orders him to be killed; the other that loves his master, and, full of attachment, always follows in his steps, he keeps, cherishes, and supports." Nilus meant by this that what distinguishes one of these sinners from the other is love to God, from whom he had been estranged by sin; that love which longs for freedom from all that is ungodlike, which accepts the forgiveness of sins, and resigns itself to the Redeemer in order to be progressively sanctified and purified by him. In love itself is given, notwithstanding all the impurity that still cleaves to man, the principle from which all progressive purity must proceed. That true love is here intended which shows itself in action. Nilus was very far from approving a slavish disposition which seeks to gain over by flattery the Being whose vengeance is feared, which ought not to be called love, but rather the hypocrisy of fear. That such was the meaning of his expressions appears from what he wrote to a person who excused his sins, by saying that no man could boast of having a holy heart: But the worst thing is that you do not come to the Lord Christ, who can change your heart into a holy one, and that you do not ask him to bestow this gift upon you; for Christ can purify your heart by the Holy Spirit. Who was more sinful than that publican? but because he said, 'God be merciful to me a sinner!' he went down from the temple justified rather than the pharisee. Yet it was not that prayer that purified him, but the disposition with which he uttered it; and above all the love of God to man, who wills not that we should perish, but calls us to repentance."

Such were the views of the most enlightened monks. But there were many others who imagined that they had overcome sin by chastising their bodies; they trusted so much the more to the righteousness of their works, because the simple, uniform, and quiet life of monkery, which they made no use of for the purpose of self-examination, subjected them to no trials by which they might have been brought to correct self-knowledge. Jerome, who might have known this from his own experience, and yet, alas! too often forgot that experience! thus writes to a friend who was a monk: "In solitude sometimes pride creeps in, and when a person has fasted a little and seen no one, he thinks himself to be some great one; he forgets whence he came and whither he is

TENDENCY TO FALSE HUMILITY.

187

going.” The outward apparent abjuration of the world becomes a hindrance to true inward self-examination, and fosters spiritual pride-that pride which is so much more dangerous for the inner life in proportion as the objects to which it refers are of a higher and more refined kind, and that is made use of to nourish pride which is designed to cast down all high thoughts. That secret invisible enemy who knows how to hide in all lurking-places and turnings, and to change himself as a Proteus into all shapes, whom man takes about with him everywhere, if he has not conquered him by the power of the cross, follows him from the bustle of the great world into the quiet of cloisters and deserts. Jerome did not without reason warn a distinguished Roman female: "Let it not produce pride in you that you have despised the pride of the world; take care lest, since you have ceased to wish to attract notice in garments full of gold, you seek it in sordid attire.'

Thus, from monkery proceeded that show of humility of which Paul speaks in the Epistle to the Colossians, which in that age of shams assumed a variety of forms beyond the bounds of monkery. Isidorus, abbot of Pelusium, in the first half of the fifth century, raised a warning voice against this delusion: "Be humble," said he, "in disposition, and not in words, that your words may not be contradicted by your actions." And Chrysostom* says against this feigned humility: "If we speak evil of ourselves a thousand times, and yet are affronted when another says anything of the kind, this is not humility; this is not confession of sin, but only pretence and vanity. What! a pretence when a man calls himself a sinner? Yes; we assume the appearance of

* Εὰν δὲ αὐτοὶ μὲν λέγωμεν μυρία ἑαυτοὺς κακὰ, παρ ̓ ἑτέρων δὲ ακουοντες δυσχεραίνωμεν, οὐκέτι τουτο ταπεινοφροσύνη ἐστὶν, ουδε ἐξομολόγησις, ἀλλ' ἐπίδειξις καὶ κενοδοξία. Επίδειξίς ἐστι, φησιν, ἑαυτὸν ἁμαρτωλον καλεῖν; Ναί. Ταπεινοφροσύνης γὰρ λαμβάνομεν δόξαν, θαυμαζόμεθα, ἐγκωμιαζόμεθα. Ἐὰν δὲ τοὐναντιον εἴπωμεν ἑαυτοὺς, καταφρονούμεθα. Ὥστε καὶ τοῦτο δόξης ἕνεκεν ποιοῦμεν. Τί δὲ ἐστι ταπεινοφροσύνη; Τὸ ἑτέρου ὀνειδίζοντος, το ἐπιγινώσκειν τὸ ἁμαρτημα, τὸ φέρειν τας κακηγορίας, καὶ οὐδὲ τουτο φροσύνης ἂν εἴη, ἀλλ ̓ εὐγνωμοσύνης. Νῦν δὲ ἑαυτοὺς μὲν λέγομεν ἁμαρτωλοὺς, ἀναξίους, μυρία ὅσω· αν δε ἕτερός τις ημιν ἓν τούτων προσενέγνῃ, χαλεπαίνομεν, ἀγριαινόμεθα. Ορᾷς ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν εξομο. λογησις, οὐδὲ εὐγνωμοσύνη ;-Chrysost. in Ep. ad Hebr. xxvi. § 5.

