammedanism) 虽然只是仿效基督教和异教的先例，也有自己的托钵修士 (dervises) 和修院。⁸

那么，这些较早出现的现象，究竟是基督教修道制度的源头，还是仅仅与之相似的现象呢？在君士坦丁 (Constantine) 时代，大量外来的习俗与仪式进入教会，这是不可否认的。因此，许多人认为，修道制度也源于异教，是对使徒时期基督教的背离，正如保罗在《教牧书信》中已经明确预言的。⁹然而，这种看法很难与这一现象在历史上所占的重要地位相协调；而且，它还会把整个古代教会，连同其东西方最伟大、最优秀的代表——亚他那修 (Athanasius)、金口约翰 (Chrysostom)、哲罗姆 (Jerome)、奥古斯丁 (Augustine)——都卷入那预言中的背道。如今不会有人认为，这些无不赞赏并推崇修道生活的人，都是反基督教的异端分子，而少数几位几乎纯粹从消极方面反对这种苦修的人，如约维尼安 (Jovinian)、赫尔维迪乌斯 (Helvidius) 和维吉兰提乌斯 (Vigilantius)，倒成了尼西亚时代及其紧接着的时代中纯正基督教的唯一代表。

在这整个问题上，我们必须仔细区分两种苦修：诺斯替派二元论的苦修与大公教会的苦修；二者形式虽相似，精神与原则却彼此对立，不能调和。前者确实源于异教；后者却独立地发源于基督教舍己和渴慕道德完全的精神，尽管有种种赘生的弊端，仍在教会历史中完成了一项重要使命。

异教的、伪犹太教的、基督教异端的修道制度，尤其是诺斯替派 (Gnostic) 和摩尼教 (Manichaean) 的修道制度，建立在精神与物质之间不可调和的形而上学二元论之上；大公基督教的修道制度则发源于灵与肉之间的道德冲突。前者始终以属灵的骄傲和自私为动力；后者则以谦卑以及对上帝和人的爱为动力。虚假的苦修旨在消灭身体，使人的存在以泛神论的方式消融于神性之中；基督教的苦修则追求身体得荣耀，并在基督里与永生上帝建立位格间的相交。二者所产生的果效也同样不同。然而，同样无可置疑的是，尽管原则上有这种差别，尽管诺斯替主义和摩尼教受到谴责，异教的二元论仍对大公教会的苦修及其世界观，尤其是东方的隐修生活和修道制度，产生了强大的影响；这种影响唯有在福音派新教中才得到彻底克服。若专门考察这种影响的确切程度，以及教会早期修道制度中基督教与异教成分的确切比例，必是一个有趣的研究课题。

基督教修道制度的萌芽，可以追溯到第二世纪中叶；事实上，甚至在使徒时期某些犹太基督徒那种惴惴不安的苦修实践中，也已隐约可见。这种苦修，尤其是禁食与独身，受到尼西亚会议以前最杰出的教父们或多或少明确的推崇，也为一类特定的基督徒所实行，至少部分如此（俄利根甚至走到了违背自然、自行阉割的极端）。¹⁰早在约250年德修 (Decius) 逼迫时期，我们也已遇见苦修者或基督教哲人逃入旷野的最初事例；不过，这些多属例外，目的在于躲避个人所面临的危险。只要教会本身还是旷野之子，与那施行逼迫的世界截然对立，男女苦修者通常便住在会众附近，或住在他们中间，甚至常常住在家庭之中，力求在那里实现基督徒完全的理想。然而，当君士坦丁治下帝国的大多数居民成为名义上的基督徒时，他们便觉得，在这与世界混为一体的教会中，尤其是在亚历山大 (Alexandria)、安提阿 (Antioch) 和君士坦丁堡 (Constantinople) 这样的城市里，已无安身之感，于是自愿退到荒凉无人之地和山间岩隙，在那里不受干扰地作成自己灵魂得救的工夫。

就此而言，修道制度是对世俗化的国教体制和纪律衰败的一种反应；它试图把基督教会移植到旷野，以保全其贞洁的纯净，这种努力虽属错误，却是诚恳而出于善意的。罗马帝国虽有基督教的外貌，其整个社会结构在本质上却仍是异教的；帝国的道德败坏、赋税的苛重、¹¹专制与奴役的极端、穷奢极欲与绝望贫困的两极、各阶层的餍足、科学与艺术中一切创造活力的衰退，以及边境上蛮族入侵的威胁——这一切恰恰使那些最为认真的心灵更倾向于独居。

然而，与此同时，修道制度也为殉道提供了一种补偿。国家基督教化以后，殉道便告停止，取而代之的是自愿的殉道、逐渐的自我毁灭、一种宗教性的自杀。在埃及和叙利亚灼热的沙漠与可怖的洞穴中，苦修者忍受自我折磨的痛苦，克制自然的欲望，与地狱的怪物进行无情的争战，如今他们力求以此赢得天上荣耀的冠冕；而他们在逼迫时期的前辈，却曾以流血而死，更迅速、更容易地得着这冠冕。

修道生活的故乡是埃及；在这片土地上，东方与希腊的文学、哲学和宗教，基督教正统与诺斯替异端，或友好相交，或敌对相遇。这里的气候与地理特征、全国如绿洲般与外界隔绝的处境、荒芜沙漠与肥沃尼罗河 (Nile) 谷之间的鲜明对照、民族性格中的迷信、沉思倾向与被动忍耐、治疗派 (Therapeutae) 的榜样，以及亚历山大教父们的道德原则，都有利于修道制度的兴起，并推动了它的发展；尤其如此的，是俄利根 (Origen) 关于高低两等道德，以及自愿贫穷和独身具有功德的理论。埃利安 (Aelian) 论到埃及人说，他们忍受最惨烈的酷刑而毫无怨言，宁愿受折磨至死，也不肯在真理上妥协。这样的性情，一旦为宗教热忱所攫住，就极适于成为旷野中的圣徒。

§ 29. 修道制度的发展

在修道制度的历史发展中，我们必须区分四个阶段。前三个阶段在第四世纪已经完成；余下的一个阶段则在中世纪拉丁教会中达到成熟。

第一阶段是尚未组织起来、也未与教会分离的苦修生活。它传自尼西亚会议以前的时代，前面已经论及。如今它大多采取隐修或团修生活的形式，但在教会本身之内仍然延续着，尤其是在教牧人员中间；这些人可以称为半修士。

第二阶段是隐士生活，或称隐修生活 (anchoretism)。¹²它兴起于第四世纪初，使苦修获得了固定而持久的形式，并将其推进到甚至在外在生活上也与世界分离的地步。它以先知以利亚和施洗约翰为榜样，却又超过了他们。局部而暂时地退出日常生活，尚可与社会交往及有益的劳作相结合；彻底的隐修者却不以此为满足，而是与一切社会隔绝，甚至也与同道的苦修者隔绝，只在例外情形下才与人间事务发生联系：或是接待各阶层仰慕者的来访，尤其是病人和穷乏者（较著名的修士极常遇到这种来访）；或是在某种非常的场合来到城市，仿佛一个来自另一世界的灵。他的衣服是粗毛衫和兽皮；他的食物是饼和盐；他的住所是洞穴；他的日常事务是祈祷、苦待身体，以及与撒但的权势和狂乱的幻象争战。这种生活方式由底比斯的保罗 (Paul of Thebes) 和圣安东尼 (St. Anthony) 开创，并在东方达到完备。对西方而言，它过于怪僻而不切实际，因此在那里较为少见，尤其是在气候较严酷的地区。它完全不适合女性。有一类隐修者，在埃及称为撒拉拜特派 (Sarabaites)，在叙利亚称为雷摩博特派 (Rhemoboths)，至少两三人结伴同住；但他们好争吵，有时放纵无度，又反对教牧人员，因而声名不佳。

修道生活发展的第三步，是团修生活 (coenobitism)，即修院生活，也就是通常意义上的修道制度。¹³它同样起源于埃及，效法艾赛尼派 (Essenes) 和治疗派的榜样，由圣帕科米乌斯 (St. Pachomius) 推行于东方，后来又由圣本笃 (St. Benedict) 推行于西方。这两位苦修者，同后世最著名的修会创立者一样，起初都是隐修者。修院生活是在群体生活的基础上，将苦修生活加以正规组织。它至少在一定程度上承认人性中的社会因素，并在一个与广大世界隔绝的狭小范围内将其体现出来。正如隐修生活往往导向修院生活，修院生活也不仅是厌倦世界之心灵的避难所，在许多方面还是教会实际生活的学校。它构成了从孤立的基督教生活到群体的基督教生活的过渡。它由若干同性隐修者结成团体，以便在苦修的圣洁上彼此促进。团修者多少依照文明社会的法则，在同一屋顶下生活，受一位主管或院长 (abbot) 管理。¹⁴他们把时间分配于共同的敬虔操练与体力劳动之间，将多余的生活物资用于赒济；托钵修士则不在此列，因为他们自己就是靠施舍度日的。在这种经过调整的形式下，修道生活也适用于女性了；独居旷野的生活对她们原是全然不可行的。因此，男修院出现的同时，女修院也随即出现。¹⁵隐修者与团修者之间存在着不小的嫉妒：前者指责后者安逸、随从世界；后者则指责前者自私、厌恶人类。最杰出的教会教师一般都更赞同修院生活。但隐修者虽人数减少，却从未绝迹。许多修士先是隐修者，后来成为团修者；也有许多团修者转而成为隐修者。

最后，产生修道团体的同一种群体生活的冲动，后来又促成了修会 (monastic orders)，即若干修院在同一会规与共同管理之下结成的联合体。在这第四个也是最后的阶段，修道制度对基督教的传播和学术的进步贡献最大，¹⁶在罗马天主教会中完成了它的实际使命，至今仍在那里发挥着强大的影响。同时，它在某种意义上也成了德国宗教改革的摇篮。路德 (Luther) 属于圣奥古斯丁修会 (order of St. Augustine)，而爱尔福特 (Erfurt) 的修道纪律，对他而言乃是通向福音自由的预备，正如摩西律法对保罗而言，是引他到基督那里的训蒙师傅。也正因如此，新教便是修道生活的终结。

§ 30. 修道制度的性质与宗旨

修道生活从一开始便作为默观的生活，与实践的生活相区别。¹⁷在古代教会看来，它是真正的、神圣的或基督教的哲学，¹⁸是一种超脱世界、纯粹使徒式的、天使般的生活。¹⁹它以严肃的人生观为基础；以一种本能的追求为基础，力求使灵完全统辖肉体、理性完全统辖感官、超自然完全统辖自然，追求最高程度的圣洁，以及灵魂与上帝不受扰乱的相交；但它也以对身体、家庭、国家和上帝所设立的世界社会秩序的病态贬抑为基础。诚然，它承认世界是上帝的受造物，家庭和财产是上帝所设立的制度，这与诺斯替派和摩尼教的苦修主义 (Gnostic Manichaean asceticism) 相反，后者把物质本身归于一种邪恶的本原。但它把道德分为两个等级：一个是普通而较低的等级，可以说是平民式的，活动于上帝所设立的自然秩序之内；另一个则是较高、非凡、贵族式的等级，超乎这些秩序之外，并具有特殊的功德。它把基督教的重大课题，不放在改变世界，而放在弃绝世界上。面对与国家联合的有形教会中大多数人的世俗化，它走向极端的出世。它要求完全弃绝的不仅是罪，还有财产和婚姻；而这两者本身都是正当的，是上帝亲自设立的，也是人类延续和福祉所不可或缺的。不过，个人的贫穷并不排斥共同财产的占有；众所周知，有些修会，尤其是本笃会 (Benedictines)，随着岁月推移，变得极为富有。团修制度还要求绝对服从主管的意志，视其为基督有形的代表。正如服从命令、牺牲自己是军人的首要职责，也是军队获胜和赢得声誉的条件，同样，在这支与肉体、世界和魔鬼争战的属灵军队中，修士也不容有自己的意志。丁尼生 (Tennyson) 的诗句可以用在他们身上：²⁰

“他们不问缘由，

他们不作答辩，

他们只管奋行赴死。”

自愿贫穷、自愿独身和绝对服从，构成了所谓的修道三愿；人们认为，这些誓愿构成更高的德行，并能确保在天上得到更高的赏赐。

但这三重舍己只是事情消极的一面，是达到目的的手段。它使人避开与属世财产、婚姻生活和独立意志相连的试探，并使他更容易迈向天国。修道生活积极的一面，是把整个人连同他全部的时间和力量，毫无保留地献给上帝；不过，正如我们已经说过的，这不是在社会领域和自然秩序之内，而是在其外。这种献身的生活用在不断的祈祷、默想、禁食和苦待身体上。有些献身者甚至拒绝一切体力劳动，因为劳动妨碍敬虔。但一般而言，将属灵操练与学术研究，或与耕作、编篮、织布之类的体力劳动适度结合，以维持自己的生计并赒济穷人，被认为对修士不仅是正当的，也是有益的。当时有句谚语说，勤劳的修士只受一个鬼魔纠缠，懒惰的修士却受一群鬼魔纠缠。

尽管苦修生活有种种严厉与苛刻之处，修道生活对于那些高尚、好默观、向往天国的心灵，仍有其属灵的喜乐与不可抗拒的魅力。他们逃离城市的喧扰和虚荣浮华，如同逃离监牢，并将独居之地变为自由的乐园，在那里与上帝及其众圣徒甘甜相交；但对另一些人，同样的独居生活却成了滋生懒惰、沮丧、最危险的试探乃至最终毁灭的温床。²¹

§ 31. 修道制度与圣经

因此，修道制度自称是基督徒敬虔与德行的最高、最纯粹的形式，也是通往天国最稳妥的道路。那么，我们理应以为，它必定在圣经中受到格外的称许，并且实际体现于基督和使徒的生活之中。但它恰恰缺乏这种圣经的支持。

它的拥护者总是首先援引以利亚、以利沙和施洗约翰的榜样；²²但这些人处于旧约律法的层次，应当视为一个非凡时代中的非凡人物；他们虽可被看作某种局部隐修生活（而非修院生活）的典型，圣经却从未在这一点上称许他们，叫我们效法，反而要我们效法他们对世界所施的影响。

其次，他们诉诸新约中少数孤立的经文。这些经文按其字面意义，固然不要求人放弃财产和婚姻，却似乎向那些追求更高完全的基督徒，推荐这种生活为一种特殊、例外的敬虔形式。²³

最后，就修道生活的精神而言，有时甚至有人援引基督和使徒的贫穷，援引安静默观的马利亚与忙碌实干的马大的对照，以及耶路撒冷最初的基督教会自愿实行的财物公用。

但这种以修道观念解释原始基督教的做法，把几个偶然的外在相似点误作本质上的相同，以某些孤立的经文衡量基督教的精神，而不是从基督教的精神来解释这些经文；总的说来，这是一种可悲的削弱和歪曲。福音对所有人提出的道德要求，实质上都是相同的，并不承认有一种供大众信奉的宗教，另有一种供少数人信奉的宗教。

耶稣是所有信徒的模范，他既不是团修者，也不是隐修者，更不是任何一种苦修者，而是供所有人效法的完全典范。他的生活和训诫中，没有丝毫修士式的严酷和苦修式的苛刻；在他的一切言行中，自由与纯洁、最广博的仁爱与无瑕疵的圣洁，反而呈现出奇妙的和谐。他退到山中，来到僻静之处，但只是暂时如此，目的是重新得力，投入积极的工作。他置身于男女门徒之中，与亲属和朋友相处，在迦拿 (Cana) 和伯大尼 (Bethany)，在税吏和罪人的席上，在与各阶层人民的交往中，都保守自己不沾染世俗，并使世界转化为上帝的国。他的贫穷和独身与苦修主义毫无关系；前者表明他救赎之爱的降卑，后者则表明他作为完美典范的独一无二，以及他与整个教会绝无仅有的关系，惟有教会才适合、才配作他的新妇。夏娃的任何一个女儿，都不可能成为人类救主、或新造之代表元首的相称配偶。

拉撒路的姊妹的榜样，只能证明默观的生活可以与实践的生活同居一室，也可以与异性共处，却不能为脱离社会纽带提供任何根据。

使徒和早期基督徒的生活，总体而言绝不是隐士生活；否则，福音就不会如此迅速地传遍罗马世界的一切城市。彼得已经娶妻，并且带着妻子旅行传道。保罗以教牧人员只结一次婚为常规；尽管在教会当时受压迫的处境下，他个人相对偏向独身，但他却是福音自由最热切的维护者，反对一切律法的束缚和惶惶不安的苦修主义。

因此，无论如何，修道制度都不是基督徒敬虔的正常形式。它是一种反常现象，是人为设计的事奉上帝的方式，²⁴并且不时成为对圣经中基督教的可悲削弱和令人厌恶的歪曲。因此，衡量它，不应看它舍己的程度，也不应看它外在的自律行为（这些在异教、犹太教和伊斯兰教中同样都能找到），而应看赋予它生命的基督徒谦卑与仁爱的精神。因为谦卑是基督徒生活的根基，爱是统摄一切的原则，也是基督教独有的特征。若没有对上帝的爱和对人的仁爱，最严厉的自我惩罚和最彻底的弃绝世界，在上帝面前也毫无价值。²⁵

§ 32. 修道生活的光明与阴暗

如果我们仔细考察修道式基督教在古代教会中实际呈现的面貌，纯正、正常的圣经基督教与这种反常的基督教之间的对比，就会更加清楚。

这种弃绝世界的敬虔形式传播得异常迅速，足以证明其中具有高度舍己的道德热忱；即使在其错误和偏离之中，我们也必须对此表示钦佩。我们的时代已经习惯并依恋种种可能的舒适享受，然而就大众的一般道德水平而言，却远远超过尼西亚时代 (Nicene age)；这样的时代不可能产生如此极端的苦修。在衡量修道制度的传播与价值时，剧场败坏人心的力量、苛捐重税、奴隶制度、频繁的内战，以及罗马帝国无望的处境，都必须纳入考虑。我们也绝不可用人数来衡量这一现象的道德意义。修道生活从一开始就吸引了性情迥异、动机相反的人。在这里，道德的严肃和宗教的热忱，像从前在殉道中一样，也伴随着种种不良动机，而且程度更甚：懒惰、不满、厌倦人生、厌恶人类、追求属灵声望的野心，以及各样的不幸或偶然境遇。这里只举一个著名的例子：帕拉迪乌斯 (Palladius) 记述质朴者保罗 (Paul the Simple)²⁶说，他撞见妻子不贞，愤怒之下，便以当日流行的誓语“奉耶稣的名”²⁷起誓，奔入旷野；他当时虽已六十岁，却立刻在安东尼的指导下成为一位堪称典范的修士，在谦卑、纯朴和意志的完全顺服上，达到了惊人的程度。

鉴于这些不同的动机，我们就不必惊讶于修士的道德品格差异极大，呈现出相反的两极。奥古斯丁说，他在男女修道者中，既见过人类中最好的人，也见过最坏的人。

首先更仔细地考察隐修生活 (anchoretism)，我们在其历史中无疑会遇见许多英雄般的人物。他们对自己感官本性的制伏，达到了令人难以置信的地步；他们像旧约的先知和施洗约翰一样，仅凭自己的形貌和偶尔的讲道，就给同时代的人，甚至异教徒，留下压倒性的印象。圣安东尼 (St. Anthony) 来到亚历山大 (Alexandria)，在围观的群众看来，犹如来自另一个世界的使者降临，并使许多人归信。他消瘦的面容、炯炯的目光、幽灵般却令人敬畏的身影、对世界的蔑视，以及寥寥数句格言式的话语，对那个时代和那些人的影响，胜过一篇精心撰写的讲章。圣西缅 (St. Symeon) 年复一年地站在柱上，禁食、祷告，劝勉来访者悔改；对他那一代人而言，他是一个长存的神迹，是指向天上的标记。有时，在公众遭遇灾难之际，这些隐修士借着有效的代求，使整座城市和整个行省免遭皇帝的震怒。387年，狄奥多西 (Theodosius) 因安提阿 (Antioch) 发生叛乱而准备摧毁该城时，隐修士马其多尼乌斯 (Macedonius) 迎见两位钦差；二人恭敬地下马，亲吻他的手脚。他提醒他们和皇帝，人自身何等软弱；又向他们陈明，人是上帝不朽的形像，与皇帝那些必朽坏的雕像相比，何等宝贵，就这样救了这座城，使它免于毁灭。²⁸隐修生活自愿放弃正当的享乐，忍耐自己加诸己身的痛苦，其中的英雄气概，就其本身而言，值得钦佩，而且往往几乎令人难以置信。

然而，这种道德上的英雄气概——其弱点也正在于此——不仅超越了当今基督教的标准，也越过了一切健全的尺度；它在基督和使徒教会的教导或实践中，都找不到依据；与其说它类似圣经中的先例，不如说它更像异教的先例。旷野中许多最负盛名的圣徒，与佛教苦行者和伊斯兰教苦修士的区别，仅在于他们所承认的基督教信仰，以及死记硬背的几句圣经话语。他们最高的德行，在于自行设计的身体操练；这些操练若没有爱，充其量也全无益处，往往只满足属灵的虚荣，并将福音的救恩之路完全遮蔽。

要举几个例子来说明这一点，我们可以根据最可信的同时代人的记述，从第四、第五世纪最著名的东方隐修士中任意选取几位。

圣经教导我们祷告，也要劳作；祷告不可像异教徒那样，只用嘴唇机械地重复，而要全心祷告。然而，质朴者保罗 (Paul the Simple) 每日祷告三百次，用随身揣在怀中的小石子计数（类似念珠）；当他听说有一位童女每日祷告七百次，就感到不安，把自己的苦恼告诉马卡里乌斯 (Macarius)。后者回答得好：“你的良心若责备你，那要么是你祷告不用心，要么是你本来能够多祷告些。我六年来每日只祷告一百次，却不必因疏忽而自责。”基督像其他人一样吃喝，借此明确地将自己与旧约的代表约翰区别开来；保罗也劝勉我们，怀着喜乐而赤子般的感恩，有节制地享用上帝的恩赐。²⁹然而，著名的隐修士、亚历山大的长老伊西多尔 (Isidore)（由亚他那修按立）却不沾肉食，从不吃饱；据帕拉迪乌斯 (Palladius) 记述，他常在席间因羞愧而流泪，因为他这注定要在乐园中吃天使食物的人，竟不得不像无理性的牲畜一样，吃这些物质的东西。老马卡里乌斯，又称大马卡里乌斯，长期每周只进食一次，并站着倚杖而眠。同样著名的小马卡里乌斯，有三年每日只吃四五盎司面包，又有七年只吃生的草蔬和豆类。托勒密 (Ptolemy) 曾独自在无水的旷野生活三年，靠露水解渴；这些露水是他在十二月和一月收集起来，储存在陶器中的；但他最终陷入怀疑、疯狂和放荡之中。³⁰索佐门 (Sozomen) 记述，某个巴特修斯 (Batthaeus) 因极度节食，牙齿里竟爬出虫来；阿拉斯 (Alas) 直到八十岁从未吃过面包；赫利奥多鲁斯 (Heliodorus) 则许多夜晚不睡觉，又曾连续禁食七日。³¹西缅这位基督教的第欧根尼 (Diogenes)，在一根三四十英尺高的柱顶上度过三十六年，祷告、禁食、讲道，每周只吃一次，禁食期则完全不吃。不过，这种节食的英雄气概，唯有在东方酷热的气候中才有可能，在西方是见不到的。

隐修生活几乎总带着某种犬儒式的粗野与鄙陋；按照那个时代的情形看，这固然可以从宽评判，但它与圣经的道德确实毫无相通之处，而且不仅有伤雅致，也冒犯一切健全的道德情感。苦修的圣洁，至少按照埃及人的观念，与清洁和得体不能相容，反而以污秽为乐。健全的福音道德和现代基督教文明有一句格言：“清洁仅次于敬虔”；这种圣洁却把它颠倒了。据圣安东尼和希拉里翁 (Hilarion) 的仰慕者——大亚他那修 (Athanasius the Great) 和博学的哲罗姆 (Jerome the Learned)——所述，这两位圣徒不屑梳理或剪短头发（每年复活节一次除外），也不肯洗手洗脚。另有些隐修士像印度的裸体哲人 (gymnosophists) 一样，几乎赤身露体地在旷野生活。³²据小马卡里乌斯的门徒帕拉迪乌斯记述，他曾赤身躺在斯凯提斯 (Scetic) 旷野的沼泽中六个月，任凭非洲的蚊蚋不断叮咬；这些蚊蚋“连野猪的厚皮也能刺透”。他要惩罚自己，因为他曾任性地报复一只蚊蚋；在那里，他被蚊蚋和黄蜂叮咬得如此严重，以致人们以为他患了麻风，只有凭声音才能认出他来。³³据狄奥多勒 (Theodoret) 记述，柱头圣西缅 (St. Symeon the Stylite) 曾长久任凭二十只巨大的臭虫不停地折磨自己，又藏着一个爬满蛆虫的脓疮，借此操练忍耐和温柔。在美索不达米亚 (Mesopotamia)，有一类特殊的隐修士，以草为食，每日大部分时间用来祷告、歌唱，然后像野兽一样出去，在山上觅食。³⁴狄奥多勒记述塞浦路斯 (Cyprus) 那位备受称颂的阿克普西斯马斯 (Akepsismas)，说他在同一间修室中度过六十年，不见任何人，也不与任何人说话；他形貌如此粗野，毛发蓬乱，以致有一次一个牧人竟把他当作狼，用石头攻击，直到发觉自己弄错了，才把这位隐修士当作圣徒来敬拜。³⁵从这种道德上的崇高到兽性的堕落，不过一步之遥。这些圣徒中，许多人无非是卑劣的懒汉，或阴郁的厌世者，宁愿与野兽、狮子、狼和鬣狗为伴，也不愿与有不朽灵魂的人交往；尤其躲避女人的面孔，比躲避魔鬼还要小心。苏尔皮基乌斯·塞韦鲁斯 (Sulpitius Severus) 在底比斯地区 (Thebaid) 见过一个隐修士，每日与一只母狼分享晚餐；母狼因犯了偷窃之过，以数日不来作为补赎，他便恳求它再来，并用双份的面包安慰它。³⁶同一位作者还记述，有个隐修士在西奈山 (Mount Sinai) 的岩隙中生活了五十年，与一切人类社会隔绝，完全不穿衣服，浑身长满浓毛，躲避每一位来访者；因为，照他所说，与人来往会打断天使的来访，于是便有传闻说他与天使交往。³⁷

这些古怪的苦修行为既无圣经的依据，又完全比得上、甚至还不及古今印度教苦行者那些离奇的自虐方式；这绝非值得称道之处。那些苦行者以为如此能使灵魂得益，并在钦佩的观众面前满足自己的虚荣。据古今旅行者所述，有些人把自己埋在坑里，只在上面留几个小孔呼吸；另有些人不屑接触卑污的大地，便住在悬挂于树上的铁笼中。有些人戴着沉重的铁项圈或镣铐，或拖着一条沉重的铁链，链的一端系在生殖器上，以炫耀的方式证明自己的贞洁。另有些人始终紧握拳头，直到指甲长穿手掌。有些人永远单腿站立；另有些人始终把脸转向一边肩头，直到再也转不回来。有些人躺在布满铁钉的木床上；另有些人终身用铁链拴在树干上。有些人每次把自己倒悬半小时，或用钩子穿过赤裸的背部，把自己吊在烈火之上。亚历山大·冯·洪堡 (Alexander von Humboldt) 在有些印度人定居的阿斯特拉罕 (Astracan)，见到庙宇前厅中有一位瑜伽苦行者 (Yogi)，赤身露体，干瘪蜷缩，遍体长毛，犹如野兽；他以这种姿态，在当地的严冬中熬过了二十年。一位耶稣会传教士描述了一位属于塔帕索尼亚派 (Tapasonias) 的苦行者：他把身体关在一个铁笼里，头脚露在外面，可以行走，却不能坐卧；夜间，他那些虔诚的侍从在笼外挂上一百盏点燃的灯，让他们的师傅一边行走，一边把自己展示为一个冒牌的世界之光。³⁸

总的说来，隐修生活把逃离外在世界，与治死败坏之心的内在世界混为一谈。它误解了爱的本分；在谦卑和极度舍己的面具之下，往往怀养着属灵的骄傲与嫉妒；又使自己暴露于独居的一切危险之中，甚至陷入野蛮蒙昧、兽性的粗鄙，或绝望与自杀。隐修士之父安东尼深知这一点，便警告追随者不可过分看重独居，提醒他们《传道书》四章10节的话：“孤身一人跌倒，没有别人扶起他来，这人就有祸了。”

修院生活较少遭遇这些谬误。它更接近社会和文明的生活。然而，另一方面，它也没有产生这类英雄般的现象，并且有其特有的危险。金口约翰 (Chrysostom) 根据亲身经历，向我们展示了它光明的一面。他谈到安提阿的修士时说：“太阳尚未升起，他们便已起身，精神健旺，头脑清醒，如同出于一口，齐唱赞美上帝的诗歌；随后在院长的带领下屈膝祷告，诵读圣经，再去劳作；九点、十二点和三点又作祷告；殷勤工作一天之后，享用面包和盐的简单一餐，或许加一点油，有时也有豆类；唱过感恩诗，便躺在草褥上，没有忧虑，没有悲伤，也没有怨言。有人死去，他们就说：‘他已得以完全。’众人都祈求上帝赐下同样的结局，使他们也能进入永恒的安息日之安息，得见基督。”金口约翰、巴西尔 (Basil)、贵格利 (Gregory)、哲罗姆、尼卢斯 (Nilus) 和伊西多尔等人，将神学研究与独居的苦修操练结合起来，由此获得了丰富的圣经知识和广博的属灵经验。

但大多数修士不是连字也不识，就是缺乏足够的心智修养，不能从默想和研究中获益，只是一味沉溺于阴郁的情绪；或者，尽管苦修原则倾向于摆脱感官之物，他们却陷入了最粗陋的神人同形论 (anthropomorphism) 和偶像崇拜。宗教热忱一旦衰退或止息，修院生活便与隐修生活一样，成为最无生气、最乏味的例行公事，或者在伪善的掩饰下暗行种种恶事。因为修士把自己最危险的仇敌藏在心中，一同带进了独居之所；在那里，他们与血肉之欲所作的争战，往往比置身人群之中还要激烈得多。

对于隐修士和修院中的修士而言，情欲、骄傲和野心的试探，都外化并人格化为地狱般的形象，在异象和梦境中出现，随着当时的心境，时而呈现悦人而诱惑的形态与色彩，时而又显得凶险可怖。修士的想象在旷野和独居之所安置了最恶劣的伴侣：成群有翼的魔鬼和各式各样的地狱怪物。³⁹这样，它便以一种新的多神教，取代了通常被视为邪灵的异教诸神。修道主义的鬼魔论及其与鬼魔争战的记述 (demonology and demonomachy)，是粗陋迷信与深刻属灵经验的奇异混合。它构成了幽居生活中富有传奇色彩的阴暗面，使那原本极其乏味的单调生活有了变化，也为伦理学、心理学和病理学的历史提供了丰富的材料。

尤其纠缠不休的是情欲的试探；若不竭尽全力、时刻警醒，就无法抵挡。那些以为不守独身便谈不上真正贞洁的圣徒，据他们自己承认，也受到不洁之梦的扰乱，至少使想象受到了玷污。⁴⁰过度的苦修有时转为违反自然的恶行，有时则以疯狂、绝望和自杀告终。帕科米乌斯 (Pachomius) 告诉我们，早在他那个时代，就有许多修士投崖自尽，有些人剖开自己的身体，还有些人以别的方式结束自己的生命。⁴¹

各种形式的修道主义，都有一个共同特征，就是病态地厌恶与女性交往，并粗暴地鄙视婚姻生活。因此，在埃及和整个东方这片修道主义的故土，妇女和家庭生活从未获得其应有的尊严，直到今日仍处于极低的文明水平，也就不足为奇了。巴西尔 (Basil) 的规条中，有一条禁止与女人说话、触碰女人，甚至看女人，除非万不得已。修道主义屡屡割断夫妻之间神圣的纽带，通常出于双方同意，如阿蒙 (Ammon) 和尼卢斯 (Nilus) 的情形，但也常常未经双方同意。事实上，查士丁尼 (Justinian) 的一项法律似乎赋予夫妻任何一方无条件离弃配偶的权利，然而上帝的话却宣告婚姻的纽带不可解除。甘格拉会议 (Council of Gangra) 认为有必要反对婚姻与救恩不相容的观念，并劝妻子留在丈夫身边。同样，修道主义也与亲族之爱及亲子关系发生冲突，曲解了主所吩咐的为祂撇下一切。尼卢斯要求修士彻底压抑骨肉之情。圣安东尼撇下自己的妹妹，分别以后只见过她一次。他的门徒普里奥尔 (Prior) 成为修士时，立誓永不再见亲族，甚至与姐姐说话也非闭上眼睛不可。关于帕科米乌斯，也有类似的记载。安布罗斯 (Ambrose) 和哲罗姆 (Jerome) 极其认真地告诫童女，即使违背父母的意愿，也要进入修院生活。据说，普瓦捷的希拉里 (Hilary of Poictiers) 听说女儿想要结婚，便祈求上帝使她死去，将她接到自己那里。有一个名叫穆基乌斯 (Mucius) 的人，在儿子毫无过错的情况下，竟让自己的儿子遭受残酷虐待，最后还奉院长本人的命令，将儿子投入水中，幸而被修院里的一位弟兄救起。⁴²

即使在最有利的情形下，修道主义也达不到和谐的道德发展，更达不到我们在基督身上所见的完美、而在使徒身上次一等地见到的那种均衡的德性。它缺少性情中较为细腻温柔的品质；这些品质通常只有在日常家庭生活的学校中，在上帝所设立的社会秩序之下，才能培养出来。它的道德与其说是积极的，不如说是消极的。有节制而感恩地享用上帝的恩赐，比完全禁绝更有德性；仁爱而得体的言语，比完全沉默更有德性；婚姻中的贞洁，比独身更有德性；为教会舍己、切实劳作，比独自苦修更有德性，因为后者只求自己满足，对别人毫无益处。

无论希腊还是罗马的公教，都不能没有修道生活。它只知道道德上的两个极端，却不懂健全的中道。此外，教皇制度需要各修会，正如专制君主制需要庞大的常备军，用以征服和防卫。然而，福音派新教拒绝将道德区分为两重标准，认定所有人在上帝律法之下都负有同样重大的责任；它认为宗教的本质不在外在的操练，而在内心，不在与世界和社会隔绝，而在借福音自由的精神洁净世界、使世界成圣。因此，它对于修道制度这一庞大体系而言，便是致命的。

§ 33. 修士在教会中的地位

至于修道主义在教会生活体系中的社会地位：起初，在东方和西方，甚至迟至迦克墩会议 (Council of Chalcedon) 时，它仍被视为平信徒的制度；不过，修士被称为 religiosi（修道者），与 seculares（世俗人士）有所区别，因而形成了普通平信徒与教牧人员之间的中间等级。他们构成属灵的贵族，却不是统治阶层；是教会的贵族阶层，却不是教阶体系。哲罗姆说：“修士的职分不是作教师，而是作悔罪者，为自己或为世界忍受苦难。”许多修士认为，教会职分与他们追求完全的努力不能相容。有一句据传出自帕科米乌斯的格言：“修士尤其应当躲避女人和主教，因为两者都不肯让他安宁。”⁴³曾陪同亚他那修 (Athanasius) 前往罗马的阿蒙尼乌斯 (Ammonius)，在人们提议立他为主教时，割掉了自己的一只耳朵，并威胁要割掉自己的舌头。⁴⁴图尔的马丁 (Martin of Tours) 认为，他从修院转任主教之后，行神迹的能力便离开了他。反之，早在第四世纪，另有些人热衷于谋求主教之位，或者违背自己的意愿被擢升到这一职位。修院的院长通常受按立为祭司，在弟兄中施行圣礼，但隶属于教区的主教。后来，各修院设法借教皇的特别敕许，摆脱了主教的管辖。从第十世纪起，修士便具有了教牧人员的身份。在某种意义上，他们从一开始就凌驾于教牧人员之上；自认为尤其配称 conversi（归信者）和 religiosi（修道者），称自己的生活为 vita religiosa（修道生活）；他们轻蔑地看待世俗教牧，且常以滋扰的方式侵犯其职权。另一方面，早在第四世纪，修院就开始成为培养教牧人员最有成效的学校，尤其在东方，绝大多数主教都由修院提供。查士丁尼的第六号新律规定，主教应从教牧人员或修院中选出。

在服饰方面，修士起初沿用当地的衣着式样，却选择最简单、最粗糙的衣料。后来，他们采用了剃顶礼，并穿上有别于常人的统一服装。

§ 34. 修道主义的影响与成效

从安东尼和本笃 (Benedict)，直到路德 (Luther) 和罗耀拉 (Loyola)，修道主义对世界的影响，在教会历史的各个领域都留下了深刻的印记。在这里，我们也必须区分光明与阴暗。修道制度所起的作用，在某种程度上截然相反，因而引出了极为不同的评价。米尔曼座堂主任牧师 (Dean Milman) 说：⁴⁵“若纵观修道主义自最早融入基督教以来的总体影响，就不可能不对它截然相反的效果感到惊讶和困惑。在这里，它无疑是最盲目的无知和最凶残的偏执之母，有时也是最卑污的淫逸之母；在那里，它却是学术的守护者、文明的创造者，以及谦卑和平之宗教的传播者。”这表面上的矛盾很容易解释。给教会和世界带来福祉的，并不是修道主义本身；因为印度的修道主义，三千年来虽将克己苦修推向种种疯狂的极端，却从未拯救过一个灵魂，也未曾给人类带来一项益处。行出这一切善事的，乃是修道主义中的基督教；它使用这种反常的生活方式，作为推进其仁爱与和平使命的手段。修道主义受到基督教精神的激励和支配有多少，就带来多少福祉；一旦与之分离，它便堕落，成为滋生罪恶的渊薮。

在修道主义兴起之初，也就是我们能够从最有利的角度看待它的时候，修道生活对于希腊罗马帝国那本质上败坏、注定灭亡的社会生活，构成了一种健全而必要的制衡；同时，它也成了中世纪罗曼诸族和日耳曼诸族建立新基督教文明的预备学校。它像教阶制度和教皇制度一样，属于训练性的制度；基督教的精神以这些制度为手段，来达到更高的目的，在目的达到以后便将其弃置。因为，基督教始终面对的伟大课题，就是像面酵一样渗透并圣化整个人类社会，遍及家庭和国家、科学和艺术，以及一切公共生活。以异教为根基的旧罗马世界，倘若萨尔维安 (Salvianus) 以及第四、第五世纪其他作家对其道德状况的描绘有一半属实，就已经无可救药，无法再接受这样的改造；因此，基督教道德起初对它采取了断然敌对的态度，直到自身壮大，足以在中世纪那些新兴的民族中展开更新的使命，并在他们中间播下更高文明的种子。这些民族虽属蛮族，却富于可塑性，蕴含着发展的生机。

修道主义促进了罗马帝国内部及蛮族中间异教的衰落与基督教的胜利。它对大城市的世俗、轻浮与败坏发出警告，并有力地呼召人悔改归信。它为厌倦尘世的心灵提供了宁静的避难所，引领那些诚恳的门徒进入不受搅扰、与上帝相交的圣所。对于软弱者，它是医治道德疾病的医院；同时，对于健壮而热忱的人，它又是操练英雄美德的竞技场。⁴⁶它将贫富贵贱置于同等地位，使人重新想起人类原初的合一与平等。它有助于废除奴隶制度，或至少减轻其严酷程度。⁴⁷它款待旅客，慷慨周济贫乏困苦的人。它是一所极好的学校，使人学习默想、自律和属灵操练。那些不惧一切艰苦、将十字架的旗帜树立在北欧与西欧蛮族部落中间，后来又树立在东亚和南美洲的大公教会传教士，大多出自修道院。它是培养教牧人员的丰饶苗圃，为教会提供了许多最杰出的主教与教皇，例如格列高利一世 (Gregory I.) 和格列高利七世 (Gregory VII.)。它产生了安东尼 (Anthony) 和伯尔纳 (Bernard) 这样的圣徒，培养了金口约翰 (Chrysostom) 和哲罗姆 (Jerome) 这样的神学家，以及中世纪绵延不绝的经院学者与神秘主义者。一些最深刻的神学论著，如安瑟伦 (Anselm) 的论文、托马斯·阿奎那 (Thomas Aquinas) 的《神学大全》(Summa)，以及不少最优秀的灵修著作，如托马斯·肯培 (Thomas a Kempis) 的《效法基督》(Imitation of Christ)，都出自修道院生活庄严的静谧之中。有些圣诗的甘美无可超越，如《耶稣，甘甜的纪念》(Jesu dulcis memoria)；有些情感温柔动人，如《圣母哀立》(Stabat mater dolorosa)；有些则威严可畏，如《震怒之日，那一日》(Dies irae, dies illa)；这些都是中世纪修士构思并吟唱、传诸后世万代的作品。在教父学与古代文物研究方面，本笃会士 (Benedictines) 迟至十七世纪仍作出了非凡的贡献。最后，修道主义，至少在西方，促进了土地的开垦与民众的教育；又借着勤勉抄录圣经、教父著作及古代经典，在宗教改革以前，为欧洲现代文明的形成立下了很大功劳。旅行者在法国、意大利、西班牙、德国、英国，甚至苏格兰和瑞典的北部地区，都能在修道院、议事厅、女修院、分院及隐修所的废墟中，见到无数修士有益劳作的遗迹；这些地方曾向周围的山林施加教育与传教的影响。然而，这些促进文艺与学术进步的贡献，只是附带的，往往并非出于本意，而且完全不在修道生活与修道制度创立者的意图之内；他们专注的只是灵魂在宗教与道德方面的培育。他们先求天国，这些别的东西也就加给他们了。

但另一方面，修道主义也使社会失去了许多有用的力量；使人漠视家庭生活、国家的文职与军职服务，以及一切公共实际事务；将宗教的河道从人世引向旷野，从而加速了埃及、叙利亚、巴勒斯坦及整个罗马帝国的衰落。它滋养宗教狂热，屡次掀起民众骚动的风暴，又满怀激情地投身神学各派的争论；诚然，它通常站在正统的一边，但也常常支持异端，如在以弗所的“强盗会议”上那样，尤其助长最粗陋的迷信。它以任意、怪僻、炫耀而自命不凡的圣洁，取代了福音中简单而神圣的救恩之道。它以人那超额功德之工的炫目光辉，遮蔽了基督全然充足的功德。它以外在操练的数量，而非内在心性的品质来衡量美德，并传播自义，以及一种忧惧、律法主义而机械的宗教。它助长了对马利亚和圣徒的偶像式崇敬、对圣像和圣物的崇拜，以及种种迷信与虔诚的欺诈。它散布大量异象与神迹；这些若是真的，就远远超过基督和使徒所行的神迹，并公然蔑视自然与理性的一切法则。尼西亚时期充满最荒诞的修士传说，在这方面丝毫不逊于中世纪最黑暗的时代。⁴⁸修道主义越是自居于一般道德之上，并据此要求更高的功德，就越是降低了一般道德的标准；总体而言，它对民众产生了败坏道德的影响，使他们开始把自己看作 profanum vulgus mundi，即世间的凡俗之众，并照此生活。因此，不仅萨尔维安 (Salvian)，连金口约翰和奥古斯丁 (Augustine) 也一再哀叹当时基督教的冷淡与松弛；也因此，直到今日，欧洲和美洲的南部各国仍呈现出可悲的景况：那里修道主义最为盛行，以极端的苦修圣洁与凡俗的平信徒形成对照，却没有健全的中间层次的道德，没有兴盛的家庭生活，民众中也没有道德活力。十六世纪，修士是宗教改革及一切真正进步最凶恶的敌人。然而，最伟大的改教家却曾是修道院的学生，是修道制度的儿子，正如使徒中最大胆、最自由的一位，曾是最严格的法利赛人一样。

§ 35. 底比斯的保罗与圣安东尼

I. 亚他那修 (Athanasius)：《圣安东尼传》(Vita S. Antonii)，希腊文，载《著作集》(Opera)，本笃会版 (ed. Ben.)，ii. 793–866。此书亦有埃瓦格里乌斯 (Evagrius) 于四世纪所译的拉丁文本。哲罗姆 (Jerome)：《名人录》(Catal.)，第88章（关于安东尼的一则极简短记述）；《底比斯的圣保罗传》(Vita S. Pauli Theb.)，载《著作集》(Opera)，瓦拉尔西版 (ed. Vallars)，ii.，第1–12页。索佐门 (Sozom)：《教会史》(H. E.)，第i卷，第13、14章。苏格拉底 (Socrat.)：《教会史》(H. E.)，iv. 23、25。

《圣徒行传》(Acta Sanctorum)，1月17日条（第ii卷，第107页及后）。蒂耶蒙 (Tillemont)：《回忆录》(Mem.)，第vii卷，第101–144页（《圣安东尼，埃及隐修士的第一位教父》〔St. Antoine, premier père des solitaires d’Egypte〕）。巴特勒 (Butler，罗马天主教徒)：《圣徒传》(Lives of the Saints)，1月17日条。默勒 (Möhler，罗马天主教徒)：《大亚他那修》(Athanasius der Grosse)，第382–402页。尼安德 (Neander)：《教会史》(K. G.)，iii.，第446页及后（托里英译本〔Torrey’s Engl. ed.〕，ii.，第229–234页）。伯林格 (Böhringer)：《基督教会人物传》(Die Kirche Christi in Biographien)，i. 2，第122–151页。H. 鲁夫纳 (H. Ruffner)：前引书，第i卷，第247–302页（据亚他那修所作的节译，并有增补）。K. 哈泽 (K. Hase)：《教会史》(K. Gesch.)，§ 64（一幅精湛的微型肖像）。

与早期苦修者有所区别，已知最早的基督徒隐修士，是充满传奇色彩的上埃及底比斯的保罗 (Paul of Thebes)。公元250年，德西乌斯 (Decius) 逼迫期间，他二十二岁，退隐到一个偏远的洞穴，渐渐爱上了独居生活。据传说，他在那里生活了九十年，住在一处靠近泉水与棕榈树的岩洞中；棕榈树供给他食物、荫凉与衣物，⁴⁹直到他于340年去世。据说在他晚年，每天有一只乌鸦送来半个饼，正如乌鸦曾服侍以利亚一样。然而，没有人知道这位奇妙的圣徒，直到安东尼受一种来自上面的感动，前去探访并安葬了他，才使他为世人所知。这个隐修士接待野兽，却拒绝人的来访；安东尼在他门前敲了一个多小时，始终没有回应，最后才见他笑容可掬地接纳自己，并以圣洁的亲嘴问安。保罗尚存足够的好奇心，问道：世上是否还有拜偶像的人，古老的城市里是否还建造新屋，世界由谁治理？在这场有趣的谈话中，一只大乌鸦轻轻飞来，放下双份的饼，供这位圣徒和他的客人享用。保罗说：“主始终仁慈怜悯，给我们送来了饭食。六十年来，我每天都领受半个饼；但自从你来了，基督就为他的兵丁加倍供应。”感谢了那赐予者之后，他们便在泉边坐下；但现在又出现了由谁擘饼的问题：一个以待客之道相让，另一个则以朋友年长为由，认为应由他来擘饼。这个修士礼仪问题，也许具有某种道德意义，竟耗去了几乎一整天，最后以折衷办法解决：两人各执饼的一端，将它拉开，各取留在自己手中的那一份。他们喝了泉水，又感谢上帝，才结束这顿饭。次日，安东尼回到自己的隐修室，对他的两个门徒说：“我这罪人有祸了！我一向妄称自己是修士。我在旷野见到了以利亚和约翰；我在乐园见到了圣保罗。”不久，他第二次前去探望圣保罗，却发现他已经死在洞中，头仍直立，双手仍向天举起。他一面唱诗篇和圣诗，一面裹好尸体，不用铁锹就把他埋葬了；因为有两头狮子，自行——或者更确切地说，受超自然的感动——从旷野深处走来，伏在他脚前，摇着尾巴，悲哀地呜咽，并在沙土中刨出一个坟墓，大小足以容纳这位已逝旷野圣徒的遗体！安东尼带着保罗用棕榈叶制成的外衣回去，每逢复活节和五旬节的庄严日子便穿上它。

约三十年后，博学的哲罗姆写了保罗的传记，看来是依据安东尼的两个门徒阿纳塔斯 (Anathas) 和马卡里乌斯 (Macarius) 的记述。但他在序言中说，关于保罗有许多不可置信的传说，不值得复述。如果他相信自己所讲的狮子掘墓的故事，就很难想象还有什么更可信而更不值得复述的了。

在这位保罗身上，我们看到了这样一个例子：一位受册封的圣徒，在旷野生活九十年，不为人所见，也不为人所知，完全脱离了与有形教会的一切团契，没有圣经，没有公共敬拜，也没有圣礼，直至如此死去，却仍被认为达到了敬虔的最高境界。这与大公教会关于蒙恩之道的必要性及其功效的通常教义，如何相容呢？奥古斯丁受他那个时代苦修精神的蒙蔽，甚至说，隐修士既已达到完全的境界，就可以不需要圣经。可以确定的是，这种完全不在圣经之内，而在圣经之外。

