Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On Monks (Book II)
Chapter 5: On the Origin of the Religious Orders
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Monachis (De Membris Ecclesiae, Book II), On Monks (On the Members of the Church, Book II). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
As to the fourth point, on the origin, the adversaries teach three things. First, that the religious orders began only in the fourth century — that is, after the year of Christ 300 — and that the first authors were Anthony, Macarius, and the like. So teach the Magdeburgians (Century 4, chapter 6, column 464): “In this century,” they say, “the monastic life first began,” etc. The same they repeat very often.
Secondly, that the religious orders began partly by chance, partly by error, partly by depraved imitation. In Century 4, chapter 6, column 470, the Magdeburgians say that the first hermits withdrew to solitude not of their own accord, but by a certain chance — namely, to flee persecution — which is what Blessed Jerome writes of Paul the first hermit in his life, and Sozomen (Book 1, chapter 13). And the same Magdeburgians (Century 5, chapter 6, column 700): “Monkery began,” they say, “partly from the obscuring of the doctrine of justification and of the true worship of God, partly from a depraved emulation of the Essenes.”
Thirdly, Philip [Melanchthon] (in the Apology for article 27 of the Augsburg Confession) and Calvin (Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 13, §10) add that there were indeed among the ancients of the fourth and fifth century some monks, but that those who now exist have nothing in common with them, and therefore it can truly be said that monkery, such as it now is, is a new and recent thing.
We, then, will first show that the religious life began long before the fourth century. Secondly, that its origin was not chance, or error, or depraved imitation, but the desire of perfection. Thirdly, that the religious orders which now exist are the same as to essence with those which existed in the most ancient times. We say, therefore, first, that the religious life is so ancient that a certain foreshadowing of it existed in the law of nature before the flood; a greater expression in the law of Moses; but its perfection in the time of the Apostles.
We have first (Genesis 4) of Enos: He began to call upon the name of the Lord. From which place authors gather that this Enos instituted some peculiar worship, more sublime than the religion of the common people; for before Enos certainly Adam too, and Abel, and Seth called upon God, and yet he is said first to have begun to call upon the name of the Lord. See on this matter Waldensis (Book 3 On the Doctrine of the Faith, article 1, chapter 1).
We have next (Numbers 6) the vows of the Nazarites, who consecrated themselves to the Lord; after whose example, even in the Church, certain ones devoted their whole selves to the divine worship, as Origen writes (homily 11 on Leviticus).
We have next, in the same Old Testament, Elijah and Elisha, and the sons of the prophets, living in this world without wives and riches. Of whom Blessed Jerome (in the epistle to Rusticus, which is fourth in order): “The sons of the prophets,” he says, “whom we read of as monks in the Old Testament, built themselves little huts near the streams of the Jordan; and, the crowds of cities being left behind, lived on barley-meal and wild herbs.” And epistle 13 to Paulinus, speaking of monks: “Our prince,” he says, “is Elijah, our Elisha, our leaders the sons of the prophets, who dwelt in the fields and solitudes, and made themselves tabernacles near the streams of the Jordan.”
We have also (Jeremiah 35) a notable commendation of the descendants of Rechab, who, when their father or grandfather had commanded them not to build houses, not to sow fields, not to plant vineyards, never to drink wine, but to lead a most hard life as it were outside the world, observed all things most diligently. Whom also Jerome writes to have borne a figure of our monks, in the same epistle to Paulinus.
Finally, that John the Baptist was the prince of monks and hermits, nearly all the Fathers write. Nazianzen (in the oration on Basil) compares Saint Basil, because he had been a monk, with John the Baptist. Chrysostom (homily 1 on Mark): “As,” he says, “the princes of priests are the Apostles, so the prince of monks is John the Baptist.” Jerome (to Eustochium, on the keeping of virginity), discoursing of hermits: “Of this life,” he says, “the author is Paul, the illustrator Anthony, and, to ascend to higher things, the prince is John the Baptist.” The same teach Cassian (Conference 18, chapter 6), Sozomen (Book 1 of the history, chapter 12), Isidore (Book 2 On the Divine Offices, chapter 15), and Blessed Bernard (sermon on the excellence of John the Baptist).
Let us come to the New Testament, and we will show that before the year 300 there were monks in the Church. First, this is proved from Athanasius in the life of Blessed Anthony, where Athanasius teaches that before Anthony there were not indeed hermits, but yet there were monks, who established their monasteries in the fields near the cities; and that Anthony, when he wished to become a monk, went to a certain old man who from his early age had practiced the monastic life. From which it follows both that Blessed Anthony was not the first monk, and that before the year of the Lord 300 there were monks; for Anthony flourished at the beginning of the fourth century — for in the year 300 he was forty years old, as is gathered from the Chronicle of Jerome — and yet, while he was a youth, many aged monks were found.
And since the Magdeburgians (Century 4, chapter 10, column 1306) somewhat doubt whether this life was written by Athanasius, that can easily be proved. For that Athanasius wrote the life of Anthony is testified by Nazianzen (on Athanasius), Jerome (On Illustrious Men, on Anthony, on Evagrius, and on Athanasius), Rufinus (Book 1 of the history, chapter 8), Augustine (Book 8 of the Confessions, chapter 6), Paulinus (in the life of Ambrose), Palladius (in the Lausiac History, chapter 8), and Socrates (Book 4, chapter 18). And that this very one which we have is that very one of Athanasius appears from this, that it is truly a notable volume, as Jerome says that book of Athanasius was; likewise it contains those very many miracles which Augustine mentions. Besides, it recounts that history of the soul of Ammon, which Palladius and Socrates report from the book of Athanasius on the life of Anthony. Finally, the Centuriators bring forward nothing to the contrary but their own judgment; but it is foolish, without any reason, conjecture, or authority, to call into controversy that of which no one doubts.
