MONK
495
MONK
ever, the clerical and monastic life were capable of be- ing conjoined — as, first, when a monaster}' happened to be at so great a distance from its proper church that the monlis could not ordinarily resort thither for divine service, which was the case with the monasteries in Egj'pt and other parts of the East; in this case, some one or more of the monks were ordained for the per- formance of divine offices among them. Then it also happened that some of the clergy, and even bishops themselves, embraced the monastic life bj^ a voluntary renunciation of property, and enjoyed all things in common. This was, however, as late as the middle of the .4th century ; until tliat time it was generally un- derstood that not onlj' should monks never enter the priesthood, but also that priests should never turn mo- nastics. This appears clearly from the letters of St. Gregory [see below]. Eusebius of Vercillensis (A.D. 315-370) was the first who brought this way of living among the clergy of Hippo, and thus constituted what may be denominated the monastico-clerical condition.
The Church however, in her early days, recognised onh' one style of monastics, i. e. the coenobites, and for them alone were certain laws and rules of govern- ment specially provided. They were in substance that every one should not be allowed to turn monk at pleasure, because there were certain classes so con- ditioned that they could not enter that state with- out damaging the interests of others. Thus, e. g., the civil law forbade anj' of those officers called curi- ales to become monks, unless they parted with their estates to others, who might serve their countrj'- in their stead. For the same reason servants were not admitted into any monastery without their masters' leave. Justinian, however, afterwards abrogated this law by an edict of his own, which first set servants at liberty from their masters under pretence of betak- ing themselves to a monastic life. The same precau- tions were observed in regard to married persons and children ; the former were not to embrace the monas- tic life unless with the mutual consent of both parties. This precaution was afterwards set aside by Justinian, but the Church never approved of this innovation. As to children, the Council of Gangra (about the sec- ond half of the 4th centurj') decreed that if anj^ such, under pretence of religion, forsook their parents, they should be anathematized; but Justinian enervated the force of this law likewise, forbidding parents to hinder their children from embracing the monastic or clerical life. And as children were not to turn monks without the consent of their parents, so neither could parents oblige their children to embrace a monastic life against their own consent — at least not until the fourth Coun- cil of Toledo (A.D. 633), which set aside this precau- tion, and decreed that whether the devotion of their parents, or their profession, made them monks, both should be equally binding, and there should be no per- mission to return to secular life again.
The manner of admission to the monastic life was usu- ally by some change of habit or di-ess, not to signify any religious m3-stery, but only to express gravit}' and a contempt of the world. Long hair was alwaj's thought an indecenc}' in men, and savoring of secular vanity ; and, therefore, they polled every monk at his admission, to distinguish him from seculars ; but they never shaved any, for fear they should look too like the priests of Isis. This, therefore, was the ancient tonsure, in opposition to both these extremes. As to their habit and clothing, the rule was the same : the}' were to be decent and grave, as became their profes- sion. The monks of Tabennesus, in Thebais, seem to have been the only monks, in those early days, who were confined to any particular habit. St. Jerome, who often speaks of the habit of the monks, intimates that it differed from others only in this, that it was a cheaper, coarser, and meaner raiment, expressing their humility and contempt of the world, without any sin- gularity or affectation. That father is very severe
against the practice of some who appeared in chains or sackcloth ; and Cassian blames others who carried wooden crosses continually about their necks, which was only proper to excite the laughter of the specta- tors. In short, the Western monks used only a com- mon habit, the philosophic pallium, as many other Christians did. Salvian seems to give an exact de- scription of the habit and tonsure of the monks when, reflecting on the Africans for their treatment of them, he says, " they could scarce ever see a man with short hair, a pale face, and habited in a pallium, with- out reviling and bestowing some reproachful language on him." We read of no solemn vow or profession re- quired at their admission ; but they underwent a three years' probation, during which time they were inured to the exercises of the monastic life. If, after that time was expired, thej- chose to continue the same ex- ercises, they were then admitted without any further ceremony into the community. This was the method prescribed by Pachomius. No direct promise of celi- bacy was at first made ; nay, there appear to have been married monks. Isor yet was there any vow of pov- erty, though, when men renounced the world, they generally sold their estates for charitable uses, or keep- ing them in their own hands, made a distribution reg- ularly of all the proceeds. The Western monks did not alwajs adhere to this rule, as appears from some imperial laws made to restrain their avarice. But the monks of Egypt were generallj' just to their preten- sions, and would accept of no donations but for the use of the poor.