隐修生活真正的创立者，也是使这种生活广泛流传的主要推动者，乃是埃及的圣安东尼。他是这种反常而怪僻的圣洁生活最著名、最具独创性、也最受尊崇的代表，是“修士之祖”，也是“没有儿女，却拥有无数后裔的父亲”。⁵⁰

安东尼出身于一个信奉基督教、受人尊敬的科普特 (Coptic) 家庭，约于251年生于底比斯地区 (Thebaid) 边境的科马 (Coma)。他生性安静，喜爱默想与沉思，避开玩伴的交往，轻视一切高深学问。他只懂本地的科普特语，终身不通希腊文学和世俗科学。⁵¹然而，他勤于随父母参加敬拜，十分留心聆听所诵读的圣经，以致能将经文牢记在心。⁵²记忆就是他的藏书楼。后来，他忠实地运用个别经文，只是运用得过于拘泥字面；他向隐修士讲论时，开头便作了一个听来极不符合大公教会立场的宣告：“圣经给我们的教训已经足够。”约于270年，他十八岁时，父母去世，照顾幼妹和管理一笔可观家产的责任便落在他身上。六个月后，他正在思想使徒毫无保留地跟从耶稣的事，恰在教会里听见主对那富有的青年官长所说的话：“你若愿意作完全人，可去变卖你所有的，分给穷人，就必有财宝在天上；你还要来跟从我。”⁵³这句话成了上帝向他发出的声音，决定了他的一生。他把自己的田产——三百英亩的肥沃土地——分给村民，又变卖动产，周济穷人，只留下适量财物供养妹妹。但不久之后，他又在教会听见“不要为明天忧虑”⁵⁴的劝勉，便将剩余的财物也分给穷人，把妹妹托付给一个由虔诚童贞女组成的团体。⁵⁵此后他只探望过她一次——这一事实，正体现了苦修主义对天然亲情的贬抑。

随后，他离开村庄，在附近过苦修生活，遵照“不住地祷告”的劝勉，不断祈祷；又按照“若有人不肯作工，就不可吃饭”的准则，从事劳作。所得除维持自己微薄的生活所需之外，都给了穷人。他探访邻近的苦修者——当时埃及已有很多这样的人——谦卑而感恩地学习他们各自卓越的德行：从这个人学习恳切祷告，从另一个人学习警醒，从第三个人学习善于禁食，从第四个人学习温柔，从所有人学习爱基督、爱他人。他因此深受众人爱戴，并被尊为上帝的朋友。

但为了达到更高一层的苦修圣洁，285年以后，他退隐得越来越远，离开教会的怀抱及其邻近之地，进入独居之境，从而成为严格意义上的隐修制度 (anchoretism) 的创始人。起初他住在一座坟墓里，随后在一座堡垒的废墟中住了二十年，最后住在科尔齐姆山 (Mount Colzim)，距红海约七小时路程，在尼罗河以东三日行程之处；那里至今仍有一座古老的修院，保存着他的名字和纪念。

在这独居之地，他以日益严厉的方式继续苦修。只有编筐、偶尔有人来访，以及与魔鬼争战，才打破这种生活的单调。在禁食方面，他达到了罕见的节制程度。他以饼和盐为食，有时也吃枣子；所喝的只有水。他从不沾肉和酒。每天只吃一餐，通常是在日落之后；他与长老伊西多尔 (Isidore) 一样，以不朽的灵竟需要属世食物为耻。他常常连续禁食二至五天。朋友和四处游牧的撒拉森人 (Saracens) 不时给他送饼；后者对旷野圣徒总怀有某种敬意。但在晚年，为了完全不依赖别人，并能款待旅客，他在山上一处棕榈树荫下的泉水附近，开垦了一小块园地。⁵⁶有时，林中的野兽毁坏他那微薄的收成，直到他用这样一番责问，将它们永远赶走：“我从未伤害你们分毫，你们为何损害我？奉主的名，你们全都走开，再也不要到我附近来。”他睡在光地上，至多铺上一层稻草；但他常常通宵警醒祷告。他鄙弃用油抹身，晚年从不洗脚，仿佛污秽是苦修达到完全所不可缺少的要素。他全部的衣物，不过是一件毛衣、一张羊皮和一条腰带。但尽管如此，他脸上仍流露出亲切而愉快的神情，令人愿意亲近。

与其他独居圣徒一样，同魔鬼及其群魔的争战，是安东尼经历中显著的一部分，并持续了他的一生。魔鬼在异象和梦中，甚至在白昼，以各式各样的形态向他显现，时而像朋友，时而像迷人的女子，时而像龙；他提醒安东尼从前的财富、高贵的家世，以及照顾妹妹的本分，向他许诺财富、尊荣与声名，向他展示行善之难与作恶之易，以淫秽的意念和形象诱惑他，又以苦修生活的危险和刑罚恐吓他。亚他那修 (Athanasius) 说，有一次魔鬼把这位隐修士打得如此厉害，以致一位给他送饼的朋友发现他躺在地上，仿佛死了一般。另一次，魔鬼撞破他洞穴的墙壁，使洞室充满咆哮的狮子、嗥叫的狼、低吼的熊、凶猛的鬣狗，以及爬行的蛇和蝎子；但安东尼勇敢地迎向这些怪物，直到一道超自然的光从洞顶射入，将它们驱散。他应隐修士们的请求而作的讲论，主要谈的就是这些与鬼魔的争战，也给出了解释这些争战的关键：“不要惧怕撒但和他的使者。基督已经打破了他们的权势。抵挡他们最好的兵器，就是信心与敬虔……邪灵的出现，表露在困惑、沮丧、对苦修者的仇恨、邪恶的欲望和对死亡的恐惧之中……他们所取的形态，与他们当时在我们里面所见的属灵状况相应。⁵⁷他们是我们思想与幻想的映照。你若体贴肉体，便成了他们的猎物；但你若以主为乐，专心于神圣的事，他们便无能为力……魔鬼惧怕禁食、祷告、谦卑和善行。人若以十字架的记号武装自己，魔鬼的幻象很快就会消失。”

安东尼只在特殊情形下才离开独居之所；那时，他身穿毛衣，形容枯槁，宛如幽灵，给基督徒和异教徒都留下了强烈的印象。311年，在马克西米努斯 (Maximinus) 的逼迫期间，他出现在亚历山大城 (Alexandria)，希望自己也能获得殉道者的冠冕。他探访矿场和监狱中承认信仰的人，在审判台前鼓励他们，陪伴他们走向刑场；但没有人敢向这位旷野圣徒下手。351年，他一百岁时，第二次、也是最后一次出现在埃及的这座都会，为他朋友亚他那修的正统信仰作见证，反对阿里乌派 (Arianism)；短短几天内，他使异教徒和异端归信的人数，比平常一整年所能赢得的还多。他宣称，阿里乌派否认基督的神性，比蛇毒更坏，与敬拜受造之物而不敬拜造物主的异教并无分别。他不愿与异端有任何往来，也告诫门徒不要与他们交往。亚他那修送他到城门口，他在那里从一个女孩身上赶出了邪灵。有人邀请他在亚历山大城多留些日子，他谢绝说：“鱼离了水会死，修士离了独居之所也是如此。”后来，修士们效法他的榜样，每当正统信仰面临危险，便成群离开旷野，手持蜡烛，交替应唱，排成长长的队伍穿过街道，或出现在教会会议上，以狂热的全部力量，往往甚至诉诸武力，为正统信仰争战。

安东尼虽躲避与人交往，然而在他的独居之所，却常有基督徒和异教徒、苦修者、病人及穷乏者前来探访，向他寻求安慰与帮助，把他视为从天而降、医治埃及人身心的良医。他嘱咐人祷告、劳作、照顾穷人，劝勉争执之人爱上帝，并以祷告医治病人和被鬼附的人。亚他那修记述了他所行的几个神迹；这些神迹的真实性，我们暂不裁断，尽管它们远不像那个时代许多其他修士故事那样不可置信、荒诞不经。他的传记作者向我们保证，安东尼的祷告蒙垂听时从不夸耀，不蒙垂听时也从不抱怨，无论何种情形，他都感谢上帝。他告诫修士们，不要过分看重行神迹的恩赐，因为这不是我们的作为，而是主的恩典；他又提醒他们记住这句话：“不要因鬼服了你们就欢喜，要因你们的名记录在天上欢喜。”军官马尔提亚努斯 (Martianus) 恳切求他医治自己被鬼附的女儿，他对这人说：“你这人，为什么求告我？我和你一样，也是人。你若信，就当向上帝祷告，他必垂听你。”马尔提亚努斯祷告了，回去便发现女儿已经痊愈。

安东尼以其清新而独创的心智，超越了他无数门徒与继承者中的大多数。他虽未受教育、见识有限，却富于健全的判断力和敏捷的天赋机智。他许多出人意表的回答和精妙的语句，都流传了下来。有一次，几位异教哲学家来探访他，他问他们：“你们为何这样费心，来看一个愚人？”他们解释说，自己倒认为他是个智者；这话也许含有讽刺。他回答：“你们若把我当作愚人，就是白费气力；但我若是智者，你们就该效法我，像我一样作基督徒。”另一次，有人讥笑他无知，他便问：“心智和学问，哪一样更古老、更优越？”对方回答说是心智。“那么，”这位隐修士说，“心智没有学问也可以。”在类似的场合，他说：“我的书就是整个受造世界，它敞开在我面前，我随时都可以在其中读到上帝的话。”他在亚历山大城遇见盲眼的教会教师狄迪穆斯 (Didymus)，便安慰他说：“不要因失去肉眼而忧愁，连苍蝇也用这种眼睛看东西；倒要因有属灵的眼睛而欢喜，天使也用这样的眼睛瞻仰上帝的面，领受他的光。”⁵⁸甚至君士坦丁 (Constantine) 皇帝及其儿子们，也写信给他，视他为属灵的父亲，并求他回信。这位隐修士起初连信也不肯收，因为无论如何，他既不会写字，也就无法作答；而且他对世上权贵的漠然，正如第欧根尼 (Diogenes) 对亚历山大 (Alexander) 一样。有人告诉他，皇帝是基督徒，他才口授了回信：“你敬拜基督，真是有福。不要因属世的权势骄傲。当思想将来的审判，要知道基督才是唯一真实而永恒的君王。当秉行公义，爱人，并照顾穷人。”为此，他对门徒说：“不要因皇帝写信给我而惊奇，因为他也是人。更当惊奇的是，上帝为人写下律法，并借着自己的儿子向我们说话。”

在生命的最后几年，这位修道制度的始祖尽可能避开来访者的目光，却容许两个门徒与他同住，在他年老体弱时照顾他。他感到自己的终期临近，便吩咐他们不要照埃及的习俗给他的尸体涂香料保存，而要将它埋入土中，并将安葬之处保密。他把自己的两件羊皮衣，一件留给主教塞拉皮翁 (Serapion)，另一件连同内衣留给亚他那修 (Athanasius)；那件羊皮衣原是亚他那修在崭新时送给他的，如今收回时已破旧不堪。至于据哲罗姆 (Jerome) 所说，他从底比斯的保罗 (Paul of Thebes) 那里继承、在复活节和五旬节穿用的那件棕榈叶编织的袍子，后来下落如何，亚他那修没有告诉我们。安东尼这样处置了自己的财物之后，对门徒说：“孩子们，永别了；因为安东尼要去了，不再与你们同在。”说完这些话，他伸直双脚，面带微笑地断了气；时在356年，享年一百零五岁。他的坟墓几个世纪无人知晓。因此，他的遗嘱是对圣徒和圣物崇拜的抗议，然而，这份遗嘱却仍大大助长了这种崇拜。据博兰德学派 (Bollandists) 和巴特勒 (Butler) 详尽记述，在查士丁尼 (Justinian) 统治下的561年，他的遗骨奇迹般地被发现，先运到亚历山大城 (Alexandria)，再运到君士坦丁堡 (Constantinople)，最后运到法国南部的维埃纳 (Vienne)；据说在十一世纪，一种所谓“圣火”或“圣安东尼之火”的流行病肆虐期间，这些遗骨曾显出极大的奇迹。

尼西亚时期最伟大的人物亚他那修，以如下性格素描结束他为友人所写的传记：“从这篇简短的记述，你们可以判断安东尼是何等伟大的人；他从青年直到极高的年岁，始终坚持苦修生活。他到了晚年，也不容许自己享用较好的食物，或更换衣服，甚至不洗脚。然而，他身体各部分始终健康。他的视力直到临终仍很清晰，牙齿虽因长年使用而磨得只剩残根，却仍然坚固。他的手脚也始终运用自如，比那些惯于变换饮食和衣着、惯于洗濯的人更加强健有力。他的声名从孤山上偏远的居所传遍了整个罗马帝国。使他享有盛名的，不是学问，不是世俗的智慧，也不是人的技艺，而单是他对上帝的敬虔……但愿所有弟兄都知道，主不但要接圣洁的修士进入天国，也要使他们名扬全地，无论他们把自己深藏在旷野何处。”

整个尼西亚时期都尊安东尼为圣徒的典范。⁵⁹这一事实，最鲜明地显示出古代与现代、古代大公教会与福音派新教，对于基督教本质的理解有何等巨大的差异。安东尼的生活中，属于基督教所特有的成分，尤其按保罗的标准衡量，是很少的。然而，这种隐修的圣洁即使有所偏差，我们仍不能不赞叹它那贫乏中的壮丽、质朴而粗犷的伟大。安东尼的羊皮衣下，藏着孩子般的谦卑、可亲的纯朴、罕见的坚强意志，以及对上帝炽热的爱；这种爱在几乎九十年间，虽缺乏自然生活的一切安适与乐趣，却始终不衰，并胜过了肉体的一切试探。他不凭教育或学问的帮助，单靠敬虔，就成为古代教会史上最卓越、最有影响的人物之一。甚至同时代的异教徒也不能不敬重他；著名哲学家、后来成为主教的叙涅修斯 (Synesius)，在归信以前，就把安东尼列在那些罕见的人物之中：他们以思想的闪光代替推理，以天赋的心智能力使学校教育成为多余。⁶⁰

§ 36. 隐修生活的传播；希拉里翁

安东尼的榜样对他那一代人产生了魔力般的影响；亚他那修所写的安东尼传，很快也译成拉丁文，成了一部切合时需的小册子。金口约翰 (Chrysostom) 向所有人推荐此书，认为它是富于教益、能造就人的读物。⁶¹甚至教父中最具福音精神的奥古斯丁 (Augustine)，在自己具有决定意义的宗教挣扎中，也因阅读此书而深受感动，并由此决意彻底弃绝世界。⁶²

不久，安东尼尚在人世时，埃及的旷野，从亚历山大城以南的尼特里亚 (Nitria) 和斯凯提斯 (Scetis) 旷野，直到利比亚 (Libya) 和底比斯地区 (Thebaid)，便遍布隐修士，点缀着一间间修室。修道的狂热笼罩了基督教世界，像瘟疫一般攫住各个阶层的人。从前殉道是获得地上声名和天上永恒赏赐最快捷、最可靠的道路，如今修道生活也成了这样的道路。亚他那修在安东尼传末尾所描绘的这一前景，足以丰厚地补偿一切自我克制，也大大激发了敬虔的雄心。贯彻其志的隐修士，必须不断加深自己的隐居程度。对于这些厌弃世界、躲避人群的热狂者的脚步，没有一片旷野太过灼热，没有一座岩山太过险恶，没有一处悬崖太过陡峭，也没有一个洞穴太过阴森。二百至五百名修士同受一位院长管理，是再普通不过的事。有人认为，埃及隐修士和共住修士的人数，与各城居民的人数相等。⁶³旷野与尼罗河肥沃河谷之间的自然对照，反映在修道生活与尘世之间的道德对照之中。

老马卡里乌斯 (Macarius)⁶⁴在可怕的斯凯提斯旷野引入了隐修生活；阿蒙 (Amun，或 Ammon)⁶⁵则在尼特里亚山上引入了这种生活。后者已经结婚，却在婚礼之后立即说服新娘，与他一同过最严格的禁欲生活。据索佐门 (Sozomen) 记述，四世纪结束以前，仅尼特里亚一地就已有五千名修士，他们大多住在各自独立的修室或隐修聚落 (laurae) 中，彼此从不交谈，只有星期六和星期日聚集共同敬拜时才交谈。

独居生活从埃及传到了邻近各国。

希拉里翁 (Hilarion) 将这种生活确立于巴勒斯坦 (Palestine) 和叙利亚 (Syria) 一带的迦萨 (Gaza) 旷野；哲罗姆曾为他写过一篇生动而详尽的传记。⁶⁶这位圣徒在四世纪的隐修士中，声望仅次于安东尼。他生于异教徒家庭，成长其中，“如同荆棘中的玫瑰”。他在亚历山大城求学，勤于参加教会聚会，避开竞技场、角斗表演和剧院。后来，他与圣安东尼同住了两个月，成为他最著名的门徒。父母去世后，他把遗产分给弟兄和穷人，自己一无所留，因为他以亚拿尼亚和撒非喇的事为戒，并记得基督的话：“你们无论什么人，若不撇下一切所有的，就不能作我的门徒。”⁶⁷随后，他退居迦萨旷野，那里只有强盗和刺客出没；他像安东尼一样，与淫秽的梦和魔鬼的其他试探争战；他以禁食和彻夜不眠来折磨自己的身体——这头不该吃大麦、只配吃糠秕的“驴”——以致年仅二十岁时，看上去便几乎像一具骷髅。他从不在日落以前进食。祷告、唱诗、背诵圣经和编篮子，就是他的日常事务。他的修室只有五英尺高，比他自己的身量还低，与其说是居所，不如说更像坟墓。他睡在地上。每年只在复活节剪一次头发。他圣洁的声名逐渐吸引来大批仰慕者（有一次达一万人），以致他不得不数次迁居，退往西西里 (Sicily)，再到达尔马提亚 (Dalmatia)，最后到塞浦路斯 (Cyprus) 岛，于371年在那里去世，时年八十岁。他把自己的遗物——一册福音书和一件粗陋的斗篷——留给友人赫叙基乌斯 (Hesychius)；后者将他的遗体运回巴勒斯坦，安葬在马尤马斯 (Majumas) 的修道院中。塞浦路斯人则以仍拥有这位圣徒的灵来自我安慰，弥补失去遗体的遗憾。哲罗姆记述了他的种种异象和神奇的医治。

§ 37. 圣西缅与柱上圣徒

关于圣西缅 (St. Symeon)，即柱上修士西缅 (Simeon Stylites)，我们有三位同时代亲眼见证者的记述：安东尼 (Anthony)、科斯马斯 (Cosmas)，尤其是狄奥多雷 (Theodoret，《修道史》〔Hist. Relig.〕第26章)。后者在这位圣徒去世前十六年写成了他的记述。

埃瓦格里乌斯 (Evagrius)：《教会史》(H. E.)，卷i，第13章。《圣徒行传》(Acta Sanctorum) 及巴特勒 (Butler)，1月5日条。乌勒曼 (Uhlemann)：《叙利亚第一位柱上圣徒西缅》(Symeon, der erste Säulenheilige in Syrien)。莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1846年。（另参A. 丁尼生〔A. Tennyson〕的优美诗篇《柱上修士圣西缅》〔St. Symeon Stylites〕；这是一首独白诗，由西缅自述其经历。）

其他这类隐修士的生平，无须一一复述；因为他们都有同样的特征，甚至无关紧要的细节也彼此重复。⁶⁸但在五世纪，柱上修士 (Stylites)，即柱上圣徒的始祖西缅，却开辟了一条全新而独创的道路。⁶⁹这些人长年累月，无论昼夜、冬夏、阴晴、寒暑，都站在高高的、毫无遮蔽的柱子上，祷告苦修；他们使自己通往天国的道路变得如此艰难，以致人不知该惊叹他们空前的自我克制，还是该怜悯他们对福音救恩的无知。隐修的苦修主义，在这令人目眩的高度上达到了极致。

柱上修士圣西缅 (St. Symeon the Stylite) 原是叙利亚与基利家 (Cilicia) 边境的牧童，十三岁时，在教会里听人诵读八福，深受感动，便投身修道院。他在门槛前躺了数日，不吃不喝，恳求获准作院中最卑微的仆役。他使自己习惯于每周只在星期日进食一次。在大斋期，他甚至整整四十天不进任何食物；即使在热带气候下，这也是几乎令人难以置信的事。⁷⁰第一次这样的尝试使他濒临死亡；但他的体质渐渐适应了，等到狄奥多雷 (Theodoret) 探访他时，他已用完全禁食的方式守过二十六次大斋期，因而超过了摩西、以利亚，甚至基督，因为他们都只曾这样禁食一次。他另一种非凡的自我折磨，是把身体捆扎得极紧，以致绳索深陷至骨，只有忍受极其可怕的疼痛才能将其割下。这使他被逐出修道院。此后，他脚上戴着铁链，在山上隐居了一段时间，成群仰慕而好奇的人前来探访。他仍不满足，便于423年创出一种新的成圣方式，在安提阿 (Antioch) 以东约两日路程（四十英里）之处，住在一根柱子上，历时三十六年，直到去世；柱子最后高达近四十肘，⁷¹因为随着他愈加接近天国与完全，柱子也相应地加高。他在这里既不能躺，也不能坐，只能站着，或倚靠一根支柱（大概是栏杆），或虔敬地俯身；作这最后一种姿势时，他的头几乎触到双脚——禁食已使他的腰背变得如此柔软。有个旁观者曾在一天之内数到这位圣徒向全能者屈身敬拜不少于一千二百四十四次，此后便不再数了。他身披兽皮，颈上戴着链子。甚至圣餐，他也是在柱上领受的。圣西缅就这样站在那里，度过许多漫长而疲惫的日子、星期、月份和年岁，任凭烈日炙烤、大雨浇淋、严霜冻裂、狂风呼啸，过着每日死亡、每日殉道的生活，在罪的重担下呻吟，却始终未能得到那种出于孩童般信靠基督无限功德的真正心灵安慰与平安；他竭力追求超人的圣洁，盼望天上荣耀的赏赐和地上不朽的声名。阿尔弗雷德·丁尼生 (Alfred Tennyson) 让他在向上帝所作的独白中，生动地描述自己的经历：

“纵然我是人类中最卑贱的一个，

从头顶到脚底，尽是罪的污泥与硬痂，

不配居于大地，不配进入天堂，甚至难以厕身

那亵渎成狂的群魔之间，

我仍不肯放手，必紧紧抓住心中

成为圣徒的盼望，不住呼喊、呻吟、啜泣，

以暴风骤雨般的祈祷撞击天门：

主啊，求你怜悯，除去我的罪。

哦，主啊，求你明白我的心意：我并不吐露，

连低声也不发出一句怨言。

纵使这痛苦再加千倍，仍然

比那重压轻了千倍，更易承受——

那重压是铅块般以吨计的罪，曾将

我的心灵压倒，匍匐在你面前。

哦，主啊，主啊，

你知道，起初我更能忍受这一切，

因为那时我的身体强壮健全；

那如今已经脱落的牙齿，当时虽

因寒冷而打战，满脸的胡须

在月光下挂满冰凌，

我仍以虔敬的赞美诗和诗篇之声，

淹没鸱鸮的啼叫，有时还看见

一位天使站着，注视我歌唱。

如今我已衰弱，我的终期近了——

我盼望我的终期近了：我的耳朵已半聋，

几乎听不见人群的嘈杂声，

就在柱脚四周；我的眼睛也几乎失明，

几乎认不出那些熟悉的田野。

我的双腿也因露水浸湿而溃烂，

然而我仍不住地呼喊、哀求，

只要僵硬的脊梁还能支撑疲惫的头颅，

直到四肢从石柱上逐一脱落：

求你怜悯，怜悯；除去我的罪。”

然而，西缅所关心的并不只是自己的救恩。人们从远方络绎而来，观看这位屹立着的当代奇观。他对各阶层的人说话，都同样友善、温柔而充满爱心；唯独不许妇女进入环绕他柱子的围墙之内。他在这个别出心裁的讲坛上，宛如天地之间的中保，每日两次向惊叹的观众宣讲悔改，调解争端，维护正统信仰，甚至迫使皇帝颁布法律，又医治病人，施行神迹，使成千上万信奉异教的以实玛利人 (Ishmaelites)、伊比利亚人 (Iberians)、亚美尼亚人 (Armenians) 和波斯人 (Persians) 归信基督教，至少也使他们在名义上成为基督徒。这一切，都是著名的狄奥多雷在这位圣徒生前以亲眼见证者的身份记述的。他称西缅为世界的大奇观，⁷²将他比作灯台上的灯，甚至比作向四面八方放射光芒的太阳。他请反对此种生活方式的人想一想：正如先知的历史所表明的，上帝常用极其惊人的手段唤醒怠惰的人；⁷³他在叙述的结尾说：“倘若这位圣徒活得更久，他也许还会行更大的奇事，因为他是宗教举世的光彩与荣耀。”

他于459年去世，时年六十九岁，死因是腿上一处长期隐瞒、令人厌恶的溃疡；他的遗体由庄严的行列护送至安提阿的都主教座堂。

西缅尚未去世时，便已受到基督徒与异教徒、普通百姓、波斯诸王，以及皇帝狄奥多西二世 (Theodosius II)、利奥 (Leo) 和马尔基安 (Marcian) 的无限敬仰；这些君王都向他求取祝福和忠告。因此，尽管他的谦卑名闻遐迩，他仍须与属灵骄傲的试探争战，也就不足为奇了。有一次，他在异象中看见一位天使驾着火车显现，要像接以利亚一样接他升天，因为蒙福的众灵都渴望他。他正要把右脚踏进车里，并在这时扭伤了脚（如同雅各伤了大腿），撒但所造的幻象却被十字架的记号驱散了。《圣徒行传》(Acta Sanctorum) 记载的这件事，或许是后来编造的，为要解释他的疮疾，并说明自负的危险。因此，虔敬的修士尼卢斯 (Nilus) 引用箴言提醒那些炫耀自己的柱上圣徒，也确有道理：“凡自高的，必降为卑。”⁷⁴

在后来的柱上修士中，最著名的是君士坦丁堡 (Constantinople) 附近的但以理 (Daniel，† 490)，以及叙利亚的小西缅 (Symeon the younger，† 592)。据说后者在柱上度过了六十八年。在东方，这种成圣方式一直延续到十二世纪，虽然只是个别现象。据我们所知，西方只有一位柱上修士的实例；据图尔的格列高利 (Gregory of Tours) 记载，此人曾在特里尔 (Treves) 附近的一根柱子上生活很久，后来奉主教之命下来，进入邻近的一所修道院。

§ 38. 帕科米乌斯与修道院生活

关于圣帕科米乌斯 (St. Pachomius)，我们有一部在他去世后不久由塔本奈 (Tabennae) 一位修士撰写的传记，以及帕拉迪乌斯 (Palladius)、哲罗姆 (Jerome，《帕科米乌斯会规》拉丁译本，Regula Pachomii, Latine reddita，载瓦拉尔西〔Vallarsi〕编《哲罗姆全集》〔Opp. Hieron.〕，卷ii，第50页及后)、鲁菲努斯 (Rufinus)、索佐门 (Sozomen) 等人的零散记载。参蒂耶蒙 (Tillemont)，卷vii，第167–235页，以及《圣徒传》(Vit. Sanct.)，5月14日条。

严格独居的生活虽长期延续，直到今日，在希腊教会与罗马教会中仍偶有所见，但自四世纪中叶起，修道主义总体上开始采取修道院生活的形式，因为这种形式风险较小，男女皆可实行，而且有益于教会。如前所述，安东尼 (Anthony) 本人也曾引用“孤身一人有祸了”这句箴言，警告人们完全隔绝的危险。对于许多最杰出的苦修者来说，隐修生活 (anchoretism) 是通往共住生活 (coenobite life) 的阶石；对另一些人而言，它却是共住修道的目标，是通向完全的阶梯上最后、最高的一级。

这种群居修道制度的创始人是帕科米乌斯；他与安东尼同时代，同为埃及人，在古人中的声望也仅稍逊于安东尼。他约于292年生于上底比斯地区 (Upper Thebaid)，父母是异教徒，曾在暴君马克西明 (Maximin) 的军队中服役，参加对君士坦丁 (Constantine) 和李锡尼 (Licinius) 的征战。他与同袍在底比斯 (Thebes) 受到基督徒极其友善的款待，以致被吸引而接受基督教信仰，退伍后便受了洗。此后，他于313年拜访年老的隐修士帕勒蒙 (Palemon)，向他学习达到完全的道路。这位圣徒向他说明隐修生活的艰难，说：“许多人因厌弃世界而来到这里，却没有恒心。我的孩子，你要记住，我只以饼和盐为食；我不喝酒，不用油，半夜醒着，唱诗篇、默想圣经，有时整夜不眠。”帕科米乌斯虽感惊愕，却不灰心，在此人门下学习了数年。

325年，他在异象中蒙天使指示，在上埃及尼罗河中的塔本奈岛建立一个修士团体。这个团体很快发展壮大，甚至在他去世（348年）以前，已在底比斯地区拥有八九所修道院、三千名成员（也有人说七千名）；一个世纪以后，成员达五万人。他们的生活方式由帕科米乌斯所订的严格会规规定；据后来的传说，这会规是一位天使传给他的，哲罗姆曾将其译成拉丁文。正式加入团体以前，须经过三年的试习期。当时尚未强令立下严格的誓愿。属灵操练与体力劳动相结合，包括耕种、造船、编篮、织席和织被；修士们借此不仅自食其力，还供养穷人和病人。他们按苦修敬虔的程度分为二十四等，以希腊字母命名。每三人同住一室。他们共同进餐，却须严守静默，并遮住脸面，以手势表达需要。病人受到特别照料。星期六和星期日，他们领受圣餐。帕科米乌斯作为院长 (abbot)，或修院总长 (archimandrite)，监督全体；各修道院另设一位主管和一位管事。

帕科米乌斯也为他的姐妹建立了一所女修道院。她想来探望他时，他从不准她与自己见面，只传话给她，说她知道他仍然活着，就该知足了。同样，安东尼的姐妹和阿蒙 (Ammon) 的妻子也成了女子修道院生活的核心人物，这种生活方式传播得极为迅速。

帕科米乌斯归信以后，从未吃过一顿饱饭，并曾连续十五年坐在石头上睡觉。传统将种种神迹归于他，甚至说他有说方言的恩赐，并能完全支配自然，以致践踏蛇蝎而不受伤害，还能骑在鳄鱼背上横渡尼罗河！⁷⁵帕科米乌斯之后不久，尼特里亚山 (Nitrian mountain) 上兴起了五十所修道院，各方面都不逊于底比斯地区的修道院。它们维持着七所面包房，供应邻近利比亚沙漠 (Libyan desert) 中的隐修士；也重视神学研究，至少在后期如此，最近在那里发现的珍贵抄本便是明证。

修道院生活从埃及出发，随着那不可抗拒的时代精神，迅速传遍了整个基督教东方。希腊教会最杰出的教父，或曾亲自作过一段时间的修士，或至少是修道制度的朋友和支持者。以法莲 (Ephraim) 将它传播到美索不达米亚 (Mesopotamia)；塞巴斯特的欧斯塔修 (Eustathius of Sebaste) 将它传播到亚美尼亚 (Armenia) 和帕夫拉戈尼亚 (Paphlagonia)；大巴西尔 (Basil the Great) 则将它传播到本都 (Pontus) 和卡帕多西亚 (Cappadocia)。后者为他所建立的男女修道院配备教牧人员，并制定了改良的会规；在他去世（379年）以前，已有约八万名修士接受这会规，鲁菲努斯 (Rufinus) 又将它译成拉丁文。他力求将独居与群居修道生活的美德结合起来，并借着促进青年教育，以及（如亚他那修在他以前所设想的）抵制民间的阿里乌派 (Arianism)，使修道制度有益于教会。⁷⁶他和他的朋友拿先斯的格列高利 (Gregory Nazianzen)，最先将系统的神学研究与独居苦修的操练结合起来。金口约翰 (Chrysostom) 写了三卷书，赞扬并维护修道生活，总体上展现了它最高尚的一面。

五世纪初，东方修道制度最堪称楷模的代表，是西奈的老尼鲁斯 (Nilus of Sinai) 和佩卢西乌姆的院长伊西多尔 (Isidore of Pelusium)。前者是金口约翰的门徒和敬仰者，也是一位著述丰富的苦修作家；他辞去君士坦丁堡的高级文官职务，与儿子一同退隐西奈山，而他的妻子则带着一个女儿前往埃及的一所修道院。⁷⁷后者所在的佩卢西乌姆，位于尼罗河东部的主要河口；他留给我们的书信有两千封。⁷⁸这两人的著作显示出丰富的属灵经验，也表明他们在当时的世代中，拥有广阔而富有成果的劳作与服务领域。

§ 39. 东方狂热与异端的修道团体

《冈格拉会议录》(Acta Concil. Gangrenensis)，载曼西 (Mansi)，卷ii，1095页及后。埃皮法尼乌斯 (Epiphanius)：《异端论》(Haer.)，70、75及80。苏格拉底 (Socrates)：《教会史》(H. E.)，ii. 43。索佐门 (Sozomen)：iv. 24。狄奥多勒 (Theodoret)：《教会史》(H. E.)，iv. 9、10；《异端传说汇编》(Fab. haer.)，iv. 10、11。比较尼安德 (Neander)：卷iii，468页及后（托里版，ed. Torrey，卷ii，238页及后）。

修道制度一般紧紧持守教会的正统信仰。正统信仰之父亚他那修 (Athanasius) 与修道制度之父安东尼 (Anthony) 之间的友谊，在这一点上是一个典型的事实。但聂斯托利派 (Nestorianism)、欧迪奇派 (Eutychianism)、基督一性论派 (Monophysitism)、伯拉纠派 (Pelagianism) 以及其他异端，也都出自修士之中，并在修士中找到了最有力的拥护者。修道的热忱还走向了它自身特有的苦修异端，这些也是我们在此必须论及的。

欧斯塔修派 (Eustathians)，得名于塞巴斯特主教欧斯塔修；他是巴西尔的朋友，也是亚美尼亚、本都和帕夫拉戈尼亚修道制度的创始人。这个教派断言，婚姻使人不能得救，也使人失去担任教职的资格。由于这一点以及其他过激主张，该派在帕夫拉戈尼亚的冈格拉 (Gangra) 举行的一次会议（360至370年之间）上受到谴责，随后逐渐消亡。
奥迪乌斯派 (Audians) 持有类似的原则。他们的创始人奥迪乌斯 (Audius)，又名乌多 (Udo)，是叙利亚的一位平信徒。他指责当时的教牧人员道德败坏，尤其是贪婪和奢靡。他忍耐地承受了许多逼迫以后，便与朋友们一同离开教会，其中还有几位主教和教士；约于330年，在斯基泰 (Scythia) 创立了一个严厉的修道教派，可能延续了一百年之久。他们在复活节的守节方式上属于十四日派 (Quartodecimans)，按照犹太人的习俗，在尼散月十四日守节。埃皮法尼乌斯对他们堪为楷模、却极为严苛的苦修生活颇有好评。
祈祷派 (Euchites)，又称弥撒利派 (Messalians)，⁷⁹也称狂热派 (Enthusiasts)，是美索不达米亚和叙利亚一带四处游荡的乞讨修士（始于360年）。他们认为基督徒生活就是不间断的祈祷，藐视一切体力劳动、道德律和圣礼，并自夸已经完全。他们教导说，每个人来到世上时，都带着一个邪魔，只有祈祷才能将它赶走；随后圣灵进入灵魂，使它脱离感官的一切束缚，并将它提升到不再需要教导和施恩之具的境地。他们宣称，福音历史不过是寓言。然而，他们以外表上顺从大公教会，来掩盖自己的泛神论神秘主义和反律法主义。四世纪末，他们的主张为人所知，教会与世俗当局的逼迫便一同临到他们身上。然而，他们仍延续到七世纪，并在中世纪的祈祷派和波格米勒派 (Bogomiles) 中重新出现。

§ 40. 西方的修道制度：亚他那修、安布罗斯、奥古斯丁、图尔的马丁

I. 安布罗斯 (Ambrosius)：《致妹妹马尔凯利娜论童贞三卷》(De Virginibus ad Marcellinam sororem suam libri tres)，约写于377年（载本笃会版《安布罗斯著作集》，Ambr. Opera，卷ii，145–183页）。奥古斯丁 (Augustinus)（公元400年）：《论修士的劳作一卷》(De Opere Monachorum liber unus)（载本笃会版，卷vi，476–504页）。苏尔皮基乌斯·塞韦鲁斯 (Sulpitius Severus)（约公元403年）：《对话三篇》(Dialogi tres)（论东方修士的德行与圣马丁的德行，de virtutibus monachorum orientalium et de virtutibus B. Martini）；及《圣马丁传》(De Vita Beati Martini)（两书均载《古代教父大文库》，Bibliotheca Maxima vet. Patrum，卷vi，349页及后；更佳版本见加兰迪的《古代教父文库》，Gallandi’s Bibliotheca vet. Patrum，卷viii，392页及后）。

J. 马比永 (J. Mabillon)：《论本笃以前西方的修士》(Observat. de monachis in occidente ante Benedictum)（《本笃会圣徒行传》序言，Praef. in Acta Sanct. Ord. Bened.）。R. H. 米尔曼 (R. H. Milman)：《拉丁基督教史》(Hist. of Latin Christianity)，伦敦，1854年，卷i，第vi章，409–426页：“西方修道制度”。蒙塔朗贝尔伯爵 (Count de Montalembert)：《西方修士》(The Monks of the West)，英译本，卷i，379页及后。

在拉丁教会中，部分由于气候，部分由于民族性格，⁸⁰修道生活采取了远为温和的形式，却比希腊教会的修道生活更加多样，也找到了更广阔的服务领域。它没有产生柱上圣徒，也没有产生其他这类苦修英雄主义的极端表现，反而更为务实，成为开垦土地、向蛮族传播基督教与文明的重要工具。⁸¹专一的默观被默观与劳动的交替所取代。卡西安 (Cassian) 说：“劳作的修士受一个魔鬼的搅扰，闲懒的修士却受一群魔鬼的搅扰。”然而，不可忘记，东方修道制度最杰出的代表也提倡体力劳动和学术研究；东方修士也极其积极地参与神学争论，而且往往粗暴而激烈。另一方面，西方也有修士像图尔的马丁 (Martin of Tours) 一样，认为劳动会扰乱默观。

亚他那修曾作圣安东尼的客人和门徒，后来又成为他的传记作者和颂扬者；他最先将修道制度的消息带到西方。340年流亡期间，他带着两位同行者，以他们作为埃及半野蛮的旷野圣洁生活的活生生代表，使那些文明而柔靡的罗马人大为震惊。其中一位阿蒙尼乌斯 (Ammonius)，超脱尘世到了这样的地步：除了圣彼得和圣保罗的坟墓以外，他不屑参观这座大城的任何奇观；另一位伊西多尔，则以其和蔼纯朴引人注目。这一现象起初引起厌恶和鄙视，但很快就激起了敬佩和效仿，尤其是在妇女中间，以及人数已大为削减的古罗马贵族行列中。亚他那修后来又两次访问罗马，尤其是他所写的《安东尼传》，进一步加深了初次来访留下的印象；这部传记立即获得了修道福音一般的声望和权威。许多人前往埃及和巴勒斯坦，投身于这种新的生活方式；哲罗姆后来正是为了这些人，将帕科米乌斯的会规译成拉丁文。另一些人则在罗马近郊，或在古代神庙和广场的废墟上建立修道院；异教维斯塔贞女 (vestals) 原本寥寥无几的数目，很快就在成群的基督徒童贞女子面前黯然失色。修道制度从罗马逐渐传遍全意大利和地中海诸岛，甚至抵达戈尔贡 (Gorgon) 和卡普拉亚 (Capraja) 崎岖的岩岛；在那里，自愿离世流亡的隐修士，取代了从前因皇帝的司法制裁，或暴政与猜忌而惯常被放逐到那里的罪犯和政治牺牲者。

安布罗斯 (Ambrose) 的妹妹马尔凯利娜 (Marcellina) 是罗马最早的修女之一。他在米兰建立了一所修道院，⁸²是意大利最早的修道院之一；他以最热烈的热忱鼓励独身，甚至不顾父母的意愿，以致米兰的母亲们不让自己的女儿去听他讲道；而其他地方，甚至远自毛里塔尼亚 (Mauritania)，却有童贞女子成群前来，请他将她们分别出来，奉献于独居生活。⁸³意大利的海岸和小岛上，逐渐布满了修道院。⁸⁴

奥古斯丁所持的福音原则，认为上帝白白的恩典是得救与平安的唯一根基，这与较具伯拉纠主义色彩的修道生活理论，本质上并不相容；然而在这一点上，他仍顺从了当时教会盛行的精神，与自己的教牧人员一同过着类似修士的生活，自愿守贫穷与独身，⁸⁵自以为是效法耶路撒冷初代教会的榜样。但尽管他热切地称许修道制度，在北非，他也只能在获释奴隶和下层民众中为它赢得好感。⁸⁶他从最高尚的方面看待修道生活，视之为一种全心降服于上帝、不受干扰地专注于属灵和永恒之事的生活。但他也承认其中的弊端；他明确谴责四处游荡、以乞讨为生的修士，如巡游派 (Circumcelliones) 和游方修士 (Gyrovagi)，并写了一部《论修士的劳作》(De opere monachorum)，反对修道者厌弃劳动的态度。

修道制度由图尔的马丁 (Martin of Tours) 传入高卢 (Gaul)。他去世几年后，门徒苏尔皮基乌斯·塞韦鲁斯 (Sulpitius Severus) 以流畅悦人的文笔记述了他的生平与神迹。⁸⁷这位著名的圣徒、田野的主保，生于潘诺尼亚 (Pannonia，匈牙利)，父母都是异教徒。他在意大利受教育，曾违背本愿，在君士坦提乌斯 (Constantius) 和背道者尤利安 (Julian the Apostate) 麾下当兵三年。即使在那时，他已表现出非凡的节制、谦卑和爱心。他常替仆人擦鞋；有一次，他用剑把自己仅有的斗篷劈成两半，将一半给一个赤身的乞丐遮体。次夜，他梦见基督披着那半件斗篷，并清楚听见他对天使说：“看哪，马丁还只是个慕道者，却已给我穿上了衣服。”⁸⁸他十八岁时受洗；使母亲归信；在意大利过隐修生活；后来在普瓦捷 (Poictiers) 附近建立了一所修道院（法国的第一所）；又拆毁许多偶像庙宇，以圣徒和行神迹者的身份赢得盛名。约370年，百姓不顾他的意愿，一致选举他为卢瓦尔河 (Loire) 畔图尔的主教；但他任主教时仍保持严格的修道生活方式，并在卢瓦尔河彼岸建立一所修道院，不久便有八十名修士聚集在他身边。他受教育不多，却有天赋的口才、丰富的属灵经验和不倦的热忱。苏尔皮基乌斯·塞韦鲁斯将他置于自己所知的一切东方修士之上，宣称他的功德无法用言语尽述。他说：⁸⁹“没有一个时辰，马丁不在祷告……从来没有人看见他发怒、忧郁或嬉笑。他始终如一，面容充满属天的安宁，仿佛已超越人的软弱。他口中除了基督，别无他物；心中除了虔敬、和平与怜悯，别无他念。他的仇敌趁他不在场，用恶毒的舌头辱骂他，而他并未加害于他们；他却常为他们的罪哭泣……然而，除了主教以外，逼迫他的人很少。”传记作者记述他与魔鬼有过奇异的争战；他以为自己看见魔鬼以各种可能的形状，实实在在、可以触摸地出现在眼前。作者还叙述了异象、神奇的医治，甚至三次使死人复活的事，其中两次发生在他就任主教以前，一次在以后；这是任何东方隐修士都不能夸口的。⁹⁰他又向我们保证，为免读者厌倦，他已略去自己听闻的大部分神迹；但他也几次暗示，这些事远非人人相信，甚至同一修道院的修士也不尽信。他的虔敬，特点是把修道者的谦卑与教士的傲慢结合在一起。有一次，他在特里尔 (Trier) 暴虐的皇帝马克西穆斯 (Maximus) 宫中赴晚宴，自己饮过酒后，先把酒杯递给自己的长老，使他的位次高于皇帝。⁹¹皇后在这次宴席上向他表现出近乎偶像崇拜的尊崇，甚至亲自备膳、铺桌布，像马大侍立在主面前一样，以仆人的身份侍立在他面前。⁹²更能使这位主教增光的，是他抗议在特里尔处死普里西利安派 (Priscillianists) 的人。马丁于397年或400年去世；除许多修女和大群民众之外，还有两千名修士参加他的葬礼；他的坟墓也成为法国朝圣者最常前往的中心之一。

修道制度在高卢南部也同样迅速地传播。禁欲主义作家、半伯拉纠主义者约翰·卡西安 (John Cassian，† 432) 在马西利亚 (Massilia，马赛) 创立了两所修道院，院中也从事学术研究；霍诺拉图斯 (Honoratus，426年以后任阿尔勒主教) 则在勒里纳岛 (Lerina) 建立了圣霍诺拉图斯修道院。

§ 41. 作为修士的圣哲罗姆

圣优西比乌斯·哲罗姆 (S. Eus. Hieronymus)：《全集》(Opera omnia)，伊拉斯谟 (Erasmus) 编，厄科兰帕迪乌斯 (Oecolampadius) 协助，巴塞尔 (Bas.)，1516–1520年，9卷，对开本；本笃会士马蒂亚奈 (Martianay) 编，巴黎 (Par.)，1693–1706年，5卷，对开本（不全）；瓦拉尔西 (Vallarsi) 与马费伊 (Maffei) 编，维罗纳 (Veron.)，1734–1742年，11卷，对开本，另有威尼斯 (Venet.) 1766年版（最佳版本）。尤其应参阅其150封《书信》，这些书信常有单行本（瓦拉尔西在其所编版本第i卷中，最终确定了这些书信的年代次序）。

关于哲罗姆生平的详尽著作，见杜潘 (Du Pin)（《教会作家新文库》Nouvelle Biblioth. des auteurs Eccles.，第iii卷，第100–140页）；蒂耶蒙 (Tillemont)（第xii卷，第1–356页）；马蒂亚奈 (Martianay)（《圣哲罗姆传》La vie de St. Jerôme，巴黎，1706年）；约翰·斯蒂尔廷 (Joh. Stilting)（载《圣徒行传》Acta Sanctorum，9月，第viii卷，第418–688页，安特卫普 (Antw.)，1762年）；巴特勒 (Butler)（9月30日条）；瓦拉尔西 (Vallarsi)（载《哲罗姆著作集》Op. Hieron.，第xi卷，第1–240页）；施勒克 (Schröckh)（第viii卷，第359页及后，尤其第xi卷，第3–254页）；恩格尔斯托夫特 (Engelstoft)（《斯特里顿的哲罗姆：译者、批评家、释经家、护教家、历史家、教师、修士》Hieron. Stridonensis, interpres, criticus, exegeta, apologeta, historicus, doctor, monachus，哥本哈根 (Havn.)，1798年）；D. 冯·科尔恩 (D. v. Cölln)（载埃尔施 (Ersch) 与格鲁伯 (Gruber) 的《百科全书》Encycl.，第ii部，第8卷）；科隆贝 (Collombet)（《圣哲罗姆传》Histoire de S. Jérôme，里昂，1844年）；以及 O. 策克勒 (O. Zöckler)（《哲罗姆：其生平与事业》Hieronymus, sein Leben und Wirken，哥达，1865年）。

在教父中，最热心提倡修道生活的是哲罗姆，他是连接东西方学术与宗教的纽带。他的一生几乎同样应当归入神学史和修道制度史。因此，教会艺术通常将他描绘成一个正在读书或写作的忏悔者，身旁有一头狮子和一个骷髅，表示学者生活与隐修生活的结合。他是第一位不仅倡导、而且亲自采取修道生活方式的博学神学家；他的榜样，对于使修道制度成为促进学术的工具，产生了重大影响。他具有罕见的才赋与学识、⁹³不知疲倦的心智活动、炽热的信仰，在圣经翻译与解释方面有不朽的功绩，又热切追求禁欲的虔敬；然而，与这些相伴的，却是极大的虚荣与野心、暴躁而刻薄的性情、不受约束的激烈情感、不容异己而好行逼迫的精神，以及反复无常的行为。因此，他的品格使我们时而受吸引，时而又生反感；时而钦佩他的伟大，时而又鄙视或怜悯他的软弱。

索弗罗尼乌斯·优西比乌斯·哲罗姆 (Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus) 于331至342年之间，⁹⁴生于达尔马提亚 (Dalmatia) 边界、距阿奎莱亚 (Aquileia) 不远的斯特里顿 (Stridon)。⁹⁵他的父母是富裕的基督徒；他在罗马受教育，师从著名的异教语法学家多纳图斯 (Donatus) 和修辞学家维克托里努斯 (Victorinus)。他勤奋研读古典诗人、演说家和哲学家的作品，获益良多，并积聚了相当可观的藏书。每逢星期日，他与博诺苏斯 (Bonosus) 及其他青年友人一道，探访殉道者的地下墓穴，这给他留下了不可磨灭的印象。然而，他也未能免受这座腐败大都市的诱惑，失去了贞洁，正如他后来自己多次痛心承认的那样。