It is proved secondly from Damasus, who in the life of Pope Dionysius writes that this same Dionysius was raised from being a monk to the pontificate. But it is established from the Chronicle of Eusebius that Dionysius sat at Rome in the year of the Lord 266; therefore the monks did not begin after the year of the Lord 300.
Thirdly, it is proved from Cyprian and Tertullian, who were even more ancient than Pope Dionysius. For Tertullian writes the book On the Veiling of Virgins, and Cyprian, following Tertullian, writes a book of the same subject, which he titled On the Habit of Virgins. And both speak of religious virgins, consecrated to God by solemn profession. For Tertullian distinguishes in that book between the virgins of the world — that is, seculars — and the virgins of God — that is, nuns — of whom he says: “O sacrilegious hands, which could tear off a habit dedicated to God! What worse would some persecutor have done, had he known this to have been chosen by a virgin?” And below, addressing them: “Thou hast married,” he says, “Christ; to Him thou hast delivered thy flesh,” etc. The like has Cyprian.
Fourthly, it is proved from Dionysius the Areopagite, more ancient than Tertullian; for he writes an epistle to Demophilus the monk, and in the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 6, at length explains the form of the monastic profession.
The Magdeburgians confess that the author of that book writes truly of monks, but they deny that he is Dionysius the disciple of the Apostle Paul (Century 1, Book 2, chapter 10, column 624); which same thing Lorenzo Valla and Erasmus (in the annotations on chapter 17 of Acts) deny, likewise Luther, Calvin, and all the heretics. But those works, under the name of Dionysius, three ancient Pontiffs cite — Gregory I (homily 34 on the Gospels), Martin I (in the Roman Council), and Agatho (in the epistle to the Emperor Constantine IV). Likewise Pope Nicholas I, in the epistle to the Emperor Michael, cites the epistle of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite to Demophilus the monk. Likewise two general Councils, the Sixth (act 4) and the Seventh (canon 2). Besides, very many Doctors, as Saint Maximus, who wrote annotations on Dionysius; Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, in a most beautiful oration, which is had in act 11 of the Sixth Synod; the Damascene (Book 1, chapter 12, On the Faith); Euthymius (Panoply, part 1, title 2); Anastasius the Librarian, in the epistle to Charles the Bald; Hilduin, in the epistle to Louis the Pious; and all the later ones. And it is in no way likely that so many Fathers could not see that which now Valla and Erasmus say they have seen.
Then we can reason thus: The author of these books cannot be more recent than Blessed Gregory, as is known, since he is cited by Gregory himself. Again, he cannot be more recent than Jerome; for Gregory, citing him, calls him an ancient and venerable father, and would not call ancient a man near his own century. Neither can he have flourished a little before Jerome — that is, in the fourth century; for without doubt then Jerome would have placed him among the ecclesiastical writers; for he could not have been ignorant of a writer who had existed within his own memory. And besides, he would for the same reason have been known to Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, and the other Fathers, to whom, however, he was unknown, as far as can be gathered from their works. Wherefore it is necessary, as Anastasius says, that the author be most ancient, and that he was suppressed by the heretics, and at length found at Rome in the time of Blessed Gregory, or a little before.
By which the argument of Valla, Erasmus, and the Centuriators is solved, who use this as their chief argument, that Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, and especially Jerome never cite these books. For this argument of theirs favors us most of all: for since these Fathers do not cite these works, it is a sign that this author did not exist in their time; and since it is established from Gregory that he is not later than they, it follows necessarily that he is far more ancient. Whence also Valla testifies that very many most learned men held these works not to be indeed those of Dionysius the Areopagite, but yet of an author almost equally ancient — namely, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, or, as others will have it, Dionysius of Corinth, both of whom flourished in the year of the Lord 174, as Eusebius testifies in the Chronicle. And this, even if it is not true, yet suffices for us to assert the antiquity of the monastic life.
Fifthly, it is proved from Philo the Jew, who was even more ancient than Dionysius the Areopagite. Philo, then, in the book On the Contemplative Life of Suppliants, describes at great length the life and morals of the monks and sacred virgins whom Saint Mark the Evangelist instituted in Egypt, where he openly sets down the profession of continence and of poverty, of fasts, of psalmody, and so forth.
The Magdeburgians (Century 1, Book 2, chapter 3, page 18) confess that Philo wrote these things, but that he spoke not of Christians but of the Essenes, which was a sect of the Jews altogether similar to our religious orders. And this they prove by no other reason than that the Christians did not yet have such exercises. But if we object to them that this is to beg the question, they will answer, as they are wont, that we play the sophist.
Let us prove briefly, then — not by dialectical reasoning, but by the testimonies of the Fathers — that Philo spoke of Christians. First, Eusebius (Book 2 of the history, chapter 16) says that Philo saw Saint Peter at Rome, and clung to his conversations as he preached the word of God, and clearly wrote of the life of those who dwell in monasteries. Likewise Epiphanius (heresy 29, which is that of the Nazarenes), speaking of this book of Philo: “Recounting their monasteries in the neighborhood around Lake Maria, he narrated of none other than Christians.”