ταπεινο

66

humility that we may be admired and praised. If we spoke of ourselves in a contrary manner, we should be despised. Therefore we do this for the sake of reputation. But what is humility? To endure when another reviles us to be sensible of our faults-to bear reproach is not humility, but simple fairness. Now, we call ourselves sinners, unworthy beings, and ten thousand such things; but if any one else should apply any of these epithets to us, we are fuil of wrath, and turn savage. Dost thou not see that this is not confession nor ingenuousness?" The same Father says, in another homily: Understand and tremble; never be proud of thy humility! Perhaps you may smile at this expression, as if any one could be proud of his humility. But do not be surprised; it serves for self-exaltation when it is not genuine. How and in what manner? When it is practised not for the sake of pleasing God, but for the sake of being praised, and of indulging pride; for this is something devilish. How many out of vanity show the appearance of vanity, and thus are proud of their humility. For example, a brother or a servant comes; thou hast thyself taken care of him; thou hast washed his feet: at once pride comes in; thou sayest, 'I have done what no one else has done; there I have shown my humility.' How should a person keep himself humble? Let him think of Christ's command: When ye shall have done all, say, we are unprofitable servants.' (Luke xvii. 10.) Let him think of that great teacher who said: 'I count not myself to have apprehended.' Only he who does not think, whatever he may do, that he does some great thing, can be truly humble, and who always bears in mind that he has not yet attained."

6

Still humility and love were not always wanting to the strict asceticism of monkery, without which everything else is worthless. Not always did a person who chose for himself a life of stricter abstinence place the essence of Christianity in it. Of this we have a beautiful example. Marcian, a venerated Syrian monk, was visited by another, named Avitus. After conversation and prayer, Marcian caused a meal to be prepared, not altogether according to his customary spare diet, and invited Avitus to set at table with him. He declined, saying that he never was wont to eat anything before evening, and often fasted two or three days. Marcian replied, 'Depart from thy custom to-day for my sake; I am too

66

THE BENEFITS AND EVILS OF MONKERY.

189

weak to wait till evening." But when he could not thus persuade Avitus, he said, sighing: "Alas! I am very sorry that thou hast taken so much trouble to see a strict and wise man, and now thou seest instead a glutton." These words did not fail to make an impression on Avitus, and he said, with shame: "1 would rather eat flesh than hear thee speak thus." Then Marcian said: "I have been accustomed to the same manner of life as thyself, my dear brother; but I know that love is a thing of greater value than fasting; for the former is a work commanded by God, the latter we have chosen ourselves. But we ought to think far more highly of the divine laws than of self-imposed exercises."

Thus it appears that as, on the one hand, there proceeded from monkery a deep Christian self-knowledge, so on the other there was much deceptive self-righteousness and merit of works. As the monastic life was promoted by the erroneous notion that there was a higher stand-point of Christian life than that of general practical Christianity, a morality of the perfect; so the monastic system, in return, strengthened this error: and it was an error of very dangerous consequences. The distinction here made of a two-fold Christianity was very acceptable to many who were contented with only a profession of religion; since it transferred all the earnestness of the higher Christian life to men who lived in retirement from the world, and they could excuse themselves from all the claims of practical piety, by alleging that these did not relate to people living in the world, but were quite out of their sphere.

Against such a tendency, Chrysostom, after describing the piety of the monks who lived in the mountains not far from the great city of Antioch, as an example worthy of imitation by his flock, says: "We wish that we men were ashamed at the sight of their resolution, and that we ceased to cleave to the earthly, to that which is shadows, dreams, and vapour. Let us strive after unchangeable and imperishable goods, after the life that never grows old. Even living in the midst of the city, we can imitate the wisdom of the monks. And when a man is married and is busied with family cares, he can pray and repent; for those who were the first converts of the apostles dwelt in cities, and there were among them those who manifested a piety such as we find in those who dwell on the mountain-tops;

and were people in business, as Priscilla and Aquila. The prophets had wives and families, as Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the great Moses, and this did not hinder them in their efforts after virtue. Thus let us imitate them, and continually thank and praise God. Let us strive after true health of the soul and all Christian virtues, and let us carry into the city the Christian life of the desert." In the third book of his work against the enemies of monasticism, he also says: "Some say, indeed, it is not the same thing when a man in the world sins, and one who has devoted himself to the service of God; for both do not fall from the same height, and hence do not receive the same injury. But thou deceivest thyself, if thou thinkest that one thing is required of a man in the world and another of a monk. The whole difference consists only in being married or a celibate. In all other respects they have to render the same account." He appeals to the fact that the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount are addressed to all Christians, and that Christ makes there no distinction between monks and people in the world; that Paul, writing to persons who had wives and children, required from

66

them the same strictness of the Christian life which could be required from the monks, since he reduces everything to unselfish love. (1 Cor. xiii.) He requires that we should consider ourselves as dead and buried in reference to sin. (Rom. vi. 7.) How is it that he commands us to imitate, not merely the monks nor the disciples, but Christ himself, and threatens with the severest punishment those who neglect to do this. How sayest thou, then, that they stand on a greater elevation? All men should rise to the same height, and what ruins the whole world is just this-the imagining that greater strictness of Christian conduct is required in a monk, but that other persons may lead careless lives." And in a homily he says: "A secular man is distinguished from a monk only by marriage; in all other respects he ought to act like a monk. And the beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount were not pronounced merely for monks, otherwise the whole world would be lost, and we should accuse God of cruelty. If the beatitudes were intended only for the monks, and secular men cannot fulfil their conditions, but God has sanctioned marriage, then he has involved all men in misery. For if men cannot in married life maintain such a disposition