约在370年，他在罗马受洗，决意从此严格禁欲，全心事奉主；此事是在他前往特里尔和阿奎莱亚的求学旅行之前还是之后，尚不能确定，但无论如何是在他青年时代的后期。在归信之初的热忱中，他舍弃了对古典文学的爱好，专心研读从前令他感到乏味的圣经。几年以后，他在一种病态的禁欲心境中，做了那个著名的梦：他被召到基督的审判台前，作为一个异教的西塞罗信徒 (Ciceronian)，⁹⁶受到严厉的斥责与鞭打，甚至天使也因怜悯他的年轻而为他代求；他自己则郑重起誓，永不再把世俗书籍拿在手里。醒来时，他仍觉得身上有鞭痕；在他看来，那不是他亢奋的幻想所造成的，而是主亲自加在他身上的。因此，几年以后（公元384年），他向女友尤斯托基乌姆 (Eustochium) 叙述这段经历时，劝她远避一切世俗读物：“光明与黑暗、基督与彼列（林后六14）、《诗篇》与贺拉斯 (Horace)、《福音书》与维吉尔 (Virgil)、使徒与西塞罗 (Cicero)，彼此有什么相干呢？……我们不能同时喝主的杯和鬼的杯。”⁹⁷若用来警戒人不要过分推崇古典学问，这番劝告固然适当；然而，哲罗姆自己所译的圣经和所作的注释，却最有力地证明了语言学与古代文物知识在用于宗教时，具有不可估量的价值。而且，至少到了晚年，他并未严格遵守那个誓言。相反，他让修士抄写西塞罗的对话录，在伯利恒讲解维吉尔，他的著作中也充满对古典作家的追忆和引文。阿奎莱亚的鲁菲努斯 (Rufinus) 起初是他的挚友，后来却成了他的死敌；当鲁菲努斯指责他前后矛盾、违背庄严誓言时，他便推托说，自己无法从记忆中抹去从前读过的东西；仿佛引用一位异教作家的话，就不像阅读其著作那样有罪似的。他另一个较有道理的主张是：这一切不过是一场梦，梦中的誓言并无约束力。他要鲁菲努斯去看先知的话：“他们教导说，梦是虚妄的，不值得相信。”然而，正如伊拉斯谟所慨叹的，这个梦后来却屡被用来掩护修道制度的蒙昧主义。

受洗以后，哲罗姆的生活往来于东西方之间，交替从事禁欲修炼与著述工作。他带着几位朋友和自己的藏书，从罗马迁往安提阿 (Antioch)，探访最著名的隐修士，听取小阿波利拿里 (Apollinaris) 在安提阿所作的释经讲授，随后于374年在叙利亚荒凉的迦基斯 (Chalcis) 沙漠中度过了一段禁欲生活。在这里，他和许多其他隐士一样，与肉欲经历了一场痛苦的争战；十年以后，他在写给童贞女友尤斯托基乌姆的一封长信中，以有失雅洁的细节描写了这场争战。⁹⁸尽管身体因饥饿而消瘦，他的想象仍以罗马宴饮和女子舞蹈的狂乱景象折磨着他；这表明，修道者与世隔绝的生活，绝不能保证人不受肉体和魔鬼的试探。他无助地俯伏在耶稣脚前，以悔改的眼泪沾湿祂的双脚，又以一周的禁食和枯燥的希伯来文语法研习来制伏那抗拒的肉体（据他致鲁斯提库斯 (Rusticus) 的一封信，⁹⁹他当时正向一位归信的犹太人学习希伯来文），直到寻得平安，自觉仿佛被接到天上的天使歌班之中。前述的梦，以及几篇充满热烈颂扬修道生活之辞的禁欲著作，大概都属于这一时期。¹⁰⁰不过，他为著名隐修士所写的传记，却十分悦人而有节制。¹⁰¹他主张，即使违背父母的意愿，也应退隐修道；他解释主关于撇下父母的话，仿佛修道制度与基督教就是一回事。373年，他写信给友人赫利奥多鲁斯 (Heliodorus)——此人在前往叙利亚沙漠的途中离开了他——说：“纵然你的母亲披头散发，撕裂衣裳，向你袒露哺育过你的乳房；纵然你的父亲躺在门槛上，你仍要跨过父亲离去，眼中不带泪水，奔向十字架的旗帜。唯独在这种事上，残忍才是敬虔。……爱上帝的心和对地狱的惧怕，很容易就割断家庭的纽带。圣经固然吩咐人顺从父母；但爱父母过于爱基督的，就丧失自己的灵魂。……啊，沙漠，基督的花朵在这里盛开！啊，独处之地，新耶路撒冷的石料在这里预备！啊，隐居之所，以与上帝为友而欢喜！我的弟兄，你的灵魂比世界更大，为何还留在世界之中？你还要在屋顶的阴影下、在城市烟雾弥漫的牢狱中逗留多久？相信我，我在这里看见更多的光。”¹⁰²然而，这番雄辩的呼吁并未达到预期的效果；赫利奥多鲁斯加入了教导圣职，后来成为主教。

哲罗姆活跃而不安定的精神，很快又把他带回公众舞台，使他卷入那个争论纷纭的时代所有教义与教会争端。他在安提阿接受保利努斯 (Paulinus) 主教的按立，成为长老，却没有负责牧养会众。他宁愿过修士兼学者的游历生活，也不愿担任固定职务；约在380年，他前往君士坦丁堡 (Constantinople)，在那里听取著名的拿先斯的贵格利 (Gregory Nazianzen) 反对阿里乌派的讲道，并翻译了优西比乌斯 (Eusebius) 的《编年史》和俄利根 (Origen) 关于《耶利米书》与《以西结书》的讲道。382年，由于梅勒提乌斯分裂 (Meletian schism)，他随保利努斯和埃皮法尼乌斯 (Epiphanius) 返回罗马。在这里，他担任达马苏 (Damasus) 主教的神学顾问和教会秘书，¹⁰³与他建立了密切关系，并在他的引导下从事新的释经工作，尤其是修订拉丁文圣经译本；这项工作后来在东方完成。

与此同时，他在罗马以最大的热忱，通过讲论和著述推动修道事业；这种生活方式此前在罗马立足甚微，甚至在教士中也遭到激烈反对。他主要着眼于衰败的罗马社会中最富有、最显贵的阶层，试图劝说西庇阿 (Scipios)、格拉古 (Gracchi)、马塞卢斯 (Marcelli)、卡米卢斯 (Camilli)、阿尼基乌斯 (Anicii) 各家族的后裔，将豪华别墅改作修道静居之所，过自我牺牲、施行慈善的生活。他取得了很大的成功。“那些建立罗马、在其整个光辉而自由的时期治理罗马、征服并制伏世界的古老贵族世家，在凯撒诸帝残暴的轭下，已用了四个世纪，为其先祖荣耀中最冷酷、最自私的成分付出了赎价。在那漫长的奴役中，堕落的罗马为自己选立的统治者残酷地羞辱、玷污并屠戮他们；他们终于在修士所实行的基督徒生活中，找到了牺牲的尊严和灵魂的解放。这些古罗马人的子孙，以慷慨的热忱和坚忍的毅力投身其中，正是这种精神曾为他们的先祖赢得世界的统治权。圣哲罗姆说：‘从前，照使徒的见证，基督徒中富有的、尊贵的、有权势的都不多。如今却不再如此。不仅在基督徒中，而且在修士中，都可以找到许多有智慧、尊贵和富有的人。’……修道制度为他们提供了一个战场，使他们能够为了更崇高的事业，面对更可怕的敌人，重演并超越先祖的争战和胜利。那些伟人的记忆仍萦绕在衰败的罗马上空；他们所争战的不过是人，所征服的不过是人的身体；他们的后裔却立志与魔鬼争战，赢得灵魂。……上帝呼召他们作一个新民族的先祖，赐给他们一个有待建立的新帝国，并容许他们在世界属灵重生的怀抱中，埋葬并转化祖先的荣耀。”¹⁰⁴

在这些经哲罗姆劝导而转向修道生活的显贵中，大多数是妇女——有马塞拉 (Marcella)、阿尔比尼娅 (Albinia)、富里娅 (Furia)、萨尔维娜 (Salvina)、法比奥拉 (Fabiola)、梅拉尼娅 (Melania) 这样的寡妇，以及其中最显赫的保拉 (Paula) 及其家人；也有尤斯托基乌姆、阿佩拉 (Apella)、马塞利娜 (Marcellina)、阿塞拉 (Asella)、费利基塔斯 (Felicitas) 和德梅特里娅斯 (Demetrias) 这样的童贞女。他把她们聚集在自己周围，形成一个精选的圈子；向她们讲解圣经，其中有些罗马贵妇对圣经已十分熟悉；解答她们良心上的疑问；激励她们过独身生活、慷慨施舍、热心禁欲；又以过分的赞美迎合她们属灵的虚荣。他是这些圣洁妇女的权威导师、传记作者、仰慕者和颂扬者；她们构成了大公教会罗马的属灵贵族。就连保拉的女婿和财产继承人、元老帕玛基乌斯 (Pammachius)，也把财物分给穷人，脱下紫袍，换上修士兜帽袍，任凭同僚嘲笑，并且用哲罗姆奉承的话说，成了罗马修士的统帅，第一大城中修士的第一人。¹⁰⁵哲罗姆认为再婚与真正的圣洁不相容；甚至贬低初婚，除非它是培育基督新妇的苗圃；他警告尤斯托基乌姆，不要与已婚妇女有任何交往；并且毫不迟疑地把保拉这样一位基督新妇的母亲称为“上帝的岳母”。¹⁰⁶

他与这些显贵妇女交往亲密；或许他对她们的仰慕，还超过她们对他的仰慕。加上他毫不留情地抨击罗马教士和上层阶级的败德行为，便招来了许多不公正的责难和无根的诽谤；对此，他多以愤怒的轻蔑和讽刺回应，而非以沉静的尊严和基督徒的温柔相待。他的庇护者达马苏于公元384年去世以后，他便离开罗马；385年8月，他与弟弟保利尼安 (Paulinian)、几位修士、保拉及其女儿尤斯托基乌姆，一同朝圣，“从巴比伦前往耶路撒冷，为要使统治他的不是尼布甲尼撒，而是耶稣”。他怀着宗教的虔诚和求知的心，游历巴勒斯坦 (Palestine) 的各处圣地，在亚历山大 (Alexandria) 逗留了一段时间，听取著名的狄迪穆斯 (Didymus) 讲学，又访问尼特里亚山 (Nitrian mountain) 的隐修室；最后于386年，与两位女友在救赎主的降生之地定居，照他自己所说，要在那里哀悼青年时代的罪，并保守自己不再犯别的罪。

在伯利恒，他主持一所修道院，直到去世；他建了一所收容院，接待除异端者以外的一切旅客；不断从事学术研究，撰写了几部注释，并完成了他改进的拉丁文圣经译本——这是他一生最崇高的纪念碑。然而，他也卷入了激烈的著述论争，不仅与赫尔维迪乌斯 (Helvidius，他早在384年就曾著文反对他)、约维尼安 (Jovinian)、维吉兰提乌斯 (Vigilantius) 和伯拉纠 (Pelagius) 等反对教会正统信仰的人争论，也与久经考验的朋友鲁菲努斯，甚至与奥古斯丁争论。¹⁰⁷帕拉迪乌斯 (Palladius) 说，他的嫉妒容不得自己以外还有圣徒，并把许多虔诚的修士赶出了伯利恒。他也抱怨自己的名声把成群的修士吸引到伯利恒。¹⁰⁸罗马遭洗劫后，破产而幸存的罗马贵族也逃到他那里，求取食物和栖身之所。最后，野蛮的匈人 (Huns) 和异端的伯拉纠派 (Pelagians) 的侵袭，又扰乱了他的安宁。他于419或420年因发热去世，享年甚高。他的遗骸后来被移往罗马的圣母大殿 (Maria Maggiore)，但佛罗伦萨 (Florence)、布拉格 (Prague)、克吕尼 (Clugny)、巴黎和埃斯科里亚尔 (Escurial) 也各自陈列着所谓他的遗骸，受到迷信的崇敬。¹⁰⁹

罗马教会早已将他列在其权威教师和正式认可的圣徒中最重要的位置之一。然而，甚至有些公正的天主教历史学家，也敢于承认并谴责他那些显著的矛盾和激烈的情欲。新教对真理的热爱，使人倾向于这样的判断：哲罗姆确是一位造诣精深、贡献卓著的学者，对于他那个时代视为神圣的一切，也确有热烈的热忱；但他缺乏沉静的自制，心智和品格也缺乏应有的深度；他既反映了他那个时代和修道制度的美德，也反映了它们的缺点。不过，应当归功于他的是：尽管他对修道制度怀着热烈的热忱和仰慕，却仍以敏锐的眼光、毫不留情的手笔，揭露假修士和假修女，并生动地描绘出这种制度所面临的忧郁、疑病、伪善和属灵骄傲的危险。¹¹⁰

§ 42. 圣保拉

哲罗姆 (Hieronymus)：《致童贞女尤斯托基乌姆：其母保拉墓志铭》(Epitaphium Paulae matris, ad Eustochium virginem)，《书信》Ep. cviii（瓦拉尔西 (Vallarsi) 编，《著作集》Opera，第i卷，第684页及后；本笃会版 ed. Bened.，Ep. lxxxvi）。另见《圣徒行传》(Acta Sanctorum)，以及巴特勒 (Butler)《圣徒传》(Lives of Saints)，1月26日条。

在哲罗姆的许多女门徒中，最杰出的是圣保拉，她是罗马天主教修女的典范。她于404年去世后，哲罗姆以惯有的夸张笔调，用以下这番话开始了对她的颂词：“即使我身体的所有肢体都变成舌头，所有关节都能发出人的声音，我也无法说出任何配得上圣洁可敬的保拉的话。”

她于347年出生，出身于西庇阿 (Scipios)、格拉古 (Gracchi) 和保卢斯·埃米利乌斯 (Paulus Aemilius) 的显赫家族。¹¹¹她在哲罗姆的影响下，舍弃世间的一切财富和尊荣，投身于最严苛的禁欲生活时，已是三十六岁的寡妇，育有五个儿女。流言引起了猜疑；然而，她的属灵导师在致阿塞拉 (Asella) 的一封信中，以愤慨激昂的言辞答辩道：“难道罗马竟没有别的贵妇能征服我的心，偏偏只有这一个终日哀哭禁食、满身污垢、¹¹²几乎哭瞎了双眼、整夜祈祷，以诗篇为歌唱、以福音为谈论、以节制为喜乐、以禁食为生活的人吗？难道没有别人能使我倾心，偏偏只有这一个我从未见她吃过东西的人吗？不，断乎不是！难道在我开始因她的贞洁而给予她应得的敬重之后，一切美德就都立刻离弃我了吗？”后来，他夸赞她几乎能将全部圣经背诵出来；她甚至学习希伯来文，以便与他一同用原文吟唱诗篇；她还不断向他提出释经问题，其中连他自己也只能回答一部分。

她压抑了母亲的神圣情感，不顾女儿鲁菲娜 (Ruffina) 和幼子托克索提乌斯 (Toxotius) 的哀求与眼泪，将他们留在罗马城，¹¹³前往安提阿 (Antioch) 与哲罗姆会合，随后赴巴勒斯坦 (Palestine) 和埃及朝圣。她满怀炽热的虔诚，跪在重新寻获的十字架前，仿佛主仍悬挂其上；她亲吻天使滚开的那块复活之石；以干渴的舌头舔舐那座所谓的耶稣坟墓；当她进入伯利恒的马厩、看见马槽时，更流下喜悦的泪水。在埃及，她深入尼特里亚 (Nitria) 沙漠，俯伏在隐修士脚前，随后返回圣地，永久定居于救主诞生之处。她在那里为哲罗姆建立了一所修道院，并供养他；又建立了三所女修道院，自己担任院长二十年，直到404年。

她戒绝肉食和酒，与女儿尤斯托基乌姆 (Eustochium) 一同承担最卑微的杂役；即使患病，也身穿毛衣睡在光地上，或整夜祈祷。她说：“我必须损毁自己的面容，因为我曾屡次违背上帝的命令，以脂粉妆饰它；必须折磨这曾参与许多偶像崇拜的身体；必须以不断的哭泣，补赎长久以来的欢笑。”她的慷慨没有限度。她希望以乞丐之身死去，并以不属于自己的裹尸布下葬。她为行善而以高利借下许多债务，死后都留给了女儿（女儿死于419年）。¹¹⁴

她的丧礼持续一周；除无数教士、修士、修女和平信徒外，耶路撒冷及巴勒斯坦其他城市的主教也都前来参加。哲罗姆向她呼告道：“永别了，保拉！求你以祈祷扶助这位敬慕你的人度过晚年！”

§ 43. 努尔西亚的本笃

大格列高利 (Gregorius M.)：《对话录》(Dialogorum)，共iv卷（约于594年写成；第ii卷根据这位圣徒的四位修道院长兼门徒——君士坦丁 (Constantine)、霍诺拉图斯 (Honoratus)、瓦伦提尼安 (Valentinian) 和辛普利基乌斯 (Simplicius)——所提供的材料，记述圣本笃的生平，但充满惊人的神迹）。马比永 (Mabillon) 及圣本笃会圣莫尔修会 (St. Maurus) 的其他作者：《按世纪分类的圣本笃会圣徒行传》(Acta Sanctorum ordinis S. Benedicti in saeculorum classes distributa)，对开本，巴黎 (Par.)，1668–1701年，9卷（记至1100年）；以及《圣本笃会编年史》(Annales ordinis S. Bened.)，巴黎，1703–1739年，6卷，对开本（记至1157年）。约瑟夫·德·梅热修士 (Dom [Domnus] Jos. De Mège)：《圣本笃传》(Vie de St. Benoit)，巴黎，1690年。《圣徒行传》(Acta Sanctorum) 及巴特勒 (Butler)，3月21日条。蒙塔朗贝尔 (Montalembert)：《西方修士》(The Monks of the West)，第ii卷，第iv编。

努尔西亚的本笃 (Benedict of Nursia) 是以其名字命名的著名修会的创立者。他赋予西方修道制度一种固定而持久的形式，使之远远超越了在组织方面仅有不完善尝试的东方修道制度，并使它对大公教会的实际事务，乃至附带地对其学术事业，都极有助益。因此，他享有西方修士之祖的尊荣。他提供了一个显著的例证，说明一种简单而明智的道德生活准则，可以对许多世纪产生不可估量的影响。

本笃约于480年出生在翁布里亚 (Umbria) 的努尔西亚（今诺尔恰，Norcia），出身于显赫的阿尼基乌斯 (Anicius) 家族。当时，欧洲的政治和社会秩序动荡分裂，文学、道德和宗教似乎都注定要遭受无可挽回的毁灭。他曾在罗马求学，但早在十五岁时便逃离同学们败坏的圈子，在苏比亚科 (Subiaco) 一个幽暗、狭窄而人迹难至的洞穴中隐居了三年。¹¹⁵附近的一位修士罗马努斯 (Romanus) 不时供给他少量食物，用绳索吊下，并系上一个小铃，以铃声通知他面包已到。他在那里经历了隐修士惯常与魔鬼进行的争战，并借着祈祷和禁欲操练，获得了罕见的驾驭自然的能力。教皇格列高利 (Gregory) 告诉我们，有一次，淫欲的诱惑如此强烈地撩动他的想象，以致他几乎要离开隐居之处，去追寻一位从前相识的美貌女子；但他鼓起勇气，脱下兽皮衣服，赤身在洞穴附近的荆棘和蒺藜上翻滚，直到肉欲的不洁之火永远熄灭。七个世纪以后，阿西西的圣方济各 (St. Francis of Assisi) 在这片属灵战场上栽下两株玫瑰；它们生长存活，比本笃的荆棘和蒺藜更为长久。他渐渐为人所知；周围的牧人起初把他当作野兽，后来却敬他为圣徒。

这段隐居生活结束后，他开始致力于严格意义上的修道院事业。他在那片山区相继建立了十二所修道院，每所各有十二名修士和一位院长，而他本人则总管一切。然而，一位不配其职的祭司逼迫他，使他离开苏比亚科，退居那不勒斯省 (Neapolitan province) 境内、萨姆尼乌姆 (Samnium) 与坎帕尼亚 (Campania) 交界处一片荒僻而风景如画的山区。他在那里铲除了偶像崇拜的残余，借着讲道和神迹，使许多异教居民归信基督教，并于529年克服重重困难，在一座阿波罗 (Apollo) 神庙的废墟上建立了著名的卡西诺山修道院 (Monte Cassino)，¹¹⁶成为其修会的母院和中心。他在这里劳作十四年，直到去世。虽然从未被按立为祭司，但他在那里的生活，与其说像一个独居者，不如说更像一位传教士和使徒。他耕种土地，供养穷人，医治病人，向附近居民传道，指导愈来愈多投奔他的年轻修士，并以一种固定的方法或会规来组织修道生活，自己也认真遵守。他对人心的感召力，以及人们对他的敬重，可以从542年托提拉 (Totila) 的来访得到说明。这位蛮族国王是罗马人的征服者、意大利的主人，却俯伏在圣徒面前，接受他的责备和劝勉，求他祝福，离去时已成为一个比从前更好的人；然而，正如本笃所预言的，他在位十年后，便在与纳尔塞斯 (Narses) 率领的希腊—罗马军队的一场大战中阵亡。本笃于543年3月21日领受圣餐之后，站在祭坛脚前祈祷而逝，葬在妹妹斯科拉斯蒂卡 (Scholastica) 身旁。她曾在卡西诺山附近建立一所女修道院，比他早几周去世。他们每年仅在山坡上会面一次，一同祈祷，谈论敬虔之事。在他离世的那一天，两位修士在异象中看见一条由星辰构成的光明道路，从卡西诺山直通天上，并听见声音说，上帝所深爱的本笃已由这条路升天。

他那位轻信的传记作者，教皇格列高利一世 (Gregory I.)，在《对话录》(Dialogues) 第二卷中，把神奇的预言、医病，甚至使死人复活的事迹，都归于他。¹¹⁷论到他缺乏世俗学问却具有属灵知识，格列高利称他为有学识的无知者、不识字的智者。¹¹⁸无论如何，他具有立法者的天才，在修会创立者中居于首位，尽管他本人的性情和生平，远不及克莱尔沃的伯尔纳 (Bernard of Clairvaux)、阿西西的方济各和洛约拉的依纳爵 (Ignatius of Loyola) 那样引人入胜。¹¹⁹

§ 44. 圣本笃会规

《本笃会规》(Regula Benedicti) 曾多次刊行并加注，最佳者出自霍尔斯特尼乌斯 (Holstenius)：《修道会规汇编》(Codex reg. Monast.)，第i卷，第111–135页；马尔泰纳修士 (Dom Marténe)：《圣本笃会规字义、道德及历史注释》(Commentarius in regulam S. Benedicti literalis, moralis, historicus)，巴黎 (Par.)，1690年，四开本；卡尔梅修士 (Dom Calmet) 编注本，巴黎，1734年，2卷；以及夏尔·布兰德斯修士 (Dom Charles Brandes，艾因西德伦的本笃会修士) 编注本，3卷，艾因西德伦 (Einsiedeln) 及纽约，1857年。吉泽勒 (Gieseler) 在其《教会史》(Ch. H.)，第i卷第2分册，§ 119中，列出最重要的条款。另参蒙塔朗贝尔，前引书，第ii卷，第39页及后。

圣本笃赖以成名的会规，在修道制度史上开创了一个新纪元。它在短时间内取代了同时代及以往所有同类会规，成为修道大军中最卓著一支的不朽法典，也成为整个罗马天主教修道院生活的基础。¹²⁰它由一篇序言或引言，以及七十三章道德、群体生活、礼仪和惩戒条例组成。它表现出对人性的真切认识、罗马人的实践智慧，以及对西方习俗的适应；它将简明与完备、严格与温和、谦卑与勇气结合起来，赋予整个修道院生活一种固定的统一性和严密的组织；这种组织如同主教制一样，具有无限的适应性和扩展能力。它使每一所修道院都成为 ecclesiola in ecclesia（教会中的小教会），反映出主教与所牧养群体的关系，即以弟兄平等的民主基础来承载君主式的权威原则，不过，它所要求的完全程度，高于广大的世俗教会所能实现的程度。对于中世纪粗野而缺乏纪律的世界，本笃会规提供了一套有益的训练，并不断激励人们追求顺服、自制、秩序和勤勉；而这些品质，正是社会生活得以更新和健全成长所不可或缺的。¹²¹

从序言（prologus）中以下这些虔敬的劝勉，便可看出这部会规的精神。他说：“我的弟兄们，我们既已求问主，谁能住在他的帐幕里，也已听见了为这样的人所定的诫命。我们若履行这些条件，就必承受天国。因此，让我们预备自己的身心，以圣洁的顺服，遵行这些诫命而争战；倘若人的本性不能时时顺服，就让我们求主俯允赐下恩典的扶助。我们若要逃避地狱的痛苦，获得永生，就当趁着还有时间，趁着我们仍在这必死的身体之中，趁着今生的光明仍为此目的赐给我们，奔跑努力，以收获永恒的赏赐。因此，我们必须设立一所事奉上帝的学校；我们相信，其中不会定下任何过于沉重或严苛的规条。然而，倘若我们按照公义和正理，为纠正恶习或保全爱心而稍施严厉，切莫因恐惧的冲动而逃离救恩之路，因为这条路的起头不能不是艰难的。人若在顺服与信心中行走了一段时日，他的心就必开阔，并带着爱所生的、无法言喻的甘甜，在上帝诫命的道路上奔跑。愿他使我们永不偏离主的训诲，在修道院中持守他的教导，直到死时，借着忍耐有分于基督的苦难，也配一同有分于他的国。”¹²²这部会规的主要条例如下：

每个修道团体都由一位院长主持；院长由修士选举产生，并经他们同意，委任一位副院长（praepositus）；若弟兄人数需要，还可为各分组（decaniae）委任组长，作为助手。他代替基督，凭权柄和榜样治理修道院；他与修道院的关系，正如主教与教区的关系。遇到较重大的事，他召集全体弟兄商议；日常事务则只征询年长成员的意见。正式进入修道院之前，必须经过一年的初修试验期（后来改为三年），以免有人过早或轻率地迈出这庄严的一步。初修者若对自己的决定有所反悔，可以自由离开修道院；若仍坚持原志，则在试验期结束时，在院长和众修士面前接受考核，随后呼求那些圣物存放在院中的圣徒作证，将亲笔书写、或至少亲笔签署的不可撤回的誓愿书，放在小礼拜堂的祭坛上，从此永远断绝自己重返尘世的一切退路。

这项重要安排使修道院获得了稳定，也使整个修道制度增添了严肃性、坚实性和持久性。

誓愿有三项：stabilitas，即终身持守修道生活；conversio morum，即品行的转变，尤其指自愿贫穷与贞洁，这两者一向被视为各种形式的修道虔敬的真正本质；以及 obedientia coram Deo et sanctis ejus，即在上帝及其众圣徒面前，绝对顺服那代表上帝和基督的院长。这种顺服乃是修士首要的德行。¹²³

修道院生活由属灵操练与身体劳作的合理交替构成。这是本笃会规的一大优点；他在这里所依据的是一条正确的原则：懒惰是灵魂的死敌，也是魔鬼的作坊。¹²⁴每天七小时用于祈祷、唱诗篇和默想；¹²⁵两至三小时用于宗教阅读，尤其在主日；六至七小时用于室内或田间的体力劳动，或以教导那些由父母托付给修道院的儿童（oblati）来代替。¹²⁶

这便是后来著名的修道院学校以及重视学术研究的起点；后者虽全然不在未受教育的本笃及其直接继承者的视野之内，后来却成为本笃会最主要的光彩之一，并在许多修道院中取代了体力劳动。

在其他方面，生活方式应当简朴，不作过度严苛的要求，只限于必需之物。衣服是一件长袍，配黑色兜帽（“黑衣修士”〔Black Friars〕之名即由此而来）；衣料按气候和季节而定。每周两个禁食日，以及从九月中旬至复活节期间，每日一餐即足。每位修士每日可得面包和豆类一磅，并按意大利习惯，得半壶（hemina）葡萄酒；不过，会规劝他在无损健康的情况下戒酒。只有体弱和患病者才准许吃肉，¹²⁷他们应当受到特别照顾。用餐时诵读造就德行的文字，并规定保持安静。修士个人不得拥有私产，甚至那件简朴的衣服也不属于他自己；他的劳动所得一律归入公库。他应当避免与尘世的一切接触，因为这会危及灵魂；所以，每所修道院的安排，都应使其甚至能够自行从事供应所需的各种工艺和行业。¹²⁸会规尤其嘉许接待客旅及其他仁爱之举。

违反会规的处罚，首先是私下劝戒，其次是不许参加共同祈祷，再次是不许与弟兄交往，最后则逐出修道院；但即使被逐之后，仍可重新接纳，最多可达三次。

§ 45. 本笃会士与卡西奥多鲁斯

本笃并未预见到，这部原本仅为卡西诺山（Monte Cassino）修道院制定的会规，日后竟会具有如此重大的历史意义。他的志向很可能从未超出自己与同院修士灵魂的更新和得救；后世天主教历史学家所谈论的种种宏图远略，说他有意在政治和社会上更新欧洲，并保存和促进文学艺术，都在他的生平或会规中找不到任何根据。然而，他谦卑地撒下一粒种子，上帝的护理赐福其上，使之结出百倍的果实。借着这部会规，他在无意也不自知的情况下，成为一个修会的创立者；这个修会极其迅速地遍布整个欧洲，保持着显著的优势，成为其他一切修会的典范，并为天主教会提供了一大批传教士、作家、艺术家、主教、大主教、枢机和教皇，如大格列高利（Gregory the Great）和格列高利七世（Gregory VII.）；直到十三世纪，道明会和方济各会才使它部分退居次要地位。本笃去世后不到一个世纪，蛮族在意大利、高卢和西班牙所征服的土地，便重新为文明所征服；大不列颠、德意志和斯堪的纳维亚的广大地区，也被纳入基督教世界，或向传教工作敞开；在这一历史进程中，由本笃会规加以规范和组织的修道制度，作出了值得尊敬的贡献。

本笃本人在泰拉奇纳（Terracina）附近又建立了第二所修道院；他所钟爱的两位门徒普拉西杜斯（Placidus）和圣毛鲁斯（St. Maurus），¹²⁹则分别将这部“神圣会规”传入西西里和法国。教皇大格列高利本人也曾是本笃会修士，他提高了这部会规的声望，并借本笃会修士使盎格鲁—撒克逊人（Anglo-Saxons）归信罗马的基督教信仰。这部会规逐渐在新旧修道院中普遍获得接受，以致到了查理大帝（Charlemagne）时代，人们不禁要问，究竟还有没有不属于本笃会的修士。诚然，这个修会曾因财富增加和纪律衰弛而屡次堕落；但它对宗教、人文学术和欧洲整体文明的培育，从耕作土地直到最高尚的学问，为它在历史上赢得了可敬的地位和不朽的赞誉。凡熟悉本笃会所刊教父著作那些宏伟而可敬的巨册，以及其中学识精深的序言、传记、古文物考论和索引的人，想到本笃会时，绝不会不怀真诚的敬意和感激。

然而，正如我们已经说过的，扶植学术并不在创立者或其会规的原意之内。若撇开博学的修士哲罗姆不论，将学术与修道院生活结合起来，应当归功于卡西奥多鲁斯（Cassiodorus）。538年，他辞去了意大利哥特王国中高级文官职位的荣华与劳碌，¹³⁰退隐到自己在下意大利卡拉布里亚（Calabria）的维瓦里乌姆（Vivarium，Viviers）所建的一所修道院。¹³¹他在这里以修士和院长的身份度过了近三十年，收藏了大量书籍，鼓励修士抄写和研读圣经、教父著作，甚至古典名著，并为他们编写了几部文学和神学教科书，尤其是《圣学纲要》（De institutione divinarum literarum）。这是一部初级百科全书式的著作，成为此后许多世代修道院教育的准则。维瓦里乌姆一度几乎与卡西诺山齐名，而卡西奥多鲁斯也赢得了六世纪学术复兴者的荣衔。¹³²

本笃会士既已习惯有规律的工作，便很快效法这一榜样。于是，这种生活方式，虽然在其创始人安东尼（Anthony）那里曾鄙弃一切学问，却在其发展过程中，成为民族迁徙和十字军东征那些粗野动荡时代中文化的避难所，并保存古代的文学宝藏，供近代使用。

§ 46. 对修道制度的反对：约维尼安

I. 金口约翰（Chrysostomus）：Πρὸς τοὺς πολεμοῦντας τοῖς ἐπὶ τὸ μονάζειν ἐνάγουσιν^*（为修道制度辩护、反驳其反对者的著作，共三卷）。哲罗姆（Hieronymus）：《书信》（Ep.）61，致维吉兰提乌斯（Vigilantius）（瓦拉尔西〔Vallars.〕编本，第i卷，第345页及后）；《书信》109，致里帕里乌斯（Riparius）（第i卷，第719页及后）；《驳赫尔维迪乌斯》（Adv. Helvidium，公元383年）；《驳约维尼安》（Adv. Jovinianum，公元392年）；《驳维吉兰提乌斯》（Adv. Vigilantium，公元406年）。这三篇论著均见《哲罗姆全集》（Opera Hieron.），第ii卷，第206–402页。奥古斯丁（Augustinus）：《论异端》（De haeres.），第82章（论约维尼安），以及第84章（论赫尔维迪乌斯及其追随者）。埃皮法尼乌斯（Epiphanius）：《异端》（Haeres.）75（论埃里乌斯〔Aerius〕）。

Chr. W. F. 瓦尔希（Chr. W. F. Walch）：《异端史》（Ketzerhistorie，1766年），第iii部分，第585页（论赫尔维迪乌斯和反马利亚派〔Antidikomarianites〕）；第635页及后（论约维尼安）；以及第673页及后（论维吉兰提乌斯）。福格尔（Vogel）：《论被视为异端的正统者维吉兰提乌斯》（De Vigilantio haeretico orthodoxo），哥廷根（Gött.），1756年。G. B. 林德纳（G. B. Lindner）：《论较纯正教义的先驱约维尼安与维吉兰提乌斯》（De Joviniano et Vigilantio purioris doctrinae antesignanis），莱比锡（Lips.），1839年。W. S. 吉利（W. S. Gilly）：《维吉兰提乌斯及其时代》（Vigilantius and his Times），伦敦（Lond.），1844年。另参尼安德（Neander）：《圣金口约翰》（Der heil. Joh. Chrysostomus），第3版，1848年，第i卷，第53页及后；以及《教会史》（Kirchengesch），第iii卷，第508页及后（托里〔Torrey〕译本，第ii卷，第265页及后）。鲍尔（Baur）：《第四至第六世纪的基督教会》（Die christliche Kirche von 4–6ten Jahrh.），1859年，第311页及后。

修道制度虽然是当时一股强大的运动，整个教会若不参与其中，便对它表示赞赏，但它也并非没有遭到反对。这些反对来自极不相同的方面：有时来自异教的热心维护者，如尤利安（Julian）和利巴尼乌斯（Libanius），他们因修士狂热地反对庙宇和偶像崇拜而憎恨他们，并加以猛烈辱骂；有时来自基督徒政治家和皇帝，如瓦伦斯（Valens），他们反对修道制度，是因为它从国家的文职和军职中抽去了如此多的人力，并且在蛮族威胁当前之际，鼓励怠惰和消极的默观，而不是积极、英勇的德行；有时来自贪恋世俗享乐的人，因为禁欲生活中宗教上的认真与热忱，使他们感到不快，仿佛自己的生活受到了搅扰和责备；最后，也有一种反对，出于对基督教道德的开明理解，几乎具有新教的性质，同时反对敬拜马利亚和圣徒，以及其他弊端。然而，最后这一种反对大多只是零星出现，其性质与其说是积极建树，不如说是否定批判，又缺乏智慧与节制的精神，因此在第五世纪几乎完全消失；直到很久以后，修道制度完成了它对世界的使命，它才以更成熟、更全面的形式重新兴起。

属于这一类反对者的，有赫尔维迪乌斯（Helvidius）、约维尼安（Jovinian）、维吉兰提乌斯（Vigilantius）和埃里乌斯（Aerius）。我们对前三人的认识，来自哲罗姆（Jerome）充满激情的反驳；对最后一人的认识，则来自埃皮法尼乌斯（Epiphanius）的《药箱》（Panarion）。他们在天主教会史中被列为异端，而许多新教史家则把他们列在“真理的见证人”和宗教改革先驱之中。

我们先从其中最重要的约维尼安说起。有时人们将他与路德（Luther）相比，甚至尼安德（Neander）也如此，因为他与路德一样，由自身的经历而转向反对禁欲倾向及与之相关的教义。他在390年以前于罗马写过一部著作，从伦理原则上攻击修道制度，今已失传。当时他自己也是一名修士，而且可能终身以一种不受严格约束的方式保持着这一身份。无论如何，他始终没有结婚；据奥古斯丁（Augustine）记述，他是“因现今的艰难”¹³³，并因厌恶婚姻生活的牵累而不婚。哲罗姆逼他在两者之间作出选择：要么结婚，以证明独身与婚姻生活是平等的；要么不再反对他自己所处的身份。¹³⁴哲罗姆对他品格的描绘极为不利，显然带有强烈愤恨的色彩。他称约维尼安为败坏的奴仆、粗鄙的作家、基督徒中的伊壁鸠鲁派（Epicurean）；说他一度过着严格的禁欲生活，如今却爱地胜过爱天，爱恶胜过爱德，爱自己的肚腹胜过爱基督，而且总像衣着华丽的新郎一般昂首阔步。奥古斯丁则宽厚得多，只责备约维尼安把圣经中虔诚妇女的榜样摆在许多罗马修女面前，诱使她们结婚。正如吉泽勒（Gieseler）所推想的，约维尼安之所以起来质疑并反对修道制度，可能是受到哲罗姆过分赞扬修道生活的刺激，也受到反对修道制度的情绪所推动；布莱西拉（Blesilla）在罗马去世（384年），更加强了这种情绪。起初，他确实得到广泛的同情。但约在390年的一次会议上，热心反对教士结婚的罗马主教西里基乌斯（Siricius），将他及其追随者逐出教会并加以放逐。随后他前往米兰（Milan），那里的两名修士萨尔马提奥（Sarmatio）和巴尔巴提安（Barbatian）正宣讲与他相同的观点；但米兰主教安布罗斯（Ambrose）召开会议反对他，使他在那里受到了同样的处置。从此，他和他的党派便从历史上消失；他于406年以前死于流放之中。¹³⁵

据哲罗姆记述，约维尼安持有以下四点主张：（1）童贞者、寡妇和已婚者，一旦受洗归入基督，只要其他行为相同，其功德便同等。（2）凡以完全的信心借洗礼重生的人，都不能被魔鬼倾覆（subverti）。（3）禁戒食物与存感谢的心享用食物，两者并无分别。（4）凡持守洗礼之约的人，都将在天上得到同等的赏赐。

他主要坚持第一点；因此，哲罗姆把反驳之作的整个第一卷都用于讨论这一点，其余各点则在第二卷中一并处理。为证明婚姻生活与独身生活在道德上的平等，他援引《创世记》二章24节，指出上帝自己在堕落以前便设立了婚姻；援引《马太福音》十九章5节，指出基督认可婚姻；又援引洪水以前和以后的族长、摩西和众先知、撒迦利亚和以利沙伯，以及使徒们，尤其是过婚姻生活的彼得；还援引保罗，指出他亲自劝人结婚，¹³⁶要求监督或执事作一个妇人的丈夫，¹³⁷并劝年轻寡妇嫁人、生养儿女。¹³⁸他宣称，禁止婚姻和禁戒上帝所赐食物，是摩尼教（Manichaean）的错误。哲罗姆为了回答这些论据，竟肆意作出全无根据的推论，并以轻蔑的语气谈论婚姻，甚至使自己的朋友也感到不满。¹³⁹奥古斯丁因此特意撰写《论婚姻之善》（De bono conjugali），陈述婚姻生活的益处，尽管他并未放弃从禁欲立场对独身所作的评价。¹⁴⁰

约维尼安的第二点，与奥古斯丁派和加尔文派关于圣徒坚忍（perseverantia sanctorum）的教义有明显的相近之处。然而，他并未将此归于上帝永恒不变的旨意，只是以《约翰一书》三章9节和五章18节为根据，并将其与他对两种相反道德状态的抽象理解联系起来。他把不可能再度堕落的范围限定于真正重生的人，也就是那些“plena fide in baptismate renati sunt”（以完全的信心在洗礼中重生）的人；他区分单纯的水洗与圣灵的洗，这也包含了现实教会与理想教会之间的区别。

他的第三点，依据《罗马书》十四章20节和《提摩太前书》四章3节，旨在反对禁欲主义对禁食的推崇。他认为，上帝创造一切动物，是为供人使用；基督曾作客迦拿的婚筵，与撒该、税吏和罪人同席，并被法利赛人称为贪食好酒的人；使徒也说：在洁净的人，凡物都洁净；若感谢着领受，就没有一样可弃的。

然而，他更进一步，与斯多亚派（Stoics）一样，否认道德上的功过有任何等级之分，因而也否认赏罚有任何等级之分。他忽略了善与恶各自的发展过程。他越过一切外在关系，追溯内在的心志，并在真基督徒与属世之人、重生者与未重生者之间的巨大对立中，抹去了所有次一级的程度差别；而修道制度的拥护者则教导有较高和较低两种道德，把禁欲者视为特殊阶层，与普通基督徒大众区别开来。他说，正如基督住在信徒里面，没有程度上的分别，信徒在基督里面也没有程度或发展阶段的分别。人只有两类：义人和恶人，绵羊和山羊，五个聪明的童女和五个愚拙的童女，结好果子的好树和结坏果子的坏树。他还援引葡萄园工人的比喻，指出他们都领受了同样的工钱。哲罗姆则以撒种者和不同土壤的比喻、不同数目的银子及相应赏赐的比喻、父家里的许多住处（约维尼安对此有一种奇特的解释，认为是指地上不同的教会）、复活的身体与荣光各异的星辰的比较，以及这段经文来回答他：“少种的少收，多种的多收。”¹⁴¹

§ 47. 赫尔维迪乌斯、维吉兰提乌斯与埃里乌斯

尤其参见前一节所引哲罗姆的各篇论著。

赫尔维迪乌斯在罗马究竟是平信徒还是教士，并不确定；据根纳迪乌斯（Gennadius）记述，他是米兰的阿里乌斯派（Arian）主教奥克森提乌斯（Auxentius）的门徒。他在383年以前写过一部著作，反驳主的母亲终身童贞的说法——这是当时颂扬独身的一项主要论点。他认为婚姻状态与童贞状态同样尊贵、荣耀。对于他的生平遭际，我们一无所知。奥古斯丁提到赫尔维迪乌斯派（Helvidians），他们可能就是埃皮法尼乌斯所说的反马利亚派（Antidicomarianites）。哲罗姆固然称赫尔维迪乌斯是个粗俗无学的人，¹⁴²但他所引述的那些论据却证明，赫尔维迪乌斯至少对圣经有所认识，也颇有几分机敏。他首先援引《马太福音》一章18、24、25节，认为这些经文意味着约瑟在主降生以前没有与妻子同房，此后却有；其次援引《马太福音》一章25节和《路加福音》二章7节，指出耶稣被称为马利亚的“头生”儿子；再援引许多提到耶稣弟兄姊妹的经文；最后又援引德尔图良（Tertullian）和维克托里努斯（Victorinus）的权威。哲罗姆回答说，“直到”一词绝不总是划定某一时点，表示过了这一时点某种行为就必定开始或停止；¹⁴³根据《出埃及记》三十四章19、20节和《民数记》十八章15节及下文，“头生”并不必然意味着此后还有其他孩子出生，而是指一切首先开母腹的；耶稣的“弟兄”可能是约瑟前次婚姻所生的儿子，也可能按希伯来语对此词的宽泛用法，指堂表兄弟；而所引的权威，则远不及伊格纳提乌斯（Ignatius）、坡旅甲（Polycarp）（？）和爱任纽（Irenaeus）的见证。他说：“赫尔维迪乌斯若读过这些人的著作，无疑会提出更高明的论说。”

众所周知，这整个问题至今仍是释经学上的一个难题。马利亚的终身童贞（perpetua virginitas），从圣经所得的支持，比相反的理论更少。然而，这一点对于整个禁欲体系如此重要，以致从此成为大公信仰的一项条款，否认它就被斥为亵渎的异端而遭咒诅。不过，相当多的新教神学家¹⁴⁴在这一点上赞同天主教的教义，认为马利亚在生下上帝的儿子、世界的救主之后，若再生育普通人的儿女，便与她的尊严不相称。

维吉兰提乌斯（Vigilantius）原籍高卢（Gaul），¹⁴⁵是西班牙巴塞罗那（Barcelona）的一位长老，为人虔诚，热心而激烈，并有文学才华。他在第五世纪初著书，反对当时的禁欲精神及与之相连的迷信。哲罗姆于406年在伯利恒匆匆口授、一夜写成的答辩，人身攻击与粗俗的俏皮话多于扎实的论证。他说：“地上曾有过种种怪物：半人马、海妖、利维坦、比希莫斯……惟独高卢不曾生出怪物，向来盛产英勇高贵之士；谁知忽然冒出了一个维吉兰提乌斯，其实更该叫作多尔米坦提乌斯（Dormitantius），¹⁴⁶以污秽的灵抗拒基督的灵，禁止人尊崇殉道者的坟墓；他拒绝守夜礼——只许人在复活节唱哈利路亚；他宣称节制是异端，贞洁是淫欲的温床（pudicitiam, libidinis seminarium）……这个卡拉古里斯（Calagurris）的客栈老板¹⁴⁷把水掺进酒里，想照古老的手法，将他的毒药混入纯正的信仰。他反对童贞，憎恶贞洁，抨击圣徒的禁食，只想在欢宴之中以大卫的诗篇自娱。令人不忍听闻的是，竟连主教也与他一同放纵——倘若那些只按立已婚者为执事、不相信独身者能守贞洁的人，还配得上这个称号的话。”¹⁴⁸维吉兰提乌斯认为，人若明智地使用自己的钱财，逐步用于本地的慈善事业，胜过一次全数散给穷人，或送给耶路撒冷的修士。不过，他比前述两位反对者走得更远，主要致力于反对当时日益盛行、又得到修道主义助长的圣徒与遗物崇拜。他认为这是迷信和偶像崇拜。他把那些崇拜死者“可怜的骨头”的基督徒称为拾灰者和拜偶像者。¹⁴⁹他对殉道者的神迹表示怀疑，反对向他们祈求及为死者代祷的做法，认为这些毫无用处；他还反对守夜礼，即夜间的公共礼拜，认为这会导致混乱与淫乱。对于最后这一点，哲罗姆承认是事实，却不承认它能构成论据，因为不应因滥用而废除正当的使用。

约在360年，塞巴斯特（Sebaste）的长老埃里乌斯（Aerius）也属于那些部分反对修道主义的人。他自己虽是禁欲者，却反对禁食法规以及在指定时节禁食的命令，认为这些侵犯了基督徒的自由。埃皮法尼乌斯（Epiphanius）还将另外三种异端观点归于他：否认主教高于长老，反对通常的复活节庆典，以及反对为死者祷告。¹⁵⁰他受到教阶当局的猛烈逼迫，不得不与追随者一同住在旷野和洞穴里。

Original Text

CHAPTER IV. THE RISE AND PROGRESS OF MONASTICISM.

Sources.

Greek: Socrates: Hist. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. 23 sqq. Sozomen: H. E. l. i. c. 12–14; iii. 14; vi. 28–34. Palladius (first a monk and disciple of the younger Macarius, then bishop of Helenopolis in Bithynia, ordained by Chrysostom; †431): Historia Lausiaca (JIstoriva pro;" Lau'son, a court officer under Theodosius II, to whom the work was dedicated), composed about 421, with enthusiastic admiration, from personal acquaintance, of the most celebrated contemporaneous ascetics of Egypt. Theodoret (†457): Historia religiosa, seu ascetica vivendi ratio (filovqeo" iJstopiva), biographies of thirty Oriental anchorets and monks, for the most part from personal observation. Nilus the Elder (an anchoret on Mt. Sinai, † about 450): De vita ascetica, De exercitatione monastica, Epistolae 355, and other writings.
Latin: Rufinus (†410): Histor. Eremitica, S. Vitae Patrum. Sulpicius Severus (about 400): Dialogi III. (the first dialogue contains a lively and entertaining account of the Egyptian monks, whom he visited; the two others relate to Martin of Tours). Cassianus (†432): Institutiones coenobiales, and Collationes Patrum (spiritual conversations of eastern monks).

Also the ascetic writings of Athanasius (Vita Antonii), Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Nilus, Isidore of Pelusium, among the Greek; Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome (his Lives of anchorets, and his letters), Cassiodorus, and Gregory the Great, among the Latin fathers.

Later Literature.