Besides, Jerome (On Illustrious Men, on Philo), after he had taught that Philo spoke of Christians, subjoins: “From which it appears,” he says, “that the first Church of those believing in Christ was such as the monks now strive and desire to be.” Besides, Cassian (Book 2, chapter 5, On the Institutions of the Cenobia) asserts that the Egyptian monks received their first norm of living from Saint Mark. Which Cassian could not have learned except from this book of Philo. The same assert, in express words, Bede (in the Prologue on Mark), Sozomen (Book 1, chapter 12), and Nicephorus (Book 2, chapter 15).
Someone will perhaps say that Josephus narrates the like of the Essenes (Book 2 On the Jewish War, chapter 7, and Book 18 of the Antiquities, chapter 2) to what Philo narrates. But it is established that Josephus speaks of Jews, since he affirms that there are three sects of the Jews: of the Pharisees, of the Sadducees, of the Essenes.
I answer that there are two opinions about that passage of Josephus. For some assert that Josephus and Philo do not speak of the same men. For Josephus (Book 18 of the Antiquities, chapter 2) asserts that the sect of the Essenes was ancient among the Jews; but Philo indicates that he speaks of a discipline arisen in his own time. Besides, many things are attributed to the Essenes by Josephus which are manifestly erroneous and superstitious, none of which Philo attributes to his therapeutae. Whence Saint Nilus, at the beginning of his Ascetics, asserts that the Essenes (of whom, namely, Josephus speaks) had indeed morals similar to the morals of monks, but because they lacked faith in Christ, their holy morals profited them nothing.
Others teach that both Philo and Josephus speak of Christians, whom Blessed Jerome seems to favor (in the epistle to Eustochium, on the keeping of virginity), where, speaking of monks: “Such,” he says, “does Philo, imitator of the Platonic speech, such does Josephus, the Greek Livy, in the second history of the Jewish captivity, report the Essenes to be.” Which opinion Matthew Galen defends (in the book On the Origin of the Monastic Life, chapter 5); and to the things objected by others, of the errors which Josephus attributes to the Essenes, and of their antiquity, he answers that Josephus did not exactly attain the mysteries of our monks, and therefore frequently slipped, and confused them with the ancient Jews. For there were three kinds of nearly the same name — namely, the Samaritan Essenes, of whom Epiphanius (heresy 10); likewise the Jewish Essenes, of whom Epiphanius (heresy 19), whom, however, he calls Osseni; finally, the Christian Essenes, converted from the Jews, whom Epiphanius calls Essees or Jessees (heresy 29). It is credible, then, that Josephus confused our Jessees with his Essenes, especially since at that time Christians were held for Jews. Either solution is probable.
Sixthly, it is proved from the example of the Apostles, who were truly the first Christian monks; for that they instituted the cenobitic life, where all things were common, appears from Acts of the Apostles, chapter 4. That this manner of living was not of all Christians, but only of those who wished to live more perfectly, appears from Acts, chapter 5, where, when Ananias had defrauded of the price of the field and wished to deceive the Apostles, he heard from Saint Peter: “Whilst it remained, did it not remain to thee? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power?” And that the Apostles bound themselves by vow to that perfection, Augustine teaches (Book 17 On the City of God, chapter 4): “This vow,” he says, “the most powerful had vowed,” etc. Finally, that the religious orders began from the example of the Apostles, very many Fathers testify, as Eusebius (Book 2 of the history, chapter 16), Jerome (On Illustrious Men, on Philo), Augustine (sermon 2 on the common life of clerics), Possidius (in the life of Augustine), Isidore (Book 2 On the Offices, chapter 15). Finally Cassian (Conference 18, chapter 5): “And so,” he says, “the discipline of the cenobites took its beginning from the time of the apostolic preaching.”
But the Magdeburgians (Century 1, Book 2, chapter 6, column 506) object Chrysostom, who (homily 25 on the epistle to the Hebrews): “There was not then even a trace of a monk,” he says, “but Blessed Paul spoke all things to seculars.”
I answer that Chrysostom speaks only of the Church of the Corinthians. For he expounds those words of Paul (1 Corinthians 5): If any man that is named a brother among you, etc., and says that Paul, by the name of brother, does not understand monks alone, but any of the faithful, because then there was not even a trace of a monk among the Corinthians. But it does not therefore follow that there were not then monks in Palestine and in Egypt. And that Chrysostom does not deny that in the time of the Apostles there were monks appears from very many of his testimonies. For (homily 17 to the people), speaking of the monastic life: “So great,” he says, “is the philosophy introduced by Christ.” Certainly, if Christ introduced the monastic life, it already existed in the time of the Apostle Paul. In homily 11 on Acts he says that the monks live as of old, at the beginning of the Church, all the faithful lived at Jerusalem. Likewise (homily 69 on Matthew) he says that the monks even in habit imitate the Apostles. Finally (Book 3 against the vituperators of monastic life, not far from the end) he asserts that those things were fulfilled by the Apostles which are now fulfilled by the monks.