L. Holstenius (born at Hamburg 1596, a Protest., then a Romanist convert, and librarian of the Vatican): Codex regularum monastic., first Rom. 1661; then, enlarged, Par. and Augsb. in 6 vols. fol. The older Greek Menologia (mhnolovgia), and Menaea (mhnai'a), and the Latin Calendaria and Martyrologia, i.e. church calendars or indices of memorial days (days of the earthly death and heavenly birth) of the saints, with short biographical notices for liturgical use. P. Herbert Rosweyde (Jesuit): Vitae Patrum, sive Historiae Eremiticae, libri x. Antw. 1628. Acta Sanctorum, quotquot toto orbe coluntur, Antw. 1643–1786, 53 vols. fol. (begun by the Jesuit Bollandus, continued by several scholars of his order, called Bollandists, down to the 11th Oct. in the calendar of saints’ days, and resumed in 1845, after long interruption, by Theiner and others). D’achery and Mabillon (Benedictines): Acta Sanctorum ordinis S. Benedicti, Par. 1668–1701, 9 vols. fol. (to 1100). Pet. Helyot (Franciscan): Histoire des ordres monastiques religieux et militaires, Par. 1714–’19, 8 vols. 4to. Alban Butler (R.C.): The Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, and other principal Saints (arranged according to the Catholic calendar, and completed to the 31st Dec.), first 1745; often since (best ed. Lond. 1812–’13) in 12 vols.; another, Baltimore, 1844, in 4 vols). Gibbon: Chap. xxxvii. (Origin, Progress, and Effects of Monastic Life; very unfavorable, and written in lofty philosophical contempt). Henrion (R.C.): Histoire des ordres religieux, Par. 1835 (deutsch bearbeitet von S. Fehr, Tüb. 1845, 2 vols.). F. v. Biedenfeld: Ursprung u. s. w. saemmtlicher Mönchsorden im Orient u. Occident, Weimar, 1837, 3 vols. Schmidt (R.C.): Die Mönchs-, Nonnen-, u. geistlichen Ritterorden nebst Ordensregeln u. Abbildungen., Augsb. 1838, sqq. H. H. Milman (Anglican): History of Ancient Christianity, 1844, book iii. ch. 11. H. Ruffner (Presbyterian): The Fathers of the Desert, New York, 1850, 2 vols. (full of curious information, in popular form). Count de Montalembert (R.C.): Les Moines d’Occident depuis St. Bénoit jusqu’à St. Bernard, Par. 1860, sqq. (to embrace 6 vols.); transl. into English: The Monks of the West, etc., Edinb. and Lond. 1861, in 2 vols. (vol. i. gives the history of monasticism before St. Benedict, vol. ii. is mainly devoted to St. Benedict; eloquently eulogistic of, and apologetic for, monasticism). Otto Zöckler: Kritische Geschichte der Askese. Frankf. a. M. 1863. Comp. also the relevant sections of Tillemont, Fleury, Schröckh (vols. v. and viii.), Neander, and Gieseler.

§ 28. Origin of Christian Monasticism. Comparison with other forms of Asceticism.

Hospinian: De origine et progressu monachatus, l. vi., Tig. 1588, and enlarged, Genev. 1669, fol. J. A. Möhler (R.C.): Geschichte des Mönchthums in der Zeit seiner Entstehung u. ersten Ausbildung, 1836 (in his collected works, Regensb. vol. ii. p. 165 sqq.). Isaac Taylor (Independent): Ancient Christianity, Lond. 1844, vol. i. p. 299 sqq. A. Vogel: Ueber das Mönchthum, Berl. 1858 (in the "Deutsche Zeitschrift für christl. Wissenschaft," etc.). P. Schaff: Ueber den Ursprung und Charakter des Mönchthums (in Dorner’s, etc. "Jahrbücher für deutsche Theol.," 1861, p. 555 ff.). J. Cropp: Origenes et causae monachatus. Gott. 1863.

In the beginning of the fourth century monasticism appears in the history of the church, and thenceforth occupies a distinguished place. Beginning in Egypt, it spread in an irresistible tide over the East and the West, continued to be the chief repository of the Christian life down to the times of the Reformation, and still remains in the Greek and Roman churches an indispensable institution and the most productive seminary of saints, priests, and missionaries.

With the ascetic tendency in general, monasticism in particular is found by no means only in the Christian church, but in other religions, both before and after Christ, especially in the East. It proceeds from religious seriousness, enthusiasm, and ambition; from a sense of the vanity of the world, and an inclination of noble souls toward solitude, contemplation, and freedom from the bonds of the flesh and the temptations of the world; but it gives this tendency an undue predominance over the social, practical, and world-reforming spirit of religion. Among the Hindoos the ascetic system may be traced back almost to the time of Moses, certainly beyond Alexander the Great, who found it there in full force, and substantially with the same characteristics which it presents at the present day.(1) Let us consider it a few moments.

The Vedas, portions of which date from the fifteenth century before Christ, the Laws of Menu, which were completed before the rise of Buddhism, that is, six or seven centuries before our era, and the numerous other sacred books of the Indian religion, enjoin by example and precept entire abstraction of thought, seclusion from the world, and a variety of penitential and meritorious acts of self-mortification, by which the devotee assumes a proud superiority over the vulgar herd of mortals, and is absorbed at last into the divine fountain of all being. The ascetic system is essential alike to Brahmanism and Buddhism, the two opposite and yet cognate branches of the Indian religion, which in many respects are similarly related to each other as Judaism is to Christianity, or also as Romanism to Protestantism. Buddhism is a later reformation of Brahmanism; it dates probably from the sixth century before Christ (according to other accounts much earlier), and, although subsequently expelled by the Brahmins from Hindostan, it embraces more followers than any other heathen religion, since it rules in Farther India, nearly all the Indian islands, Japan, Thibet, a great part of China and Central Asia to the borders of Siberia. But the two religions start from opposite principles. Brahmanic asceticism(2) proceeds from a pantheistic view of the world, the Buddhistic from an atheistic and nihilistic, yet very earnest view; the one if; controlled by the idea of the absolute but abstract unity and a feeling of contempt of the world, the other by the idea of the absolute but unreal variety and a feeling of deep grief over the emptiness and nothingness of all existence; the one is predominantly objective, positive, and idealistic, the other more subjective, negative, and realistic; the one aims at an absorption into the universal spirit of Brahm, the other consistently at an absorption into nonentity, if it be true that Buddhism starts from an atheistic rather than a pantheistic or dualistic basis. "Brahmanism"—says a modern writer on the subject(3)—"looks back to the beginning, Buddhism to the end; the former loves cosmogony, the latter eschatology. Both reject the existing world; the Brahman despises it, because he contrasts it with the higher being of Brahma, the Buddhist bewails it because of its unrealness; the former sees God in all, the other emptiness in all." Yet as all extremes meet, the abstract all-entity of Brahmanism and the equally abstract non-entity or vacuity of Buddhism come to the same thing in the end, and may lead to the same ascetic practices. The asceticism of Brahmanism takes more the direction of anchoretism, while that of Buddhism exists generally in the social form of regular convent life.

The Hindoo monks or gymnosophists (naked philosophers), as the Greeks called them, live in woods, caves, on mountains, or rocks, in poverty, celibacy, abstinence, silence: sleeping on straw or the bare ground, crawling on the belly, standing all day on tiptoe, exposed to the pouring rain or scorching sun with four fires kindled around them, presenting a savage and frightful appearance, yet greatly revered by the multitude, especially the women, and performing miracles, not unfrequently completing their austerities by suicide on the stake or in the waves of the Ganges. Thus they are described by the ancients and by modern travellers. The Buddhist monks are less fanatical and extravagant than the Hindoo Yogis and Fakirs. They depend mainly on fasting, prayer, psalmody, intense contemplation, and the use of the whip, to keep their rebellious flesh in subjection. They have a fully developed system of monasticism in connection with their priesthood, and a large number of convents; also nunneries for female devotees. The Buddhist monasticism, especially in Thibet, with its vows of celibacy, poverty, and obedience, its common meals, readings, and various pious exercises, bears such a remarkable resemblance to that of the Roman Catholic church that Roman missionaries thought it could be only explained as a diabolical imitation.(4) But the original always precedes the caricature, and the ascetic system was completed in India long before the introduction of Christianity, even if we should trace this back to St. Bartholomew and St. Thomas.

The Hellenic heathenism was less serious and contemplative, indeed, than the Oriental; yet the Pythagoreans were a kind of monastic society, and the Platonic view of matter and of body not only lies at the bottom of the Gnostic and Manichaean asceticism, but had much to do also with the ethics of Origen and the Alexandrian School.

Judaism, apart from the ancient Nazarites,(5) had its Essenes in Palestine(6) and its Therapeutae in Egypt;(7) though these betray the intrusion of foreign elements into the Mosaic religion, and so find no mention in the New Testament.

Lastly, Mohammedanism, though in mere imitation of Christian and pagan examples, has, as is well known, its dervises and its cloisters.(8)

Now were these earlier phenomena the source, or only analogies, of the Christian monasticism? That a multitude of foreign usages and rites made their way into the church in the age of Constantine, is undeniable. Hence many have held, that monasticism also came from heathenism, and was an apostasy from apostolic Christianity, which Paul had plainly foretold in the Pastoral Epistles.(9) But such a view can hardly be reconciled with the great place of this phenomenon in history; and would, furthermore, involve the entire ancient church, with its greatest and best representatives both east and west, its Athanasius, its Chrysostom, its Jerome, its Augustine, in the predicted apostasy from the faith. And no one will now hold, that these men, who all admired and commended the monastic life, were antichristian errorists, and that the few and almost exclusively negative opponents of that asceticism, as Jovinian, Helvidius, and Vigilantius, were the sole representatives of pure Christianity in the Nicene and next following age.

In this whole matter we must carefully distinguish two forms of asceticism, antagonistic and irreconcilable in spirit and principle, though similar in form: the Gnostic dualistic, and the Catholic. The former of these did certainly come from heathenism; but the latter sprang independently from the Christian spirit of self-denial and longing for moral perfection, and, in spite of all its excrescences, has fulfilled an important mission in the history of the church.

The pagan monachism, the pseudo-Jewish, the heretical Christian, above all the Gnostic and Manichaean, is based on in irreconcilable metaphysical dualism between mind and matter; the Catholic Christian Monachism arises from the moral conflict between the spirit and the flesh. The former is prompted throughout by spiritual pride and selfishness; the latter, by humility and love to God and man. The false asceticism aims at annihilation of the body and pantheistic absorption of the human being in the divine; the Christian strives after the glorification of the body and personal fellowship with the living God in Christ. And the effects of the two are equally different. Though it is also unquestionable, that, notwithstanding this difference of principle, and despite the condemnation of Gnosticism and Manichaeism, the heathen dualism exerted a powerful influence on the Catholic asceticism and its view of the world, particularly upon anchoretism and monasticism in the East, and has been fully overcome only in evangelical Protestantism. The precise degree of this influence, and the exact proportion of Christian and heathen ingredients in the early monachism of the church, were an interesting subject of special investigation.

The germs of the Christian monasticism may be traced as far back as the middle of the second century, and in fact faintly even in the anxious ascetic practices of some of the Jewish Christians in the apostolic age. This asceticism, particularly fasting and celibacy, was commended more or less distinctly by the most eminent ante-Nicene fathers, and was practised, at least partially, by a particular class of Christians (by Origen even to the unnatural extreme of self-emasculation).(10) So early as the Decian persecution, about the year 250, we meet also the first instances of the flight of ascetics or Christian philosophers into the wilderness; though rather in exceptional cases, and by way of escape from personal danger. So long as the church herself was a child of the desert, and stood in abrupt opposition to the persecuting world, the ascetics of both sexes usually lived near the congregations or in the midst of them, often even in the families, seeking there to realize the ideal of Christian perfection. But when, under Constantine, the mass of the population of the empire became nominally Christian, they felt, that in this world-church, especially in such cities as Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople, they were not at home, and voluntarily retired into waste and desolate places and mountain clefts, there to work out the salvation of their souls undisturbed.

Thus far monachism is a reaction against the secularizing state-church system and the decay of discipline, and an earnest, well-meant, though mistaken effort to save the virginal purity of the Christian church by transplanting it in the wilderness. The moral corruption of the Roman empire, which had the appearance of Christianity, but was essentially heathen in the whole framework of society, the oppressiveness of taxes(11) the extremes of despotism and slavery, of extravagant luxury and hopeless poverty, the repletion of all classes, the decay of all productive energy in science and art, and the threatening incursions of barbarians on the frontiers—all favored the inclination toward solitude in just the most earnest minds.

At the same time, however, monasticism afforded also a compensation for martyrdom, which ceased with the Christianization of the state, and thus gave place to a voluntary martyrdom, a gradual self-destruction, a sort of religious suicide. In the burning deserts and awful caverns of Egypt and Syria, amidst the pains of self-torture, the mortification of natural desires, and relentless battles with hellish monsters, the ascetics now sought to win the crown of heavenly glory, which their predecessors in the times of persecution had more quickly and easily gained by a bloody death.

The native land of the monastic life was Egypt, the land where Oriental and Grecian literature, philosophy, and religion, Christian orthodoxy and Gnostic heresy, met both in friendship and in hostility. Monasticism was favored and promoted here by climate and geographic features, by the oasis-like seclusion of the country, by the bold contrast of barren deserts with the fertile valley of the Nile, by the superstition, the contemplative turn, and the passive endurance of the national character, by the example of the Therapeutae, and by the moral principles of the Alexandrian fathers; especially by Origen’s theory of a higher and lower morality and of the merit of voluntary poverty and celibacy. Aelian says of the Egyptians, that they bear the most exquisite torture without a murmur, and would rather be tormented to death than compromise truth. Such natures, once seized with religious enthusiasm, were eminently qualified for saints of the desert.

§ 29. Development of Monasticism.

In the historical development of the monastic institution we must distinguish four stages. The first three were completed in the fourth century; the remaining one reached maturity in the Latin church of the middle age.

The first stage is an ascetic life as yet not organized nor separated from the church. It comes down from the ante-Nicene age, and has been already noticed. It now took the form, for the most part, of either hermit or coenobite life, but continued in the church itself, especially among the clergy, who might be called half monks.

The second stage is hermit life or anchoretism.(12) It arose in the beginning of the fourth century, gave asceticism a fixed and permanent shape, and pushed it to even external separation from the world. It took the prophets Elijah and John the Baptist for its models, and went beyond them. Not content with partial and temporary retirement from common life, which may be united with social intercourse and useful labors, the consistent anchoret secludes himself from all society, even from kindred ascetics, and comes only exceptionally into contact with human affairs, either to receive the visits of admirers of every class, especially of the sick and the needy (which were very frequent in the case of the more celebrated monks), or to appear in the cities on some extraordinary occasion, as a spirit from another world. His clothing is a hair shirt and a wild beast’s skin; his food, bread and salt; his dwelling, a cave; his employment, prayer, affliction of the body, and conflict with satanic powers and wild images of fancy. This mode of life was founded by Paul of Thebes and St. Anthony, and came to perfection in the East. It was too eccentric and unpractical for the West, and hence less frequent there, especially in the rougher climates. To the female sex it was entirely unsuited. There was a class of hermits, the Sarabaites in Egypt, and the Rhemoboths in Syria, who lived in bands of at least two or three together; but their quarrelsomeness, occasional intemperance, and opposition to the clergy, brought them into ill repute.

The third step in the progress of the monastic life brings us to coenobitism or cloister life, monasticism in the ordinary sense of the word.(13) It originated likewise in Egypt, from the example of the Essenes and Therapeutae, and was carried by St. Pachomius to the East, and afterward by St. Benedict to the West. Both these ascetics, like the most celebrated order-founders of later days, were originally hermits. Cloister life is a regular organization of the ascetic life on a social basis. It recognizes, at least in a measure, the social element of human nature, and represents it in a narrower sphere secluded from the larger world. As hermit life often led to cloister life, so the cloister life was not only a refuge for the spirit weary of the world, but also in many ways a school for practical life in the church. It formed the transition from isolated to social Christianity. It consists in an association of a number of anchorets of the same sex for mutual advancement in ascetic holiness. The coenobites live, somewhat according to the laws of civilization, under one roof, and under a superintendent or abbot.(14) They divide their time between common devotions and manual labor, and devote their surplus provisions to charity; except the mendicant monks, who themselves live by alms. In this modified form monasticism became available to the female sex, to which the solitary desert life was utterly impracticable; and with the cloisters of monks, there appear at once cloisters also of nuns.(15) Between the anchorets and the coenobites no little jealousy reigned; the former charging the latter with ease and conformity to the world; the latter accusing the former of selfishness and misanthropy. The most eminent church teachers generally prefer the cloister life. But the hermits, though their numbers diminished, never became extinct. Many a monk was a hermit first, and then a coenobite; and many a coenobite turned to a hermit.

The same social impulse, finally, which produced monastic congregations, led afterward to monastic orders, unions of a number of cloisters under one rule and a common government. In this fourth and last stage monasticism has done most for the diffusion of Christianity and the advancement of learning,(16) has fulfilled its practical mission in the Roman Catholic church, and still wields a mighty influence there. At the same time it became in some sense the cradle of the German reformation. Luther belonged to the order of St. Augustine, and the monastic discipline of Erfurt was to him a preparation for evangelical freedom, as the Mosaic law was to Paul a schoolmaster to lead to Christ. And for this very reason Protestantism is the end of the monastic life.

§ 30. Nature and Aim of Monasticism.

Monasticism was from the first distinguished as the contemplative life from the practical.(17) It passed with the ancient church for the true, the divine, or Christian philosophy,(18) an unworldly purely apostolic, angelic life.(19) It rests upon an earnest view of life; upon the instinctive struggle after perfect dominion of the spirit over the flesh, reason over sense, the supernatural over the natural, after the highest grade of holiness and an undisturbed communion of the soul with God; but also upon a morbid depreciation of the body, the family, the state, and the divinely established social order of the world. It recognizes the world, indeed, as a creature of God, and the family and property as divine institutions, in opposition to the Gnostic Manichaean asceticism, which ascribes matter as such to an evil principle. But it makes a distinction between two grades of morality: a common and lower grade, democratic, so to speak, which moves in the natural ordinances of God; and a higher, extraordinary, aristocratic grade, which lies beyond them and is attended with special merit. It places the great problem of Christianity not in the transformation, but in the abandonment, of the world. It is an extreme unworldliness, over against the worldliness of the mass of the visible church in union with the state. It demands entire renunciation, not only of sin, but also of property and of marriage, which are lawful in themselves, ordained by God himself, and indispensable to the continuance and welfare of the human race. The poverty of the individual, however, does not exclude the possession of common property; and it is well known, that some monastic orders, especially the Benedictines, have in course of time grown very rich. The coenobite institution requires also absolute obedience to the will of the superior, as the visible representative of Christ. As obedience to orders and sacrifice of self is the first duty of the soldier, and the condition of military success and renown, so also in this spiritual army in its war against the flesh, the world, and the devil, monks are not allowed to have a will of their own. To them may be applied the lines of Tennyson:(20)

"Theirs not to reason why,

Theirs not to make reply,

Theirs but to do and die."

Voluntary poverty, voluntary celibacy, and absolute obedience form the three monastic vows, as they are called, and are supposed to constitute a higher virtue and to secure a higher reward in heaven.

But this threefold self-denial is only the negative side of the matter, and a means to an end. It places man beyond the reach of the temptations connected with earthly possessions, married life, and independent will, and facilitates his progress toward heaven. The positive aspect of monasticism is unreserved surrender of the whole man, with all his time and strength, to God; though, as we have said, not within, but without the sphere of society and the order of nature. This devoted life is employed in continual prayer, meditation, fasting, and castigation of the body. Some votaries went so far as to reject all bodily employment, for its interference with devotion. But in general a moderate union of spiritual exercises with scientific studies or with such manual labor as agriculture, basket making, weaving, for their own living and the support of the poor, was held not only lawful but wholesome for monks. It was a proverb, that a laborious monk was beset by only one devil; an idle one, by a legion.

With all the austerities and rigors of asceticism, the monastic life had its spiritual joys and irresistible charms for noble, contemplative, and heaven-aspiring souls, who fled from the turmoil and vain show of the city as a prison, and turned the solitude into a paradise of freedom and sweet communion with God and his saints; while to others the same solitude became a fruitful nursery of idleness, despondency, and the most perilous temptations and ultimate ruin.(21)

§ 31. Monasticism and the Bible.

Monasticism, therefore, claims to be the highest and purest form of Christian piety and virtue, and the surest way to heaven. Then, we should think, it must be preëminently commended in the Bible, and actually exhibited in the life of Christ and the apostles. But just in this biblical support it falls short.

The advocates of it uniformly refer first to the examples of Elijah, Elisha, and John the Baptist;(22) but these stand upon the legal level of the Old Testament, and are to be looked upon as extraordinary personages of an extraordinary age; and though they may be regarded as types of a partial anchoretism (not of cloister life), still they are nowhere commended to our imitation in this particular, but rather in their influence upon the world.

The next appeal is to a few isolated passages of the New Testament, which do not, indeed, in their literal sense require the renunciation of property and marriage, yet seem to recommend it as a special, exceptional form of piety for those Christians who strive after higher perfection.(23)

Finally, as respects the spirit of the monastic life, reference is sometimes made even to the poverty of Christ and his apostles, to the silent, contemplative Mary, in contrast with the busy, practical Martha, and to the voluntary community of goods in the first Christian church in Jerusalem.

But this monastic interpretation of primitive Christianity mistakes a few incidental points of outward resemblance for essential identity, measures the spirit of Christianity by some isolated passages, instead of explaining the latter from the former, and is upon the whole a miserable emaciation and caricature. The gospel makes upon all men virtually the same moral demand, and knows no distinction of a religion for the masses and another for the few.

Jesus, the model for all believers, was neither a coenobite, nor an anchoret, nor an ascetic of any kind, but the perfect pattern man for universal imitation. There is not a trace of monkish austerity and ascetic rigor in his life or precepts, but in all his acts and words a wonderful harmony of freedom and purity, of the most comprehensive charity and spotless holiness. He retired to the mountains and into solitude, but only temporarily, and for the purpose of renewing his strength for active work. Amidst the society of his disciples, of both sexes, with kindred and friends, in Cana and Bethany, at the table of publicans and sinners, and in intercourse with all classes of the people, he kept himself unspotted from the world, and transfigured the world into the kingdom of God. His poverty and celibacy have nothing to do with asceticism, but represent, the one the condescension of his redeeming love, the other his ideal uniqueness and his absolutely peculiar relation to the whole church, which alone is fit or worthy to be his bride. No single daughter of Eve could have been an equal partner of the Saviour of mankind, or the representative head of the new creation.

The example of the sister of Lazarus proves only, that the contemplative life may dwell in the same house with the practical, and with the other sex, but justifies no separation from the social ties.

The life of the apostles and primitive Christians in general was anything but a hermit life; else had not the gospel spread so quickly to all the cities of the Roman world. Peter was married, and travelled with his wife as a missionary. Paul assumes one marriage of the clergy as the rule, and notwithstanding his personal and relative preference for celibacy in the then oppressed condition of the church, he is the most zealous advocate of evangelical freedom, in opposition to all legal bondage and anxious asceticism.

Monasticism, therefore, in any case, is not the normal form of Christian piety. It is an abnormal phenomenon, a humanly devised service of God,(24) and not rarely a sad enervation and repulsive distortion of the Christianity of the Bible. And it is to be estimated, therefore, not by the extent of its self-denial, not by its outward acts of self-discipline (which may all be found in heathenism, Judaism, and Mohammedanism as well), but by the Christian spirit of humility and love which animated it. For humility is the groundwork, and love the all-ruling principle, of the Christian life, and the distinctive characteristic of the Christian religion. Without love to God and charity to man, the severest self-punishment and the utmost abandonment of the world are worthless before God.(25)

§ 32. Lights and Shades of Monastic Life.

The contrast between pure and normal Bible-Christianity and abnormal Monastic Christianity, will appear more fully if we enter into a close examination of the latter as it actually appeared in the ancient church.

The extraordinary rapidity with which this world-forsaking form of piety spread, bears witness to a high degree of self-denying moral earnestness, which even in its mistakes and vagrancies we must admire. Our age, accustomed and wedded to all possible comforts, but far in advance of the Nicene age in respect to the average morality of the masses, could beget no such ascetic extremes. In our estimate of the diffusion and value of monasticism, the polluting power of the theatre, oppressive taxation, slavery, the multitude of civil wars, and the hopeless condition of the Roman empire, must all come into view. Nor must we, by any means, measure the moral importance of this phenomenon by numbers. Monasticism from the beginning attracted persons of opposite character and from opposite motives. Moral earnestness and religious enthusiasm were accompanied here, as formerly in martyrdom, though even in larger measure than there, with all kinds of sinister motives; indolence, discontent, weariness of life, misanthropy, ambition for spiritual distinction, and every sort of misfortune or accidental circumstance. Palladius, to mention but one illustrious example, tells of Paul the Simple,(26) that, from indignation against his wife, whom he detected in an act of infidelity, he hastened, with the current oath of that day, "in the name of Jesus,"(27) into the wilderness; and immediately, though now sixty years old, under the direction of Anthony, he became a very model monk, and attained an astonishing degree of humility, simplicity, and perfect submission of will.

In view of these different motives we need not be surprised that the moral character of the monks varied greatly, and presents opposite extremes. Augustine says he found among the monks and nuns the best and the worst of mankind.

Looking more closely, in the first place, at anchoretism, we meet in its history unquestionably many a heroic character, who attained an incredible mastery over his sensual nature, and, like the Old Testament prophets and John the Baptist, by their mere appearance and their occasional preaching, made an overwhelming impression on his contemporaries, even among the heathen. St. Anthony’s visit to Alexandria was to the gazing multitude like the visit of a messenger from the other world, and resulted in many conversions. His emaciated face, the glare of his eye, his spectral yet venerable form, his contempt of the world, and his few aphoristic sentences told more powerfully on that age and people than a most elaborate sermon. St. Symeon, standing on a column from year to year, fasting, praying, and exhorting the visitors to repentance, was to his generation a standing miracle and a sign that pointed them to heaven. Sometimes, in seasons of public calamity, such hermits saved whole cities and provinces from the imperial wrath, by their effectual intercessions. When Theodosius, in 387, was about to destroy Antioch for a sedition, the hermit Macedonius met the two imperial commissaries, who reverently dismounted and kissed his hands and feet; he reminded them and the emperor of their own weakness, set before them the value of men as immortal images of God, in comparison with the perishable statues of the emperor, and thus saved the city from demolition.(28) The heroism of the anchoretic life, in the voluntary renunciation of lawful pleasures and the patient endurance of self-inflicted pains, is worthy of admiration in its way, and not rarely almost incredible.

But this moral heroism—and these are the weak points of it—oversteps not only the present standard of Christianity, but all sound measure; it has no support either in the theory or the practice of Christ and the apostolic church; and it has far more resemblance to heathen than to biblical precedents. Many of the most eminent saints of the desert differ only in their Christian confession, and in some Bible phrases learnt by rote, from Buddhist fakirs and Mohammedan dervises. Their highest virtuousness consisted in bodily exercises of their own devising, which, without love, at best profit nothing at all, very often only gratify spiritual vanity, and entirely obscure the gospel way of salvation.

To illustrate this by a few examples, we may choose any of the most celebrated eastern anchorets of the fourth and fifth centuries, as reported by the most credible contemporaries.

The holy Scriptures instruct us to pray and to labor; and to pray not only mechanically with the lips, as the heathen do, but with all the heart. But Paul the Simple said daily three hundred prayers, counting them with pebbles, which he carried in his bosom (a sort of rosary); when he heard of a virgin who prayed seven hundred times a day, he was troubled, and told his distress to Macarius, who well answered him: "Either thou prayest not with thy heart, if thy conscience reproves thee, or thou couldst pray oftener. I have for six years prayed only a hundred times a day, without being obliged to condemn myself for neglect." Christ ate and drank like other men, expressly distinguishing himself thereby from John, the representative of the old covenant; and Paul recommends to us to use the gifts of God temperately, with cheerful and childlike gratitude.(29) But the renowned anchoret and presbyter Isidore of Alexandria (whom Athanasius ordained) touched no meat, never ate enough, and, as Palladius relates, often burst into tears at table for shame, that he, who was destined to eat angels’ food in paradise, should have to eat material stuff like the irrational brutes. Macarius the elder, or the Great, for a long time ate only once a week, and slept standing and leaning on a staff. The equally celebrated younger Macarius lived three years on four or five ounces of bread a day, and seven years on raw herbs and pulse. Ptolemy spent three years alone in an unwatered desert, and quenched his thirst with the dew, which he collected in December and January, and preserved in earthen vessels; but he fell at last into skepticism, madness, and debauchery.(30) Sozomen tells of a certain Batthaeus, that by reason of his extreme abstinence, worms crawled out of his teeth; of Alas, that to his eightieth year he never ate bread; of Heliodorus, that he spent many nights without sleep, and fasted without interruption seven days.(31) Symeon, a Christian Diogenes, spent six and thirty years praying, fasting, and preaching, on the top of a pillar thirty or forty feet high, ate only once a week, and in fast times not at all. Such heroism of abstinence was possible, however, only in the torrid climate of the East, and is not to be met with in the West.

Anchoretism almost always carries a certain cynic roughness and coarseness, which, indeed, in the light of that age, may be leniently judged, but certainly have no affinity with the morality of the Bible, and offend not only good taste, but all sound moral feeling. The ascetic holiness, at least according to the Egyptian idea, is incompatible with cleanliness and decency, and delights in filth. It reverses the maxim of sound evangelical morality and modern Christian civilization, that cleanliness is next to godliness. Saints Anthony and Hilarion, as their admirers, Athanasius the Great and Jerome the Learned, tell us, scorned to comb or cut their hair (save once a year, at Easter), or to wash their hands or feet. Other hermits went almost naked in the wilderness, like the Indian gymnosophists.(32) The younger Macarius, according to the account of his disciple Palladius, once lay six months naked in the morass of the Scetic desert, and thus exposed himself to the incessant attacks of the gnats of Africa, "whose sting can pierce even the hide of a wild boar." He wished to punish himself for his arbitrary revenge on a gnat, and was there so badly stung by gnats and wasps, that he was thought to be smitten with leprosy, and was recognized only by his voice.(33) St. Symeon the Stylite, according to Theodoret, suffered himself to be incessantly tormented for a long time by twenty enormous bugs, and concealed an abscess full of worms, to exercise himself in patience and meekness. In Mesopotamia there was a peculiar class of anchorets, who lived on grass, spending the greater part of the day in prayer and singing, and then turning out like beasts upon the mountain.(34) Theodoret relates of the much lauded Akepsismas, in Cyprus, that he spent sixty years in the same cell, without seeing or speaking to any one, and looked so wild and shaggy, that he was once actually taken for a wolf by a shepherd, who assailed him with stones, till he discovered his error, and then worshipped the hermit as a saint.(35) It was but a step from this kind of moral sublimity to beastly degradation. Many of these saints were no more than low sluggards or gloomy misanthropes, who would rather company with wild beasts, with lions, wolves, and hyenas, than with immortal men, and above all shunned the face of a woman more carefully than they did the devil. Sulpitius Severus saw an anchoret in the Thebaid, who daily shared his evening meal with a female wolf; and upon her discontinuing her visits for some days by way of penance for a theft she had committed, he besought her to come again, and comforted her with a double portion of bread.(36) The same writer tells of a hermit who lived fifty years secluded from all human society, in the clefts of Mount Sinai, entirely destitute of clothing, and all overgrown with thick hair, avoiding every visitor, because, as he said, intercourse with men interrupted the visits of the angels; whence arose the report that he held intercourse with angels.(37)

It is no recommendation to these ascetic eccentricities that while they are without Scripture authority, they are fully equalled and even surpassed by the strange modes of self-torture practised by ancient and modern Hindoo devotees, for the supposed benefit of their souls and the gratification of their vanity in the presence of admiring spectators. Some bury themselves—we are told by ancient and modern travellers—in pits with only small breathing holes at the top, while others disdaining to touch the vile earth, live in iron cages suspended from trees. Some wear heavy iron collars or fetters, or drag a heavy chain fastened by one end round their privy parts, to give ostentatious proof of their chastity. Others keep their fists hard shut, until their finger nails grow through the palms of their hands. Some stand perpetually on one leg; others keep their faces turned over one shoulder, until they cannot turn them back again. Some lie on wooden beds, bristling all over with iron spikes; others are fastened for life to the trunk of a tree by a chain. Some suspend themselves for half an hour at a time, feet uppermost, or with a hook thrust through their naked back, over a hot fire. Alexander von Humboldt, at Astracan, where some Hindoos had settled, found a Yogi in the vestibule of the temple naked, shrivelled up, and overgrown with hair like a wild beast, who in this position had withstood for twenty years the severe winters of that climate. A Jesuit missionary describes one of the class called Tapasonias, that he had his body enclosed in an iron cage, with his head and feet outside, so that he could walk, but neither sit nor lie down; at night his pious attendants attached a hundred lighted lamps to the outside of the cage, so that their master could exhibit himself walking as the mock light of the world.(38)

In general, the hermit life confounds the fleeing from the outward world with the mortification of the inward world of the corrupt heart. It mistakes the duty of love; not rarely, under its mask of humility and the utmost self-denial, cherishes spiritual pride and jealousy; and exposes itself to all the dangers of solitude, even to savage barbarism, beastly grossness, or despair and suicide. Anthony, the father of anchorets, well understood this, and warned his followers against overvaluing solitude, reminding them of the proverb of the Preacher, iv. 10: "Woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up."

The cloister life was less exposed to these errors. It approached the life of society and civilization. Yet, on the other hand, it produced no such heroic phenomena, and had dangers peculiar to itself. Chrysostom gives us the bright side of it from his own experience. "Before the rising of the sun," says he of the monks of Antioch, "they rise, hale and sober, sing as with one mouth hymns to the praise of God, then bow the knee in prayer, under the direction of the abbot, read the holy Scriptures, and go to their labors; pray again at nine, twelve, and three o’clock; after a good day’s work, enjoy a simple meal of bread and salt, perhaps with oil, and sometimes with pulse; sing a thanksgiving hymn, and lay themselves on their pallets of straw without care, grief, or murmur. When one dies, they say: ’He is perfected;’ and all pray God for a like end, that they also may come to the eternal sabbath-rest and to the vision of Christ." Men like Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory, Jerome, Nilus, and Isidore, united theological studies with the ascetic exercises of solitude, and thus gained a copious knowledge of Scripture and a large spiritual experience.

But most of the monks either could not even read, or had too little intellectual culture to devote themselves with advantage to contemplation and study, and only brooded over gloomy feelings, or sank, in spite of the unsensual tendency of the ascetic principle, into the coarsest anthropomorphism and image worship. When the religious enthusiasm faltered or ceased, the cloister life, like the hermit life, became the most spiritless and tedious routine, or hypocritically practised secret vices. For the monks carried with them into their solitude their most dangerous enemy in their hearts, and there often endured much fiercer conflicts with flesh and blood, than amidst the society of men.

The temptations of sensuality, pride, and ambition externalized and personified themselves to the anchorets and monks in hellish shapes, which appeared in visions and dreams, now in pleasing and seductive, now in threatening and terrible forms and colors, according to the state of mind at the time. The monastic imagination peopled the deserts and solitudes with the very worst society, with swarms of winged demons and all kinds of hellish monsters.(39) It substituted thus a new kind of polytheism for the heathen gods, which were generally supposed to be evil spirits. The monastic demonology and demonomachy is a strange mixture of gross superstitions and deep spiritual experiences. It forms the romantic shady side of the otherwise so tedious monotony of the secluded life, and contains much material for the history of ethics, psychology, and pathology.

Especially besetting were the temptations of sensuality, and irresistible without the utmost exertion and constant watchfulness. The same saints, who could not conceive of true chastity without celibacy, were disturbed, according to their own confession, by unchaste dreams, which at least defiled the imagination.(40) Excessive asceticism sometimes turned into unnatural vice; sometimes ended in madness, despair, and suicide. Pachomius tells us, so early as his day, that many monks cast themselves down precipices, others ripped themselves up, and others put themselves to death in other ways.(41)

A characteristic trait of monasticism in all its forms is a morbid aversion to female society and a rude contempt of married life. No wonder, then, that in Egypt and the whole East, the land of monasticism, women and domestic life never attained their proper dignity, and to this day remain at a very low stage of culture. Among the rules of Basil is a prohibition of speaking with a woman, touching one, or even looking on one, except in unavoidable cases. Monasticism not seldom sundered the sacred bond between husband and wife, commonly with mutual consent, as in the cases of Ammon and Nilus, but often even without it. Indeed, a law of Justinian seems to give either party an unconditional right of desertion, while yet the word of God declares the marriage bond indissoluble. The Council of Gangra found it necessary to oppose the notion that marriage is inconsistent with salvation, and to exhort wives to remain with their husbands. In the same way monasticism came into conflict with love of kindred, and with the relation of parents to children; misinterpreting the Lord’s command to leave all for His sake. Nilus demanded of the monks the entire suppression of the sense of blood relationship. St. Anthony forsook his younger sister, and saw her only once after the separation. His disciple, Prior, when he became a monk, vowed never to see his kindred again, and would not even speak with his sister without closing his eyes. Something of the same sort is recorded of Pachomius. Ambrose and Jerome, in full earnest, enjoined upon virgins the cloister life, even against the will of their parents. When Hilary of Poictiers heard that his daughter wished to marry, he is said to have prayed God to take her to himself by death. One Mucius, without any provocation, caused his own son to be cruelly abused, and at last, at the command of the abbot himself, cast him into the water, whence he was rescued by a brother of the cloister.(42)

Even in the most favorable case monasticism falls short of harmonious moral development, and of that symmetry of virtue which meets us in perfection in Christ, and next to him in the apostles. It lacks the finer and gentler traits of character, which are ordinarily brought out only in the school of daily family life and under the social ordinances of God. Its morality is rather negative than positive. There is more virtue in the temperate and thankful enjoyment of the gifts of God, than in total abstinence; in charitable and well-seasoned speech, than in total silence; in connubial chastity, than in celibacy; in self-denying practical labor for the church. than in solitary asceticism, which only pleases self and profits no one else.

Catholicism, whether Greek or Roman, cannot dispense with the monastic life. It knows only moral extremes, nothing of the healthful mean. In addition to this, Popery needs the monastic orders, as an absolute monarchy needs large standing armies both for conquest and defence. But evangelical Protestantism, rejecting all distinction of a twofold morality, assigning to all men the same great duty under the law of God, placing the essence of religion not in outward exercises, but in the heart, not in separation from the world and from society, but in purifying and sanctifying the world by the free spirit of the gospel, is death to the great monastic institution.

§ 33. Position of Monks in the Church.

As to the social position of monasticism in the system of ecclesiastical life: it was at first, in East and West, even so late as the council of Chalcedon, regarded as a lay institution; but the monks were distinguished as religiosi from the seculares, and formed thus a middle grade between the ordinary laity and the clergy. They constituted the spiritual nobility, but not the ruling class; the aristocracy, but not the hierarchy of the church. "A monk," says Jerome, "has not the office of a teacher, but of a penitent, who endures suffering either for himself or for the world." Many monks considered ecclesiastical office incompatible with their effort after perfection. It was a proverb, traced to Pachomius: "A monk should especially shun women and bishops, for neither will let him have peace."(43) Ammonius, who accompanied Athanasius to Rome, cut off his own ear, and threatened to cut out his own tongue, when it was proposed to make him a bishop.(44) Martin of Tours thought his miraculous power deserted him on his transition from the cloister to the bishopric. Others, on the contrary, were ambitious for the episcopal chair, or were promoted to it against their will, as early as the fourth century. The abbots of monasteries were usually ordained priests, and administered the sacraments among the brethren, but were subject to the bishop of the diocese. Subsequently the cloisters managed, through special papal grants, to make themselves independent of the episcopal jurisdiction. From the tenth century the clerical character was attached to the monks. In a certain sense, they stood, from the beginning, even above the clergy; considered themselves preëminently conversi and religiosi, and their life vita religiosa; looked down with contempt upon the secular clergy; and often encroached on their province in troublesome ways. On the other hand, the cloisters began, as early as the fourth century, to be most fruitful seminaries of clergy, and furnished, especially in the East, by far the greater number of bishops. The sixth novel of Justinian provides that the bishops shall be chosen from the clergy, or from the monastery.

In dress, the monks at first adhered to the costume of the country, but chose the simplest and coarsest material. Subsequently, they adopted the tonsure and a distinctive uniform.

§ 34. Influence and Effect of Monasticism.

The influence of monasticism upon the world, from Anthony and Benedict to Luther and Loyola, is deeply marked in all branches of the history of the church. Here, too, we must distinguish light and shade. The operation of the monastic institution has been to some extent of diametrically opposite kinds, and has accordingly elicited the most diverse judgments. "It is impossible," says Dean Milman,(45) "to survey monachism in its general influence, from the earliest period of its inworking into Christianity, without being astonished and perplexed with its diametrically opposite effects. Here it is the undoubted parent of the blindest ignorance and the most ferocious bigotry, sometimes of the most debasing licentiousness; there the guardian of learning, the author of civilization, the propagator of humble and peaceful religion." The apparent contradiction is easily solved. It is not monasticism, as such, which has proved a blessing to the church and the world; for the monasticism of India, which for three thousand years has pushed the practice of mortification to all the excesses of delirium, never saved a single soul, nor produced a single benefit to the race. It was Christianity in monasticism which has done all the good, and used this abnormal mode of life as a means for carrying forward its mission of love and peace. In proportion as monasticism was animated and controlled by the spirit of Christianity, it proved a blessing; while separated from it, it degenerated and became at fruitful source of evil.

At the time of its origin, when we can view it from the most favorable point, the monastic life formed a healthful and necessary counterpart to the essentially corrupt and doomed social life of the Graeco-Roman empire, and the preparatory school of a new Christian civilization among the Romanic and Germanic nations of the middle age. Like the hierarchy and the papacy, it belongs with the disciplinary institutions, which the spirit of Christianity uses as means to a higher end, and, after attaining that end, casts aside. For it ever remains the great problem of Christianity to pervade like leaven and sanctify all human society in the family and the state, in science and art, and in all public life. The old Roman world, which was based on heathenism, was, if the moral portraitures of Salvianus and other writers of the fourth and fifth centuries are even half true, past all such transformation; and the Christian morality therefore assumed at the outset an attitude of downright hostility toward it, till she should grow strong enough to venture upon her regenerating mission among the new and, though barbarous, yet plastic and germinal nations of the middle age, and plant in them the seed of a higher civilization.

Monasticism promoted the downfall of heathenism and the victory of Christianity in the Roman empire and among the barbarians. It stood as a warning against the worldliness, frivolity, and immorality of the great cities, and a mighty call to repentance and conversion. It offered a quiet refuge to souls weary of the world, and led its earnest disciples into the sanctuary of undisturbed communion with God. It was to invalids a hospital for the cure of moral diseases, and at the same time, to healthy and vigorous enthusiasts an arena for the exercise of heroic virtue.(46) It recalled the original unity and equality of the human race, by placing rich and poor, high and low upon the same level. It conduced to the abolition, or at least the mitigation of slavery.(47) It showed hospitality to the wayfaring, and liberality to the poor and needy. It was an excellent school of meditation, self-discipline, and spiritual exercise. It sent forth most of those catholic, missionaries, who, inured to all hardship, planted the standard of the cross among the barbarian tribes of Northern and Western Europe, and afterward in Eastern Asia and South America. It was a prolific seminary of the clergy, and gave the church many of her most eminent bishops and popes, as Gregory I. and Gregory VII. It produced saints like Anthony and Bernard, and trained divines like Chrysostom and Jerome, and the long succession of schoolmen and mystics of the middle ages. Some of the profoundest theological discussions, like the tracts of Anselm, and the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, and not a few of the best books of devotion, like the "Imitation of Christ," by Thomas a Kempis, have proceeded from the solemn quietude of cloister life. Sacred hymns, unsurpassed for sweetness, like the Jesu dulcis memoria, or tender emotion, like the Stabat mater dolorosa, or terrific grandeur, like the Dies irae, dies illa, were conceived and sung by mediaeval monks for all ages to come. In patristic and antiquarian learning the Benedictines, so lately as the seventeenth century, have done extraordinary service. Finally, monasticism, at least in the West, promoted the cultivation of the soil and the education of the people, and by its industrious transcriptions of the Bible, the works of the church fathers, and the ancient classics, earned for itself, before the Reformation, much of the credit of the modern civilization of Europe. The traveller in France, Italy, Spain, Germany, England, and even in the northern regions of Scotland and Sweden, encounters innumerable traces of useful monastic labors in the ruins of abbeys, of chapter houses, of convents, of priories and hermitages, from which once proceeded educational and missionary influences upon the surrounding hills and forests. These offices, however, to the progress of arts and letters were only accessory, often involuntary, and altogether foreign to the intention of the founders of monastic life and institutions, who looked exclusively to the religious and moral education of the soul. In seeking first the kingdom of heaven, these other things were added to them.

But on the other hand, monasticism withdrew from society many useful forces; diffused an indifference for the family life, the civil and military service of the state, and all public practical operations; turned the channels of religion from the world into the desert, and so hastened the decline of Egypt, Syria, Palestine, and the whole Roman empire. It nourished religious fanaticism, often raised storms of popular agitation, and rushed passionately into the controversies of theological parties; generally, it is true, on the side of orthodoxy, but often, as at the Ephesian "council of robbers," in favor of heresy, and especially in behalf of the crudest superstition. For the simple, divine way of salvation in the gospel, it substituted an arbitrary, eccentric, ostentatious, and pretentious sanctity. It darkened the all-sufficient merits of Christ by the glitter of the over-meritorious works of man. It measured virtue by the quantity of outward exercises instead of the quality of the inward disposition, and disseminated self-righteousness and an anxious, legal, and mechanical religion. It favored the idolatrous veneration of Mary and of saints, the worship of images and relics, and all sorts of superstitious and pious fraud. It circulated a mass of visions and miracles, which, if true, far surpassed the miracles of Christ and the apostles and set all the laws of nature and reason at defiance. The Nicene age is full of the most absurd monks’ fables, and is in this respect not a whit behind the darkest of the middle ages.(48) Monasticism lowered the standard of general morality in proportion as it set itself above it and claimed a corresponding higher merit; and it exerted in general a demoralizing influence on the people, who came to consider themselves the profanum vulgus mundi, and to live accordingly. Hence the frequent lamentations, not only of Salvian, but of Chrysostom and of Augustine, over the indifference and laxness of the Christianity of the day; hence to this day the mournful state of things in the southern countries of Europe and America, where monasticism is most prevalent, and sets the extreme of ascetic sanctity in contrast with the profane laity, but where there exists no healthful middle class of morality, no blooming family life, no moral vigor in the masses. In the sixteenth century the monks were the bitterest enemies of the Reformation and of all true progress. And yet the greatest of the reformers was a pupil of the convent, and a child of the monastic system, as the boldest and most free of the apostles had been the strictest of the Pharisees.

§ 35. Paul of Thebes and St. Anthony.

I. Athanasius: Vita S. Antonii (in Greek, Opera, ed. Ben. ii. 793–866). The same in Latin, by Evagrius, in the fourth century. Jerome: Catal. c. 88 (a very brief notice of Anthony); Vita S. Pauli Theb. (Opera, ed. Vallars, ii. p. 1–12). Sozom: H. E. l. i. cap. 13 and 14. Socrat.: H. E. iv. 23, 25.

Acta Sanctorum, sub Jan. 17 (tom. ii. p. 107 sqq.). Tillemont: Mem. tom. vii. p. 101–144 (St. Antoine, premier père des solitaires d’Egypte). Butler (R.C.): Lives of the Saints, sub Jan. 17. Möhler (R.C.): Athanasius der Grosse, p. 382–402. Neander: K. G. iii. 446 sqq. (Torrey’s Engl. ed. ii. 229–234). Böhringer: Die Kirche Christi in Biographien, i. 2, p. 122–151. H. Ruffner: l.c. vol. i. p. 247–302 (a condensed translation from Athanasius, with additions). K. Hase: K. Gesch. § 64 (a masterly miniature portrait).

The first known Christian hermit, as distinct from the earlier ascetics, is the fabulous Paul of Thebes, in Upper Egypt. In the twenty-second year of his age, during the Decian persecution, a.d. 250, he retired to a distant cave, grew fond of the solitude, and lived there, according to the legend, ninety years, in a grotto near a spring and a palm tree, which furnished him food, shade, and clothing,(49) until his death in 340. In his later years a raven is said to have brought him daily half a loaf, as the ravens ministered to Elijah. But no one knew of this wonderful saint, till Anthony, who under a higher impulse visited and buried him, made him known to the world. After knocking in vain for more than an hour at the door of the hermit, who would receive the visits of beasts and reject those of men, he was admitted at last with a smiling face, and greeted with a holy kiss. Paul had sufficient curiosity left to ask the question, whether there were any more idolaters in the world, whether new houses were built in ancient cities and by whom the world was governed? During this interesting conversation, a large raven came gently flying and deposited a double portion of bread for the saint and his guest. "The Lord," said Paul, "ever kind and merciful, has sent us a dinner. It is now sixty years since I have daily received half a loaf, but since thou hast come, Christ has doubled the supply for his soldiers." After thanking the Giver, they sat down by the fountain; but now the question arose who should break the bread; the one urging the custom of hospitality, the other pleading the right of his friend as the elder. This question of monkish etiquette, which may have a moral significance, consumed nearly the whole day, and was settled at last by the compromise that both should seize the loaf at opposite ends, pull till it broke, and keep what remained in their hands. A drink from the fountain, and thanksgiving to God closed the meal. The day afterward Anthony returned to his cell, and told his two disciples: "Woe to me, a sinner, who have falsely pretended to be a monk. I have seen Elijah and John in the desert; I have seen St. Paul in paradise." Soon afterward he paid St. Paul a second visit, but found him dead in his cave, with head erect and hands lifted up to heaven. He wrapped up the corpse, singing psalms and hymns, and buried him without a spade; for two lions came of their own accord, or rather from supernatural impulse, from the interior parts of the desert, laid down at his feet, wagging their tails, and moaning distressingly, and scratched a grave in the sand large enough for the body of the departed saint of the desert! Anthony returned with the coat of Paul, made of palm leaves, and wore it on the solemn days of Easter and Pentecost.

The learned Jerome wrote the life of Paul, some thirty years afterward, as it appears, on the authority of Anathas and Macarius, two disciples of Anthony. But he remarks, in the prologue, that many incredible things are said of him, which are not worthy of repetition. If he believed his story of the grave-digging lions, it is hard to imagine what was more credible and less worthy of repetition.

In this Paul we have an example, of a canonized saint, who lived ninety years unseen and unknown in the wilderness, beyond all fellowship with the visible church, without Bible, public worship, or sacraments, and so died, yet is supposed to have attained the highest grade of piety. How does this consist with the common doctrine of the Catholic church respecting the necessity and the operation of the means of grace? Augustine, blinded by the ascetic spirit of his age, says even, that anchorets, on their level of perfection, may dispense with the Bible. Certain it is, that this kind of perfection stands not in the Bible, but outside of it.

The proper founder of the hermit life, the one chiefly instrumental in giving it its prevalence, was St. Anthony of Egypt. He is the most celebrated, the most original, and the most venerable representative of this abnormal and eccentric sanctity, the "patriarch of the monks," and the "childless father of an innumerable seed."(50)

Anthony sprang from a Christian and honorable Coptic family, and was born about 251, at Coma, on the borders of the Thebaid. Naturally quiet, contemplative, and reflective, he avoided the society of playmates, and despised all higher learning. He understood only his Coptic vernacular, and remained all his life ignorant of Grecian literature and secular science.(51) But he diligently attended divine worship with his parents, and so carefully heard the Scripture lessons, that he retained them in memory.(52) Memory was his library. He afterward made faithful, but only too literal use of single passages of Scripture, and began his discourse to the hermits with the very uncatholic-sounding declaration: "The holy Scriptures give us instruction enough." In his eighteenth year, about 270, the death of his parents devolved on him the care of a younger sister and a considerable estate. Six months afterward he heard in the church, just as he was meditating on the apostles’ implicit following of Jesus, the word of the Lord to the rich young ruler: "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me."(53) This word was a voice of God, which determined his life. He divided his real estate, consisting of three hundred acres of fertile land, among the inhabitants of the village, and sold his personal property for the benefit of the poor, excepting a moderate reserve for the support of his sister. But when, soon afterward, he heard in the church the exhortation, "Take no thought for the morrow,"(54) he distributed the remnant to the poor, and intrusted his sister to a society of pious virgins.(55) He visited her only once after—a fact characteristic of the ascetic depreciation of natural ties.

He then forsook the hamlet, and led an ascetic life in the neighborhood, praying constantly, according to the exhortation: "Pray without ceasing;" and also laboring, according to the maxim: "If any will not work, neither should he eat." What he did not need for his slender support, he gave to the poor. He visited the neighboring ascetics, who were then already very plentiful in Egypt, to learn humbly and thankfully their several eminent virtues; from one, earnestness in prayer; from another, watchfulness; from a third, excellence in fasting; from a fourth, meekness; from all, love to Christ and to fellow men. Thus he made himself universally beloved, and came to be reverenced as a friend of God.

But to reach a still higher level of ascetic holiness, he retreated, after the year 285, further and further from the bosom and vicinity of the church, into solitude, and thus became the founder of an anchoretism strictly so called. At first he lived in a sepulchre; then for twenty years in the ruins of a castle; and last on Mount Colzim, some seven hours from the Red Sea, a three days’ journey east of the Nile, where an old cloister still preserves his name and memory.

In this solitude he prosecuted his ascetic practices with ever-increasing rigor. Their monotony was broken only by basket making, occasional visits, and battles with the devil. In fasting he attained a rare abstemiousness. His food consisted of bread and salt, sometimes dates; his drink, of water. Flesh and wine he never touched. He ate only once a day, generally after sunset, and, like the presbyter Isidore, was ashamed that an immortal spirit should need earthly nourishment. Often he fasted from two to five days. Friends, and wandering Saracens, who always had a certain reverence for the saints of the desert, brought him bread from time to time. But in the last years of his life, to render himself entirely independent of others, and to afford hospitality to travellers, he cultivated a small garden on the mountain, near a spring shaded by palms.(56) Sometimes the wild beasts of the forest destroyed his modest harvest, till he drove them away forever with the expostulation: "Why do you injure me, who have never done you the slightest harm? Away with you all, in the name of the Lord, and never come into my neighborhood again." He slept on bare ground, or at best on a pallet of straw; but often he watched the whole night through in prayer. The anointing of the body with oil he despised, and in later years never washed his feet; as if filthiness were an essential element of ascetic perfection. His whole wardrobe consisted of a hair shirt, a sheepskin, and a girdle. But notwithstanding all, he had a winning friendliness and cheerfulness in his face.

Conflicts with the devil and his hosts of demons were, as with other solitary saints, a prominent part of Anthony’s experience, and continued through all his life. The devil appeared to him in visions and dreams, or even in daylight, in all possible forms, now as a friend, now as a fascinating woman, now as a dragon, tempting him by reminding him of his former wealth, of his noble family, of the care due to his sister, by promises of wealth, honor, and renown, by exhibitions of the difficulty of virtue and the facility of vice, by unchaste thoughts and images, by terrible threatening of the dangers and punishments of the ascetic life. Once he struck the hermit so violently, Athanasius says, that a friend, who brought him bread, found him on the ground apparently dead. At another time he broke through the wall of his cave and filled the room with roaring lions, howling wolves, growling bears, fierce hyenas, crawling serpents and scorpions; but Anthony turned manfully toward the monsters, till a supernatural light broke in from the roof and dispersed them. His sermon, which he delivered to the hermits at their request, treats principally of these wars with demons, and gives also the key to the interpretation of them: "Fear not Satan and his angels. Christ has broken their power. The best weapon against them is faith and piety .... The presence of evil spirits reveals itself in perplexity, despondency, hatred of the ascetics, evil desires, fear of death .... They take the form answering to the spiritual state they find in us at the time.(57) They are the reflex of our thoughts and fantasies. If thou art carnally minded, thou art their prey; but if thou rejoicest in the Lord and occupiest thyself with divine things, they are powerless .... The devil is afraid of fasting, of prayer, of humility and good works. His illusions soon vanish, when one arms himself with the sign of the cross."

Only in exceptional cases did Anthony leave his solitude; and then he made a powerful impression on both Christians and heathens with his hairy dress and his emaciated, ghostlike form. In the year 311, during the persecution under Maximinus, he appeared in Alexandria in the hope of himself gaining the martyr’s crown. He visited the confessors in the mines and prisons, encouraged them before the tribunal, accompanied them to the scaffold; but no one ventured to lay hands on the saint of the wilderness. In the year 351, when a hundred years old, he showed himself for the second and last time in the metropolis of Egypt, to bear witness for the orthodox faith of his friend Athanasius against Arianism, and in a few days converted more heathens and heretics than had otherwise been gained in a whole year. He declared the Arian denial of the divinity of Christ worse than the venom of the serpent, and no better than heathenism which worshipped the creature instead of the Creator. He would have nothing to do with heretics, and warned his disciples against intercourse with them. Athanasius attended him to the gate of the city, where he cast out an evil spirit from a girl. An invitation to stay longer in Alexandria he declined, saying: "As a fish out of water, so a monk out of his solitude dies." Imitating his example, the monks afterward forsook the wilderness in swarms whenever orthodoxy was in danger, and went in long processions with wax tapers and responsive singing through the streets, or appeared at the councils, to contend for the orthodox faith with all the energy of fanaticism, often even with physical force.

Though Anthony shunned the society of men, yet he was frequently visited in his solitude and resorted to for consolation and aid by Christians and heathens, by ascetics, sick, and needy, as a heaven-descended physician of Egypt for body and soul. He enjoined prayer, labor, and care of the poor, exhorted those at strife to the love of God, and healed the sick and demoniac with his prayer. Athanasius relates several miracles performed by him, the truth of which we leave undecided though they are far less incredible and absurd than many other monkish stories of that age. Anthony, his biographer assures us, never boasted when his prayer was heard, nor murmured when it was not, but in either case thanked God. He cautioned monks against overrating the gift of miracles, since it is not our work, but the grace of the Lord; and he reminds them of the word: "Rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven." To Martianus, an officer, who urgently besought him to heal his possessed daughter, he said: "Man, why dost thou call on me? I am a man, as thou art. If thou believest, pray to God, and he will hear thee." Martianus prayed, and on his return found his daughter whole.

Anthony distinguished himself above most of his countless disciples and successors, by his fresh originality of mind. Though uneducated and limited, he had sound sense and ready mother wit. Many of his striking answers and felicitous sentences have come down to us. When some heathen philosophers once visited him, he asked them: "Why do you give yourselves so much trouble to see a fool?" They explained, perhaps ironically, that they took him rather for a wise man. He replied: "If you take me for a fool, your labor is lost; but if I am a wise man, you should imitate me, and be Christians, as I am." At another time, when taunted with his ignorance, he asked: "Which is older and better, mind or learning?" The mind, was the answer. "Then," said the hermit, "the mind can do without learning." "My book," he remarked on a similar occasion, "is the whole creation, which lies open before me, and in which I can read the word of God as often as I will." The blind church-teacher, Didymus, whom he met in Alexandria, he comforted with the words: "Trouble not thyself for the loss of the outward eye, with which even flies see; but rejoice in the possession of the spiritual eye, with which also angels behold the face of God, and receive his light."(58) Even the emperor Constantine, with his sons, wrote to him as a spiritual father, and begged an answer from him. The hermit at first would not so much as receive the letter, since, in any case, being unable to write, he could not answer it, and cared as little for the great of this world as Diogenes for Alexander. When told that the emperor was a Christian, he dictated the answer: "Happy thou, that thou worshippest Christ. Be not proud of thy earthly power. Think of the future judgment, and know that Christ is the only true and eternal king. Practise justice and love for men, and care for the poor." To his disciples he said on this occasion: "Wonder not that the emperor writes to me, for he is a man. Wonder much more that God has written the law for man, and has spoken to us by his own Son."

During the last years of his life the patriarch of monasticism withdrew as much as possible from the sight of visitors, but allowed two disciples to live with him, and to take care of him in his infirm old age. When he felt his end approaching, he commanded them not to embalm his body, according to the Egyptian custom, but to bury it in the earth, and to keep the spot of his interment secret. One of his two sheepskins he bequeathed to the bishop Serapion, the other, with his underclothing, to Athanasius, who had once given it to him new, and now received it back worn out. What became of the robe woven from palm leaves, which, according to Jerome, he had inherited from Paul of Thebes, and wore at Easter and Pentecost, Athanasius does not tell us. After this disposition of his property, Anthony said to his disciples: "Children, farewell; for Anthony goes away, and will be no more with you." With these words he stretched out his feet and expired with a smiling face, in the year 356, a hundred and five years old. His grave remained for centuries unknown. His last will was thus a protest against the worship of saints and relics, which, however, it nevertheless greatly helped to promote. Under Justinian, in 561, his bones, as the Bollandists and Butler minutely relate, were miraculously discovered, brought to Alexandria, then to Constantinople, and at last to Vienne in South France, and in the eleventh century, during the raging of an epidemic disease, the so-called "holy fire," or "St. Anthony’s fire," they are said to have performed great wonders.

Athanasius, the greatest man of the Nicene age, concludes his biography of his friend with this sketch of his character: "From this short narrative you may judge how great a man Anthony was, who persevered in the ascetic life from youth to the highest age. In his advanced age he never allowed himself better food, nor change of raiment, nor did he even wash his feet. Yet he continued healthy in all his parts. His eyesight was clear to the end, and his teeth sound, though by long use worn to mere stumps. He retained also the perfect use of his hands and feet, and was more robust and vigorous than those who are accustomed to change of food and clothing and to washing. His fame spread from his remote dwelling on the lone mountain over the whole Roman empire. What gave him his renown, was not learning nor worldly wisdom, nor human art, but alone his piety toward God .... And let all the brethren know, that the Lord will not only take holy monks to heaven, but give them celebrity in all the earth, however deep they may bury themselves in the wilderness."

The whole Nicene age venerated in Anthony a model saint.(59) This fact brings out most characteristically the vast difference between the ancient and the modern, the old Catholic and the evangelical Protestant conception of the nature of the Christian religion. The specifically Christian element in the life of Anthony, especially as measured by the Pauline standard, is very small. Nevertheless we can but admire the needy magnificence, the simple, rude grandeur of this hermit sanctity even in its aberration. Anthony concealed under his sheepskin a childlike humility, an amiable simplicity, a rare energy of will, and a glowing love to God, which maintained itself for almost ninety years in the absence of all the comforts and pleasures of natural life, and triumphed over all the temptations of the flesh. By piety alone, without the help of education or learning, he became one of the most remarkable and influential men in the history of the ancient church. Even heathen contemporaries could not withhold from him their reverence, and the celebrated philosopher Synesius, afterward a bishop, before his conversion reckoned Anthony among those rare men, in whom flashes of thought take the place of reasonings, and natural power of mind makes schooling needless.(60)

§ 36. Spread of Anchoretism. Hilarion.

The example of Anthony acted like magic upon his generation, and his biography by Athanasius, which was soon translated also into Latin, was a tract for the times. Chrysostom recommended it to all as instructive and edifying reading.(61) Even Augustine, the most evangelical of the fathers, was powerfully affected by the reading of it in his decisive religious struggle, and was decided by it in his entire renunciation of the world.(62)

In a short time, still in the lifetime of Anthony, the deserts of Egypt, from Nitria, south of Alexandria, and the wilderness of Scetis, to Libya and the Thebaid, were peopled with anchorets and studded with cells. A mania for monasticism possessed Christendom, and seized the people of all classes like an epidemic. As martyrdom had formerly been, so now monasticism was, the quickest and surest way to renown upon earth and to eternal reward in heaven. This prospect, with which Athanasius concludes his life of Anthony, abundantly recompensed all self-denial and mightily stimulated pious ambition. The consistent recluse must continually increase his seclusion. No desert was too scorching, no rock too forbidding, no cliff too steep, no cave too dismal for the feet of these world-hating and man-shunning enthusiasts. Nothing was more common than to see from two to five hundred monks under the same abbot. It has been supposed, that in Egypt the number of anchorets and cenobites equalled the population of the cities.(63) The natural contrast between the desert and the fertile valley of the Nile, was reflected in the moral contrast between the monastic life and the world.

The elder Macarius(64) introduced the hermit life in the frightful desert of Scetis; Amun or Ammon,(65) on the Nitrian mountain. The latter was married, but persuaded his bride, immediately after the nuptials, to live with him in the strictest abstinence. Before the end of the fourth century there were in Nitria alone, according to Sozomen, five thousand monks, who lived mostly in separate cells or laurae, and never spoke with one another except on Saturday and Sunday, when they assembled for common worship.

From Egypt the solitary life spread to the neighboring countries.

Hilarion, whose life Jerome has written graphically and at large,(66) established it in the wilderness of Gaza, in Palestine and Syria. This saint attained among the anchorets of the fourth century an eminence second only to Anthony. He was the son of pagan parents, and grew up "as a rose among thorns." He went to school in Alexandria, diligently attended church, and avoided the circus, the gladiatorial shows, and the theatre. He afterward lived two months with St. Anthony, and became his most celebrated disciple. After the death of his parents, he distributed his inheritance among his brothers and the poor, and reserved nothing, fearing the example of Ananias and Sapphira, and remembering the word of Christ: "Whosoever he be of you, that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple."(67) He then retired into the wilderness of Gaza, which was inhabited only by robbers and assassins; battled, like Anthony, with obscene dreams and other temptations of the devil; and so reduced his body—the "ass," which ought to have not barley, but chaff—with fastings and night watchings, that, while yet a youth of twenty years, he looked almost like a skeleton. He never ate before sunset. Prayers, psalm singing, Bible recitations, and basket weaving were his employment. His cell was only five feet high, lower than his own stature, and more like a sepulchre than a dwelling. He slept on the ground. He cut his hair only once a year, at Easter. The fame of his sanctity gradually attracted hosts of admirers (once, ten thousand), so that he had to change his residence several times, and retired to Sicily, then to Dalmatia, and at last to the island of Cyprus, where he died in 371, in his eightieth year. His legacy, a book of the Gospels and a rude mantle, he made to his friend Hesychius, who took his corpse home to Palestine, and deposited it in the cloister of Majumas. The Cyprians consoled themselves over their loss, with the thought that they possessed the spirit of the saint. Jerome ascribes to him all manner of visions and miraculous cures.

§ 37. St. Symeon and the Pillar Saints.

Respecting St. Symeon, or Simeon Stylites, we have accounts from three contemporaries and eye witnesses, Anthony, Cosmas, and especially Theodoret (Hist. Relig. c. 26). The latter composed his narrative sixteen years before the death the saint.

Evagrius: H. E. i. c. 13. The Acta Sanctorum and Butler, sub Jan. 5. Uhlemann: Symeon, der erste Säulenheilige in Syrien. Leipz. 1846. (Comp. also the fine poem of A. Tennyson: St. Symeon Stylites, a monologue in which S. relates his own experience.)

It is unnecessary to recount the lives of other such anchorets; since the same features, even to unimportant details, repeat themselves in all.(68) But in the fifth century a new and quite original path(69) was broken by Symeon, the father of the Stylites or pillar saints, who spent long years, day and night, summer and winter, rain and sunshine, frost and heat, standing on high, unsheltered pillars, in prayer and penances, and made the way to heaven for themselves so passing hard, that one knows not whether to wonder at their unexampled self-denial, or to pity their ignorance of the gospel salvation. On this giddy height the anchoretic asceticism reached its completion.

St. Symeon the Stylite, originally a shepherd on the borders of Syria and Cilicia, when a boy of thirteen years, was powerfully affected by the beatitudes, which he heard read in the church, and betook himself to a cloister. He lay several days, without eating or drinking, before the threshold, and begged to be admitted as the meanest servant of the house. He accustomed himself to eat only once a week, on Sunday. During Lent he even went through the whole forty days without any food; a fact almost incredible even for a tropical climate.(70) The first attempt of this kind brought him to the verge of death; but his constitution conformed itself, and when Theodoret visited him, he had solemnized six and twenty Lent seasons by total abstinence, and thus surpassed Moses, Elias, and even Christ, who never fasted so but once. Another of his extraordinary inflections was to lace his body so tightly that the cord pressed through to the bones, and could be cut off only with the most terrible pains. This occasioned his dismissal from the cloister. He afterward spent some time as a hermit upon a mountain, with an iron chain upon his feet, and was visited there by admiring and curious throngs. When this failed to satisfy him, he invented, in 423, a new sort of holiness, and lived, some two days’ journey (forty miles) east of Antioch, for six and thirty years, until his death, upon a pillar, which at the last was nearly forty cubits high;(71) for the pillar was raised in proportion as he approached heaven and perfection. Here he could never lie nor sit, but only stand, or lean upon a post (probably a banister), or devoutly bow; in which last posture he almost touched his feet with his head—so flexible had his back been made by fasting. A spectator once counted in one day no less than twelve hundred and forty-four such genuflexions of the saint before the Almighty, and then gave up counting. He wore a covering of the skins of beasts, and a chain about his neck. Even the holy sacrament he took upon his pillar. There St. Symeon stood many long and weary days, and weeks, and months, and years, exposed to the scorching sun, the drenching rain, the crackling frost, the howling storm, living a life of daily death and martyrdom, groaning under the load of sin, never attaining to the true comfort and peace of soul which is derived from a child-like trust in Christ’s infinite merits, earnestly striving after a superhuman holiness, and looking to a glorious reward in heaven, and immortal fame on earth. Alfred Tennyson makes him graphically describe his experience in a monologue to God:

’Although I be the basest of mankind,

From scalp to sole one slough and crust of sin,

Unfit for earth, unfit for heaven, scarce meet

For troops of devils, mad with blasphemy,

I will not cease to grasp the hope I hold

Of saintdom, and to clamor, moan, and sob

Battering the gates of heaven with storms of prayer:

Have mercy, Lord, and take away my sin.

Oh take the meaning, Lord: I do not breathe,

Not whisper, any murmur of complaint.

Pain heaped ten hundredfold to this, were still

Less burthen, by ten hundredfold, to bear,

Than were those lead-like tons of sin, that crushed

My spirit flat before Thee.

O Lord, Lord,

Thou knowest I bore this better at the first,

For I was strong and hale of body then;

And though my teeth, which now are dropt away,

Would chatter with the cold, and all my beard

Was tagged with icy fringes in the moon,

I drowned the whoopings of the owl with sound

Of pious hymns and psalms, and sometimes saw

An angel stand and watch me, as I sang.

Now am I feeble grown: my end draws nigh—

I hope my end draws nigh: half deaf I am,

So that I scarce can hear the people hum

About the column’s base; and almost blind,

And scarce can recognize the fields I know.

And both my thighs are rotted with the dew,

Yet cease I not to clamor and to cry,

While my stiff spine can hold my weary head,

Till all my limbs drop piecemeal from the stone:

Have mercy, mercy; take away my sin."

Yet Symeon was not only concerned about his own salvation. People streamed from afar to witness this standing wonder of the age. He spoke to all classes with the same friendliness, mildness, and love; only women he never suffered to come within the wall which surrounded his pillar. From this original pulpit, as a mediator between heaven and earth, he preached repentance twice a day to the astonished spectators, settled controversies, vindicated the orthodox faith, extorted laws even from an emperor, healed the sick wrought miracles, and converted thousands of heathen Ishmaelites, Iberians, Armenians, and Persians to Christianity, or at least to the Christian name. All this the celebrated Theodoret relates as an eyewitness during the lifetime of the saint. He terms him the great wonder of the world,(72) and compares him to a candle on a candlestick, and to the sun itself, which sheds its rays on every side. He asks the objector to this mode of life to consider that God often uses very striking means to arouse the negligent, as the history of the prophets shows;(73) and concludes his narrative with the remark: "Should the saint live longer, he may do yet greater wonders, for he is a universal ornament and honor of religion."

He died in 459, in the sixty-ninth year of his age, of a long-concealed and loathsome ulcer on his leg; and his body was brought in solemn procession to the metropolitan church Of Antioch.

Even before his death, Symeon enjoyed the unbounded admiration of Christians and heathens, of the common people, of the kings of Persia, and of the emperors Theodosius II., Leo, and Marcian, who begged his blessing and his counsel. No wonder, that, with all his renowned humility, he had to struggle with the temptations of spiritual pride. Once an angel appeared to him in a vision, with a chariot of fire, to convey him, like Elijah, to heaven, because the blessed spirits longed for him. He was already stepping into the chariot with his right foot, which on this occasion he sprained (as Jacob his thigh), when the phantom of Satan was chased away by the sign of the cross. Perhaps this incident, which the Acta Sanctorum gives, was afterward invented, to account for his sore, and to illustrate the danger of self-conceit. Hence also the pious monk Nilus, with good reason, reminded the ostentatious pillar saints of the proverb: "He that exalteth himself shall be abased."(74)

Of the later stylites the most distinguished were Daniel († 490), in the vicinity of Constantinople, and Symeon the younger († 592), in Syria. The latter is said to have spent sixty-eight years on a pillar. In the East this form of sanctity perpetuated itself, though only in exceptional cases, down to the twelfth century. The West, so far as we know, affords but one example of a stylite, who, according to Gregory of Tours, lived a long time on a pillar near Treves, but came down at the command of the bishop, and entered a neighboring cloister.

§ 38. Pachomius and the Cloister life.

On St. Pachomius we have a biography composed soon after his death by a monk of Tabennae, and scattered accounts in Palladius, Jerome (Regula Pachomii, Latine reddita, Opp. Hieron. ed. Vallarsi, tom. ii. p. 50 sqq.), Rufinus, Sozomen, &c. Comp. Tillemont, tom. vii. p. 167–235, and the Vit. Sanct. sub Maj. 14.

Though the strictly solitary life long continued in use, and to this day appears here and there in the Greek and Roman churches, yet from the middle of the fourth century monasticism began to assume in general the form of the cloister life, as incurring less risk, being available for both sexes, and being profitable to the church. Anthony himself gave warning, as we have already observed, against the danger of entire isolation, by referring to the proverb: "Woe to him that is alone." To many of the most eminent ascetics anchoretism was a stepping stone to the coenobite life; to others it was the goal of coenobitism, and the last and highest round on the ladder of perfection.

The founder of this social monachism was Pachomius, a contemporary of Anthony, like him an Egyptian, and little below him in renown among the ancients. He was born about 292, of heathen parents, in the Upper Thebaid, served as a soldier in the army of the tyrant Maximin on the expedition against Constantine and Licinius, and was, with his comrades, so kindly treated by the Christians at Thebes, that he was won to the Christian faith, and, after his discharge from the military service, received baptism. Then, in 313, he visited the aged hermit Palemon, to learn from him the way to perfection. The saint showed him the difficulties of the anchorite life: "Many," said he, "have come hither from disgust with the world, and had no perseverance. Remember, my son, my food consists only of bread and salt; I drink no wine, take no oil, spend half the night awake, singing psalms and meditating on the Scriptures, and sometimes pass the whole night without sleep." Pachomius was astounded, but not discouraged, and spent several years with this man as a pupil.

In the year 325 he was directed by an angel, in a vision, to establish on the island of Tabennae, in the Nile, in Upper Egypt, a society of monks, which in a short time became so strong that even before his death (348) it numbered eight or nine cloisters in the Thebaid, and three thousand (according to some, seven thousand), and, a century later, fifty thousand members. The mode of life was fixed by a strict rule of Pachomius, which, according to a later legend, an angel communicated to him, and which Jerome translated into Latin. The formal reception into the society was preceded by a three-years’ probation. Rigid vows were not yet enjoined. With spiritual exercises manual labor was united, agriculture, boat building, basketmaking, mat and coverlet weaving, by which the monks not only earned their own living, but also supported the poor and the sick. They were divided, according to the grade of their ascetic piety, into four and twenty classes, named by the letters of the Greek alphabet. They lived three in a cell. They ate in common, but in strict silence, and with the face covered. They made known their wants by signs. The sick were treated with special care. On Saturday and Sunday they partook of the communion. Pachomius, as abbot, or archimandrite, took the oversight of the whole; each cloister having a separate superior and a steward.

Pachomius also established a cloister of nuns for his sister, whom he never admitted to his presence when she would visit him, sending her word that she should be content to know that he was still alive. In like manner, the sister of Anthony and the wife of Ammon became centres of female cloister life, which spread with great rapidity.

Pachomius, after his conversion never ate a full meal, and for fifteen years slept sitting on a stone. Tradition ascribes to him all sorts of miracles, even the gift of tongues and perfect dominion over nature, so that he trod without harm on serpents and scorpions, and crossed the Nile on the backs of crocodiles!(75) Soon after Pachomius, fifty monasteries arose on the Nitrian mountain, in no respect inferior to those in the Thebaid. They maintained seven bakeries for the benefit of the anchorets in the neighboring Libyan desert, and gave attention also, at least in later days, to theological studies; as the valuable manuscripts recently discovered there evince.

From Egypt the cloister life spread with the rapidity of the irresistible spirit of the age, over the entire Christian East. The most eminent fathers of the Greek church were either themselves monks for a time, or at all events friends and patrons of monasticism. Ephraim propagated it in Mesopotamia; Eustathius of Sebaste in Armenia and Paphlagonia; Basil the Great in Pontus and Cappadocia. The latter provided his monasteries and nunneries with clergy, and gave them an improved rule, which, before his death (379), was accepted by some eighty thousand monks, and translated by Rufinus into Latin. He sought to unite the virtues of the anchorite and coenobite life, and to make the institution useful to the church by promoting the education of youth, and also (as Athanasius designed before him) by combating Arianism among the people.(76) He and his friend Gregory Nazianzen were the first to unite scientific theological studies with the ascetic exercises of solitude. Chrysostom wrote three books in praise and vindication of the monastic life, and exhibits it in general in its noblest aspect.

In the beginning of the fifth century, Eastern monasticism was most worthily represented by the elder Nilus of Sinai, a pupil and venerator of Chrysostom, and a copious ascetic writer, who retired with his son from a high civil office in Constantinople to Mount Sinai, while his wife, with a daughter, travelled to an Egyptian cloister;(77) and by the abbot Isidore, of Pelusium, on the principal eastern mouth of the Nile, from whom we have two thousand epistles.(78) The writings of these two men show a rich spiritual experience, and an extended and fertile field of labor and usefulness in their age and generation.

§ 39. Fanatical and Heretical Monastic Societies in The East.

Acta Concil. Gangrenensis, in Mansi, ii. 1095 sqq. Epiphan.: Haer. 70, 75 and 80. Socr.: H. E. ii. 43. Sozom.: iv. 24. Theodor.: H. E. iv. 9, 10; Fab. haer. iv. 10, 11. Comp. Neander: iii. p. 468 sqq. (ed. Torrey, ii. 238 sqq.).

Monasticism generally adhered closely to the orthodox faith of the church. The friendship between Athanasius, the father of orthodoxy, and Anthony, the father of monachism, is on this point a classical fact. But Nestorianism also, and Eutychianism, Monophysitism, Pelagianism, and other heresies, proceeded from monks, and found in monks their most vigorous advocates. And the monastic enthusiasm ran also into ascetic heresies of its own, which we must notice here.

The Eustathians, so named from Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste and friend of Basil, founder of monasticism in Armenia, Pontus, and Paphlagonia. This sect asserted that marriage debarred from salvation and incapacitated for the clerical office. For this and other extravagances it was condemned by a council at Gangra in Paphlagonia (between 360 and 370), and gradually died out.
The Audians held similar principles. Their founder, Audius, or Udo, a layman of Syria, charged the clergy of his day with immorality, especially avarice and extravagance. After much persecution, which he bore patiently, he forsook the church, with his friends, among whom were some bishops and priests, and, about 330, founded a rigid monastic sect in Scythia, which subsisted perhaps a hundred years. They were Quartodecimans in the practice of Easter, observing it on the 14th of Nisan, according to Jewish fashion. Epiphanius speaks favorably of their exemplary but severely ascetic life.
The Euchites or Messalians,(79) also called Enthusiasts, were roaming mendicant monks in Mesopotamia and Syria (dating from 360), who conceived the Christian life as an unintermitted prayer, despised all physical labor, the moral law, and the sacraments, and boasted themselves perfect. They taught, that every man brings an evil demon with him into the world, which can only be driven away by prayer; then the Holy Ghost comes into the soul, liberates it from all the bonds of sense, and raises it above the need of instruction and the means of grace. The gospel history they declared a mere allegory. But they concealed their pantheistic mysticism and antinomianism under external conformity to the Catholic church. When their principles, toward the end of the fourth century, became known, the persecution of both the ecclesiastical and the civil authority fell upon them. Yet they perpetuated themselves to the seventh century, and reappeared in the Euchites and Bogomiles of the middle age.

§ 40. Monasticism in the West. Athanasius, Ambrose, Augustine, Martin of Tours.

I. Ambrosius: De Virginibus ad Marcellinam sororem suam libri tres, written about 377 (in the Benedictine edition of Ambr. Opera, tom. ii. p. 145–183). Augustinus (a.d. 400): De Opere Monachorum liber unus (in the Bened. ed., tom. vi. p. 476–504). Sulpitius Severus (about a.d. 403): Dialogi tres (de virtutibus monachorum orientalium et de virtutibus B. Martini); and De Vita Beati Martini (both in the Bibliotheca Maxima vet. Patrum, tom. vi. p. 349 sqq., and better in Gallandi’s Bibliotheca vet. Patrum, tom. viii. p. 392 sqq.).

J. Mabillon: Observat. de monachis in occidente ante Benedictum (Praef. in Acta Sanct. Ord. Bened.). R. H. Milman: Hist. of Latin Christianity, Lond. 1854, vol. i. ch. vi. p. 409–426: "Western Monasticism." Count de Montalembert: The Monks of the West, Engl. translation, vol. i. p. 379 sqq.

In the Latin church, in virtue partly of the climate, partly of the national character,(80) the monastic life took a much milder form, but assumed greater variety, and found a larger field of usefulness than in the Greek. It produced no pillar saints, nor other such excesses of ascetic heroism, but was more practical instead, and an important instrument for the cultivation of the soil and the diffusion of Christianity and civilization among the barbarians.(81) Exclusive contemplation was exchanged for alternate contemplation and labor. "A working monk," says Cassian, "is plagued by one devil, an inactive monk by a host." Yet it must not be forgotten that the most eminent representatives of the Eastern monasticism recommended manual labor and studies; and that the Eastern monks took a very lively, often rude and stormy part in theological controversies. And on the other hand, there were Western monks who, like Martin of Tours, regarded labor as disturbing contemplation.

Athanasius, the guest, the disciple, and subsequently the biographer and eulogist of St. Anthony, brought the first intelligence of monasticism to the West, and astounded the civilized and effeminate Romans with two live representatives of the semi-barbarous desert-sanctity of Egypt, who accompanied him in his exile in 340. The one, Ammonius, was so abstracted from the world that he disdained to visit any of the wonders of the great city, except the tombs of St. Peter and St. Paul; while the other, Isidore, attracted attention by his amiable simplicity. The phenomenon excited at first disgust and contempt, but soon admiration and imitation, especially among women, and among the decimated ranks of the ancient Roman nobility. The impression of the first visit was afterward strengthened by two other visits of Athanasius to Rome, and especially by his biography of Anthony, which immediately acquired the popularity and authority of a monastic gospel. Many went to Egypt and Palestine, to devote themselves there to the new mode of life; and for the sake of such, Jerome afterward translated the rule of Pachomius into Latin. Others founded cloisters in the neighborhood of Rome, or on the ruins of the ancient temples and the forum, and the frugal number of the heathen vestals was soon cast into the shade by whole hosts of Christian virgins. From Rome, monasticism gradually spread over all Italy and the isles of the Mediterranean, even to the rugged rocks of the Gorgon and the Capraja, where the hermits, in voluntary exile from the world, took the place of the criminals and political victims whom the justice or tyranny and jealousy of the emperors had been accustomed to banish thither.

Ambrose, whose sister, Marcellina, was among the first Roman nuns, established a monastery in Milan,(82) one of the first in Italy, and with the warmest zeal encouraged celibacy even against the will of parents; insomuch that the mothers of Milan kept their daughters out of the way of his preaching; whilst from other quarters, even from Mauritania, virgins flocked to him to be consecrated to the solitary life.(83) The coasts and small islands of Italy were gradually studded with cloisters.(84)

Augustine, whose evangelical principles of the free grace of God as the only ground of salvation and peace were essentially inconsistent with the more Pelagian theory of the monastic life, nevertheless went with the then reigning spirit of the church in this respect, and led, with his clergy, a monk-like life in voluntary poverty and celibacy,(85) after the pattern, as he thought, of the primitive church of Jerusalem; but with all his zealous commendation he could obtain favor for monasticism in North Africa only among the liberated slaves and the lower classes.(86) He viewed it in its noblest aspect, as a life of undivided surrender to God, and undisturbed occupation with spiritual and eternal things. But he acknowledged also its abuses; he distinctly condemned the vagrant, begging monks, like the Circumcelliones and Gyrovagi, and wrote a book (De opere monachorum) against the monastic aversion to labor.

Monasticism was planted in Gaul by Martin of Tours, whose life and miracles were described in fluent, pleasing language by his disciple, Sulpitius Severus,(87) a few years after his death. This celebrated saint, the patron of fields, was born in Pannonia (Hungary), of pagan parents. He was educated in Italy, and served three years, against his will, as a soldier under Constantius and Julian the Apostate. Even at that time he showed an uncommon degree of temperance, humility, and love. He often cleaned his servant’s shoes, and once cut his only cloak in two with his sword, to clothe a naked beggar with half; and the next night he saw Christ in a dream with the half cloak, and plainly heard him say to the angels: "Behold, Martin, who is yet only a catechumen, hath clothed me."(88) He was baptized in his eighteenth year; converted his mother; lived as a hermit in Italy; afterward built a monastery in the vicinity of Poictiers (the first in France); destroyed many idol temples, and won great renown as a saint and a worker of miracles. About the year 370 he was unanimously elected by the people, against his wish, bishop of Tours on the Loire, but in his episcopal office maintained his strict monastic mode of life, and established a monastery beyond the Loire, where he was soon surrounded with eighty monks. He had little education, but a natural eloquence, much spiritual experience, and unwearied zeal. Sulpitius Severus places him above all the Eastern monks of whom he knew, and declares his merit to be beyond all expression. "Not an hour passed," says he,(89) "in which Martin did not pray .... No one ever saw him angry, or gloomy, or merry. Ever the same, with a countenance full of heavenly serenity, he seemed to be raised above the infirmities of man. There was nothing in his mouth but Christ; nothing in his heart but piety, peace, and sympathy. He used to weep for the sins of his enemies, who reviled him with poisoned tongues when he was absent and did them no harm .... Yet he had very few persecutors, except among the bishops." The biographer ascribes to him wondrous conflicts with the devil, whom he imagined he saw bodily and tangibly present in all possible shapes. He tells also of visions, miraculous cures, and even, what no oriental anchoret could boast, three instances of restoration of the dead to life, two before and one after his accession to the bishopric;(90) and he assures us that he has omitted the greater part of the miracles which had come to his ears, lest he should weary the reader; but he several times intimates that these were by no means universally credited, even by monks of the same cloister. His piety was characterized by a union of monastic humility with clerical arrogance. At a supper at the court of the tyrannical emperor Maximus in Trier, he handed the goblet of wine, after he himself had drunk of it, first to his presbyter, thus giving him precedence of the emperor.(91) The empress on this occasion showed him an idolatrous veneration, even preparing the meal, laying the cloth, and standing as a servant before him, like Martha before the Lord.(92) More to the bishop’s honor was his protest against the execution of the Priscillianists in Treves. Martin died in 397 or 400: his funeral was attended by two thousand monks, besides many nuns and a great multitude of people; and his grave became one of the most frequented centres of pilgrimage in France.

In Southern Gaul, monasticism spread with equal rapidity. John Cassian, an ascetic writer and a Semipelagian († 432), founded two cloisters in Massilia (Marseilles), where literary studies also were carried on; and Honoratus (after 426, bishop of Arles) established the cloister of St. Honoratus on the island of Lerina.

§ 41. St. Jerome as a Monk.

S. Eus. Hieronymi: Opera omnia, ed. Erasmus (assisted by Oecolampadius), Bas. 1516–’20, 9 vols. fol.; ed. (Bened.) Martianay, Par. 1693–1706, 5 vols. fol. (incomplete); ed. Vallarsi and Maffei, Veron. 1734–’42, 11 vols. fol., also Venet. 1766 (best edition). Comp. especially the 150 Epistles, often separately edited (the chronological order of which Vallarsi, in tom. i. of his edition, has finally established).

For extended works on the life of Jerome see Du Pin (Nouvelle Biblioth. des auteurs Eccles. tom. iii. p. 100–140); Tillemont (tom. xii. 1–356); Martianay (La vie de St. Jerôme, Par. 1706); Joh. Stilting (in the Acta Sanctorum, Sept. tom. viii. p. 418–688, Antw. 1762); Butler (sub Sept. 30); Vallarsi (in Op. Hieron., tom. xi. p. 1–240); Schröckh (viii. 359 sqq., and especially xi. 3–254); Engelstoft (Hieron. Stridonensis, interpres, criticus, exegeta, apologeta, historicus, doctor, monachus, Havn. 1798); D. v. Cölln (in Ersch and Gruber’s Encycl. sect. ii. vol. 8); Collombet (Histoire de S. Jérôme, Lyons, 1844); and O. Zöckler (Hieronymus, sein Leben und Wirken. Gotha, 1865).

The most zealous promoter of the monastic life among the church fathers was Jerome, the connecting link between Eastern and Western learning and religion. His life belongs almost with equal right to the history of theology and the history of monasticism. Hence the church art generally represents him as a penitent in a reading or writing posture, with a lion and a skull, to denote the union of the literary and anchoretic modes of life. He was the first learned divine who not only recommended but actually embraced the monastic mode of life, and his example exerted a great influence in making monasticism available for the promotion of learning. To rare talents and attainments,(93) indefatigable activity of mind, ardent faith, immortal merit in the translation and interpretation of the Bible, and earnest zeal for ascetic piety, he united so great vanity and ambition, such irritability and bitterness of temper, such vehemence of uncontrolled passion, such an intolerant and persecuting spirit, and such inconstancy of conduct, that we find ourselves alternately attracted and repelled by his character, and now filled with admiration for his greatness, now with contempt or pity for his weakness.

Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus was born at Stridon,(94) on the borders of Dalmatia, not far from Aquileia, between the years 331 and 342.(95) He was the son of wealthy Christian parents, and was educated in Rome under the direction of the celebrated heathen grammarian Donatus, and the rhetorician Victorinus. He read with great diligence and profit the classic poets, orators, and philosophers, and collected a considerable library. On Sundays he visited, with Bonosus and other young friends, the subterranean graves of the martyrs, which made an indelible impression upon him. Yet he was not exempt from the temptations of a great and corrupt city, and he lost his chastity, as he himself afterward repeatedly acknowledged with pain.

About the year 370, whether before or after his literary tour to Treves and Aquileia is uncertain, but at all events in his later youth, he received baptism at Rome and resolved thenceforth to devote himself wholly, in rigid abstinence, to the service of the Lord. In the first zeal of his conversion he renounced his love for the classics, and applied himself to the study of the hitherto distasteful Bible. In a morbid ascetic frame, he had, a few years later, that celebrated dream, in which he was summoned before the judgment seat of Christ, and as a heathen Ciceronian,(96) so severely reprimanded and scourged, that even the angels interceded for him from sympathy with his youth, and he himself solemnly vowed never again to take worldly books into his hands. When he woke, he still felt the stripes, which, as he thought, not his heated fancy, but the Lord himself had inflicted upon him. Hence he warns his female friend Eustochium, to whom several years afterward (a.d. 384) he recounted this experience, to avoid all profane reading: "What have light and darkness, Christ and Belial (2 Cor. vi. 14), the Psalms and Horace, the Gospels and Virgil, the Apostles and Cicero, to do with one another? ... We cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of the demons at the same time."(97) But proper as this warning may be against overrating classical scholarship, Jerome himself, in his version of the Bible and his commentaries, affords the best evidence of the inestimable value of linguistic and antiquarian knowledge, when devoted to the service of religion. That oath, also, at least in later life, he did not strictly keep. On the contrary, he made the monks copy the dialogues of Cicero, and explained Virgil at Bethlehem, and his writings abound in recollections and quotations of the classic authors. When Rufinus of Aquileia, at first his warm friend, but afterward a bitter enemy, cast up to him this inconsistency and breach of a solemn vow, he resorted to the evasion that he could not obliterate from his memory what he had formerly read; as if it were not so sinful to cite a heathen author as to read him. With more reason he asserted, that all was a mere dream, and a dream vow was not binding. He referred him to the prophets, "who teach that dreams are vain, and not worthy of faith." Yet was this dream afterward made frequent use of, as Erasmus laments, to cover monastic obscurantism.

After his baptism, Jerome divided his life between the East and the West, between ascetic discipline and literary labor. He removed from Rome to Antioch with a few friends and his library, visited the most celebrated anchorets, attended the exegetical lectures of the younger Apollinaris in Antioch, and then (374) spent some time as an ascetic in the dreary Syrian desert of Chalcis. Here, like so many other hermits, he underwent a grevious struggle with sensuality, which he described ten years after with indelicate minuteness in a long letter to his virgin friend Eustochium.(98) In spite of his starved and emaciated body, his fancy tormented him with wild images of Roman banquets and dances of women; showing that the monastic seclusion from the world was by no means proof against the temptations of the flesh and the devil. Helpless he cast himself at the feet of Jesus, wet them with tears of repentance, and subdued the resisting flesh by a week of fasting and by the dry study of Hebrew grammar (which, according to a letter to Rusticus,(99) he was at that time learning from a converted Jew), until he found peace, and thought himself transported to the choirs of the angels in heaven. In this period probably falls the dream mentioned above, and the composition of several ascetic writings, full of heated eulogy of the monastic life.(100) His biographies of distinguished anchorets, however, are very pleasantly and temperately written.(101) He commends monastic seclusion even against the will of parents; interpreting the word of the Lord about forsaking father and mother, as if monasticism and Christianity were the same. "Though thy mother"—he writes, in 373, to his friend Heliodorus, who had left him in the midst of his journey to the Syrian desert—"with flowing hair and rent garments, should show thee the breasts which have nourished thee; though thy father should lie upon the threshold; yet depart thou, treading over thy father, and fly with dry eyes to the standard of the cross. This is the only religion of its kind, in this matter to be cruel .... The love of God and the fear of hell easily, rend the bonds of the household asunder. The holy Scripture indeed enjoins obedience to parents; but he who loves them more than Christ, loses his soul .... O desert, where the flowers of Christ are blooming!. O solitude, where the stones for the new Jerusalem are prepared! O retreat, which rejoices in the friendship of God! What doest thou in the world, my brother, with thy soul greater than the world? How long wilt thou remain in the shadow of roofs, and in the smoky dungeon of cities? Believe me, I see here more of the light."(102) The eloquent appeal, however, failed of the desired effect; Heliodorus entered the teaching order and became a bishop.

The active and restless spirit of Jerome soon brought him again upon the public stage, and involved him in all the doctrinal and ecclesiastical controversies of those controversial times. He received the ordination of presbyter from the bishop Paulinus in Antioch, without taking charge of a congregation. He preferred the itinerant life of a monk and a student to a fixed office, and about 380 journeyed to Constantinople, where he heard the anti-Arian sermons of the celebrated Gregory Nazianzen, and translated the Chronicle of Eusebius and the homilies of Origen on Jeremiah and Ezekiel. In 382, on account of the Meletian schism, he returned to Rome with Paulinus and Epiphanius. Here he came into close connection with the bishop, Damasus, as his theological adviser and ecclesiastical secretary,(103) and was led by him into new exegetical labors, particularly the revision of the Latin version of the Bible, which he completed at a later day in the East.

At the same time he labored in Rome with the greatest zeal, by mouth and pen, in the cause of monasticism, which had hitherto gained very little foothold there, and met with violent opposition even among the clergy. He had his eye mainly upon the most wealthy and honorable classes of the decayed Roman society, and tried to induce the descendants of the Scipios, the Gracchi, the Marcelli, the Camilli, the Anicii to turn their sumptuous villas into monastic retreats, and to lead a life of self-sacrifice and charity. He met with great success. "The old patrician races, which founded Rome, which had governed her during all her period of splendor and liberty, and which overcame and conquered the world, had expiated for four centuries, under the atrocious yoke of the Caesars, all that was most hard and selfish in the glory of their fathers. Cruelly humiliated, disgraced, and decimated during that long servitude, by the masters whom degenerate Rome had given herself, they found at last in Christian life, such as was practised by the monks, the dignity of sacrifice and the emancipation of the soul. These sons of the old Romans threw themselves into it with the magnanimous fire and persevering energy which had gained for their ancestors the empire of the world. ’Formerly,’ says St. Jerome, ’according to the testimony of the apostles, there were few rich, few noble, few powerful among the Christians. Now it is no longer so. Not only among the Christians, but among the monks are to be found a multitude of the wise, the noble, and the rich.’... The monastic institution offered them a field of battle where the struggles and victories of their ancestors could be renewed and surpassed for a loftier cause, and over enemies more redoubtable. The great men whose memory hovered still over degenerate Rome had contended only with men, and subjugated only their bodies; their descendants undertook to strive with devils, and to conquer souls .... God called them to be the ancestors of a new people, gave them a new empire to found, and permitted them to bury and transfigure the glory of their forefathers in the bosom of the spiritual regeneration of the world."(104)

Most of these distinguished patrician converts of Jerome were women—such widows as Marcella, Albinia, Furia, Salvina, Fabiola, Melania, and the most illustrious of all, Paula, and her family; or virgins, as Eustochium, Apella, Marcellina, Asella, Felicitas, and Demetrias. He gathered them as a select circle around him; he expounded to them the Holy Scriptures, in which some of these Roman ladies were very well read; he answered their questions of conscience; he incited them to celibate life, lavish beneficence, and enthusiastic asceticism; and flattered their spiritual vanity by extravagant praises. He was the oracle, biographer, admirer, and eulogist of these holy women, who constituted the spiritual nobility of Catholic Rome. Even the senator Pammachius, son in-law to Paula and heir to her fortune, gave his goods to the poor, exchanged the purple for the cowl, exposed himself to the mockery of his colleagues, and became, in the flattering language of Jerome, the general in chief of Roman monks, the first of monks in the first of cities.(105) Jerome considered second marriage incompatible with genuine holiness; even depreciated first marriage, except so far as it was a nursery of brides of Christ; warned Eustochium against all intercourse with married women; and hesitated not to call the mother of a bride of Christ, like Paula, a "mother-in-law of God."(106)

His intimacy with these distinguished women, whom he admired more, perhaps, than they admired him, together with his unsparing attacks upon the immoralities of the Roman clergy and of the higher classes, drew upon him much unjust censure and groundless calumny, which he met rather with indignant scorn and satire than with quiet dignity and Christian meekness. After the death of his patron Damasus, a.d. 384, he left Rome, and in August, 385, with his brother Paulinian, a few monks, Paula, and her daughter Eustochium, made a pilgrimage "from Babylon to Jerusalem, that not Nebuchadnezzar, but Jesus, should reign over him." With religious devotion and inquiring mind he wandered through the holy places of Palestine, spent some time in Alexandria, where he heard the lectures of the celebrated Didymus; visited the cells of the Nitrian mountain; and finally, with his two female friends, in 386, settled in the birthplace of the Redeemer, to lament there, as he says, the sins of his youth, and to secure himself against others.