Now as to the second point, that the monastic life did not arise by occasion of persecutions and by chance, will easily be demonstrated. For of the cenobites there is no doubt, since they existed before all the persecutions. Of the hermits the same is proved; for although Paul the first hermit began to cultivate solitude by occasion of persecution, yet Anthony did not begin by such occasion, but by zeal alone for a purer life, as is evident from Athanasius in his life. But the eremitic life was introduced not by Paul but by Anthony; for although Paul first of all lived in the desert, yet he himself had no disciples, nor was he known until a little before his death. But Anthony ought truly to be called the prince of hermits, seeing that he neither learned from another, and himself taught all. Wherefore Jerome rightly says, in the life of Paul, that Anthony is deservedly called the author of the eremitic life, not so much because he himself preceded all, as because from him the zeal of all was kindled. On which account each can be called the first hermit — Paul indeed in time, but Anthony in teaching.
And that the cause of instituting the religious life was not the obscuring of the doctrine of justification, or a depraved imitation of the Essenes, is manifest from what we have said; for the authors of the religious orders were first the Apostles, and then Anthony, Basil, Augustine — most learned and most holy men, whom we cannot accuse of ignorance and depraved emulation. For that Basil was the author of a certain monastic order Nazianzen testifies in his life; and Augustine confesses that a monastic order was instituted by himself (Book 3 against the letters of Petilian, chapter 40). And certainly among the Greeks scarcely anyone will be found more learned than Basil, as neither than Augustine among the Latins.
As to the third point, that the essence of the monastic life is the same for our monks and the ancient ones, could be proved by very many testimonies, which will afterward be brought forward in the disputation on vows. Now, because Calvin and Melanchthon by the ancient monks understand those who existed in the time of the Saints Augustine and Basil, let us prove our opinion from these two.
The essence of the religious life is constituted by all the religious of this time in those three virtues: obedience, poverty, chastity. The same was done by the ancients. For Augustine (Book 1 On the Morals of the Church, chapter 31), explaining the life of the cenobites, first says that they, the allurements of this world being despised, are gathered into a most chaste and most holy life. Secondly he adds that nothing is possessed by anyone as his own. Thirdly he subjoins that the fathers with no pride consult for those whom they call sons, with great authority of theirs in commanding, and great will of theirs in obeying.
And Basil, in the preface of the monastic constitutions, speaks thus of the future monk: “He flees,” he says, “marriage as fetters; and these being left behind, he consecrates his life to God, and professes chastity, so that there be not even the faculty for him of turning back to marriage.” Likewise (chapter 22 of the constitutions) he disputes most fully of obedience, and at length concludes that monks ought so to obey their superior as sheep the shepherd, and as the instrument the craftsman: “Not,” he says, “curiously investigating the precepts, where they are free from sin, but with all alacrity and zeal fulfilling the things that are commanded.” Finally (in the last chapter) he discourses of poverty, and teaches that the monk ought to be free from all private possession whatsoever of material things.
Further, that of old there were also cowls and the rest of the monastic habit, and also psalmody, fasts, choice of foods, and other institutions of that kind, can be known both from Epiphanius (in the compendious doctrine) and from John Cassian in the books On the Institutions of the Cenobia.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPDT V. De origine Religionum. I # Quod ad quartum attinet de origine, ad¬ versarii tria docent. Primo, religiones incce- pisse demum quarto saeculo, id est, post an¬ num Christi 300. primosque auctores fuisse Antonium , Macarium , et similes. Ita do¬ cent Magdeburgenses Centur. IV, cap. 6, colum. 464 : « Coepit, inquiunt, hoc saeculo primum monastice etc. » Idem repetunt sae¬ pissime. Secundo, religiones coepisse partim casu, partim errore , partim prava imitatione. Centur. IV, cap. 6, coi. 470. dicunt Magde¬ burgenses , non sponte sua ad solitudinem concessisse primos eremitas , sed casu quo¬ dam, nimirum , ut fugerent persecutionem. Id, quod scribit de Paulo primo eremita B. Hieronymus in ejus vita, et Sozomenus lib. I, cap. 13. iidem autem Magdeburgenses 510 LIBER II. Csfit. V, cap. 6, coi. 700 : « Ccepit, inquiunt, monachatus partim obscuratione doctrinae de justificatione, et veris cultibus Dei, par* tim ex prava aemulatione Essenorum. » Tertio, addunt Philippus in Apologia pro art. 27 Confessionis Augustanae. , et Calvi¬ nus lib. IV Instit. 6ap. 13, §. 10. fuisse qui¬ dem apud veteres quarti et quinti saeculi aliquos Monachos, sed eos, qui nunc sunt, nihil cum illis habere commune, et ideo ve¬ re dici posse, monachatum, qualis nunc est, rem novam, et recentem esse. NoS ergo primo ostendemus religiosam vi¬ tam diu ante quartum saeculum incoepisse. Se¬ cundo, Originem ejus non fuisse casum, Vel errorem, vel pravam imitationem, sed perfec¬ tionis desiderium. Tertio , religiones , quae nunc sunt, easdem esse quoad essentiam cum iis, quae erant temporibus antiquissimis. Di¬ cimus itaque primum vitam religiosam adeo esse antiquam, ut quaedam ejus adumbratio fuerit in lege naturae ante diluvium : major quaedam expressio in lege Mosis : perfectio autem Apostolorum tempore. Habemus in primis Genes. IV de Enos : Iste ccepit invocare nomen Domini (1). Ex quo loco colligunt auctores, hunc Enos instituis¬ se peculiarem aliquem cultum, et sublimio¬ rem , quam esset religio vulgi : nam ante Enos certe etiam Adam , et Abel , et Seth Deum invocaverunt : et tamen iste dicitur primus coepisse invocare nomen Domini. Vi¬ de de hac re Waldensem lib. III doctr. fidei, art. 1, cap. 1. Habemus deinde Num. VI, vota Nazaraeo- rum, qui seipsos ^omino consecrabant ; ad quorum exemplum etiam in Ecclesia quos¬ dam seipsos totos divino cultui devovere scri¬ bit Origenes hom. 11. in Levitic. Habemus deinde in eodem Testamento veteri, Eliam et Elisaeum , ac filios Prophe¬ tarum sine uxoribus, et divitiis in hoc mun¬ do vixisse. De quibus B. Hieronymus in epis¬ tola ad Rusticum, quae est ordine quarta : « Filii Prophetarum, inquit, quos Monachos in veteri Testamento legimus , aedificabant sibi casulas, prope fluenta Jordanis ; et tur¬ bis urbium derelictis , polenta , et herbis agrestibus victitabant. » Et epist. 13. ad Pau- linum, de Monachis loquens : «Noster Prin¬ ceps, inquit, Elias , noster Elisaeus , nostri duces filii Prophetarum , qui habitabant in agris, et solitudinibus , et faciebant sibi ta- (1) Gen. IV, 66. bernaeula prope fluenta Jordanis. » Habemus etiam Hierem. XXXV. insignem commendationem nepotum Rechab, qui cum eis pater , sive avus praecepisset , ut domos non aedificarent , agros non seminarent, vi¬ neas non plantarent, vinum numquam bibe¬ rent, vitam durjssimam quasi extra mundum agerent , omnia diligentissime observarunt. Quos etiam Monachorum nostrorum figuram gessisse scribit Hieronymus in eadem ad Paulinum epistola. Denique JoannemBaptistamMon&chorum, et eremitarum principem fuisse, scribunt fe¬ re omnes Patres. Nazianzenus orat, in BaSi- lium , S. Basilium , quia Monachus fuerat, cum Joanne Baptista comparat. Chrysosto- mus hom. 1 . in Marcum : « Sicut , inquit, Sacerdotum principes sunt Apostoli, sic Mo¬ nachorum princeps Joannes Baptista est. » Hieronymus adEustochium de servanda vir¬ ginitate, de eremitis disserens : « Hujus vi¬ tee, inquit, auctor Paulus , illustrator Anto¬ nius, et ut ad superiora conscendam, prin¬ ceps Joannes Baptista. » Idem docent Cas¬ sianus coi. XVIII, cap. 6. Sozomenus lib. I hist. cap. 12. Isidorus lib. II de divinis offi¬ ciis cap. 15. et B. Bernardus serm. de ex¬ cellentia Joannis Baptistae. Veniamus ad novum testamentum, et os¬ tendemus ante annum 300, fuisse Monachos in Ecclesia. Primum id probatur ex Athana- sio in vita B. Antonii, ubi Athanasius docet, ante Antonium non fuisse quidem eremitas, sed tamen Monachos fuisse, qui in agris, ci¬ vitatibus vicinis , monasteria sua constitue¬ bant : et Antonium , cum is Monachus fieri vellet , ad senem quemdam accessisse, qui ab ineunte aetate monasticen exercuerat. Ex quo sequitur et B. Antonium non fuisse primum Monachum, et ante annum Domini 300, fuisse Monachos; nam Antonius floruit initio IVsaeculi; anno enim 300, erat annorum 40 , ut colligitur ex Chronico Hieronymi, et tamen ipso adolescente inveniebantur multi Monachi senes. Quoniam autem Magdeburgenses Cent. IV, cap. 10, coi. 1306. subdubitant, an haec vita sit ab Athanasio scripta, facile id probari po¬ test : Nam scripsisse Athanasium vitam An¬ tonii , testantur Nazianzenus, in Athanasio, Hieronymus de viris illustribus in Antonio, in Evagrio , et in Athanasio, Ruffinus lib. I hist. cap. 8. Augustinus lib. VlII Confess. C. CAPUT V. Sil 6. Paulinus invita Ambrosii, Palladius in his¬ toria Lausiaca , cap. 8. £t Socrates lib. IV, cap. 18. Quod autem hsec ipsa, quam habe¬ mus , sit illa ipsa Athanasii , patet 6x eo, quod est revera insigne volumen, ut Hiero¬ nymus dicit fuisse librum illum Athanasii ; Item continet plurima illa miracula, quotum