In Bethlehem he presided over a monastery till his death, built a hospital for all strangers except heretics, prosecuted his literary studies without cessation, wrote several commentaries, and finished his improved Latin version of the Bible—the noblest monument of his life—but entangled himself in violent literary controversies, not only with opponents of the church orthodoxy like Helvidius (against whom he had appeared before, in 384), Jovinian, Vigilantius, and Pelagius, but also with his long-tried friend Rufinus, and even with Augustine.(107) Palladius says, his jealousy could tolerate no saint beside himself, and drove many pious monks away from Bethlehem. He complained of the crowds of monks whom his fame attracted to Bethlehem.(108) The remains of the Roman nobility, too, ruined by the sack of Rome, fled to him for food and shelter. At the last his repose was disturbed by incursions of the barbarian Huns and the heretical Pelagians. He died in 419 or 420, of fever, at a great age. His remains were afterward brought to the Roman basilica of Maria Maggiore, but were exhibited also and superstitiously venerated in several copies in Florence, Prague, Clugny, Paris, and the Escurial.(109)

The Roman church has long since assigned him one of the first places among her standard teachers and canonical saints. Yet even some impartial Catholic historians venture to admit and disapprove his glaring inconsistencies and violent passions. The Protestant love of truth inclines to the judgment, that Jerome was indeed an accomplished and most serviceable scholar and a zealous enthusiast for all which his age counted holy, but lacking in calm self-control and proper depth of mind and character, and that he reflected, with the virtues, the failings also of his age and of the monastic system. It must be said to his credit, however, that with all his enthusiastic zeal and admiration for monasticism, he saw with a keen eye and exposed with unsparing hand the false monks and nuns, and painted in lively colors the dangers of melancholy, hypochondria, the hypocrisy and spiritual pride, to which the institution was exposed.(110)

§ 42. St. Paula.

Hieronymus: Epitaphium Paulae matris, ad Eustochium virginem, Ep. cviii. (ed. Vallarsi, Opera, tom. i. p. 684 sqq.; ed. Bened. Ep. lxxxvi). Also the Acta Sanctorum, and Butler’s Lives of Saints, sub Jan. 26.

Of Jerome’s many female disciples, the most distinguished is St. Paula, the model of a Roman Catholic nun. With his accustomed extravagance, he opens his eulogy after her death, in. 404, with these words: "If all the members of my body were turned into tongues, and all my joints were to utter human voices, I should be unable to say anything worthy of the holy and venerable Paula."

She was born in 347, of the renowned stock of the Scipios and Gracchi and Paulus Aemilius,(111) and was already a widow of six and thirty years, and the mother of five children, when, under the influence of Jerome, she renounced all the wealth and honors of the world, and betook herself to the most rigorous ascetic life. Rumor circulated suspicion, which her spiritual guide, however, in a letter to Asella, answered with indignant rhetoric: "Was there, then, no other matron in Rome, who could have conquered my heart, but that one, who was always mourning and fasting, who abounded in dirt,(112) who had become almost blind with weeping, who spent whole nights in prayer, whose song was the Psalms, whose conversation was the gospel, whose joy was abstemiousness, whose life was fasting? Could no other have pleased me, but that one, whom I have never seen eat? Nay, verily, after I had begun to revere her as her chastity deserved, should all virtues have at once forsaken me?" He afterward boasts of her, that she knew the Scriptures almost entirely by memory; she even learned Hebrew, that she might sing the psalter with him in the original; and continually addressed exegetical questions to him, which he himself could answer only in part.

Repressing the sacred feelings of a mother, she left her daughter Ruffina and her little son Toxotius, in spite of their prayers and tears, in the city, of Rome,(113) met Jerome in Antioch, and made a pilgrimage to Palestine and Egypt. With glowing devotion, she knelt before the rediscovered cross, as if the Lord were still hanging upon it; she kissed the stone of the resurrection which the angel rolled away; licked with thirsty tongue the pretended tomb of Jesus, and shed tears of joy as she entered the stable and beheld the manger of Bethlehem. In Egypt she penetrated into the desert of Nitria, prostrated herself at the feet of the hermits, and then returned to the holy land and settled permanently in the birthplace of the Saviour. She founded there a monastery for Jerome, whom she supported, and three nunneries, in which she spent twenty years as abbess, until 404.

She denied herself flesh and wine, performed, with her daughter Eustochium, the meanest services, and even in sickness slept on the bare ground in a hair shirt, or spent the whole night in prayer. "I must," said she, "disfigure my face, which I have often, against the command of God, adorned with paint; torment the body, which has participated in many idolatries; and atone for long laughing by constant weeping." Her liberality knew no bounds. She wished to die in beggary, and to be buried in a shroud which did not belong to her. She left to her daughter (she died in 419) a multitude of debts, which she had contracted at a high rate of interest for benevolent purposes.(114)

Her obsequies, which lasted a week, were attended by the bishops of Jerusalem and other cities of Palestine, besides clergy, monks, nuns, and laymen innumerable. Jerome apostrophizes her: "Farewell, Paula, and help with prayer the old age of thy adorer!"

§ 43. Benedict of Nursia.

Gregorius M.: Dialogorum, l. iv. (composed about 594; lib. ii. contains the biography of St. Benedict according to the communications of four abbots and disciples of the saint, Constantine, Honoratus, Valentinian, and Simplicius, but full of surprising miracles). Mabillon and other writers of the Benedictine congregation of St. Maurus: Acta Sanctorum ordinis S. Benedicti in saeculorum classes distributa, fol. Par. 1668–1701, 9 vols. (to the year 1100), and Annales ordinis S. Bened. Par. 1703–’39, 6 vols. fol. (to 1157). Dom (Domnus) Jos. De Mège: Vie de St. Benoit, Par. 1690. The Acta Sanctorum, and Butler, sub Mart. 21. Montalembert: The Monks of the West, vol. ii. book iv.

Benedict of Nursia, the founder of the celebrated order which bears his name, gave to the Western monasticism a fixed and permanent form, and thus carried it far above the Eastern with its imperfect attempts at organization, and made it exceedingly profitable to the practical, and, incidentally, also to the literary interests of the Catholic Church. He holds, therefore, the dignity of patriarch of the Western monks. He has furnished a remarkable instance of the incalculable influence which a simple but judicious moral rule of life may exercise on many centuries.

Benedict was born of the illustrious house of Anicius, at Nursia (now Norcia) in Umbria, about the year 480, at the time when the political and social state of Europe was distracted and dismembered, and literature, morals, and religion seemed to be doomed to irremediable ruin. He studied in Rome, but so early as his fifteenth year he fled from the corrupt society of his fellow students, and spent three years in seclusion in a dark, narrow, and inaccessible grotto at Subiaco.(115) A neighboring monk, Romanus, furnished him from time to time his scanty food, letting it down by a cord, with a little bell, the sound of which announced to him the loaf of bread. He there passed through the usual anchoretic battles with demons, and by prayer and ascetic exercises attained a rare power over nature. At one time, Pope Gregory tells us, the allurements of voluptuousness so strongly tempted his imagination that he was on the point of leaving his retreat in pursuit of a beautiful woman of previous acquaintance; but summoning up his courage, he took off his vestment of skins and rolled himself naked on thorns and briers, near his cave, until the impure fire of sensual passion was forever extinguished. Seven centuries later, St. Francis of Assisi planted on that spiritual battle field two rose trees, which grew and survived the Benedictine thorns and briers. He gradually became known, and was at first taken for a wild beast by the surrounding shepherds, but afterward reverenced as a saint.

After this period of hermit life he began his labors in behalf of the monastery proper. In that mountainous region he established in succession twelve cloisters, each with twelve monks and a superior, himself holding the oversight of all. The persecution of an unworthy priest caused him, however, to leave Subiaco and retire to a wild but picturesque mountain district in the Neapolitan province, upon the boundaries of Samnium and Campania. There he destroyed the remnants of idolatry, converted many of the pagan inhabitants to Christianity by his preaching and miracles, and in the year 529, under many difficulties, founded upon the ruins of a temple of Apollo the renowned cloister of Monte Cassino,(116) the alma mater and capital of his order. Here he labored fourteen years, till his death. Although never ordained to the priesthood, his life there was rather that of a missionary and apostle than of a solitary. He cultivated the soil, fed the poor, healed the sick, preached to the neighboring population, directed the young monks, who in increasing numbers flocked to him, and organized the monastic life upon a fixed method or rule, which he himself conscientiously observed. His power over the hearts, and the veneration in which he was held, is illustrated by the visit of Totila, in 542, the barbarian king, the victor of the Romans and master of Italy, who threw himself on his face before the saint, accepted his reproof and exhortations, asked his blessing, and left a better man, but fell after ten years’ reign, as Benedict had predicted, in a great battle with the Graeco-Roman army under Narses. Benedict died, after partaking of the holy communion, praying, in standing posture, at the foot of the altar, on the 21st of March, 543, and was buried by the side of his sister, Scholastica, who had established, a nunnery near Monte Cassino and died a few weeks before him. They met only once a year, on the side of the mountain, for prayer and pious conversation. On the day of his departure, two monks saw in a vision a shining pathway of stars leading from Monte Cassino to heaven, and heard a voice, that by this road Benedict, the well beloved of God, had ascended to heaven.

His credulous biographer, Pope Gregory I., in the second book of his Dialogues, ascribes to him miraculous prophecies and healings, and even a raising of the dead.(117) With reference to his want of secular culture and his spiritual knowledge, he calls him a learned ignorant and an unlettered sage.(118) At all events he possessed the genius of a lawgiver, and holds the first place among the founders of monastic orders, though his person and life are much less interesting than those of a Bernard of Clairvaux, a Francis of Assisi, and an Ignatius of Loyola.(119)

§ 44. The Rule of St. Benedict.

The Regula Benedicti has been frequently edited and annotated, best by Holstenius: Codex reg. Monast. tom. i. p. 111–135; by Dom Marténe: Commentarius in regulam S. Benedicti literalis, moralis, historicus, Par. 1690, in 4to.; by Dom Calmet, Par. 1734, 2 vols.; and by Dom Charles Brandes (Benedictine of Einsiedeln), in 3 vols., Einsiedeln and New York, 1857. Gieseler gives the most important articles in his Ch. H. Bd. i. AbtheiI. 2, § 119. Comp. also Montalembert, l.c. ii. 39 sqq.

The rule of St. Benedict, on which his fame rests, forms an epoch in the history of monasticism. In a short time it superseded all contemporary and older rules of the kind, and became the immortal code of the most illustrious branch of the monastic army, and the basis of the whole Roman Catholic cloister life.(120) It consists of a preface or prologue, and a series of moral, social, liturgical, and penal ordinances, in seventy-three chapters. It shows a true knowledge of human nature, the practical wisdom of Rome, and adaptation to Western customs; it combines simplicity with completeness, strictness with gentleness, humility with courage, and gives the whole cloister life a fixed unity and compact organization, which, like the episcopate, possessed an unlimited versatility and power of expansion. It made every cloister an ecclesiola in ecclesia, reflecting the relation of the bishop to his charge, the monarchical principle of authority on the democratic basis of the equality of the brethren, though claiming a higher degree of perfection than could be realized in the great secular church. For the rude and undisciplined world of the middle age, the Benedictine rule furnished a wholesome course of training and a constant stimulus to the obedience, self-control, order, and industry which were indispensable to the regeneration and healthy growth of social life.(121)

The spirit of the rule may be judged from the following sentences of the prologus, which contains pious exhortations: "Having thus," he says, "my brethren, asked of the Lord who shall dwell in his tabernacle, we have heard the precepts prescribed to such a one. If we fulfil these conditions, we shall be heirs of the kingdom of heaven. Let us then prepare our hearts and bodies to fight under a holy obedience to these precepts; and if it is not always possible for nature to obey, let us ask the Lord that he would deign to give us the succor of his grace. Would we avoid the pains of hell and attain eternal life, while there is still time, while we are still in this mortal body, and while the light of this life is bestowed upon us for that purpose, let us run and strive so as to reap an eternal reward. We must then form a school of divine servitude, in which, we trust, nothing too heavy or rigorous will be established. But if, in conformity with right and justice, we should exercise a little severity for the amendment of vices or the preservation of charity, beware of fleeing under the impulse of terror from the way of salvation, which cannot but have a hard beginning. When a man has walked for some time in obedience and faith, his heart will expand, and he will run with the unspeakable sweetness of love in the way of God’s commandments. May he grant that, never straying from the instruction of the Master, and persevering in his doctrine in the monastery until death, we may share by patience in the sufferings of Christ, and be worthy to share together his kingdom."(122) The leading provisions of this rule are as follows:

At the head of each society stands an abbot, who is elected by the monks, and, with their consent, appoints a provost (praepositus), and, when the number of the brethren requires, deans over the several divisions (decaniae), as assistants. He governs, in Christ’s stead, by authority and example, and is to his cloister, what the bishop is to his diocese. In the more weighty matters he takes the congregation of the brethren into consultation; in ordinary affairs only the older members. The formal entrance into the cloister must be preceded by a probation of novitiate of one year (subsequently it was made three years), that no one might prematurely or rashly take the solemn step. If the novice repented his resolution, he could leave the cloister without hindrance; if he adhered to it, he was, at the close of his probation, subjected to an examination in presence of the abbot and the monks, and then, appealing to the saints, whose relics were in the cloister, he laid upon the altar of the chapel the irrevocable vow, written or at least subscribed by his own hand, and therewith cut off from himself forever all return to the world.

From this important arrangement the cloister received its stability and the whole monastic institution derived additional earnestness, solidity, and permanence.

The vow was threefold, comprising stabilitas, perpetual adherence to the monastic order; conversio morum, especially voluntary poverty and chastity, which were always regarded as the very essence of monastic piety under all its forms; and obedientia coram Deo et sanctis ejus, absolute obedience to the abbot, as the representative of God and Christ. This obedience is the cardinal virtue of a monk.(123)

The life of the cloister consisted of a judicious alternation of spiritual and bodily exercises. This is the great excellence of the rule of Benedict, who proceeded here upon the true principle, that idleness is the mortal enemy of the soul and the workshop of the devil.(124) Seven hours were to be devoted to prayer, singing of psalms, and meditation;(125) from two to three hours, especially on Sunday, to religious reading; and from six to seven hours to manual labor in doors or in the field, or, instead of this, to the training of children, who were committed to the cloister by their parents (oblati).(126)

Here was a starting point for the afterward celebrated cloister schools, and for that attention to literary pursuits, which, though entirely foreign to the uneducated Benedict and his immediate successors, afterward became one of the chief ornaments of his order, and in many cloisters took the place of manual labor.

In other respects the mode of life was to be simple, without extreme rigor, and confined to strictly necessary things. Clothing consisted of a tunic with a black cowl (whence the name: Black Friars); the material to be determined by the climate and season. On the two weekly fast days, and from the middle of September to Easter, one meal was to suffice for the day. Each monk is allowed daily a pound of bread and pulse, and, according to the Italian custom, half a flagon (hemina) of wine; though he is advised to abstain from the wine, if he can do so without injury to his health. Flesh is permitted only to the weak and sick,(127) who were to be treated with special care. During the meal some edifying piece was read, and silence enjoined. The individual monk knows no personal property, not even his simple dress as such; and the fruits of his labor go into the common treasury. He should avoid all contact with the world, as dangerous to the soul, and therefore every cloister should be so arranged, as to be able to carry on even the arts and trades necessary for supplying its wants.(128) Hospitality and other works of love are especially commended.

The penalties for transgression of the rule are, first, private admonition, then exclusion from the fellowship of prayer, next exclusion from fraternal intercourse, and finally expulsion from the cloister, after which, however, restoration is possible, even to the third time.

§ 45. The Benedictines. Cassiodorus.

Benedict had no presentiment of the vast historical importance, which this rule, originally designed simply for the cloister of Monte Cassino, was destined to attain. He probably never aspired beyond the regeneration and salvation of his own soul and that of his brother monks, and all the talk of later Catholic historians about his far-reaching plans of a political and social regeneration of Europe, and the preservation and promotion of literature and art, find no support whatever in his life or in his rule. But he humbly planted a seed, which Providence blessed a hundredfold. By his rule he became, without his own will or knowledge, the founder of an order, which, until in the thirteenth century the Dominicans and Franciscans pressed it partially into the background, spread with great rapidity over the whole of Europe, maintained a clear supremacy, formed the model for all other monastic orders, and gave to the Catholic church an imposing array of missionaries, authors, artists, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and popes, as Gregory the Great and Gregory VII. In less than a century after the death of Benedict, the conquests of the barbarians in Italy, Gaul, Spain were reconquered for civilization, and the vast territories of Great Britain, Germany, and Scandinavia incorporated into Christendom, or opened to missionary labor; and in this progress of history the monastic institution, regulated and organized by Benedict’s rule, bears an honorable share.

Benedict himself established a second cloister in the vicinity of Terracina, and two of his favorite disciples, Placidus and St. Maurus,(129) introduced the "holy rule," the one into Sicily, the other into France. Pope Gregory the Great, himself at one time a Benedictine monk, enhanced its prestige, and converted the Anglo-Saxons to the Roman Christian faith, by Benedictine monks. Gradually the rule found so general acceptance both in old and in new institutions, that in the time of Charlemagne it became a question, whether there were any monks at all, who were not Benedictines. The order, it is true, has degenerated from time to time, through the increase of its wealth and the decay of its discipline, but its fostering care of religion, of humane studies, and of the general civilization of Europe, from the tilling of the soil to the noblest learning, has given it an honorable place in history and won immortal praise. He who is familiar with the imposing and venerable tomes of the Benedictine editions of the Fathers, their thoroughly learned prefaces, biographies, antiquarian dissertations, and indexes, can never think of the order of the Benedictines without sincere regard and gratitude.

The patronage of learning, however, as we have already said, was not within the design of the founder or his rule. The joining of this to the cloister life is duel if we leave out of view the learned monk Jerome, to Cassiodorus, who in 538 retired from the honors and cares of high civil office, in the Gothic monarchy of Italy,(130) to a monastery founded by himself at Vivarium(131) (Viviers), in Calabria in Lower Italy. Here he spent nearly thirty years as monk and abbot, collected a large library, encouraged the monks to copy and to study the Holy Scriptures, the works of the church fathers, and even the ancient classics, and wrote for them several literary and theological text-books, especially his treatise De institutione divinarum literarum, a kind of elementary encyclopaedia, which was the code of monastic education for many generations. Vivarium at one time almost rivalled Monte Cassino, and Cassiodorus won the honorary title of the restorer of knowledge in the sixth century.(132)

The Benedictines, already accustomed to regular work, soon followed this example. Thus that very mode of life, which in its founder, Anthony, despised all learning, became in the course of its development an asylum of culture in the rough and stormy times of the migration and the crusades, and a conservator of the literary treasures of antiquity for the use of modern times.

§ 46. Opposition to Monasticism. Jovinian.

I. Chrysostomus: Pro;" tou;" polemou'vta" toi'" ejpi; to; monavzein ejnavgousin (a vindication of monasticism against its opponents, in three books). Hieronymus: Ep. 61, ad Vigilantium (ed. Vallars. tom. i. p. 345 sqq.); Ep. 109, ad Riparium (i. 719 sqq.); Adv. Helvidium (a.d. 383); Adv. Jovinianum (a.d. 392); Adv. Vigilantium (a.d. 406). All these three tracts are in Opera Hieron. tom. ii. p. 206–402. Augustinus: De haeres. cap. 82 (on Jovinian), and c. 84 (on Helvidius and the Helvidians). Epiphanius: Haeres. 75 (on Aerius).

Chr. W. F. Walch: Ketzerhistorie (1766), part iii. p. 585 (on Helvidius and the Antidikomarianites); p. 635 sqq. (on Jovinian); and p. 673 sqq. (on Vigilantius). Vogel: De Vigilantio haeretico orthodoxo, Gött. 1756. G. B. Lindner: De Joviniano et Vigilantio purioris doctrinae antesignanis, Lips. 1839. W. S. Gilly: Vigilantius and his Times, Lond. 1844. Comp. also Neander: Der heil. Joh. Chrysostomus, 3d ed. 1848, vol. i. p. 53 sqq.; and Kirchengesch, iii. p. 508 sqq. (Torrey’s translation, ii. p. 265 sqq.). Baur: Die christliche Kirche von 4–6ten Jahrh. 1859, p. 311 sqq.

Although monasticism was a mighty movement of the age, engaging either the cooperation or the admiration of the whole church, yet it was not exempt from opposition. And opposition sprang from very different quarters: now from zealous defenders of heathenism, like Julian and Libanius, who hated and bitterly reviled the monks for their fanatical opposition to temples and idol-worship; now from Christian statesmen and emperors, like Valens, who were enlisted against it by its withdrawing so much force from the civil and military service of the state, and, in the time of peril from the barbarians, encouraging idleness and passive contemplation instead of active, heroic virtue; now from friends of worldly indulgence, who found themselves unpleasantly disturbed and rebuked by the religious earnestness and zeal of the ascetic life; lastly, however, also from a liberal, almost protestant, conception of Christian morality, which set itself at the same time against the worship of Mary and the saints, and other abuses. This last form of opposition, however, existed mostly in isolated cases, was rather negative than positive in its character, lacked the spirit of wisdom and moderation, and hence almost entirely disappeared in the fifth century, only to be revived long after, in more mature and comprehensive form, when monasticism had fulfilled its mission for the world.

To this class of opponents belong Helvidius, Jovinian, Vigilantius, and Aerius. The first three are known to us through the passionate replies of Jerome, the last through the Panarion of Epiphanius. They figure in Catholic church history among the heretics, while they have received from many Protestant historians a place among the "witnesses of the truth" and the forerunners of the Reformation.

We begin with Jovinian, the most important among them, who is sometimes compared, for instance, even by Neander, to Luther, because, like Luther, he was carried by his own experience into reaction against the ascetic tendency and the doctrines connected with it. He wrote in Rome, before the year 390 a work, now lost, attacking monasticism in its ethical principles. He was at that time himself a monk, and probably remained so in a free way until his death. At all events he never married, and according to Augustine’s account, he abstained "for the present distress,"(133) and from aversion to the encumbrances of the married state. Jerome pressed him with the alternative of marrying and proving the equality of celibacy with married life, or giving up his opposition to his own condition.(134) Jerome gives a very unfavorable picture of his character, evidently colored by vehement bitterness. He calls Jovinian a servant of corruption, a barbarous writer, a Christian Epicurean, who, after having once lived in strict asceticism, now preferred earth to heaven, vice to virtue, his belly to Christ, and always strode along as an elegantly dressed bridegroom. Augustine is much more lenient, only reproaching Jovinian with having misled many Roman nuns into marriage by holding before them the examples of pious women in the Bible. Jovinian was probably provoked to question and oppose monasticism, as Gieseler supposes, by Jerome’s extravagant praising of it, and by the feeling against it, which the death of Blesilla (384) in Rome confirmed. And he at first found extensive sympathy. But he was excommunicated and banished with his adherents at a council about the year 390, by Siricius, bishop of Rome, who was zealously opposed to the marriage of priests. He then betook himself to Milan, where the two monks Sarmatio and Barbatian held forth views like his own; but he was treated there after the same fashion by the bishop, Ambrose, who held a council against him. From this time he and his party disappear from history, and before the year 406 he died in exile.(135)

According to Jerome, Jovinian held these four points (1) Virgins, widows, and married persons, who have once been baptized into Christ, have equal merit, other things in their conduct being equal. (2) Those, who are once with full faith born again by baptism, cannot be overcome (subverti) by the devil. (3) There is no difference between abstaining from food and enjoying it with thanksgiving. (4) All, who keep the baptismal covenant, will receive an equal reward in heaven.

He insisted chiefly on the first point; so that Jerome devotes the whole first book of his refutation to this point, while he disposes of all the other heads in the second. In favor of the moral equality of married and single life, he appealed to Gen. ii. 24, where God himself institutes marriage before the fall; to Matt. xix. 5, where Christ sanctions it; to the patriarchs before and after the flood; to Moses and the prophets, Zacharias and Elizabeth, and the apostles, particularly Peter, who lived in wedlock; also to Paul, who himself exhorted to marriage,(136) required the bishop or the deacon to be the husband of one wife,(137) and advised young widows to marry and bear children.(138) He declared the prohibition of marriage and of divinely provided food a Manichaean error. To answer these arguments, Jerome indulges in utterly unwarranted inferences, and speaks of marriage in a tone of contempt, which gave offence even to his friends.(139) Augustine was moved by it to present the advantages of the married life in a special work, De bono conjugali, though without yielding the ascetic estimate of celibacy.(140)

Jovinian’s second point has an apparent affinity with the Augustinian and Calvinistic doctrine of the perseverantia sanctorum. It is not referred by him, however, to the eternal and unchangeable counsel of God, but simply based on 1 Jno. iii. 9, and v. 18, and is connected with his abstract conception of the opposite moral states. He limits the impossibility of relapse to the truly regenerate, who "plena fide in baptismate renati sunt," and makes a distinction between the mere baptism of water and the baptism of the Spirit, which involves also a distinction between the actual and the ideal church.

His third point is aimed against the ascetic exaltation of fasting, with reference to Rom. xiv. 20, and 1 Tim. iv. 3. God, he holds, has created all animals for the service of man; Christ attended the marriage feast at Cana as a guest, sat at table with Zaccheus, with publicans and sinners, and was called by the Pharisees a glutton and a wine-bibber; and the apostle says: To the pure all things are pure, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving.

He went still further, however, and, with the Stoics, denied all gradations of moral merit and demerit, consequently also all gradations of reward and punishment. He overlooked the process of development in both good and evil. He went back of all outward relations to the inner mind, and lost all subordinate differences of degree in the great contrast between true Christians and men of the world, between regenerate and unregenerate; whereas, the friends of monasticism taught a higher and lower morality, and distinguished the ascetics, as a special class, from the mass of ordinary Christians. As Christ, says he, dwells in believers, without difference of degree, so also believers are in Christ without difference of degree or stages of development. There are only two classes of men, righteous and wicked, sheep and goats, five wise virgins and five foolish, good trees with good fruit and bad trees with bad fruit. He appealed also to the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, who all received equal wages. Jerome answered him with such things as the parable of the sower and the different kinds of ground, the parable of the different numbers of talents with corresponding rewards, the many mansions in the Father’s house (by which Jovinian singularly understood the different churches on earth), the comparison of the resurrection bodies with the stars, which differ in glory, and the passage: "He which soweth sparingly, shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully, shall reap also bountifully."(141)

§ 47. Helvidius, Vigilantius, and Aerius.

See especially the tracts of Jerome quoted in the preceding section.

Helvidius, whether a layman or a priest at Rome it is uncertain, a pupil, according to the statement of Gennadius, of the Arian bishop Auxentius of Milan, wrote a work, before the year 383, in refutation of the perpetual virginity of the mother of the Lord—a leading point with the current glorification of celibacy. He considered the married state equal in honor and glory to that of virginity. Of his fortunes we know nothing. Augustine speaks of Helvidians, who are probably identical with the Antidicomarianites of Epiphanius. Jerome calls Helvidius, indeed, a rough and uneducated man,(142) but proves by quotations of his arguments, that he had at least some knowledge of the Scriptures, and a certain ingenuity. He appealed in the first place to Matt. i. 18, 24, 25, as implying that Joseph knew his wife not before, but after, the birth of the Lord; then to the designation of Jesus as the "first born" son of Mary, in Matt. i. 25, and Luke ii. 7; then to the many passages, which speak of the brothers and sisters of Jesus; and finally to the authority of Tertullian and Victorinus. Jerome replies, that the "till" by no means always fixes a point after which any action must begin or cease;(143) that, according to Ex. xxxiv. 19, 20; Num. xviii. 15 sqq., the "first born" does not necessarily imply the birth of other children afterward, but denotes every one, who first opens the womb; that the "brothers" of Jesus may have been either sons of Joseph by a former marriage, or, according to the wide Hebrew use of the term, cousins; and that the authorities cited were more than balanced by the testimony of Ignatius, Polycarp(?), and Irenaeus. "Had Helvidius read these," says he, "he would doubtless have produced something more skilful."

This whole question, it is well known, is still a problem in exegesis. The perpetua virginitas of Mary has less support from Scripture than the opposite theory. But it is so essential to the whole ascetic system, that it became from this time an article of the Catholic faith, and the denial of it was anathematized as blasphemous heresy. A considerable number of Protestant divines,(144) however, agree on this point with the Catholic doctrine, and think it incompatible with the dignity of Mary, that, after the birth of the Son of God and Saviour of the world, she should have borne ordinary children of men.

Vigilantius, originally from Gaul,(145) a presbyter of Barcelona in Spain, a man of pious but vehement zeal, and of literary talent, wrote in the beginning of the fifth century against the ascetic spirit of the age and the superstition connected with it. Jerome’s reply, dictated hastily in a single night at Bethlehem in the year 406, contains more of personal abuse and low witticism, than of solid argument. "There have been," he says, "monsters on earth, centaurs, syrens, leviathans, behemoths .... Gaul alone has bred no monsters, but has ever abounded in brave and noble men,—when, of a sudden, there has arisen one Vigilantius, who should rather be called Dormitantius,(146) contending in an impure spirit against the Spirit of Christ, and forbidding to honor the graves of the martyrs; he rejects the Vigils—only at Easter should we sing hallelujah; he declares abstemiousness to be heresy, and chastity a nursery of licentiousness (pudicitiam, libidinis seminarium) .... This innkeeper of Calagurris(147) mingles water with the wine, and would, according to ancient art, combine his poison with the genuine faith. He opposes virginity, hates chastity, cries against the fastings of the saints, and would only amidst jovial feastings amuse himself with the Psalms of David. It is terrible to bear, that even bishops are companions of his wantonness, if those deserve this name, who ordain only married persons deacons, and trust not the chastity of the single."(148) Vigilantius thinks it better for a man to use his money wisely, and apply it gradually to benevolent objects at home, than to lavish it all at once upon the poor or give it to the monks of Jerusalem. He went further, however, than his two predecessors, and bent his main efforts against the worship of saints and relics, which was then gaining ascendency and was fostered by monasticism. He considered it superstition and idolatry. He called the Christians, who worshipped the "wretched bones" of dead men, ash-gatherers and idolaters.(149) He expressed himself sceptically respecting the miracles of the martyrs, contested the practice of invoking them and of intercession for the dead, as useless, and declared himself against the Vigils, or public worship in the night, as tending to disorder and licentiousness. This last point Jerome admits as a fact, but not as an argument, because the abuse should not abolish the right use.

The presbyter Aerius of Sebaste, about 360, belongs also among the partial opponents of monasticism. For, though himself an ascetic, he contended against the fast laws and the injunction of fasts at certain times, considering them an encroachment upon Christian freedom. Epiphanius also ascribes to him three other heretical views: denial of the superiority of bishops to presbyters, opposition to the usual Easter festival, and opposition to prayers for the dead.(150) He was hotly persecuted by the hierarchy, and was obliged to live, with his adherents, in open fields and in caves.

Original Footnotes

(1; original 259): Comp. the occasional notices of the Indian gymnosophists in Strabo (lib. xv. cap. 1, after accounts from the time of Alexander the Great), Arrian (Exped. Alex. l. vii. c. 1-3, and Hist. Ind. c. 11), Plinius (Hist Nat. vii. 2), Diodorus Siculus (lib. ii.), Plutarch (Alex. 64), Porphyry (De abstinent. l. iv.), Lucian (Fugit. 7), Clemens Alex. (Strom. l. i. and iii.), and Augustine (De Civit. Dei, l. xiv. c. 17: "Per opacas Indiae solitudines, quum quidam nudi philosophentur, unde gymnosophistae nominantur; adhibent tamen genitalibus tegmina, quibus per caetera membrorum carent;" and l. xv. 20, where he denies all merit to their celibacy, because it is not "secundum fidem summi boni, qui est Deus"). With these ancient representations agree the narratives of Fon Koueki (about 400, translated by M. A. Rémusat, Par. 1836), Marco Polo (1280), Bernier (1670), Hamilton (1700), Papi, Niebuhr, Orlich, Sonnerat, and others.

(2; original 260): The Indian word for it is tapas, i.e. the burning out, or the extinction of the individual being and its absorption into the essence of Brahma.

(3; original 261): Ad. Wuttke, in his able and instructive work: Das Geistesleben der Chinesen, Japaner, und Indier (second part of his History of Heathenism), 1853, p. 593.

(4; original 262): See the older accounts of Catholic missionaries to Thibet, in Pinkerton’s Collection of Voyages and Travels, vol. vii., and also the recent work of Huc, a French missionary priest of the congregation of St. Lazare: Souvenirs d’un Voyage dans la Tartarie, le Thibet, et la Chine, pendant les années 1844-1846. Comp. also on the whole subject the two works of R. S. Hardy: "Eastern Monachism" and "A Manual of Buddhism in its modern development, translated from Singalese MSS." Lond. 1850. The striking affinity between Buddhism and Romanism extends, by the way, beyond monkery and convent life to the heirarchical organization, with the Grand Lama for pope, and to the worship, with its ceremonies, feasts, processions, pilgrimages, confessional, a kind of mass, prayers for the dead, extreme unction, &c. The view is certainly at least plausible, to which the great geographer Carl Ritter (Erdkunde, ii. p. 283-299, 2d ed.) has given the weight of his name, that the Lamaists in Thibet borrowed their religious forms and ceremonies in part from the Nestorian missionaries. But this view is a mere hypothesis, and is rendered improbable by the fact, that Buddhism in Cochin China, Tonquin, and Japan, where no Nestorian missionaries ever were, shows the same striking resemblance to Romanism as the Lamaism of Thibet, Tartary, and North China. Respecting the singular tradition of Prester John, or the Christian priest-king in Eastern Asia, which arose about the eleventh century, and respecting the Nestorian missions, see Ritter, l.c.

(5; original 263): Comp. Num. vi. 1-21.

(6; original 264): Comp. the remarkable description of these Jewish monks by the elder Pliny, Hist. Natur. v. 15: "Gens sola, et in toto orbe praeter caeteros mira, sine ulla femina, omni venere abdicata, sine pecunia, socia palmarum. Ita per seculorum millia (incredibile dictu) gens aeterna est in qua nemo nascitur. Tam foecunda illis aliorum vitae penitentia est."

(7; original 265): Eusebius, H. E. ii. 17, erroneously takes them for Christians.

(8; original 266): H. Ruffner, l.c. vol. i. ch. ii.–ix., gives an extended description of these extra-Christian forms of monasticism, and derives the Christian from them, especially from the Buddhist.

(9; original 267): So even Calvin, who, in his commentary on 1 Tim. iv. 3, refers Paul’s prophecy of the ascetic apostasy primarily to the Encratites, Gnostics, Montanists, and Manichaeans, but extends it also to the Papists, "quando coelibatum et ciborum abstinentiam severius urgent quam ullum Dei praeceptum." So, recently, Ruffner, and especially Is. Taylor, who, in his "Ancient Christianity," vol. i. p. 299 sqq., has a special chapter on The Predicted Ascetic Apostasy. The best modern interpreters, however, are agreed, that the apostle has the heretical Gnostic dualistic asceticism in his eye, which forbade marriage and certain meats as intrinsically impure; whereas the Roman and Greek churches make marriage a sacrament, only subordinate it to celibacy, and limit the prohibition of it to priests and monks. The application of 1 Tim. iv. 1-3 to the Catholic church is, therefore, admissible at most only in a partial and indirect way.

(10; original 268): Comp. vol. i. § 94-97.

(11; original 269): Lactantius says it was necessary to buy even the liberty of breathing, and according to Zosimus (Hist. ii. 38) the fathers prostituted their daughters to have means to pay their tax.

(12; original 270): From ajnacwrevw, to retire (from human society), ajnacwrhthv", ejrhmivth" (from ejrhmiva, a desert). The word monacov" (from movno", alone, and monavzein, to live alone), monachus (whence monk), also points originally to solitary, hermit life, but is commonly synonymous with coenobite or friar.

(13; original 271): Koinovbion, coenobium; from koinov" bivo", vita communis; then the congregation of monks; sometimes also used for the building. In the same sense mavndra, stable, fold, and monasthvrion, claustrum (whence cloister). Also lauvrai, laurae (literally, streets), that is cells, of which usually a number were built not far apart, so as to form a hamlet. Hence this term is often used in the same sense as monasterium. The singular, lau'ra, however, answers to the anchoret life. On this nomenclature of monasticism comp. Du Cange, in the Glossarium mediae et infimae Latinitatis, under the respective words.

(14; original 272): JHgouvmeno", ajrcemandrivth" , ajbba'", i.e. father, hence abbot. A female superintendent was called in Syriac ajmma'", mother, abbess.

(15; original 273): From nonna, i.e. casta, chaste, holy. The word is probably of Coptic origin, and occurs as early as in Jerome. The masculine nonnus, monk, appears frequently in the middle age. Comp. the examples in Du Cange, s. v.

(16; original 274): Hence Middleton says, not without reason: "By all which I have ever read of the old, and have seen of the modern monks, I take the preference to be clearly due to the last, as having a more regular discipline, more good learning, and less superstition among them than the first."

(17; original 275): Bivo" qewrhtikov" , and bivo" praktikov", according to Gregory Nazianzen and others. Throughout the middle age the distinction between the vita contemplativa and the vita activa was illustrated by the two sisters of Lazarus, Luke x. 38-42.

(18; original 276): JH kata; qeo;n orCristo;n filosofiva, hJ uJyhlhv filo"., i.e. in the sense of the ancients, not so much a speculative system, as a mode of life under a particular rule. So in the Pythagoreans, Stoics, Cynics, and Neo-Platonists. Ascetic and philosopher are the same.

(19; original 277): jApostoliko;" bivo" , oJ tw'n ajggevlwn bivo", vita angelica; after an unwarranted application of Christ’s word respecting the sexless life of the angels, Matt. xxii. 30, which is not presented here as a model for imitation, but only mentioned as an argument against the Sadducees.

(20; original 278): ln his famous battle poem: "The Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava," first ed. 1854.

(21; original 279): Comp. the truthful remark of Yves de Chartres, of the twelfth century, Ep. 192 (quoted by Montalembert): "Non beatum faciunt hominem secreta sylvarum, cacumina montium, si secum non habet solitudinem mentis, sabbatum cordis, tranquillitatem conscientiae, ascensiones in corde, sine quibus omnem solitudinem comitantur mentis acedia, curiositas, vana gloria, periculosae tentationum procellae."

(22; original 280): So Jerome, Ep. 49 (ed. Ben.), ad Paulinum, where he adduces, besides Elijah and John, Isaiah also and the sons of the prophets, as the fathers of monasticism; and in his Vita Pauli, where, however, he more correctly designates Paul of Thebes and Anthony as the first hermits, properly so called, in distinction from the prophets. Comp. also Sozomen: H. E., 1. i. c. 12: Tauvth" de; th'" ajrivsth" filosofiva" h[rxato, w{" tine" levgousin, JHliva" oJ profhvth" kai; jIwavnnh" oJ baptisthv". This appeal to the example of Elijah and John the Baptist has become traditional with Catholic writers on the subject. Alban Butler says, under Jan. 15, in the life of Paul of Thebes: "Elias and John the Baptist sanctified the deserts, and Jesus Christ himself was a model of the eremitical state during his forty days’ fast in the wilderness; neither is it to be questioned but the Holy Ghost conducted the saint of this day (Paul of Thebes) into the desert, and was to him an instructor there."

(23; original 281): Hence called consilia evangelica, in distinction from mandata divina; after 1 Cor. vii. 25, where Paul does certainly make a similar distinction. The consilium and votum paupertatis is based on Matt. xix. 21; the votum castitatis, on 1 Cor. vii. 8, 25, 38-40. For the votum obedientiae no particular text is quoted. The theory appears substantially as early as in Origen, and was in him not merely a personal opinion, but the reflex of a very widely spread practice. Comp. vol. i. § 94 and 95.

(24; original 282): Comp. Col. ii. 16-23.

(25; original 283): Comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 1-3. Comp. p. 168 sq.

(26; original 284): [Aplasto", lit. not moulded; hence natural, sincere.

(27; original 285): Ma; to;n jIhsou'n (per Christum, in Salvian), which now took the place of the pagan oath: ma; to;n Diva, by Jupiter.

(28; original 286): In Theodoret: Hist. relig. c. (vita) 13.

(29; original 287): Comp. Matt. xi. 18, 19; 1 Tim. iv. 3-5.

(30; original 288): Comp. Hist. Laus. c. 33 and 95.

(31; original 289): Hist. Eccles. lib. vi. cap. 34.

(32; original 290): These latter themselves were not absolutely naked, but wore a covering over the middle, as Augustine, in the passage above cited, De Civit. Dei, l. xiv. c. 17, and later tourists tell us. On the contrary, there were monks who were very scrupulous on this point. It is said of Ammon, that he never saw himself naked. The monks in Tabennae, according to the rule of Pachomius, had to sleep always in their clothes.

(33; original 291): Comp. Hist Lausiaca, c. 20, and Tillemont, tom. viii. p. 633.

(34; original 292): Theboskoivor pabulatores. Comp. Sozom. H. E. l. vi. 33. Ephraim Syrus delivered a special eulogy on them, cited in Tillemont, Mem. tom. viii. p. 292 sq.

(35; original 293): Hist. Rel. cap. (vita) xv. (Opera omnia, ed Par. iii. 843 sqq.).

(36; original 294): Dial. i. c. 8. Severus sees in this a wonderful example of the power of Christ over wild beasts.

(37; original 295): L. c. i. c 11.

(38; original 296): See Ruffner, l.c. i. 49 sqq., and Wuttke, l.c. p. 369 sqq.

(39; original 297): According to a sensuous and local conception of Eph. vi. 12: Ta; pneumatika; th'" ponhriva" ejn toi'" ejpouranivoi" ; "die bösen Geister unter dem Himmel" (evil spirits under heaven), as Luther translates; while the Vulgate gives it literally, but somewhat obscurely: "Spiritualia nequitiae in coelestibus;" and the English Bible quite too freely: "Spiritual wickedness in high places." In any case pneumatikav is to be taken in a much wider sense than pneuvmata or daimovnia; and ejpouravnia, also, is not fully identical with the cloud heaven or the atmosphere, and besides admits a different construction, so that many put a comma after ponhriva". The monastic satanology and demonology, we may remark, was universally received in the ancient church and throughout the middle ages. And it is well known that Luther retained from his monastic life a sensuous, materialistic idea of the devil and of his influence on men.

(40; original 298): Athanasius says of St. Anthony, that the devil sometimes appeared to him in the form of a woman; Jerome relates of St. Hilarion, that in bed his imagination was often beset with visions of naked women. Jerome himself acknowledges, in a letter to a virgin (!), Epist. xxii. (ed. Vallars. t. i. p. 91, 92), de Custodia Virginitatis, ad Eustochium: "O quoties ego ipse in eremo constitutus et in illa vasta solitudine, quae exusta solis ardoribus horridum monachis praebebat habitaculum, putavi me Romanis interesse deliciis .... Ille igitur ego, qui ob gehennae metum tali me carcere ipse damnaveram, scorpionum tantum socius et ferarum, saepe choris intereram puellarum. Pallebant ora jejuniis, et mens desideriis aestuabat in frigido corpore, et ante hominem suum jam in carne praemortuum, sola libidinum incendia bulliebant. Itaque omni auxilio destitutus, ad Jesu jacebam pedes, rigabam lacrymis, crine tergebam et repugnantem carnem hebdomadarum inedia subjugabam." St. Ephraim warns against listening to the enemy, who whispers to the monk: Ouj dunato;n pauvsasqei ajpov sou, eja;n mh; plhroforhvsh/" ejpiqumivan sou.

(41; original 299): Vita Pach. § 61. Comp. Nilus, Epist. l. ii. p. 140: Tine;" ... eJautou;" e[sfaxan macaivra/ etc. Even among the fanatical Circumcelliones, Donatist medicant monks in Africa, suicide was not uncommon.

(42; original 300): Tillem. vii. 430. The abbot thereupon, as Tillemont relates, was informed by a revelation, "que Muce avait egalé par son obeissance celle d’Abraham," and soon after made him his successor.

(43; original 301): Omnino monachum fugere debere mulieres et episcopos.

(44; original 302): Sozom. iv. 30.

(45; original 303): Hist. of (ancient) Christianity, Am. ed., p. 432.

(46; original 304): Chateaubriand commends the monastic institution mainly under the first view. "If there are refuges for the health of the body, ah ! permit religion to have such also for the health of the soul, which is still more subject to sickness, and the infirmities of which are so much more sad, so much more tedious and difficult to cure!" Montalembert (l.c. i. 25) objects to this view as poetic and touching but false, and represents monasticism as an arena for the healthiest and strongest souls which the world has ever produced, and quotes the passage of Chrysostom: "Come and see the tents of the soldiers of Christ; come and see their order of battle; they fight every day, and every day they defeat and immolate the passions which assail us."

(47; original 305): 1 The abbot Isidore of Pelusium wrote to a slaveholder, Ep. l. i. 142 (cited by Neander): "I did not think that the man who loves Christ, and knows the grace which makes us all free, would still hold slaves."

(48; original 306): The monkish miracles, with which the Vitae Patrum of the Jesuit Rosweyde and the Acta Sanctorum swarm, often contradict all the laws of nature and of reason, and would be hardly worthy of mention, but that they come from such fathers as Jerome, Rufinus, Severus, Palladius, and Theodoret, and go to characterize the Nicene age. We are far from rejecting all and every one as falsehood and deception, and accepting the judgment of Isaac Taylor (Ancient Christianity, ii. 106): "The Nicene miracles are of a kind which shocks every sentiment of gravity, of decency, and of piety:—in their obvious features they are childish, horrid, blasphemous, and foul." Much more cautious is the opinion of Robertson (Hist. of the Christian Church, i. 312) and other Protestant historians, who suppose that, together with the innocent illusions of a heated imagination and the fabrications of intentional fraud, there must have been also much that was real, though in the nature of the case an exact sifting is impossible. But many of these stories are too much even for Roman credulity, and are either entirely omitted or at least greatly reduced and modified by critical historians. We read not only of innumerable visions, prophecies, healings of the sick and the possessed, but also of raising of the dead (as in the life of Martin of Tours), of the growth of a dry stick into a fruitful tree, and of a monk’s passing unseared, in absolute obedience to his abbot, through a furnace of fire as through a cooling bath. (Comp. Sulp. Sever. Dial. i. c. 12 and 13.) Even wild beasts play a large part, and are transformed into rational servants of the Egyptian saints of the desert. At the funeral of Paul of Thebes, according to Jerome, two lions voluntarily performed the office of sexton. Pachomius walked unharmed over serpents and scorpions, and crossed the Nile on crocodiles, which, of their own accord, presented their backs. The younger Macarius, or (according to other statements of the Historia Lausiaca; comp. the investigation of Tillemont, tom. viii. p. 811 sqq.) the monk Marcus stood on so good terms with the beasts, that a hyena (according to Rufinus, V. P. ii. 4, it was a lioness) brought her young one to him in his cell, that he might open its eyes; which he did by prayer and application of spittle; and the next day she offered him, for gratitude, a large sheepskin; the saint at first declined the gift, and reproved the beast for the double crime of murder and theft, by which she had obtained the skin; but when the hyena showed repentance, and with a nod promised amendment, Macarius took the skin, and afterward bequeathed it to the great bishop Athanasius. Severus (Dial. i. c. 9) gives a very similar account of an unknown anchoret, but, like Rufinus, substitutes for the hyena of Palladius a lioness with five whelps, and makes the saint receive the present of the skin without scruple or reproof. Shortly before (c. 8), he speaks, however, of a wolf, which once robbed a friendly hermit, whose evening meal she was accustomed to share, showed deep repentance for it, and with bowed head begged forgiveness of the saint. Perhaps Palladius or his Latin translator has combined these two anecdotes.

(49; original 307): Pliny counts thirty-nine different sorts of palm trees, of which the best grow in Egypt, are ever green, have thick foliage, and bear a fruit, from which in some places bread is made.