meminit Augustinus. Praeterea recenset his¬ toriam illam de anima Ammonis, quam Pal¬ ladius, et Socrates ex libro Athanasii de vi¬ ta Antonii referunt. Denique nihil in contra- # rium afferunt Genturiatores , nisi judicium suum ; stultum autem est sine ulla ratione, vel conjectura, vel auctoritate id in contro¬ versiam vocare, de quo nemo dubitat. Probatur secundo ex Damaso, qui in vita Dionysii Papae scribit, hunc ipsum Diony¬ sium ex Monacho ad Pontificatum assump¬ tum fuisse. Cbnstat autem ex Chronico Eu- sebii, Dionysium Romae sedisse anno Domi¬ ni 266, non ergo Monachi cseperunt post an¬ num Domini 300. Tertio probatur ex Cypriano et Tertullia¬ no, qui etiam antiquiores Dionysio Papa fue¬ runt. Scribit enim Tertullianus librum de velandis virginibus, et Cyprianus Tertullia- num secutus scribit librum ejusdem argu¬ menti, quem de habitu virginum inscripsit. Uterque autem loquitur de virginibus reli¬ giosis , et per solemnem professionem Deo consecratis. Nam Tertullianus distinguit in eo lib. inter virgines mundi, id est, saecula¬ res, et virgines Dei, id est , sanctimoniales, de quibus ait : « 0 sacrilegae manus, quae dicatum Deo habitum detrahere potuerunt 1 Quid pejus aliquis persecutor fecisset, si hoc a Yirgine electum cognovisset? » Et infra, eas alloquens : « Nupsisti, inquit, Christo, illi tradidisti Carnem tuam etc. » Similia ha¬ bet Cyprianus. Quarto, probatur ex Dionysio Areopagita, Tertulliano antiquiore; is enim epistolam scribit ad Demophilum Monachum, et libro deEccles. hierarch. cap. 6. prolixe explicat monasticae professionis formam. Fatentur Magdeburgenses vere de Mona¬ chis scribere auctorem ejus libri , sed eum negant esse Dionysium Pauli Apostoli disci¬ pulum, Centur. I, lib. II, cap. 10, coi. 624. quod idem negant Laurentius Valla, et Eras- mus in annotat, ad cap. XVII Act. ItemLu- therus, Calvinus, et omnes haeretici. At ope¬ ra ista nomine Dionysii citant tres veteres Pontifices , Gregorius I , hom. 34. in Evan- gelia , Martinus I , inConcilio Romano> et AgathO in epistola ad IffiperatorettlCoftStafi- tinum IV. Item Nicolaus Papa I, in epistola ad Michaelem Imperatorem citat epistolam S. Dionysii Areopagitae , ad Demophilum Monachum. Item duo generalia Concilia VI, actor. 4 et VII, canon. 2. Praeterea Docto- res plurimi, ut S. Maximus, qui annotatio¬ nes scripsit in Dionysium , Sophronius Pa¬ triarcha Hierosolymae in oratione pulcherri¬ ma , quae habetur act. XI. sextae Synodi, Damascenus lib. I, capit. 12. de fide, Euthy- mius Panopliae part. 1, tit. 2. Anastasius Bi- bliothecarius in epistola ad Carolum Calvum, Hilduinus in epistola ad Ludovicum Pium, et alii posteriores omnes. Non est autem ul¬ lo modo verisimile tot Patres non potuisse videre id , quod nunc Valla, et Erasmus vi¬ disse se dicunt. Deinde sic possumus ratiocinari : Auctor horum librorum non potest esse recentior, quam sit B. Gregorius, ut notum est, cum a Gregorio ipso citetur. Rursum non potest es¬ se recentior, quam sit Hieronymus : Nam Gregorius eum citans vocat antiquum , et venerabilem patrem, non autem vocaret an¬ tiquum hominem , suo sseculo proximum. Non potest etiam floruisse paulo ante Hie¬ ronymum, id est, IV sseculo : Nam sine du¬ bio tunc Hieronymus posuisset eum inter scriptores Ecclesiasticos; non enim potuis¬ set ignorare scriptorem , qui sua memoria exstitisset. Et prseterea notus fuisset eadem ratione Ambrosio, Augustino, Chrysostomo, aliisque Patribus , quibus tamen incognitus fuit, quantum eX eorum operibus colligi po¬ test. Quare necesse est, ut. Anastasius dicit, auctorem esse antiquissimum, et suppressum fuisse ab haereticis, ac tandem Romae reper¬ tum fuisse tempore Beati Gregorii, vel paulo ante. Ex quo solvitur argumentum Vallae, Eras¬ ini, et Centuriatorum, qui hoc utuntur tan- quam praecipuo argumento , quod Ambro¬ sius, Chrysostomus, Augustinus, et maxime Hieronymus numquam citent hos libros. Hoc enim argumentum eorum nobis maxi¬ me favet : Nam cum isti Patres non citent haec opera , signum est auctorem hunc non exstitisse ipsorum tempore, et cum constet ex Gregorio eum non esse illis posteriorem, sequitur necessario esse longe antiquiorem. Unde etiam Valla testatur , plurimos viros doctissimos sensisse haec opera non esse qui¬ dem Dionysii Areopagitae, sed tamen aucto¬ ris fere seque antiqui , nimirum Apollinaris 512 LIBER II. Hierapolitae , vel , ut alii volant , Dionysii Corinthii, quorum uterque floruit anno Do¬ mini 174, ut Eusebius testatur in Chronico. Hoc autem etsi non est verum, tamen nobis sufficit ad asserendam antiquitatem monas- tices. Quinto probatur ex Philone Judaeo , qui etiam Dionysio Areopagita fuit antiquior. Philo igitur in lib. de vita contemplativa supplicum, prolixe admodum describitvitam, et mores Monachorum , et sacrarum virgi¬ num , quos instituit in Aegypto S. Marcus Evangelista , ubi aperte ponit professionem continentiae, et paupertatis jejuniorum, psal¬ modiae etc. Magdeburgenses Centur. I, lib. II, cap. 3. pag. 18. fatentur Philonem haec scripsisse, sed eum non esse locutum de Christianis, sed de Essenis , quae erat secta Judaeorum omnino similis nostris religionibus. Hoc au¬ tem non probant alia ratione, nisi quia non¬ dum Christiani talia exercitia habuerunt. Quod si eis objiciamus, hoc esse petere prin¬ cipium, respondebunt, ut solent, nos agere sophistas. Probemus igitur breviter non dialectica ratiocinatione, sed testimoniis Patrum, Phi¬ lonem de Christianis esse locutum. In primis Eusebius lib. II histor. cap. 16. dicit Philo¬ nem Romae S. Petrum vidisse , atque ejus adhaesisse colloquiis, verbum Dei praedican¬ tis, et eorum vitam , qui in monasteriis de¬ gunt, luculenter scripsisse. Item Epiphanius haeresi 29. quae est Nazaraeorum, de hoc li¬ bro Philonis loquens : « Monasteria ipsorum, inquit, in vicinia circa Mariam paludem re¬ censens, non de aliis narravit, quam de Chris¬ tianis. » Praeterea Hieronymus de vir. illustr. in Philone , posteaquam docuit Philonem de Christianis esse locutum , subjungit : « Ex quo apparet, inquit , talem primam Christo credentium fuisse Ecclesiam , quales nunc Monachi esse nituntur, et cupiunt. » Praete¬ rea Cassianus lib. II, c. 5. de institutis coe¬ nobiorum asserit, a S. Marco Aegyptios Mo¬ nachos accepisse primam vivendi normam. Id quod non potest Cassianus didicisse, nisi ex hoc libro Philonis. Idem asserunt diser¬ tis verbis ; Beda Prologo in Marcum, Sozo- menus lib. I, cap. 12. et Nicephorus lib. II, cap. 15. Dicet fortassis aliquis , similia narrat de Essenis Josephus lib. II de bello Judaico cap. 7. et lib. XVIII Antiq. cap. 2. iis, quae narrat Philo. Constat autem Josephum de Judaeis loqui, cum affirmet tres esse Judaeo¬ rum sectas , Pharisaeorum, Sadducaeorum, Essenorum. Respondeo, duas esse de loco isto Josephi opiniones. Quidam enim asserunt non loqui de eisdem Josephum et Philonem. Nam Jo¬ sephus lib. XVIII antiq. cap. 2. asserit Es¬ senorum sectam antiquam apud Judaeos fuis¬ se : Philo autem indicat se loqui de discipli¬ na suo tempore exorta. Praeterea multa tri¬ buuntur Essenis a Josepho, quae sunt mani¬ feste erronea et superstitiosa, quorum nihil tribuit Philo suis therapeutis. Unde S. Nilus initio Asceticorum suorum, asserit Essenos (de quibus videlicet Josephus loquitur) ha¬ buisse quidem mores similes moribus Mona¬ chorum, sed quia fide in Christum caruerunt, nihil eis profuisse sanctos mores. Alii docent tam Philonem, quam Jose¬ phum de Christianis loqui, quibus favere vi¬ detur B. Hieronymus in epist. ad Eusto- chium de servanda virginitate, ubi de Mo- chis loquens : « Tales, inquit, Philo, Plato¬ nici sermonis imitator, tales Josephus, Grae¬ cus Livius , in secunda Judaicae captivitatis historia, Essenos refert. » Quam sententiam tuetur Matthaeus Galenus lib. de orig. Mo- nastices cap. 5. et ad ea , quae objiciuntur ab aliis, de erroribus, quos tribuit Josephus Essenis, et de eorum antiquitate, respondet, Josephum non fuisse consecutum exacte my¬ steria nostrorum Monachorum , et ideo fre¬ quenter lapsum esse, et eos confudisse cum antiquis Judaeis. Fuerunt enim tria genera ejusdem fere nominis , nimirum Esseni Sa¬ maritani, de quibus Epiphanius haeresi 10. Item Esseni Judaei , de quibus Epiphanius haeresi 19. quos tamen ipse Ossenos vocat. Denique Esseni Christiani , ex Judaeis con¬ versi , quos Epiphanius Esseos, vel Jesseos vocat haeresi- 29. Credibile igitur est, Jose¬ phum confudisse nostros Jesseos cum suis Essenis , praesertim cum eo tempore Chris¬ tiani pro Judaeis haberentur. Utraque solutio probabilis est. Sexto probatur ex Apostolorum exemplo, quivere primi fuerunt Monachi Christiani; nam quod vitam, ccenobiticam instituerint, ubi essent omnia communia , patet ex actis Apostolorum cap. IV. Quod ea ratio vivendi non fuerit omnium Christianorum, sed eo¬ rum tantum, qui volebant perfectius vivere, patet ex cap. V Act. ubi cum Ananias fraudasset de pretio agri, et decipere voluis- CAPUT V. 513 set Apostolos, audivit a S. Petro : « Nonne manens tibi manebat, et venumdafum in tua erat potestate? » Quod etiam voto adeam perfectionem se obligarint Apostoli , docet Augustinus lib. XVII de Civ. Dei c. 4 : «Hoc votum, inquit , potentissimi voverant etc. » Quod denique ab Apostolorum exemplo coe- perint religiones , testantur plurimi Patres, ut Eusebius lib. II hist. c. 16. Hieronymus de viris illustribus in Philone , Augustinus serm. 2. de vita communi Clericorum, Pos- sidius in vita Augustini , Isidorus lib. II de offic. cap. 15. Denique Cassianus coi. XVIII, cap. 5 : «Itaque, inquit, coenobitarum disci¬ plina a tempore preedicationis Apostolicse sumpsit exordium. » At Magdeburgenses Centur. I, lib. II, cap. 6 , colum. 