(50; original 308): Jerome says of Anthony, in his Vita Pauli Theb. (c. i.): "Non tam ipse auto omnes (eremitas) fuit, quam ab eo omnium incitata sunt studia."

(51; original 309): According to the common opinion, which was also Augustine’s, Anthony could not even read. But Tillemont (tom. vii. 107 and 666), Butler, and others think that this igorance related only to the Greek alphabet, not to the Egyptian. Athanasius, p. 795, expresses himself somewhat indistinctly; that, from dread of society, he would not maqei'n gravmmata (letters? or the arts?), but speaks afterward of his regard for reading.

(52; original 310): Augustine says of him, De doctr. Christ. § 4, that, without being able to read from only hearing the Bible, he knew it by heart. The life of Athanasius shows, indeed, that a number of Scripture passages were very familiar to him. But of a connected and deep knowledge of Scripture in him, or in these anchorets generally, we find no trace.

(53; original 311): Matt. xix. 21.

(54; original 312): Matt. vi. 34.

(55; original 313): Eij" parqenw'na, says Athanasius; i.e., not "un monastere de verges," as Tillemont translates, for nunneries did not yet exist; but a society of female ascetics within the congregation; from which, however, a regular cloister might of course very easily grow.

(56; original 314): Jerome, in his Vita Hilarionis, c. 31, gives an incidental description of this last residence of Anthony, according to which it was not so desolate as from Athanasius one would infer. He speaks even of palms, fruit trees, and vines in this garden, the fruit of which any one would have enjoyed.

(57; original 315): Athanas. c. 42: jElqovnte" ga;r (oiJ ejcqroi;)oJpoivou" ajn eu{rwsin hJma'",toiou'toi kai; aujtoi; givnontai, etc.—an important psychological observation.

(58; original 316): This is not told indeed by Athanasius, but by Rufinus, Jerome, and Socrates (Hist. Eccl. iv. 25). Comp. Tillemont, l.c. p. 129.

(59; original 317): Comp. the proofs in Tillemont, l.c. p. 137 sq.

(60; original 318): Dion, fol. 51, ed. Petav., cited in Tillemont and Neander.

(61; original 319): Hom. viii. in Matth. tom. vii. 128 (ed. Montfaucon).

(62; original 320): · Comp. Aug.: Confess. l. viii. c. 6 and 28.

(63; original 321): "Quanti populi," says Rufinus (Vitae Patr. ii c. 7), "habentur in urbibus, tantae paene habentur in desertis multitudines monachorum." Gibbon adds the sarcastic remark: "Posterity might repeat the saying, which had formerly been applied to sacred animals of the same country, That in Egypt it was less difficult to find a god than a man." Montalembert (Monks of the West, vol. i. p. 314) says of the increase of monks: "Nothing in the wonderful history of these hermits in Egypt is so incredible as their number. But the most weighty authorities agreed in establishing it (S. Augustine, De morib. Eccles. i. 31). It was a kind of emigration of towns to the desert, of civilization to simplicity, of noise to silence, of corruption to innocence. The current once begun, floods of men, of women, and of children threw themselves into it, and flowed thither during a century with irresistible force."

(64; original 322): There were several (five or seven) anchorets of this name, who are often confounded. The most celebrated are Macarius the elder, or the Great († 390), to whom the Homilies probably belong; and Macarius the younger, of Alexandria († 404), the teacher of Palladius, who spent a long time with him, and set him as high as the other. Comp. Tillemont’s extended account, tom. viii. p. 574-650, and the notes, p. 811 sqq.

(65; original 323): On Ammon, or, in Egyptian, Amus and Amun, comp. Tillemont, viii. p. 153-166, and the notes, p. 672-674.

(66; original 324): Opera, tom. ii. p. 13-40.

(67; original 325): Lu. xiv. 33.

(68; original 326): A peculiar, romantic, but not fully historical interest attaches to the biography of the imprisoned and fortunately escaping monk Malchus, with his nominal wife, which is preserved to us by Jerome.

(69; original 327): Original at least in the Christian church. Gieseler refers to a heathen precedent; the Fallobatei'" in Syria, mentioned by Lucian, De Dea Syria, c. 28 and 29.

(70; original 328): Butler, l.c., however, relates something similar of a contemporary Benedictine monk, Dom Claude Leante: "In 1731, when he was about fifty-one years of age, he had fasted eleven years without taking any food the whole forty days, except what he daily took at mass; and what added to the wonder is, that during Lent he did not properly sleep, but only dozed. He could not bear the open air; and toward the end of Lent he was excessively pale and wasted. This fact is attested by his brethren and superiors, in a relation printed at Sens, in 1731."

(71; original 329): The first pillar, which he himself erected, and on which he lived four years, was six cubits (phvcewn) high, the second twelve, the third twenty-two, and the fourth, which the people erected for him, and on which he spent twenty years, was thirty-six, according to Theodoret; others say forty. The top was only three feet in diameter. It probably had a railing, however, on which he could lean in sleep or exhaustion. So at least these pillars are drawn in pictures. Food was carried up to the pillar saints by their disciples on a ladder.

(72; original 330): To; mevga qau'ma th'" oijkoumevnh". Hist. Relig. c. 26, at the beginning.

(73; original 331): Referring to Isa xx. 2; Jer. i. 17; xxviii. 12; Hos i. 2; iii. 1; Ezek. iv. 4; xii. 5.

(74; original 332): Ep. ii. 114; cited in Gieseler, ii. 2, p. 246, note 47 (Edinb. Engl. ed. ii. p. 13, note 47), and in Neander.

(75; original 333): Möhler remarks on this (Vermischte Schriften, ii. p. 183): "Thus antiquity expresses its faith, that for man perfectly reconciled with God there is no enemy in nature. There is more than poetry here; there is expressed at least the high opinion his own and future generations had of Pachomius." The last qualifying remark suggests a doubt even in the mind of this famous modern champion of Romanism as to the real historical character of the wonderful tales of this monastic saint.

(76; original 334): Gregory Nazianzen, in his eulogy on Basil (Orat. xx. of the old order, Orat. xliii. in the new Par. ed.), gives him the honor of endeavoring to unite the theoretical and the practical modes of life in monasticism, i]na mhvte to; filovsofon ajkoinwvnhton h|/, mhvte to; praktiko;n ajfilovsofon.

(77; original 335): Comp. Neander, iii. 487 (Torrey’s translation, vol. ii. p. 250 sqq.), who esteems Nilus highly; and the article of Gass in Herzog’s Theol. Encykl. vol. x. p, 355 sqq. His works are in the Bibl. Max. vet. Patr. tom. vii., and in Migne’s Patrol. Gr. t. 79.

(78; original 336): Comp. on him Tillemont, xv., and H. A. Niemeyer: "De Isid. Pel. vita, scripet doctrina," Hal. 1825. His Epistles are in the 7th volume of the Bibliotheca Maxima, and in Migne’s Patrol. Graeca, tom. 58, Paris, 1860.

(79; original 337): From @ylix]lim' = Eujcivtai, from eujchv, prayer.

(80; original 338): Sulpitius Severus, in the first of his three dialogues, gives several amusing instances of the difference between the Gallic and Egyptian stomach, and was greatly astonished when the first Egyptian anchoret whom he visited placed before him and his four companions a half loaf of barley bread and a handful of herbs for a dinner, though they tasted very good after the wearisome journey. "Edacitas," says he, "in Graecis gula est, in Gallia natura." (Dial. i. c. 8, in Gallandi, t. viii. p. 405.)

(81; original 339): "The monastic stream," says Montalembert, l.c., "which had been born in the deserts of Egypt, divided itself into two great arms. The one spread in the East, at first inundated everything, then concentrated and lost itself there. The other escaped into the West, and spread itself by a thousand channels over an entire world, which had to be covered and fertilized."

(82; original 340): Augustine, Conf. vii. 6: "Erat monasterium Mediolani plenum bonis fratribus extra urbis moenia, sub Ambrosio nutritore."

(83; original 341): Ambr.: De virginibus, lib. iii., addressed to his sister Marcellina, about 377. Comp. Tillem. x. 102-105, and Schröckh, viii. 355 sqq.

(84; original 342): Ambr.: Hexaëmeron, l. iii. c. 5. Hieron.: Ep. ad Oceanum de morte Fabiolae, Ep. 77 ed. Vall. (84 ed. Ben., al. 30).

(85; original 343): He himself speaks of a monasterium clericorum in his episcopal residence, and his biographer, Possidius, says of him, Vita, c. 5: "Factus ergo presbyter monasterium inter ecclesiam mox instituit, et cum Dei servis vivere coepit secundum modum, et regulam sub sanctis apostlis constitutam, maxime ut nemo quidquam proprium haberet, sed eis essent omnia communia."

(86; original 344): De opera monach. c. 22. Still later, Salvian (De gubern. Dei, viii. 4) speaks of the hatred of the Africans for monasticism.

(87; original 345): In his Vita Martini, and also in three letters respecting him, and in three very eloquently and elegantly written dialogues, the first of which relates to the oriental monks, the two others to the miracles of Martin (translated, with some omissions, in Ruffner’s Fathers of the Desert, vol. ii. p. 68-178). He tells us (Dial. i. c. 23) that the book traders of Rome sold his Vita Martini more rapidly than any other book, and made great profit on it. The Acts of the Saints were read as romances in those days.

(88; original 346): The biographer here refers, of course, to Matt. xxv. 40

(89; original 347): Toward the close of his biography, c. 26, 27 (Gallandi, tom. viii. 399).

(90; original 348): Comp. Dial. ii. 5 (in Gallandi Bibl. tom. viii. p. 412).

(91; original 349): Vita M. c. 20 (in Gallandi, viii. 397).

(92; original 350): Dial. ii. 7, which probably relates to the same banquet, since Martin declined other invitations to the imperial table. Severus gives us to understand that this was the only time Martin allowed a woman so near him, or received her service. He commended a nun for declining even his official visit as bishop, and Severus remarks thereupon: "O glorious virgin, who would not even suffer herself to be seen by Martin! O blessed Martin, who took not this refusal for an insult, but commended its virtue, and rejoiced to find in that region so rare an example!" (Dial, ii. c. 12, Gall, viii. 414.)

(93; original 351): As he himself boasts in his second apology to Rufinus: "Ego philosophus(?), rhetor, grammaticus, dialecticus, hebraeus, graecus, latinus, trilinguis." The celebrated Erasmus, the first editor of his works, and a very competent judge in matters of literary talent and merit, places Jerome above all the fathers, even St. Augustine (with whose doctrines of free grace and predestination he could not sympathize), and often gives eloquent expression to his admiration for him. In a letter to Pope Leo X. (Ep. ii. 1, quoted in Vallarsi’s ed. of Jerome’s works, tom. xi. 290), he says: "Divus Hieronymus sic apud Latinos est theologorum princeps, ut hunc prope solum habeamus theologi dignum nomine. Non quod caeteros damnem, sed quod illustres alioqui, si cum hoc conferantur, ob huius eminentiam velut obscurentur. Denique tot egregiis est cumulatus dotibus, ut vix ullum habeat et ipsa docta Graecia, quem cum hoc viro quest componere. Quantum in illo Romanae facundiae! quanta linguarum peritia! quanta omnis antiquitatis omnium historiarum notitia! quam fida memoria! quam felix rerum omnium mixtum! quam absoluta mysticarum literarum cognitio! super omnia, quis ardor ille, quam admirabilis divini pectoris afflatus? ut una et plurimum delectet eloquentia, et doceat eruditione, et rapiat sanctimonia."

(94; original 352): Hence called Stridonensis; also in distinction from the contemporary but little known Greek Jerome, who was probably a presbyter in Jerusalem.

(95; original 353): Martianay, Stilting, Cave, Schröckh, Hagenbach, and others, place his birth, according to Prosper, Chron. ad ann. 331, in the year 331; Baronius, Du Pin, and Tillemont, with greater probability, in the year 342. The last infers from various circumstances, that Jerome lived, not ninety-one years, as Prosper states, but only seventy-eight. Vallarsi (t. xi. 8) places his birth still later, in the year 346. His death is placed in the year 419 or 420.

(96; original 354): "Mentiris," said the Lord to him, when Jerome called himself a Christian, Ciceronianus es, non Christianus, ubi enim thesaurus tuus ibi et cor tuum." Ep. xxii. ad Eustochium, "De custodia virginitatis "(tom. i. p. 113). C. A. Heumann has written a special treatise, De ecstasi Hieronymi anti-Ciceroniana. Comp. also Schröckh, vol. vii. p. 35 sqq., and Ozanam: " Civilisation au 5e Siècle," i. 301.

(97; original 355): Ep. xxii. ed. Vall. i. 112).

(98; original 356): Ep. xxii. (i. p. 91, ed. Vallars.)

(99; original 357): Ep. cxxv., ed. Vallars. (al. 95 or 4.)

(100; original 358): De laude vitae solitariae, Ep. xiv. (tom. i. 28-36) ad Heliodorum. The Roman lady Fabiola learned this letter by heart, and Du Pin calls it a masterpiece of eloquence (Nouv. Bibl. des auteurs eccl. iii. 102), but it is almost too declamatory and turgid. He himself afterward acknowledged it overdrawn.

(101; original 359): Gibbon says of them: "The stories of Paul, Hilarion, and Malchus are admirably told; and the only defect of these pleasing compositions is the want of truth and common sense."

(102; original 360): Ep. xiv. (t. i. 29 sq.) Similar descriptions of the attractions of monastic life we meet with in the ascetic writings of Gregory, Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Cassian, Nilus, and Isidor. "So great grace," says the venerable monk Nilus of Mount Sinai, in the beginning of the fifth century (Ep. lib. i Ep. 1, as quoted by Neander, Am. ed. ii. 250), "so great grace his God bestowed on the monks, even in anticipation of the future world, that they wish for no honors from men, and feel no longing after the greatness of this world; but, on the contrary, often seek rather to remain concealed from men: while, on the other hand, many of the great, who possess all the glory of the world, either of their own accord, or compelled by misfortune, take refuge with the lowly monks, and, delivered from fatal dangers, obtain at once a temporal and an eternal salvation."

(103; original 361): As we infer from a remark of Jerome in Ep. cxxiii. c. 10, written a. 409 (ed. Vallars. i. p. 901): "Ante annos plurimos, quum in chartis ecclesiasticis" (i.e. probably in ecclesiastical documents; though Schröckh, viii. p. 122, refers it to the Holy Scriptures, appealing to a work of Bonamici unknown to me), "juvarem Damasum, Romanae urbis episcopum, et orientis atque occidentis synodicis consultationibus responderem," etc. The latter words, which Schröckh does not quote, favor the common interpretation.

(104; original 362): Montalembert, himself the scion of an old noble family in France, l.c. i. p. 388 sq. Comp. Hieron., Epist. lxvi. ad Pammachium, de obit. Paulinae (ed. Vallars. i. 391 sqq.).

(105; original 363): In one of his Epist. ad Pammach.: "Primus inter monachos in prima urbe ... archistrategos monachorum."

(106; original 364): Ep. xxii. ad Eustochium, "de custodia virginitatis." Even Rufinus was shocked at the profane, nay, almost blasphemous expression, socrus Dei, and asked him from what heathen poet he had stolen it.

(107; original 365): His controversy with Augustine on the interpretation of Gal. ii. 14 is not unimportant as an index of the moral character of the two most illustrous Latin fathers of the church. Jerome saw in the account of the collision between Paul and Peter, in Antioch, an artifice of pastoral prudence, and supposed that Paul did not there reprove the senior apostle in earnest, but only for effect, to reclaim the Jews from their wrong notions respecting the validity of the ceremonial law. Augustine’s delicate sense of truth was justly offended by this exegesis, which, to save the dignity of Peter, ascribed falsehood to Paul, and he expressed his opinion to Jerome, who, however, very loftily made him feel his smaller grammatical knowledge. But they afterward became reconciled. Comp. on this dispute the letters on both sides, in Hieron. Opera, ed. Vall. tom. i. 632 sqq., and the treatise of Möhler, in his "Vermischte Schriften," vol. i. p. 1-18.

(108; original 366): "Tantis de toto orbe confluentibus obruimur turbis monachorum."

(109; original 367): The Jesuit Stilting, the author of the Vita Hieron. in the Acta Sanctorum, devotes nearly thirty folio pages to accounts of the veneration paid to him and his relics after his death.

(110; original 368): Most Roman Catholic biographers, as Martianay, Vallarsi, Stilting, Dolci, and even the Anglican Cave, are unqualified eulogists of Jerome. See also the "Selecta Veterum testimonia de Hieronymo ejusque scriptis," in Vallarsi’s edition, tom. xi. pp. 282-300. Tillemont, however, who on account of his Jansenist proclivity sympathizes more with Augustine, makes a move toward a more enlightened judgment, for which Stilting sharply reproves him. Montalembert (l.c. i. 402) praises him as a man of genius, inspired by zeal and subdued by penitence, of ardent faith and immense resources of knowledge; yet he incidentally speaks also of his "almost savage impetuosity of temper," and "that inexhaustible vehemence which sometimes degenerated into emphasis and affectation." Dr. John H. Newman, in his opinion before his transition from Puseyism to Romanism, exhibits the conflict in which the moral feeling is here involved with the authority of the Roman Church: "I do not scruple to say, that, were he not a saint, there are things in his writings and views from which I should shrink; but as the case stands, I shrink rather from putting myself in opposition to something like a judgment of the catholic(?) world in favor of his saintly perfection." (Church of the Fathers, 263, cited by Robertson.) Luther also here boldly broke through tradition, but, forgetful of the great value of the Vulgate even to his German version of the Bible, went to the opposite extreme of unjust derogation, expressing several times a distinct antipathy to this church father, and charging him with knowing not how to write at all of Christ, but only of fasts, virginity, and useless monkish exercises. Le Clerc exposed his defects with thorough ability, but unfairly, in his "Quaestiones Hieronymianae" (Amstel. 1700, over 500 pages). Mosheim and Schröckh are more mild, but the latter considers it doubtful whether Jerome did Christianity more good than harm. Among later Protestant historians opinion has become somewhat more favorable, though rather to his learning than to his moral character, which betrays in his letters and controversial writings too many unquestionable weaknesses.

(111; original 369): Her father professed to trace his genealogy to Agamemnon, and her husband to Aeneas.

(112; original 370): This want of cleanliness, the inseparable companion of ancient ascetic holiness, is bad enough in monks, but still more intolerable and revolting in nuns.

(113; original 371): "Nesciebat se matrem," says Jerome, "ut Christi probaret ancillam." Revealing the conflict of monastic sanctity with the natural virtues which God has enjoined. Montalembert, also, quotes this objectionable passage with apparent approbation.

(114; original 372): Jerome says, Eustochium hoped to pay the debts of her mother—probably by the help of others. Fuller justly remarks: "Liberality should have banks, as well as a stream."

(115; original 373): In Latin Sublaqueum, or Sublacum, in the States of the Church, over thirty English miles (Butler says "near forty," Montalembert, ii. 7, "fifty miles") east of Rome, on the Teverone. Butler describes the place as "a barren, hideous chain of rocks, with a river and lake in the valley."

(116; original 374): Monasterium Cassinense. It was destroyed, indeed, by the Lombards, as early as 583, as Benedict is said to have predicted it would be, but was rebuilt in 731, consecrated in 748, again destroyed by the Saracens in 857, rebuilt about 950, and more completely, after many other calamities, in 1649, consecrated for the third time by Benedict XIII. in 1727, enriched and increased under the patronage of the emperors and popes, but in modern times despoiled of its enormous income (which at the end of the sixteenth century was reckoned at 500,000 ducats), and has stood through all vicissitudes to this day. In the days of its splendor, when the abbot was first baron of the kingdom of Naples, and commanded over four hundred towns and villages, it numbered several hundred monks, but in 1843 only twenty. It has a considerable library. Montalembert (l.c. ii. 19) calls Monte Cassino "the most powerful and celebrated monastery in the Catholic universe; celebrated especially because there Benedict wrote his rule and formed the type which was to serve as a model to innumerable communities submitted to that sovereign code." He also quotes the poetic description from Dante’s Paradiso. Dom Luigi Tosti published at Naples, in 1842, a full history of this convent, in three volumes.

(117; original 375): Gregor. Dial. ii. 37.

(118; original 376): "Scienter nesciens, et sapienter indoctus."

(119; original 377): Butler, l.c., compares him even with Moses and Elijah. "Being chosen by God, like another Moses, to conduct faithful souls into the true promised land, the kingdom of heaven, he was enriched with eminent supernatural gifts, even those of miracles and prophecy. He seemed, like another Eliseus, endued by God with an extraordinary power, commanding all nature, and, like the ancient prophets, foreseeing future events. He often raised the sinking courage of his monks, and baffled the various artifices of the devil with the sign of the cross, rendered the heaviest stone light, in building his monastery, by a short prayer, and, in presence of a multitude of people, raised to life a novice who had been crushed by the fall of a wall at Monte Cassino." Montalembert omits the more extraordinary miracles, except the deliverance of Placidus from the whirlpool, which he relates in the language of Bossuet, ii. 15.

(120; original 378): The Catholic church has recognized three other rules besides that of St. Benedict, viz.: 1. That of St. Basil, which is still retained by the Oriental monks; 2. That of St. Augustine, which is adopted by the regular canons, the order of the preaching brothers or Dominicans, and several military orders; 3. The rule of St. Francis of Assisi, and his mendicant order, in the thirteenth century.

(121; original 379): Pope Gregory believed the rule of St. Benedict even to be directly inspired, and Bossuet (Panégyric de Saint Benoit), in evident exaggeration, calls it "an epitome of Christianity, a learned and mysterious abridgment of all doctrines of the gospel, all the institutions of the holy fathers, and all the counsels of perfection." Montalembert speaks in a similar strain of French declamatory eloquence. Monasticism knows very little of the gospel of freedom, and resolves Christianity into a new law of obedience.

(122; original 380): We have availed ourselves, in this extract from the preface, of the translation of Montalembert, ii. 44 sq.

(123; original 381): Cap. 5: "Primus humilitatis gradus est obedientia sine mora. Haec convenit iis, qui nihil sibi Christo carius aliquid existimant; propter servitium sanctum, quod professi sunt, seu propter metum gehennae, vel gloriam vitae aeternae, mox ut aliquid imperatum a majore fuerit, ac si divinitus imperetur, moram pati nesciunt in faciendo."

(124; original 382): Cap. 48: "Otiositas inimica est animae; et ideo certis temporibus occupari debent fratres in labore manuum, certis iterum horis in lectione divina."

(125; original 383): The horaecanonicae are the Nocturnae vigiliae, Matutinae, Prima, Tertia, Sexta, Nona, Vespera, and Completorium, and are taken (c. 16) from a literal interpretation of Ps. cxix. 164: "Seven times a day do I praise thee," and v. 62: "At midnight I will rise to give thanks unto thee." The Psalter was the liturgy and hymn book of the convent. It was so divided among the seven services of the day, that the whole psalter should be chanted once a week.

(126; original 384): Cap. 59: "Si quis forte de nobilibus offert filium suum Deo in monasterio, si ipse puer minori aetate est, parentes ejus faciant petitionem," etc.

(127; original 385): Cap. 40: "Carnium quadrupedum ab omnibus abstinetur comestio, praeter omnino debiles et aegrotos." Even birds are excluded, which were at that time only delicacies for princes and nobles, as Mabillon shows from the contemporary testimony of Gregory of Tours.

(128; original 386): Cap. 66: "Monasterium, si possit fieri, ita debet construi, ut omnia necessaria, id est, aqua, molendinum, hortus, pistrinum, vel artes diversae intra monasterium exerceantur, ut non sit necessitas monachis vagandi foras, quia omnino non expedit animabus eorum."

(129; original 387): This Maurus, the founder of the abbacy of Glanfeuil (St. Maur sur Loire), is the patron saint of a branch of the Benedictines, the celebrated Maurians in France (dating from 1618), who so highly distinguished themselves in the seventeenth and early part of the eighteenth centuries, by their thorough archaeological and historical researches, and their superior editions of the Fathers. The most eminent of the Maurians are D. (Dom, equivalent to Domnus, Sir) Menard, d’Achery, Godin, Mabillon, le Nourry, Martianay, Ruinart, Martene, Montfaucon, Massuet, Garnier, and de la Rue, and in our time Dom Pitra, editor of a valuable collection of patristic fragments, at the cloister of Solesme.

(130; original 388): He was the last of the Roman consuls—an office which Justinian abolished—and was successively the minister of Odoacer, Theodoric, and Athalaric, who made him prefect of the praetorium

(131; original 389): Or Vivaria, so called from the numerous vivaria or fish ponds in that region.

(132; original 390): Comp. Mabillon, Ann. Bened. l. v. c. 24, 27; F. de Ste. Marthe, Vie de Cassiodore, 1684.

(133; original 391): 1 Cor. vii. 26.

(134; original 392): Adv. Jovin. lib. i. c. 40 (Opera, ii. 304): "Et tamen iste formosus monachus, crassus, nitidus, dealbatus, et quasi sponsus semper incedens, aut uxorem ducat ut aequalem virginitatem nuptiis probet; aut, si non duxerit, frustra contra nos verbis agit, cum opere nobiscum sit."

(135; original 393): Augustine says, De haer. c. 82: "Cito ista haeresis oppressa et extincta est;" and Jerome writes of Jovinian, in 406, Adv. Vigilant. c. 1, that, after having been condemned by the authority of the Roman church, he dissipated his mind in the enjoyment of his lusts.

(136; original 394): 1 Cor. vii. 36, 39.

(137; original 395): 1 Tim. iii. 2, 12.

(138; original 396): 1 Tim. v. 14; comp. 1 Tim. ii. 15; Heb. xiii. 4.

(139; original 397): From 1 Cor. vii. 1, for example ("It is good for a man not to touch a woman"), he argues, without qualification, l. i. c. 7 (Opera, ii. 246): "Si bonum est mulierem non tangere, malum est ergo tangere, nihil enim bono contrarium est, nisi malum; si autem malum est, et ignoscitur, ideo conceditur, ne malo quid deterius fiat .... Tolle fornicationem, et non dicet [apostolus], unusquisque uxorem suam habeat."Immediately after this (ii. 247) he argues, from the exhortation of Paul to pray without ceasing, 1 Thess. v. 17: "Si semper orandum est, nunquam ergo conjugio serviendum, quoniam quotiescunque uxori debitum reddo, orare non possum." Such sophistries and misinterpretations evidently proceed upon the lowest sensual idea of marriage, and called forth some opposition even at that age. He himself afterward felt that he had gone too far, and in his Ep. 48 (ed. Vallars. or Ep. 30, ed. Bened.) ad Pammachium, endeavored to save himself by distinguishing between the gymnastic (polemically rhetorical) and the dogmatic mode of writing.

(140; original 398): De bono conj. c. 8: "Duo bona sunt connubium et continentia, quorum alterum est melius."

(141; original 399): 2 Cor. ix. 6.

(142; original 400): At the very beginning of his work against him, he styles him "hominem rusticum et vix primis quoque imbutum literis."

(143; original 401): Comp. Matt. xxviii. 20.

(144; original 402): Luther, for instance (who even calls Helvidius a "gross fool"), and Zuingle, among the Reformers; Olshausen and J. P. Lange, among the later theologians.

(145; original 403): Respecting his descent, compare the diffuse treatise of the tedious but thorough Walch, l.c. p. 675-677.

(146; original 404): This cheap pun he repeats, Epist. 109, ad Ripar. (Opera, i. p. 719), where he says that Vigilantius (Wakeful) was so called kat j ajntivfrasin, and should rather be called Dormitantius (Sleepy). The fact is, that Vigilantius was wide-awake to a sense of certain superstitions of the age

(147; original 405): In South Gaul; now Casères in Gascogne. As the business of innkeeper is incompatible with the spiritual office, it has been supposed that the father of Vigilantius was a caupo Calagurritanus. Comp. Rössler’s Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, part ix. p. 880 sq., note 100; and Walch, l.c

(148; original 406): Adv. Vigil.c. 1 and 2 (Opera, tom. ii. p. 387 sqq.).

(149; original 407): "Cinerarios et idolatras, qui mortuorum ossa venerantur." Hieron. Ep. 109, ad Riparium (tom. i. p. 719).

(150; original 408): Epiph. Haer. 75. Comp. also Walch, l.c. iii. 321-338. Bellarmine, on account of this external resemblance, styles Protestantism the Aerian heresy.

脚注

Best guess 对照表

正文及中文脚注中带上标 * 的外文为 best guess，尚未逐项核实；原始字串保留如下。

原字串	Best guess	语言	出现位置	说明
JIstoriva pro;"	Ἱστορία πρὸς	Greek	正文第 3 段	据旧字体映射推测，题名后接受献者姓名。
filovqeo" iJstopiva	φιλόθεος ἱστορία	Greek	正文第 3 段	据书名推测，iJstopiva中的p疑为ρ的误识。
mhnolovgia	μηνολόγια	Greek	正文第 7 段	按旧字体映射恢复，与Menologia对应。
mhnai'a	μηναῖα	Greek	正文第 7 段	按旧字体映射恢复，撇号表示曲折重音。
Pro;" tou;" polemou'vta" toi'" ejpi; to; monavzein ejnavgousin	Πρὸς τοὺς πολεμοῦντας τοῖς ἐπὶ τὸ μονάζειν ἐνάγουσιν	Greek	正文第 208 段	据金口约翰书名推测，polemou'vta疑漏ν。
ajnacwrevw	ἀναχωρέω	Greek	脚注 12	按旧字体映射恢复，与退隐的释义相合。
ajnacwrhthv"	ἀναχωρητής	Greek	脚注 12	按旧字体映射恢复隐修士称谓。
ejrhmivth"	ἐρημίτης	Greek	脚注 12	按旧字体映射恢复，保留原重音位置。
ejrhmiva	ἐρημία	Greek	脚注 12	按旧字体映射恢复，与荒野的释义相合。
monacov"	μοναχός	Greek	脚注 12	按旧字体映射恢复，与monachus对应。
movno"	μόνος	Greek	脚注 12	按旧字体映射恢复，与独自的释义相合。
monavzein	μονάζειν	Greek	脚注 12	按旧字体映射恢复动词不定式。
Koinovbion	Κοινόβιον	Greek	脚注 13	按旧字体映射恢复，保留首字母大写。
koinov" bivo"	κοινός βίος	Greek	脚注 13	按原编码恢复，保留原有锐重音。
mavndra	μάνδρα	Greek	脚注 13	按旧字体映射恢复，与畜栏释义相合。
monasthvrion	μοναστήριον	Greek	脚注 13	按旧字体映射恢复修道院名称。
lauvrai	λαύραι	Greek	脚注 13	按旧字体映射恢复复数及锐重音。
lau'ra	λαῦρα	Greek	脚注 13	按旧字体映射恢复，保留单数曲折重音。
JHgouvmeno"	Ἡγούμενος	Greek	脚注 14	按旧字体映射恢复，JH表示带粗气符的大写Η。
ajrcemandrivth"	ἀρχεμανδρίτης	Greek	脚注 14	按原编码恢复，保留原串的ε，不径改为常见的ι。
ajbba'"	ἀββᾶς	Greek	脚注 14	按旧字体映射恢复叙利亚语称谓的希腊文形式。
ajmma'"	ἀμμᾶς	Greek	脚注 14	按旧字体映射恢复，保留原有词尾ς。
Bivo" qewrhtikov"	Βίος θεωρητικός	Greek	脚注 17	按旧字体映射恢复默观生活这一用语。
bivo" praktikov"	βίος πρακτικός	Greek	脚注 17	按旧字体映射恢复实践生活这一用语。
JH kata; qeo;n	Ἡ κατὰ θεὸν	Greek	脚注 18	按旧字体映射恢复，不补入后续条目文字。
Cristo;n filosofiva	Χριστὸν φιλοσοφία	Greek	脚注 18	按旧字体映射恢复，保留与前文衔接的片段形式。
hJ uJyhlhv filo".	ἡ ὑψηλὴ φιλος.	Greek	脚注 18	逐字恢复旧编码，保留原串缩写及其ς，未擅自展开。
jApostoliko;" bivo"	Ἀποστολικὸς βίος	Greek	脚注 19	按旧字体映射恢复，保留原有重音。
oJ tw'n ajggevlwn bivo"	ὁ τῶν ἀγγέλων βίος	Greek	脚注 19	按旧字体映射恢复，与天使生活的上下文相合。
Tauvth" de; th'" ajrivsth" filosofiva" h[rxato, w{" tine" levgousin, JHliva" oJ profhvth" kai; jIwavnnh" oJ baptisthv".	Ταύτης δὲ τῆς ἀρίστης φιλοσοφίας ἤρξατο, ὥς τινες λέγουσιν, Ἡλίας ὁ προφήτης καὶ Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτιστής.	Greek	脚注 22	按旧字体映射恢复引文，保留原有单数动词及重音。
[Aplasto"	Ἄπλαστος	Greek	脚注 26	按旧字体映射恢复，[表示合成气符与重音。
Ma; to;n jIhsou'n	Μὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν	Greek	脚注 27	按旧字体映射恢复起誓用语。
ma; to;n Diva	μὰ τὸν Δία	Greek	脚注 27	按旧字体映射恢复，Δία为宙斯名的宾格。
boskoiv	βοσκοί	Greek	脚注 34	按旧字体映射恢复，与pabulatores对应。
Ta; pneumatika; th'" ponhriva" ejn toi'" ejpouranivoi"	Τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις	Greek	脚注 39	按旧字体映射恢复，与所引以弗所书经文相合。
pneumatikav	πνευματικά	Greek	脚注 39	按旧字体映射恢复中性复数形式。
pneuvmata	πνεύματα	Greek	脚注 39	按旧字体映射恢复，保留原锐重音。
daimovnia	δαιμόνια	Greek	脚注 39	按旧字体映射恢复。
ejpouravnia	ἐπουράνια	Greek	脚注 39	按旧字体映射恢复中性复数形式。
ponhriva"	πονηρίας	Greek	脚注 39	按旧字体映射恢复属格形式。
Ouj dunato;n pauvsasqei ajpov sou, eja;n mh; plhroforhvsh/" ejpiqumivan sou	Οὐ δυνατὸν παύσασθει ἀπό σου, ἐὰν μὴ πληροφορήσῃς ἐπιθυμίαν σου	Greek	脚注 40	按编码恢复；παύσασθει疑有原文讹误，但未径改其词尾。
Tine;" ... eJautou;" e[sfaxan macaivra/	Τινὲς ... ἑαυτοὺς ἔσφαξαν μαχαίρᾳ	Greek	脚注 41	按旧字体映射恢复，a/表示带下标ι的α。
maqei'n gravmmata	μαθεῖν γράμματα	Greek	脚注 51	按旧字体映射恢复，与学习文字的讨论相合。
Eij" parqenw'na	Εἰς παρθενῶνα	Greek	脚注 55	按旧字体映射恢复，保留宾格形式。
jElqovnte" ga;r (oiJ ejcqroi;)oJpoivou" ajn eu{rwsin hJma'"	Ἐλθόντες γὰρ (οἱ ἐχθροὶ) ὁποίους ἀν εὕρωσιν ἡμᾶς	Greek	脚注 57	按编码恢复并补词间空格；ἀν缺重音，暂不补改。
toiou'toi kai; aujtoi; givnontai	τοιοῦτοι καὶ αὐτοὶ γίνονται	Greek	脚注 57	按旧字体映射恢复引文后半句。
Fallobatei'"	Φαλλοβατεῖς	Greek	脚注 69	按旧字体映射恢复，保留原串曲折重音。
phvcewn	πήχεων	Greek	脚注 71	按旧字体映射恢复，保留原串重音位置。
To; mevga qau'ma th'" oijkoumevnh"	Τὸ μέγα θαῦμα τῆς οἰκουμένης	Greek	脚注 72	按旧字体映射恢复，与普天下大奇观的释义相合。
i]na mhvte to; filovsofon ajkoinwvnhton h\|/, mhvte to; praktiko;n ajfilovsofon	ἵνα μήτε τὸ φιλόσοφον ἀκοινώνητον ᾖ, μήτε τὸ πρακτικὸν ἀφιλόσοφον	Greek	脚注 76	据句法及旧字体推测恢复，h\|/表示ᾖ。
@ylix]lim'	מַלִצְלִין	Hebrew	脚注 79	据逆序希伯来旧编码逐字推测；字母次序与通行祈祷者名称有异，暂保留，不确定。
Eujcivtai	Εὐχίται	Greek	脚注 79	按旧字体映射恢复祈祷派名称。
eujch*v,	εὐχή,	Greek	脚注 79	去除损坏的斜体星号，按编码恢复并保留逗号。
kat j ajntivfrasin	κατ’ ἀντίφρασιν	Greek	脚注 146	按旧字体映射恢复，j在κατ后表示省音符号。

参见以下著作中偶尔提到印度裸体哲人的记述：斯特拉波（Strabo），第XV卷第1章（依据亚历山大大帝时代以来的记载）；阿里安（Arrian），《亚历山大远征记》（Exped. Alex.），第VII卷第1—3章，以及《印度史》（Hist. Ind.），第11章；普林尼（Plinius），《自然史》（Hist. Nat.），VII. 2；西西里的狄奥多罗斯（Diodorus Siculus），第II卷；普鲁塔克（Plutarch），《亚历山大传》（Alex.），64；波菲利（Porphyry），《论戒食肉类》（De abstinent.），第IV卷；琉善（Lucian），《逃亡者》（Fugit.），7；亚历山大的革利免（Clemens Alex.），《杂学》（Strom.），第I、III卷；奥古斯丁，《上帝之城》（De Civit. Dei），第XIV卷第17章：“Per opacas Indiae solitudines, quum quidam nudi philosophentur, unde gymnosophistae nominantur; adhibent tamen genitalibus tegmina, quibus per caetera membrorum carent;”（在印度幽暗的荒野中，有些人裸体从事哲学，因而被称为裸体哲人；然而他们仍以遮盖物遮住生殖器，身体其余部分则无遮蔽）；另见第XV卷第20章，他在那里否认他们的独身有任何功德，因为这并非“secundum fidem summi boni, qui est Deus”（按照对至善者、即上帝的信仰）。与这些古代描述相符的，还有《佛国记》（Fon Koueki，约400年，M. A. 雷慕沙〔M. A. Rémusat〕译，巴黎，1836年）、马可·波罗（Marco Polo，1280年）、贝尔尼埃（Bernier，1670年）、汉密尔顿（Hamilton，1700年）、帕皮（Papi）、尼布尔（Niebuhr）、奥尔利希（Orlich）、松纳拉（Sonnerat）等人的记述。↩︎
印度语称之为tapas，即烧尽，或个体存在的消灭，并融入梵（Brahma）的本体。↩︎
Ad. 武特克（Ad. Wuttke），见其精辟而富于教益的著作《中国人、日本人与印度人的精神生活》（Das Geistesleben der Chinesen, Japaner, und Indier，其《异教史》的第二部），1853年，第593页。↩︎
参见平克顿（Pinkerton）《航海与旅行集》（Collection of Voyages and Travels）第VII卷所收天主教赴西藏传教士的早期记述，以及法国遣使会传教神父古伯察（Huc）的近著《1844—1846年鞑靼、西藏及中国旅行回忆录》（Souvenirs d’un Voyage dans la Tartarie, le Thibet, et la Chine, pendant les années 1844-1846）。关于整个题目，亦参见R. S. 哈代（Hardy）的两部著作：《东方修道主义》（Eastern Monachism）和《佛教现代发展手册，译自僧伽罗文手稿》（A Manual of Buddhism in its modern development, translated from Singalese MSS.），伦敦，1850年。顺带一提，佛教与罗马天主教之间惊人的相似，不只限于修士制度和修院生活，还延伸至以大喇嘛为教皇的教阶组织，以及礼拜中的仪式、节期、游行、朝圣、告解、一种弥撒、为死者祷告、临终傅油等等。伟大的地理学家卡尔·里特尔（Carl Ritter）曾以自己的声望支持一种看法（《地理学》〔Erdkunde〕，第II卷，第283—299页，第2版），认为西藏喇嘛教徒的宗教形式与仪式，有一部分借自景教传教士；这种看法至少确实颇为有理。但这不过是一种假说，而且有一事实使它显得不大可能：在从未有景教传教士到过的交趾支那（Cochin China）、东京（Tonquin）和日本，佛教也显出与罗马天主教同样惊人的相似，正如西藏、鞑靼和中国北部的喇嘛教一样。关于约在十一世纪兴起的东方亚洲祭司王约翰（Prester John），即基督教祭司君王的奇异传说，以及景教的传教事业，参见里特尔，前引书。↩︎
参见《民数记》六章1—21节。↩︎
参见老普林尼（Pliny）对这些犹太修士的非凡描述，《自然史》（Hist. Natur.），V. 15：“Gens sola, et in toto orbe praeter caeteros mira, sine ulla femina, omni venere abdicata, sine pecunia, socia palmarum. Ita per seculorum millia (incredibile dictu) gens aeterna est in qua nemo nascitur. Tam foecunda illis aliorum vitae penitentia est.”（这是一个独特的群体，在全世界诸族中尤为奇异：没有一个女子，弃绝一切情欲，没有钱财，与棕榈树为伴。如此历经数千年〔说来难以置信〕，一个没有人生育的群体竟长存不息。别人对自己生活的悔恨，为他们带来了如此丰盛的生息。）↩︎
优西比乌斯（Eusebius），《教会史》（H. E.），II. 17，误将他们当作基督徒。↩︎
H. 鲁夫纳（H. Ruffner），前引书，第I卷第II—IX章，详细描述了这些基督教以外的修道形式，并认为基督教的修道主义源出于它们，尤其是佛教的修道主义。↩︎
连加尔文（Calvin）也是如此；他在《提摩太前书》四章3节的注释中，将保罗关于禁欲式背道的预言主要指向禁欲派（Encratites）、诺斯替派（Gnostics）、孟他努派（Montanists）和摩尼教徒（Manichaeans），但也将它应用于教皇派，“quando coelibatum et ciborum abstinentiam severius urgent quam ullum Dei praeceptum”（当他们强求独身与禁戒食物，比强求上帝的任何诫命还严厉时）。近来的鲁夫纳也是如此，尤其是Is. 泰勒（Is. Taylor），他在《古代基督教》（Ancient Christianity），第I卷第299页及后，专设一章讨论“所预言的禁欲式背道”。然而，最优秀的现代释经家一致认为，使徒所针对的是异端诺斯替派二元论的禁欲主义，它禁止婚姻及某些食物，认为它们本质上不洁；而罗马与希腊教会却以婚姻为圣礼，只是将它置于独身之下，并把禁婚的范围限于教士和修士。因此，将《提摩太前书》四章1—3节应用于天主教会，至多只能在部分而间接的意义上成立。↩︎
参见第I卷，§ 94—97。↩︎
拉克坦提乌斯（Lactantius）说，连呼吸的自由也得花钱购买；据佐西穆斯（Zosimus，《历史》〔Hist.〕，II. 38）记述，父亲们让自己的女儿卖淫，以筹得纳税的钱。↩︎
源自ἀναχωρέω^*，即退隐（离开人类社会），ἀναχωρητής^*、ἐρημίτης^*（源自ἐρημία^*，意为荒野）。μοναχός^*一词（源自μόνος^*，独自，以及μονάζειν^*，独居），即monachus（monk〔修士〕由此而来），原来也指孤独的隐士生活，但通常与共住修士或托钵修士同义。↩︎
Κοινόβιον^*，coenobium；源自κοινός βίος^*，vita communis，即共同生活；后来指修士的团体，有时也指建筑物。μάνδρα^*（畜栏、羊圈）及μοναστήριον^*、claustrum（cloister〔修院〕由此而来）也有同样的意思。另有λαύραι^*，laurae（字面意为街道），即小室；通常在相距不远之处建起多间，形成一个小村落。因此，这个词常与monasterium（修道院）同义。不过，单数形式λαῦρα^*则对应于隐修生活。关于修道主义的这些名称，参见杜康日（Du Cange）《中古及晚期拉丁语词典》（Glossarium mediae et infimae Latinitatis）各相应词条。↩︎
Ἡγούμενος^*、ἀρχεμανδρίτης^*、ἀββᾶς^*，即父亲，abbot（修道院院长）由此而来。女主管在叙利亚语中称为ἀμμᾶς^*，即母亲、女修道院院长。↩︎
源自nonna，即casta，贞洁、圣洁。这个词可能源于科普特语，早在哲罗姆的著作中便已出现。阳性形式nonnus，即修士，在中世纪屡见不鲜。参见杜康日相应词条中的例证。↩︎
因此，米德尔顿（Middleton）不无道理地说：“根据我读到的有关古代修士的一切，以及我亲眼所见的现代修士，我认为后者显然更值得推重，因为他们比前者有更整饬的纪律、更多良好的学识和更少的迷信。”↩︎
按拿先斯的贵格利（Gregory Nazianzen）等人的说法，是Βίος θεωρητικός^*与βίος πρακτικός^*。整个中世纪都以拉撒路的两个姊妹来说明vita contemplativa（默观生活）与vita activa（行动生活）的区别，见《路加福音》十章38—42节。↩︎
Ἡ κατὰ θεὸν^*或Χριστὸν φιλοσοφία^*，ἡ ὑψηλὴ φιλος.^*，即按古人的意义，与其说是一种思辨体系，不如说是一种受特定准则约束的生活方式。毕达哥拉斯派（Pythagoreans）、斯多亚派（Stoics）、犬儒派（Cynics）及新柏拉图派（Neo-Platonists）都是如此。禁欲者与哲学家是同一回事。↩︎
Ἀποστολικὸς βίος^*，ὁ τῶν ἀγγέλων βίος^*，vita angelica（天使般的生活）；这是对基督论天使无性别生活的话所作的不当应用，见《马太福音》二十二章30节。那里并未将这种生活提出作为效法的榜样，只是用作反驳撒都该人的论据。↩︎
见他著名的战诗《巴拉克拉瓦轻骑兵冲锋》（The Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava），1854年初版。↩︎
参见十二世纪沙特尔的伊夫（Yves de Chartres）切实的评语，《书信》（Ep.）192（蒙塔朗贝尔〔Montalembert〕引）：“Non beatum faciunt hominem secreta sylvarum, cacumina montium, si secum non habet solitudinem mentis, sabbatum cordis, tranquillitatem conscientiae, ascensiones in corde, sine quibus omnem solitudinem comitantur mentis acedia, curiositas, vana gloria, periculosae tentationum procellae.”（幽林深处与山巅不能使人蒙福，除非他自身具有心灵的独处、内心的安息、良心的平静和心中的上升；没有这些，无论在哪里独处，都有精神的懈怠、好奇、虚荣和危险的试探风暴相随。）↩︎
哲罗姆就是如此，见《致保利努斯书》（ad Paulinum），《书信》（Ep.）49（本笃会版〔ed. Ben.〕）；他在那里除以利亚和约翰之外，也举以赛亚和先知门徒为修道主义之父。又见他的《保罗传》（Vita Pauli）；不过，他在那里较为准确地将底比斯的保罗（Paul of Thebes）和安东尼（Anthony）称为最早的、严格意义上的隐士，以区别于先知。亦参见索佐门（Sozomen），《教会史》（H. E.），第I卷第12章：Ταύτης δὲ τῆς ἀρίστης φιλοσοφίας ἤρξατο, ὥς τινες λέγουσιν, Ἡλίας ὁ προφήτης καὶ Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτιστής.^*。天主教作者论及这一题目时，援引以利亚和施洗约翰的榜样，已成为传统。阿尔班·巴特勒（Alban Butler）在1月15日的底比斯的保罗传中说：“以利亚和施洗约翰使旷野成圣，耶稣基督自己在旷野禁食四十天期间，也作了隐修生活的榜样；同样无可置疑的是，圣灵引导本日纪念的圣徒（底比斯的保罗）进入旷野，并在那里作他的导师。”↩︎
因此称为consilia evangelica（福音劝谕），以区别于mandata divina（神圣命令）；依据是《哥林多前书》七章25节，保罗在那里确实作了类似的区分。consilium与votum paupertatis（贫穷的劝谕与誓愿）以《马太福音》十九章21节为根据；votum castitatis（贞洁誓愿）以《哥林多前书》七章8、25、38—40节为根据。至于votum obedientiae（顺服誓愿），则未引任何特定经文。这一理论的实质早在俄利根（Origen）那里便已出现；在他那里，这不只是个人意见，也是极为普遍的实践的反映。参见第I卷，§ 94、95。↩︎
参见《歌罗西书》二章16—23节。↩︎
参见《哥林多前书》十三章1—3节。参见第168页及下页。↩︎
Ἄπλαστος^*，字面意为未经塑造的；因而意为自然的、真诚的。↩︎
Μὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν^*（萨尔维安〔Salvian〕作 per Christum，即“指着基督”），如今取代了异教的誓语：μὰ τὸν Δία^*，即“指着朱庇特起誓”。↩︎
见狄奥多勒（Theodoret）：《修士史》(Hist. relig.)，第13章（传）。↩︎
参见《马太福音》十一章18、19节；《提摩太前书》四章3—5节。↩︎
参见《劳苏斯史》(Hist. Laus.)，第33、95章。↩︎
《教会史》(Hist. Eccles.)，第vi卷，第34章。↩︎
后者本身也不是完全赤裸的，而是在腰间有所遮蔽；奥古斯丁（Augustine）在上引《上帝之城》(De Civit. Dei)第xiv卷第17章中，以及后来的旅行者，都如此告诉我们。另一方面，有些修士在这一点上却极其谨慎。据说亚扪（Ammon）从未看见过自己赤裸的身体。按帕科米乌斯（Pachomius）的规条，塔本奈（Tabennae）的修士必须始终穿着衣服睡觉。↩︎
参见《劳苏斯史》(Hist Lausiaca)，第20章；以及蒂耶蒙（Tillemont），第viii卷，第633页。↩︎
即βοσκοί^*，或 pabulatores（食草者）。参见索佐门（Sozom.），《教会史》(H. E.)，第vi卷，33章。叙利亚的以法莲（Ephraim Syrus）曾专门为他们作了一篇颂辞，见蒂耶蒙（Tillemont），《回忆录》(Mem.)，第viii卷，第292页及下页所引。↩︎
《修士史》(Hist. Rel.)，第xv章（传）（《全集》〔Opera omnia〕，巴黎版〔ed Par.〕，第iii卷，第843页及后）。↩︎
《对话录》(Dial.)，第i卷，第8章。塞韦鲁斯（Severus）在这件事上看见了基督制伏野兽之能力的奇妙实例。↩︎
同上，第i卷，第11章。↩︎
见鲁夫纳（Ruffner），前引书，第i卷，第49页及后；以及武特克（Wuttke），前引书，第369页及后。↩︎
这是按照对《以弗所书》六章12节的一种感官化、空间化的理解：Τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις^*；路德（Luther）译为“die bösen Geister unter dem Himmel”（天底下的邪灵）；《武加大译本》则译得直白，却略显晦涩：“Spiritualia nequitiae in coelestibus”（天上邪恶的属灵势力）；英文圣经译作“Spiritual wickedness in high places”（高处属灵的邪恶），又过于自由了。无论如何，πνευματικά^*的意义都应比πνεύματα^*或δαιμόνια^*宽泛得多；而ἐπουράνια^*也不完全等同于云天或大气层，并且还容许另一种句法解释，因此许多人在πονηρίας^*之后加上逗号。我们可以指出，修道主义的撒但论和鬼魔论，在古代教会及整个中世纪都普遍受到接受。众所周知，路德也从他的修道生活中保留了一种关于魔鬼及其对人之影响的感官化、物质化观念。↩︎
亚他那修（Athanasius）说，魔鬼有时以女人的形貌向圣安东尼（Anthony）显现；哲罗姆（Jerome）叙述，圣希拉里翁（Hilarion）在床上时，他的想象常受裸体女人的幻象侵扰。哲罗姆自己在致一位童贞女子（！）的信中承认，《书信》(Epist.)第xxii封（瓦拉尔西版〔ed. Vallars.〕，第i卷，第91、92页），致欧斯托基乌姆（Eustochium）的《论守贞》(de Custodia Virginitatis)：“O quoties ego ipse in eremo constitutus et in illa vasta solitudine, quae exusta solis ardoribus horridum monachis praebebat habitaculum, putavi me Romanis interesse deliciis .... Ille igitur ego, qui ob gehennae metum tali me carcere ipse damnaveram, scorpionum tantum socius et ferarum, saepe choris intereram puellarum. Pallebant ora jejuniis, et mens desideriis aestuabat in frigido corpore, et ante hominem suum jam in carne praemortuum, sola libidinum incendia bulliebant. Itaque omni auxilio destitutus, ad Jesu jacebam pedes, rigabam lacrymis, crine tergebam et repugnantem carnem hebdomadarum inedia subjugabam.”（我身在旷野，在那被烈日灼烧、为修士提供可怕居所的广大荒漠中，有多少次竟以为自己正置身罗马的奢乐之中！……我因惧怕地狱而自囚于这样的牢狱，只与蝎子和野兽为伴，却常仿佛置身少女的舞群之间。我的脸因禁食而苍白，冰冷的身体里面，心灵却被欲望烧灼；肉身中的人虽已近乎未死先亡，唯有情欲的烈焰仍在沸腾。因此，我无援无助，伏在耶稣脚前，以泪水浇湿他的脚，用头发擦干，又以数周的绝食制伏反抗的肉体。）圣以法莲（Ephraim）警告人不要听从仇敌；仇敌向修士低声说道：Οὐ δυνατὸν παύσασθει ἀπό σου, ἐὰν μὴ πληροφορήσῃς ἐπιθυμίαν σου^*。↩︎
《帕科米乌斯传》(Vita Pach.)，§ 61。参见尼卢斯（Nilus），《书信》(Epist.)，第ii卷，第140页：Τινὲς ... ἑαυτοὺς ἔσφαξαν μαχαίρᾳ^*，等等。甚至在非洲多纳徒派（Donatist）的狂热托钵修士，即巡游者派（Circumcelliones）中，自杀也并不罕见。↩︎
蒂耶蒙（Tillem.），第vii卷，第430页。据蒂耶蒙叙述，院长随后从启示中得知，“que Muce avait egalé par son obeissance celle d’Abraham”（缪斯〔Muce〕的顺服已可与亚伯拉罕的顺服相比），不久便立他为自己的继任者。↩︎
Omnino monachum fugere debere mulieres et episcopos.（修士务必远避女人和主教。）↩︎
索佐门（Sozom.），第iv卷，30章。↩︎
《（古代）基督教史》(Hist. of (ancient) Christianity)，美国版，第432页。↩︎
夏多布里昂（Chateaubriand）主要从第一种观点赞扬修道制度。“既然有维护身体健康的避难所，啊！也请容许宗教为灵魂的健康设立这样的避难所吧；灵魂更容易患病，它的疾病也更令人悲伤，更加缠绵，更难治愈！”蒙塔朗贝尔（Montalembert，前引书，第i卷，第25页）反对这一观点，认为它虽富有诗意、动人心弦，却并不真实；他把修道生活描述为世间所产生的最健康、最强健的灵魂的竞技场，并引用金口约翰（Chrysostom）的话：“来看看基督精兵的帐幕吧；来看看他们的战阵吧；他们天天争战，天天击败并宰杀那些侵袭我们的情欲。”↩︎
1 佩卢西乌姆的伊西多尔（Isidore of Pelusium）院长曾写信给一位奴隶主，《书信》(Ep.)，第i卷，142封（尼安德〔Neander〕引）：“我不曾想到，一个爱基督、并且知道那使我们众人得自由之恩典的人，竟还会蓄奴。”↩︎
耶稣会士罗斯韦德（Rosweyde）的《教父传》(Vitae Patrum)和《圣徒行传》(Acta Sanctorum)中，充斥着修士的神迹，往往违反自然与理性的一切法则；若非出自哲罗姆（Jerome）、鲁菲努斯（Rufinus）、塞韦鲁斯（Severus）、帕拉迪乌斯（Palladius）和狄奥多勒（Theodoret）这样的教父之手，并有助于表现尼西亚时代的特征，它们几乎不值得一提。我们远不愿将这一切一概斥为谎言和欺骗，也不愿接受艾萨克·泰勒（Isaac Taylor）的判断（《古代基督教》〔Ancient Christianity〕，第ii卷，第106页）：“尼西亚时代的神迹，无不冒犯人对庄重、体面和虔敬的一切感情；从其显明的特征来看，它们幼稚、可怖、亵渎而污秽。”罗伯逊（Robertson，《基督教会史》〔Hist. of the Christian Church〕，第i卷，第312页）和其他新教史家的意见要谨慎得多；他们认为，除了过度亢奋的想象所产生的无心幻觉，以及蓄意欺骗所编造的故事之外，也必定有许多真实的事情，尽管按这类事情的性质，不可能作出精确的甄别。然而，其中许多故事甚至连罗马天主教的轻信也难以容纳，因此，批判性的史家或将它们完全略去，或至少大加删削和修改。我们所读到的，不仅是无数异象、预言、医治病人和被鬼附者的事，还有使死人复活（如图尔的马丁〔Martin of Tours〕传中所记）、枯杖长成果树，以及一名修士绝对服从院长的命令，穿过火炉而毫发无伤，如同经过清凉的浴池。（参见苏尔皮基乌斯·塞韦鲁斯〔Sulp. Sever.〕，《对话录》〔Dial.〕，第i卷，第12、13章。）甚至野兽也占了很大篇幅，被变成了埃及沙漠圣徒们有理性的仆役。据哲罗姆说，在底比斯的保罗（Paul of Thebes）的葬礼上，两头狮子自愿担任掘墓人的职务。帕科米乌斯（Pachomius）践踏蛇蝎而不受伤害，又乘着鳄鱼渡过尼罗河；鳄鱼主动将背脊献给他。小马卡里乌斯（Macarius），或据《劳苏斯史》（Historia Lausiaca）的其他记述，是修士马可（Marcus）（参见蒂耶蒙〔Tillemont〕的考证，第viii卷，第811页及后），与野兽相处得如此融洽，以致有一只鬣狗（据鲁菲努斯，V. P.，第ii卷，4章，则是一头母狮）将幼崽带到他的斗室里，请他使幼崽的眼睛睁开；他便祷告，又涂上唾沫，治好了它。第二天，鬣狗为表谢意，送给他一张大羊皮；圣徒起初拒绝了这礼物，并责备这野兽为取得羊皮而犯下杀戮和偷盗的双重罪行；但鬣狗表示悔改，点头应允改过之后，马卡里乌斯便收下羊皮，后来将它遗赠给伟大的主教亚他那修（Athanasius）。塞韦鲁斯（《对话录》，第i卷，第9章）对一位无名隐修士也有极相似的记述，不过他像鲁菲努斯一样，以一头带着五只幼崽的母狮取代帕拉迪乌斯所说的鬣狗，并说圣徒收下所赠的兽皮，既未迟疑，也未责备。可是在稍前之处（第8章），他讲到一只狼；它素来与一位友善的隐修士共进晚餐，有一次偷了他的东西，便深深悔恨，垂头请求圣徒饶恕。或许帕拉迪乌斯或他的拉丁文译者把这两则轶事合在了一起。↩︎
普林尼（Pliny）列举了三十九种不同的棕榈树，其中最好的生长在埃及，四季常青，枝叶繁茂，所结的果实在有些地方被用来制作饼。↩︎
哲罗姆（Jerome）在《底比斯的保罗传》(Vita Pauli Theb.)第i章中论安东尼（Anthony）说：“Non tam ipse auto omnes (eremitas) fuit, quam ab eo omnium incitata sunt studia.”（与其说他本人早于所有隐修士，不如说所有人的热忱都是由他激发的。）↩︎
按通常的看法，也是奥古斯丁（Augustine）的看法，安东尼（Anthony）甚至不识字。但蒂耶蒙（Tillemont，第vii卷，第107、666页）、巴特勒（Butler）等人认为，他所不识的只是希腊字母，而非埃及文字。亚他那修（Athanasius）在第795页说得有些含混：他因为害怕与人交往，不愿μαθεῖν γράμματα^*（学习文字？还是学艺？），但后来又说到他对阅读的重视。↩︎
奥古斯丁（Augustine）在《论基督教教义》(De doctr. Christ.)，§ 4中论他说，他虽不识字，却仅凭聆听圣经便将其熟记于心。亚他那修（Athanasius）所作的传记确实表明，他对许多经文十分熟悉。但无论在他身上，还是在这些隐修士的一般情形中，我们都找不到连贯而深入的圣经知识的痕迹。↩︎
《马太福音》十九章21节。↩︎
《马太福音》六章34节。↩︎
亚他那修（Athanasius）说，Εἰς παρθενῶνα^*；这并非蒂耶蒙（Tillemont）所译的“un monastere de verges”（一所童贞女子的修道院），因为当时尚无女修道院；而是指会众内部的女性禁欲者团体。不过，这样的团体当然很容易发展成为正式的修道院。↩︎
哲罗姆（Jerome）在《希拉里翁传》(Vita Hilarionis)第31章中，顺带描述了安东尼（Anthony）这最后的居所；照他的描述，那里并不像人从亚他那修（Athanasius）的记述所推想的那样荒凉。他甚至说，这园中有棕榈、果树和葡萄树，其果实是任何人都会乐于享用的。↩︎
亚他那修（Athanas.），第42章：Ἐλθόντες γὰρ (οἱ ἐχθροὶ) ὁποίους ἀν εὕρωσιν ἡμᾶς^*，τοιοῦτοι καὶ αὐτοὶ γίνονται^*，等等——这是一项重要的心理学观察。↩︎
这件事的确不是亚他那修（Athanasius）所述，而是鲁菲努斯（Rufinus）、哲罗姆（Jerome）和苏格拉底（Socrates，《教会史》〔Hist. Eccl.〕，第iv卷，25章）所述。参见蒂耶蒙（Tillemont），前引书，第129页。↩︎
参见蒂耶蒙（Tillemont），前引书，第137页及下页所列的证据。↩︎
《狄翁》(Dion)，第51叶，佩塔维乌斯版（ed. Petav.），转引自蒂耶蒙（Tillemont）和尼安德（Neander）。↩︎
《马太福音讲道》(Hom. in Matth.)，第viii篇，第vii卷，第128页（蒙福孔版〔ed. Montfaucon〕）。↩︎
· 参见奥古斯丁（Aug.）：《忏悔录》(Confess.)，第viii卷，第6、28章。↩︎
鲁菲努斯（Rufinus，《教父传》〔Vitae Patr.〕，第ii卷，第7章）说：“Quanti populi habentur in urbibus, tantae paene habentur in desertis multitudines monachorum.”（城里有多少人口，旷野中几乎就有多少修士。）吉本（Gibbon）加上一句讥讽的话：“后人或许可以重提那句从前用来形容同一国度之神圣动物的话：在埃及，找一个神比找一个人还容易。”蒙塔朗贝尔（Montalembert，《西方修士》〔Monks of the West〕，第i卷，第314页）论修士人数的增长说：“在这些埃及隐修士的奇妙历史中，没有什么比他们的人数更令人难以置信了。然而，最有分量的权威都一致确认了这一事实（圣奥古斯丁，De morib. Eccles.，第i卷，31章）。这是一种从城市向旷野、从文明向简朴、从喧嚣向寂静、从败坏向纯真的迁徙。潮流一经兴起，成群的男人、女人和儿童便投入其中，以不可抗拒之势向那里涌去，历时一个世纪。”↩︎
有好几位（五位或七位）隐修士都用这个名字，常被混淆。其中最著名的是老马卡里乌斯（Macarius），又称大马卡里乌斯（† 390），那些《讲道》很可能出自他手；以及亚历山大的小马卡里乌斯（† 404），他是帕拉迪乌斯（Palladius）的老师；帕拉迪乌斯与他长期相处，对他的评价与对前者同样高。参见蒂耶蒙（Tillemont）的详述，第viii卷，第574—650页；以及注释，第811页及后。↩︎
关于亚扪（Ammon），埃及语称阿穆斯（Amus）或阿蒙（Amun），参见蒂耶蒙（Tillemont），第viii卷，第153—166页；以及注释，第672—674页。↩︎
《著作集》(Opera)，第ii卷，第13—40页。↩︎
《路加福音》十四章33节。↩︎
哲罗姆（Jerome）为我们保存了修士马尔库斯（Malchus）及其名义上妻子的传记，讲述他被囚而又侥幸逃脱的经历；这篇传记具有独特而富于传奇色彩的趣味，却并不完全合乎史实。↩︎
至少在基督教会中是首创。吉泽勒（Gieseler）提到一个异教的先例：卢奇安（Lucian）在《论叙利亚女神》(De Dea Syria)第28、29章中提及的叙利亚Φαλλοβατεῖς^*。↩︎
然而，巴特勒（Butler）在前引书中，也记述了当代一位本笃会修士克洛德·莱昂特修士（Dom Claude Leante）的类似事迹：“1731年，他约五十一岁，已经连续十一年在大斋期禁食，整整四十天除每日弥撒时所领受的以外，不进任何食物；更令人惊奇的是，大斋期中他并不真正睡觉，只是打盹。他受不了户外的空气；到了大斋期将尽时，他面色极其苍白，身体消瘦。这件事有他的弟兄和上级作证，见1731年在桑斯（Sens）刊印的一篇记述。”↩︎
他亲自竖立、并在上面生活了四年的第一根柱子，高六肘（πήχεων^*）；第二根高十二肘，第三根二十二肘，第四根由民众为他竖立，他在上面度过了二十年。据狄奥多雷（Theodoret）说，第四根高三十六肘；另有人说是四十肘。柱顶直径仅三英尺。不过，柱顶大概装有栏杆，使他在睡眠或疲乏时可以倚靠。至少图画中的这些柱子都是这样描绘的。门徒沿梯子把食物送上去，供给柱上圣徒。↩︎
Τὸ μέγα θαῦμα τῆς οἰκουμένης^*，意为“普天下的大奇观”。《修道史》(Hist. Relig.)，第26章开头。↩︎
所指为《以赛亚书》二十章2节；《耶利米书》一章17节、二十八章12节；《何西阿书》一章2节、三章1节；《以西结书》四章4节、十二章5节。↩︎
《书信》(Ep.)，ii. 114；转引自吉泽勒（Gieseler），ii. 2，第246页，注47（爱丁堡英文版，ii，第13页，注47）；尼安德（Neander）亦曾引用。↩︎
默勒（Möhler）对此评论说（《杂著》〔Vermischte Schriften〕，ii，第183页）：“古代以此表达其信念：对于与上帝完全和好的人，自然界中没有仇敌。这里不只是诗意；至少也表达了帕科米乌斯（Pachomius）同时代及后世的人对他的崇高评价。”末尾这一限定语表明，即使这位著名的近代罗马天主教捍卫者，心中也对这位修道圣徒的神奇故事是否确属史实存有疑问。↩︎
纳齐安佐的贵格利（Gregory Nazianzen）在颂扬巴西流（Basil）的演说中（旧编次第xx篇演说，新巴黎版第xliii篇演说），称赞他努力在修道生活中将默观与实践两种生活方式结合起来，ἵνα μήτε τὸ φιλόσοφον ἀκοινώνητον ᾖ, μήτε τὸ πρακτικὸν ἀφιλόσοφον^*，意为“使哲思的生活不至于脱离群体，实践的生活也不至于缺少哲思”。↩︎
参尼安德（Neander），iii. 487（托里〔Torrey〕译本，第ii卷，第250页及后）；他对尼鲁斯（Nilus）评价甚高。又参加斯（Gass）在赫尔佐格（Herzog）《神学百科全书》(Theol. Encykl.) 第x卷，第355页及后所撰的条目。尼鲁斯的著作收于《古代教父大全》(Bibl. Max. vet. Patr.)，第vii卷，以及米涅（Migne）《希腊教父集》(Patrol. Gr.)，第79卷。↩︎
论及此人，参蒂耶蒙（Tillemont），第xv卷，以及H. A. 尼迈耶（H. A. Niemeyer）：《论佩卢西乌姆的伊西多尔之生平、著作与教义》(De Isid. Pel. vita, scripet doctrina)，哈雷（Hal.），1825年。他的书信收于《教父大全》(Bibliotheca Maxima) 第7卷，以及米涅（Migne）《希腊教父集》(Patrol. Graeca) 第58卷，巴黎，1860年。↩︎
源自מַלִצְלִין^* = Εὐχίται^*，后者源自εὐχή,^*，即祈祷。↩︎
苏尔皮基乌斯·塞韦鲁斯（Sulpitius Severus）在其三篇对话的第一篇中，举了几个有趣的例子，说明高卢人与埃及人的胃口有何不同。他所拜访的第一位埃及隐修士，给他和四位同伴摆上半个大麦面包和一把菜蔬作正餐，令他大为惊讶；不过，经过疲惫的旅途之后，这些食物吃起来倒很可口。他说：“Edacitas, in Graecis gula est, in Gallia natura.”（“贪食在希腊人中是口腹之欲，在高卢却是天性。”）（《对话录》〔Dial.〕，i，第8章，载加兰迪〔Gallandi〕，第viii卷，第405页。）↩︎
蒙塔朗贝尔（Montalembert）在前引书中说：“修道主义这条河流发源于埃及的沙漠，分成两条大支流。一条流向东方，起初淹没一切，后来收缩，最终消失在那里。另一条流入西方，沿着千百条水道遍及整个世界；这个世界需要它来浸润，使之肥沃。”↩︎
奥古斯丁（Augustine），《忏悔录》(Conf.)，vii. 6：“Erat monasterium Mediolani plenum bonis fratribus extra urbis moenia, sub Ambrosio nutritore.”（“米兰城墙外有一所修道院，满是善良的弟兄，由安布罗斯抚育。”）↩︎
安布罗斯（Ambr.）：《论童贞女》(De virginibus)，第iii卷，约377年写给其姊妹玛尔切利娜（Marcellina）。参蒂耶蒙（Tillem.），x. 102—105，以及施勒克（Schröckh），viii，第355页及后。↩︎
安布罗斯（Ambr.）：《创世六日论》(Hexaëmeron)，第iii卷，第5章。哲罗姆（Hieron.）：《致奥凯阿努斯论法比奥拉之死书》(Ep. ad Oceanum de morte Fabiolae)，瓦拉尔西版（ed. Vall.）第77封信（本笃会版〔ed. Ben.〕第84封，其他编次为第30封）。↩︎
他自己提到，在主教住所中有一所“教士修道院”（monasterium clericorum）；他的传记作者波西狄乌斯（Possidius）在《传记》(Vita) 第5章中说：“Factus ergo presbyter monasterium inter ecclesiam mox instituit, et cum Dei servis vivere coepit secundum modum, et regulam sub sanctis apostlis constitutam, maxime ut nemo quidquam proprium haberet, sed eis essent omnia communia.”（“因此，他成为长老之后，随即在教会中设立了一所修道院，开始与上帝的仆人共同生活，遵照圣使徒们所确立的方式和规条，尤其是无人拥有私产，一切都归众人公用。”）↩︎
《论修士的劳作》(De opera monach.)，第22章。更晚些时候，萨尔维安（Salvian）仍谈到非洲人对修道主义的憎恨（《论上帝的治理》〔De gubern. Dei〕，viii. 4）。↩︎
见他的《马丁传》(Vita Martini)，以及关于马丁的三封信和三篇文笔极其雄辩优美的对话；第一篇对话论东方修士，另两篇论马丁的神迹（拉夫纳〔Ruffner〕《沙漠教父》〔Fathers of the Desert〕第ii卷，第68—178页有译文，略有删节）。他告诉我们（《对话录》〔Dial.〕，i，第23章），罗马书商出售他的《马丁传》，销路超过其他任何书籍，并从中获利甚丰。当时，人们把圣徒行传当作传奇故事来读。↩︎
传记作者在这里所指的，当然是《马太福音》二十五章40节。↩︎
见其传记接近结尾处，第26、27章（加兰迪〔Gallandi〕，第viii卷，第399页）。↩︎
参《对话录》(Dial.)，ii. 5（载加兰迪《文库》〔Gallandi, Bibl.〕，第viii卷，第412页）。↩︎
《马丁传》(Vita M.)，第20章（载加兰迪〔Gallandi〕，viii，第397页）。↩︎
《对话录》(Dial.)，ii. 7，大概说的是同一次宴会，因为马丁（Martin）谢绝了皇帝其他的宴请。塞韦鲁斯（Severus）的叙述使我们明白，这是马丁唯一一次容许女人如此接近自己，或接受女人的服侍。他曾称赞一位修女，因为她连他以主教身份作的正式探访也拒绝了；塞韦鲁斯对此评论道：“何等荣耀的童贞女，竟连马丁也不让看见自己！何等有福的马丁，不将这种拒绝视为侮辱，反而赞扬其中的美德，并因在那个地区发现如此罕见的榜样而欢喜！”（《对话录》〔Dial.〕，ii，第12章；加兰迪〔Gall.〕，viii，第414页。）↩︎
正如他自己在驳鲁菲努斯（Rufinus）的第二篇申辩中所夸耀的：“Ego philosophus(?), rhetor, grammaticus, dialecticus, hebraeus, graecus, latinus, trilinguis.”（“我是哲学家〔？〕、修辞学家、文法学家、辩证学家，通希伯来文、希腊文、拉丁文，精于三种语言。”）著名的伊拉斯谟（Erasmus）是其著作的第一位编者，在文学才具与成就方面也极有鉴赏力。他将哲罗姆置于所有教父之上，甚至高于圣奥古斯丁（他不能赞同奥古斯丁关于白白恩典和预定的教义），并屡次以雄辩的言辞表达对哲罗姆的钦佩。在致教皇利奥十世（Leo X.）的一封信中（《书信》〔Ep.〕，ii. 1，引自瓦拉尔西〔Vallarsi〕版《哲罗姆著作集》，第xi卷，第290页），他说：“Divus Hieronymus sic apud Latinos est theologorum princeps, ut hunc prope solum habeamus theologi dignum nomine. Non quod caeteros damnem, sed quod illustres alioqui, si cum hoc conferantur, ob huius eminentiam velut obscurentur. Denique tot egregiis est cumulatus dotibus, ut vix ullum habeat et ipsa docta Graecia, quem cum hoc viro quest componere. Quantum in illo Romanae facundiae! quanta linguarum peritia! quanta omnis antiquitatis omnium historiarum notitia! quam fida memoria! quam felix rerum omnium mixtum! quam absoluta mysticarum literarum cognitio! super omnia, quis ardor ille, quam admirabilis divini pectoris afflatus? ut una et plurimum delectet eloquentia, et doceat eruditione, et rapiat sanctimonia.”（“圣哲罗姆在拉丁人中实为神学家之首，以致我们几乎认为，只有他才配称为神学家。这并非贬斥其他人，而是他们虽自有光彩，一旦与他相比，却因他的卓越而显得黯淡。他集如此众多的卓越禀赋于一身，以致即使博学的希腊，也难找出一人可与之匹敌。他有何等罗马式的雄辩！何等精湛的语言造诣！何等广博的古代知识和历史知识！何等可靠的记忆！何等融会万事的才华！何等完备的圣经奥义知识！更重要的是，他有何等的热忱，那神圣心灵的感发又何等奇妙！他的雄辩使人极其愉悦，他的博学使人受教，他的圣洁使人心驰神往，而这一切同时具备。”）↩︎
马尔蒂亚奈（Martianay）、斯蒂尔廷（Stilting）、凯夫（Cave）、施勒克（Schröckh）、哈根巴赫（Hagenbach）等人，根据普罗斯珀（Prosper）《编年史》(Chron.) 331年条，将他的出生年份定为331年；巴罗尼乌斯（Baronius）、杜潘（Du Pin）和蒂耶蒙（Tillemont）则定为342年，后者更为可信。蒂耶蒙根据种种情形推断，哲罗姆并非如普罗斯珀所说活了九十一岁，而仅活了七十八岁。瓦拉尔西（Vallarsi，xi. 8）将其出生年代定得更晚，认为是346年。他的卒年则定为419或420年。↩︎
因此称为斯特里多的（Stridonensis）；这一称号也用来将他与同时代一位鲜为人知的希腊人哲罗姆区别开来，后者可能是耶路撒冷的一位长老。↩︎
当哲罗姆自称为基督徒时，主对他说：“Mentiris”（“你说谎”），“Ciceronianus es, non Christianus, ubi enim thesaurus tuus ibi et cor tuum.”（“你是西塞罗的门徒，不是基督徒；因为你的财宝在哪里，你的心也在那里。”）见致尤斯托基乌姆（Eustochium）的第xxii封信，《论守贞》(De custodia virginitatis)（第i卷，第113页）。C. A. 霍伊曼（C. A. Heumann）曾撰专论《论哲罗姆反西塞罗的神游异象》(De ecstasi Hieronymi anti-Ciceroniana)。又参施勒克（Schröckh），第vii卷，第35页及后；以及奥扎南（Ozanam）：《五世纪的文明》(Civilisation au 5e Siècle)，i. 301。↩︎
《书信》(Ep.)，第xxii封，瓦拉尔西版（ed. Vall.），i. 112。↩︎
《书信》(Ep.)，第xxii封（瓦拉尔西版〔ed. Vallars.〕，i，第91页）。↩︎
《书信》(Ep.)，第cxxv封，瓦拉尔西版（ed. Vallars.）（其他编次为第95或第4封）。↩︎
《赞独居生活》(De laude vitae solitariae)，第xiv封信（第i卷，第28—36页），致赫利奥多鲁斯（Heliodorus）。罗马贵妇法比奥拉（Fabiola）将此信熟记于心，杜潘（Du Pin）称之为雄辩的杰作（《教会作家新文库》〔Nouv. Bibl. des auteurs eccl.〕，iii. 102），但它几乎显得过于铺张而浮夸。他自己后来也承认写得过火了。↩︎
吉本（Gibbon）论到这些作品时说：“保罗、希拉里昂（Hilarion）和马尔库斯（Malchus）的故事讲述得极其精彩；这些悦人的作品唯一的缺点，就是缺少真实性与常识。”↩︎
《书信》(Ep.)，第xiv封（第i卷，第29页及下页）。贵格利（Gregory）、巴西流（Basil）、安布罗斯（Ambrose）、金口约翰（Chrysostom）、卡西安（Cassian）、尼鲁斯（Nilus）和伊西多尔（Isidor）的禁欲著作中，也有类似描绘修道生活魅力的文字。西奈山德高望重的修士尼鲁斯在五世纪初说（《书信》〔Ep.〕，第i卷，第1封，转引自尼安德〔Neander〕，美国版，ii. 250）：“上帝赐给修士如此丰盛的恩典，甚至使他们预先领略来世，以致他们不求人的尊荣，也不渴慕这世界的显贵；相反，他们往往宁愿避开人的耳目。另一方面，许多享有世间一切荣耀的显贵，或出于自愿，或为患难所迫，投奔卑微的修士，得以脱离致命的危险，同时获得今世与永世的拯救。”↩︎
这是我们从哲罗姆写于409年的第cxxiii封信第10章中的一句话推断出来的（瓦拉尔西版〔ed. Vallars.〕，i，第901页）：“Ante annos plurimos, quum in chartis ecclesiasticis”（“许多年前，当我在教会文书方面”——这里大概指教会文件；不过施勒克〔Schröckh〕，viii，第122页，援引一本我未见过的博纳米奇〔Bonamici〕的著作，认为是指圣经），“juvarem Damasum, Romanae urbis episcopum, et orientis atque occidentis synodicis consultationibus responderem”（“协助罗马城主教达马苏，并答复东方与西方主教会议的咨询时”），等等。施勒克没有引用的后面这些话，支持通常的解释。↩︎
蒙塔朗贝尔（Montalembert）本人出身于法国一个古老的贵族家庭，见前引书，i，第388页及下页。参哲罗姆（Hieron.），《致帕马基乌斯论保利娜之死书》(Epist. lxvi. ad Pammachium, de obit. Paulinae)，第lxvi封信（瓦拉尔西版〔ed. Vallars.〕，i，第391页及后）。↩︎
见他《致帕马基乌斯的书信》(Epist. ad Pammach.) 中的一封：“Primus inter monachos in prima urbe ... archistrategos monachorum.”（“首城中修士之首……修士的统帅。”）↩︎
第xxii封信，致尤斯托基乌姆（Eustochium），《论守贞》(de custodia virginitatis)。就连鲁菲努斯（Rufinus）也对socrus Dei（“上帝的岳母”）这一亵渎、甚至几近谤渎上帝的说法感到震惊，问他是从哪一位异教诗人那里偷来的。↩︎
他与奥古斯丁就《加拉太书》二章14节的解释所发生的争论，对于认识这两位最杰出的拉丁教父的道德品格，并非无关紧要。哲罗姆认为，保罗与彼得在安提阿冲突的记述，体现了一种牧养上的权宜之计；他以为保罗当时并非当真责备那位年长的使徒，而只是为了产生效果，使犹太人改正关于礼仪律法效力的错误观念。这种解释为保全彼得的尊严，竟将虚假归给保罗，理所当然地触犯了奥古斯丁敏锐的真理意识。他向哲罗姆表达了自己的看法，哲罗姆却以极其傲慢的态度，使他感受到自己在文法知识上的不足。不过，两人后来和好了。关于这场争论，参双方书信，载《哲罗姆著作集》(Hieron. Opera)，瓦拉尔西版（ed. Vall.），第i卷，第632页及后；以及默勒（Möhler）《杂著》(Vermischte Schriften) 第i卷，第1—18页所收的论文。↩︎
“Tantis de toto orbe confluentibus obruimur turbis monachorum.”（“如此众多的修士从全世界涌来，使我们应接不暇。”）↩︎
耶稣会士斯蒂尔廷（Stilting）是《圣徒行传》(Acta Sanctorum) 中《哲罗姆传》(Vita Hieron.) 的作者；他用了将近三十个对开本书页，叙述哲罗姆死后人们对他及其遗物的敬奉。↩︎
罗马天主教传记作者大多是不加保留地颂扬哲罗姆的人，如马尔蒂亚奈（Martianay）、瓦拉尔西（Vallarsi）、斯蒂尔廷（Stilting）、多尔奇（Dolci），甚至圣公会的凯夫（Cave）也是如此。另参瓦拉尔西版第xi卷，第282—300页所收《古人论哲罗姆及其著作证言选》（Selecta Veterum testimonia de Hieronymo ejusque scriptis）。不过，蒂耶蒙（Tillemont）因倾向詹森主义（Jansenism），对奥古斯丁更为同情，已开始作出较为明达的判断，斯蒂尔廷为此严厉斥责了他。蒙塔朗贝尔（Montalembert，前引书，第i卷，第402页）称赞哲罗姆是个天才，受热忱激励，受悔罪约束，信仰炽烈，知识渊博；但他也顺带提到哲罗姆“近乎野蛮的暴烈性情”，以及“那无穷无尽、有时流于夸张和矫饰的激烈言辞”。约翰·H. 纽曼博士（Dr. John H. Newman）在尚未从蒲西主义（Puseyism）转向罗马天主教时所发表的意见，显出了道德感在这里与罗马教会权威之间的冲突：“我直言不讳地说，倘若他不是圣徒，他的著作和见解中有些东西会使我退避；但既然情形如此，我反而不敢使自己去反对那近乎大公教会（？）世界对他圣德完美所作的判决。”（《教父时代的教会》〔Church of the Fathers〕，第263页，转引自罗伯逊〔Robertson〕。）路德（Luther）在这里也大胆冲破传统，却忘记了《武加大译本》（Vulgate）甚至对他自己的德文圣经译本也有极大的价值，走到了不公正贬抑的另一极端。他多次明确表示厌恶这位教父，指责他根本不懂得怎样论述基督，只会谈禁食、守贞和无用的修士操练。勒克莱尔（Le Clerc）在《哲罗姆问题研究》（Quaestiones Hieronymianae，Amstel.，1700年，500余页）中，以深厚的学力揭露了他的缺点，却失之公允。莫斯海姆（Mosheim）和施勒克（Schröckh）的态度较为温和，但后者认为，哲罗姆对基督教究竟是功大于过，还是过大于功，尚属疑问。后来的新教历史学家对他的评价变得稍为有利，不过这主要是就他的学识而言，而非他的道德品格；他的书信和论战著作暴露了太多无可置疑的弱点。↩︎
她的父亲声称自己的家系可追溯至阿伽门农（Agamemnon），她的丈夫则声称自己的家系可追溯至埃涅阿斯（Aeneas）。↩︎
这种不讲清洁的习惯，是古代苦修圣洁生活不可分离的伴侣；在修士身上已经够糟，在修女身上就更令人难以容忍，甚至作呕。↩︎
哲罗姆说：“Nesciebat se matrem, ut Christi probaret ancillam.”（“她忘记自己是母亲，为要证明自己是基督的婢女。”）这揭示了修道式圣洁与上帝所命定的自然美德之间的冲突。蒙塔朗贝尔也引用了这段令人反感的话，而且显然表示赞同。↩︎
哲罗姆说，尤斯托基乌姆（Eustochium）希望偿还母亲的债务——大概是靠别人的帮助。富勒（Fuller）说得公允：“慷慨应当像河流一样，不但有流水，也须有堤岸。”↩︎
拉丁文作 Sublaqueum 或 Sublacum，位于教皇国境内、罗马以东三十多英里处（巴特勒〔Butler〕说“近四十英里”，蒙塔朗贝尔，第ii卷，第7页，则说“五十英里”），在特韦罗内河（Teverone）畔。巴特勒将此地形容为“一片荒凉可怖的连绵岩山，谷中有一条河和一个湖”。↩︎
Monasterium Cassinense（卡西诺修道院）。诚然，它早在583年便被伦巴第人（Lombards）摧毁，据说本尼狄克（Benedict）曾预言此事；但它于731年重建，748年祝圣，857年又被撒拉森人（Saracens）摧毁，约950年再度重建，又历经许多灾难，至1649年得到更彻底的重建，1727年由本尼狄克十三世（Benedict XIII）第三次祝圣。它在皇帝和教皇的庇护下日益富裕扩张，但近代却被剥夺了巨额收入（十六世纪末估计为500,000杜卡特），历经沧桑，至今仍然屹立。在其鼎盛时期，院长是那不勒斯王国（Naples）的首席男爵，统辖四百多个城镇和村庄，院内有数百名修士；但1843年仅有二十人。它拥有相当丰富的藏书。蒙塔朗贝尔（前引书，第ii卷，第19页）称卡西诺山（Monte Cassino）为“天主教世界最有权势、最负盛名的修道院；它之所以著名，尤其因为本尼狄克在此撰写了他的会规，塑造了一种范型，供无数服从这部至高法典的团体效法”。他还引述了但丁（Dante）《天堂篇》（Paradiso）中的诗意描写。路易吉·托斯蒂修士（Dom Luigi Tosti）于1842年在那不勒斯出版了这所修道院的完整历史，共三卷。↩︎
贵格利（Gregor.），《对话录》（Dial.），第ii卷，第37章。↩︎
“Scienter nesciens, et sapienter indoctus.”（“有意识地保持无知，明智地不受学问熏陶。”）↩︎
巴特勒在前引书中，甚至将他与摩西和以利亚相比。“他蒙上帝拣选，如同另一位摩西，引领忠信的灵魂进入真正的应许之地，就是天国，因此得了卓越的超自然恩赐，甚至包括行神迹和说预言的恩赐。他仿佛另一位以利沙，蒙上帝赋予非凡的能力，能号令整个自然界，又像古代的先知一样预见未来之事。他常常鼓舞修士们低落的勇气，以十字架的记号挫败魔鬼的各种诡计；建造修道院时，用一个简短的祷告便使最沉重的石头变轻；又在众人面前，使一个在卡西诺山被倒塌的墙压死的初学修士复活。”蒙塔朗贝尔省略了那些更为离奇的神迹，只有普拉西杜斯（Placidus）从漩涡中获救一事例外；他采用博叙埃（Bossuet）的措辞叙述此事，见第ii卷，第15页。↩︎
天主教会除圣本尼狄克会规外，还认可另外三种会规，即：1. 圣巴西尔（St. Basil）的会规，东方修士至今仍遵守；2. 圣奥古斯丁的会规，为律修司铎、宣道兄弟会即多明我会（Dominicans），以及几个军事修会所采用；3. 十三世纪阿西西的圣方济各（St. Francis of Assisi）及其托钵修会的会规。↩︎
教皇贵格利甚至相信圣本尼狄克会规是直接受默示而成的；博叙埃（Panégyric de Saint Benoit，《圣本尼狄克颂》）显然言过其实，称它为“基督教的缩影，是福音一切教义、圣教父一切制度和一切全德劝谕的精深而奥秘的纲要”。蒙塔朗贝尔也以类似的法国式铺张雄辩来谈论它。修道主义对于自由的福音所知甚少，竟把基督教化为一种新的顺服律法。↩︎
这段序言的节录，我们采用了蒙塔朗贝尔的译文，见第ii卷，第44页及下页。↩︎
第5章：“Primus humilitatis gradus est obedientia sine mora. Haec convenit iis, qui nihil sibi Christo carius aliquid existimant; propter servitium sanctum, quod professi sunt, seu propter metum gehennae, vel gloriam vitae aeternae, mox ut aliquid imperatum a majore fuerit, ac si divinitus imperetur, moram pati nesciunt in faciendo.”（“谦卑的第一阶是不迟延地顺服。这适合那些认定没有什么比基督更为宝贵的人；他们因所誓愿承担的神圣服事，或因惧怕地狱，或因向往永生的荣耀，一听见上级的命令，便如同领受上帝的命令一般，毫不迟延地实行。”）↩︎
第48章：“Otiositas inimica est animae; et ideo certis temporibus occupari debent fratres in labore manuum, certis iterum horis in lectione divina.”（“闲懒是灵魂的仇敌；因此，弟兄们应在规定的时段从事手工劳动，又在另一些规定的时辰诵读圣书。”）↩︎
法定日课时辰（horaecanonicae）为 Nocturnae vigiliae, Matutinae, Prima、Tertia, Sexta, Nona, Vespera 和 Completorium，即夜祷、晨祷、第一时辰祷、第三时辰祷、第六时辰祷、第九时辰祷、晚祷和寝前祷。这些规定（第16章）取自对《诗篇》一百一十九篇164节“我因你公义的典章一天七次赞美你”，以及62节“我半夜必起来称谢你”的字面解释。《诗篇》是修道院的礼仪书和圣诗集。全书分配在每日七次礼拜中，使整部《诗篇》每周咏唱一遍。↩︎
第59章：“Si quis forte de nobilibus offert filium suum Deo in monasterio, si ipse puer minori aetate est, parentes ejus faciant petitionem,” 等。（“若有贵族将儿子奉献给上帝，送入修道院，而这孩子尚未成年，则应由其父母提出申请”，等等。）↩︎
第40章：“Carnium quadrupedum ab omnibus abstinetur comestio, praeter omnino debiles et aegrotos.”（“除极其虚弱者和病人外，所有人都须禁食四足兽的肉。”）甚至禽肉也在禁食之列；马比永（Mabillon）根据同时代的图尔的贵格利（Gregory of Tours）的证言指出，当时禽肉只是王公贵族的珍馐。↩︎
第66章：“Monasterium, si possit fieri, ita debet construi, ut omnia necessaria, id est, aqua, molendinum, hortus, pistrinum, vel artes diversae intra monasterium exerceantur, ut non sit necessitas monachis vagandi foras, quia omnino non expedit animabus eorum.”（“修道院若有可能，应如此建造，使一切必需之物，即水源、磨坊、园圃、烘焙作坊，以及各种技艺作业，都能在院内具备并进行，免得修士必须外出游荡，因为这对他们的灵魂全然无益。”）↩︎
这位格朗弗伊修院（Glanfeuil，即 St. Maur sur Loire）的创建者毛鲁斯（Maurus），是本尼狄克会一个支派的主保圣徒；这个支派就是法国著名的圣毛尔会（Maurians，始于1618年）。十七世纪及十八世纪初，该会以精深的考古和历史研究，以及优良的教父著作版本，卓然著称。圣毛尔会最杰出的学者有：D.（Dom，相当于 Domnus，意为先生）梅纳尔（Menard）、达舍里（d’Achery）、戈丹（Godin）、马比永、勒努里（le Nourry）、马尔蒂亚奈、吕伊纳尔（Ruinart）、马尔泰纳（Martene）、蒙福孔（Montfaucon）、马叙埃（Massuet）、加尼耶（Garnier）和德拉吕（de la Rue）；以及我们时代索莱姆修道院（Solesme）的皮特拉修士（Dom Pitra），他编纂了一部珍贵的教父残篇集。↩︎
他是最后一位罗马执政官——这一官职被查士丁尼（Justinian）废除——并先后担任奥多亚塞（Odoacer）、狄奥多里克（Theodoric）和阿塔拉里克（Athalaric）的大臣，最后这位君主任命他为禁卫大区长官。↩︎
或作 Vivaria，因该地区有许多 vivaria，即鱼池，故得此名。↩︎
参马比永（Mabillon），《本尼狄克会编年史》（Ann. Bened.），第v卷，第24、27章；F. 德圣马尔特（F. de Ste. Marthe），《卡西奥多鲁斯传》（Vie de Cassiodore），1684年。↩︎
《哥林多前书》七章26节。↩︎
《驳约维尼安》（Adv. Jovin.），第i卷，第40章（《著作集》〔Opera〕，第ii卷，第304页）：“Et tamen iste formosus monachus, crassus, nitidus, dealbatus, et quasi sponsus semper incedens, aut uxorem ducat ut aequalem virginitatem nuptiis probet; aut, si non duxerit, frustra contra nos verbis agit, cum opere nobiscum sit.”（“然而，这个漂亮的修士，肥胖、光鲜、白白净净，走起路来总像个新郎；他要么娶妻，以证明守贞与婚姻平等；要么，若不娶妻，他用言辞反对我们也是徒劳，因为他在行为上却与我们站在一起。”）↩︎
奥古斯丁在《论异端》（De haer.）第82章说：“Cito ista haeresis oppressa et extincta est;”（“这个异端很快就被压制而消灭了。”）哲罗姆则在406年所写《驳维吉兰提乌斯》（Adv. Vigilant.）第1章中说到约维尼安（Jovinian）：他被罗马教会的权威定罪之后，便在纵欲享乐中耗散了心智。↩︎
《哥林多前书》七章36、39节。↩︎
《提摩太前书》三章2、12节。↩︎
《提摩太前书》五章14节；参《提摩太前书》二章15节；《希伯来书》十三章4节。↩︎
例如，他根据《哥林多前书》七章1节（“男不近女倒好”），毫不加以限定地推论说，见第i卷，第7章（《著作集》〔Opera〕，第ii卷，第246页）：“Si bonum est mulierem non tangere, malum est ergo tangere, nihil enim bono contrarium est, nisi malum; si autem malum est, et ignoscitur, ideo conceditur, ne malo quid deterius fiat .... Tolle fornicationem, et non dicet [apostolus], unusquisque uxorem suam habeat.”（“若不近女是好的，那么近女就是恶的，因为与善相反的只有恶；若这是恶，却又得到宽恕，那么准许此事，是为了免得发生比这恶更坏的事……除去淫乱，〔使徒〕就不会说：男子当各有自己的妻子。”）紧接着（第ii卷，第247页），他又根据保罗在《帖撒罗尼迦前书》五章17节中“不住地祷告”的劝勉推论说：“Si semper orandum est, nunquam ergo conjugio serviendum, quoniam quotiescunque uxori debitum reddo, orare non possum.”（“若必须时常祷告，就绝不该履行夫妻之事，因为每当我向妻子尽本分时，我就不能祷告。”）这类诡辩和曲解，显然出于对婚姻最卑下的肉欲观念，甚至在那个时代也引起了一些反对。他自己后来也觉得走得太远，便在致帕马基乌斯（Pammachium）的第48封信（瓦拉尔西版〔ed. Vallars.〕；本尼狄克会版〔ed. Bened.〕为第30封）中，试图借区分辩论操练式的写法（论战性的修辞）与教义式的写法，来为自己解围。↩︎
《论婚姻之善》（De bono conj.），第8章：“Duo bona sunt connubium et continentia, quorum alterum est melius.”（“婚姻和节欲都是善的，其中一个更好。”）↩︎
《哥林多后书》九章6节。↩︎
他在反驳此人的著作一开头，就称此人为“hominem rusticum et vix primis quoque imbutum literis”（“一个粗鄙之人，连最初步的文字教育都几乎没有受过”）。↩︎
参《马太福音》二十八章20节。↩︎
例如，宗教改革者中的路德（他甚至称赫尔维迪乌斯〔Helvidius〕为“十足的傻瓜”）和慈运理（Zuingle）；以及后来的神学家中的奥尔斯豪森（Olshausen）和 J. P. 兰格（J. P. Lange）。↩︎
关于他的出身，参瓦尔希（Walch）前引书，第675—677页的冗长论述；此人虽令人厌倦，考证却很扎实。↩︎
他在致里帕里乌斯（Riparius）的第109封信（Epist. 109, ad Ripar.，《著作集》〔Opera〕，第i卷，第719页）中重复了这个浅薄的双关语，说 Vigilantius（警醒者）这一名字是 κατ’ ἀντίφρασιν^*，其实倒应该叫 Dormitantius（昏睡者）。事实上，维吉兰提乌斯对于当时某些迷信确实有十分清醒的认识。↩︎
在高卢南部，即今加斯科涅（Gascogne）的卡塞尔（Casères）。由于经营旅店与圣职不相容，故有人认为，所谓 caupo Calagurritanus（卡拉古里斯的旅店主人）乃是维吉兰提乌斯的父亲。参勒斯勒（Rössler）《教父文库》（Bibliothek der Kirchenväter），第ix部分，第880页及下页，注100；以及瓦尔希前引书。↩︎
《驳维吉兰提乌斯》（Adv. Vigil.），第1、2章（《著作集》〔Opera〕，第ii卷，第387页及后）。↩︎
“Cinerarios et idolatras, qui mortuorum ossa venerantur.”（“那些崇敬死者骨骸的骨灰崇拜者和偶像崇拜者。”）哲罗姆（Hieron.），致里帕里乌斯的第109封信（Ep. 109, ad Riparium），第i卷，第719页。↩︎
埃皮法尼乌斯（Epiph.），《驳异端》（Haer.），第75篇。另参瓦尔希（Walch）前引书，第iii卷，第321–338页。贝拉明（Bellarmine）因这一表面上的相似之处，将新教称为埃里乌斯派（Aerian）异端。↩︎

第四章 修道制度的兴起与发展

目录

史料