506. objiciunt Chrysostomum, qui hom. 25. in epistola ad Hebraeos : « Ne¬ que vestigium , inquit, Monachi tunc erat, sed omnia ad saeculares loquebatur B. Pau¬ lus. » Respondeo , Chrysostomum loqui solum de Ecclesia Corinthiorum. Exponit enim illa verba Pauli I. Corinth. V : Si quis frater no¬ minatur in vobis etc. ac dicit Paulum nomine fratris non intelligere solos Monachos , sed quoslibet fideles, quia tunc ne vestigium qui¬ dem erat Monachi apud Corinthios. At non propterea sequitur , non fuisse tunc Mona¬ chos in Palaestina, et in yEgypto. Quod au¬ tem Chrysostomus non neget Apostolorum tempore fuisse Monachos, patet ex plurimis ejus testimoniis. Nam hom. 17. ad populum de monastice loquens : « Tanti est, inquit, Philosophia a Christo introducta. » Certe si Christus introduxit monasticen , jam erat tempore Pauli Apostoli. Hom 11. in Acta di¬ cit, Monachos sic vivere, ut olim initio Eccle¬ siae vivebant fideles omnes , in Hierusalem. Item hom. 69. in Matth. dicit Monachos etiam habitu imitari Apostolos. Denique lib. III cont. vituper. vitae monasticae, non pro¬ cul a fine , asserit ea ab Apostolis impleta, quae nunc a Monachis implentur. Nunc quod attinet ad secundum, non oc¬ casione persecutionum, et casu exortam es¬ se vitam monasticam, facile demonstrabitur. Nam de coenobitis non est dubium, cum ex¬ stiterint ante omnes persecutiones. De ere¬ mitis idem probatur ; nam etsi Paulus pri¬ mus Eremita occasione persecutionis solitu¬ dinem colere coeperit, tamen Antonius non tali occasione coepit , sed solo studio vitae purioris y ut ex Athanasio in ejus vita pers- Tom. II. picuum est. Vita autem Eremitica non a Paulo , sed ab Antonio introducta est; etsi enim Paulus primus omnium in Eremo vixe¬ rit, tamen non habuit ipse discipulos, nec fuit notus, nisi paulo ante mortem. Antonius autem vere princeps Eremitarum dici debet, quippe qui nec ab alio didicit, et ipse docuit omnes. Quare recte Hieronymus in vita Pauli dicit, Antonium merito vocari auctorem vi¬ tae Eremiticae, non tam quod ipse crmnes praecesserit, quam quod ab ipso omnium in¬ citata sint studia. Quocirca uterque dici po¬ test primus Eremita, Paulus quidem tempo¬ re, Antonius autem magisterio. Quod etiam causa instituendae vitae reli¬ giosae non fuerit obscuratio doctrinae de jus¬ tificatione ; vel prava Essenorum imitatio, ex iis, quae diximus, manifestum est : Nam auctores religionum fuerunt primum Apos¬ toli, ac deinde Antonius, Rasilius, Augusti¬ nus doctissimi , et sanctissimi homines, quos non possumus ignorantiae, et pravae aemula¬ tionis accusare. Nam Basilium fuisse aucto¬ rem cujusdam ordinis monastici testatur Na- zianzenus in ejus vita : Augustinus vero a se institutum monasticum ordinem fatetur lib. III. contra litteras Petiliani cap. 40. Certe autem inter Graecos vix invenietur aliquis Basilio doctior, ut nec Augustino inter Lati¬ nos. Quantum ad tertium , quod essentia mo- nastices eadem sit nostrorum, et antiquorum Monachorum , plurimis testimoniis probari posset, quae postea afferentur in disputatione de votis. Nunc, quia Calvinus, et Melai^h- thon per antiquos Monachos intelligunt eos, qui erant tempore sanctorum Augustini , et Basilii, ex his duobus probemus sententiam nostram. Essentia vitae religiosae in tribus illis vir¬ tutibus, obedientia, paupertate, castitate, ab omnibus hujus temporis religiosis constitui¬ tur. Idem fiebat ab antiquis : Nam Augusti¬ nus lib. I de moribus Ecclesiae cap. 31. vi¬ tam coenobitarum explicans; Primum ait, eos spretis mundi hujus illecebris in vitam castissimam, et sanctissimam congregari. Secundo addit, a nullo quidquam possideri proprium. Tertio adjungit, Patres nulla su- perbiaconsulere iis, quos filios vocant, magna sua in jubendo auctoritate, magna illorum in obtemperando voluntate. Basibus autem in prajfatione constitutio¬ num monasticarum, de monacho futuro sic loquitur : « Nuptias, inquit, veluti compedes 33 LIBER II. 314 fugit, his autem relictis, vitam suam Deo consecrat, et castitatem profitetur, ut neque facultas ipsi sit conversionis ad nuptias. » Item c. 22. constitutionum, de obedientia fusissime disputat, ac tandem concludit, ita oportere Monachos obedire praeposito, ut oves pastori, atque ut instrumentum fabro : ' « Non curiose, inquit, investigando praecep¬ ta, ubi peccato fuerint pura, sed cum omni alacritate ac studio explendo ea quae sunt demandata. » Denique cap. ult. disserit de paupertate, ac docet, Monachum ab omni prorsus privata rerum materialium posses¬ sione liberum esse debere. Porro fuisse olim etiam cucullas, et reli¬ quum habitum monasticum, necnon psalmo¬ diam, jejunia, ciborum delectum, aliaque id genus instituta, cognosci potest, tum exEpi- phanio in compendiaria doctrina, tum ex Joanne Cassiano in libris de institutis coeno¬ biorum. * ,*-v '•