also female ascetics. The places appropriated for these exercises were styled ασκητρία.

Μονάχοι,

2. MONKS, appropriately so called. Movázol, sometimes MováCorres, oi μovo CVTES E. Such as lived a sequestered life, taking no part in the ordinary pursuits of men, and retiring alone into desert places, and solitary cells; or, in company, frequenting the wilderness and distant mountains. These belonged exclusively to the laity, and were characterized chiefly by their deep seclusion from society, while the ascetics belonged either to the clergy or laity, and were distinguished particularly for their austerities. These monks were sometimes denominated Coenobites, Solitarii, Solitares, etc.2

3. ANCHORETS, 'Araywontai, Hermits. A distinction however is sometimes made between the two-anchorets denoting those who led a solitary life without establishing their residence in solitude, while hermits are those who inhabit the most desolate and inhospitable places, in solitary cells and caves.3

4. COENOBITES, from xowòs Bios, communis vita. So called from their inhabiting one place in common, styled coenobium, and having all things common. They are also called ovrodita and from ovvódois,5 conventuales.6

5. GROVAGI. Strolling vagrants, whose lives were dishonored by the lowest sensuality, and the most shameless vices.7

6. Ervita, Pillarists. So called from their living continually upon a pillar, a manner of life so austere and forbidding, that few were induced to adopt it.8

There are a multitude of names denoting different classes of monks and ascetics, the mention of which may serve to show how numerous were these religious orders in the ancient church, and the estimation in which they were held. Such as the following:

Σπουδαῖοι, studiosi, Εκλεκτοί, electi,10 Ακοίμητοι, insomnes,11 Βorxoi, pascentes,12 who lived by themselves in perpetual silence; 'Hovzaotai, quiescentes ;13 Aroražάuevo, renuntiantes ;14 Culdei, Keldei, Keledei, etc., certain monks in Scotland and the Hebrides; Apostolici, monks in Britain and Ireland.

8. Canonici regulares, clerical monks. These were the priests who were addicted to a monastic life in distinction from the secular or parochial clergy, canonici seculares.

9. Secular Monks, Monachi Seculares; a class distinct from the lay brethren. These without renouncing marriages and the social

relations, under the guidance of overseers of their choice, devoted themselves to various offices of piety. Thus constituted, they served as patterns for those religious fraternities or brotherhoods which first appeared in France, Italy and Germany in the ninth century, and in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries became exceedingly numerous and powerful, and widely dispersed. All these fraternities occupied an intermediate rank between the laity, the monks, and the clergy.15

Monastics of the female sex were not, at first, accounted a distinct religious order. Nor is there mention of them as such so long as the ancient rule of the church remained in force, which positively debarred women from ever conducting religious worship, or assuming any of the offices of the priesthood.

Monasteries and nunneries probably arose simultaneously. The first traces of the associations of women in a monastic life discover themselves in the fourth century. In this period they begin to be denominated Movazai, but more frequently Morai, monae, solae, viduae. Jerome was the first to call them Nonnae, Nuns. By some, this is understood to be the same as matron, or venerable widow. Others derive it from Novis, a virgin. They are also called by many other names, such as Sanctimoniales, Virgines Dei, s. Christi, Ancillae Dei, Sorores ecclesiae, etc. But by whatever name they are known they are carefully to be distinguished from the ancient order of deaconesses in the church. As early as the fifth and sixth centuries, the office of deaconess ceased in the Western church. After this, many offices of charity which they were wont to perform to the poor and the sick, were discharged by the sisters of the church. For this purpose they formed themselves into various associations and corporations. Their influence was, in general, very happy, and so powerful that they outlived the storms of political revolutions; and, to a great extent, still survive under various names and in different establishments.

CHAPTER III.

OF THE MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH.

1. OF THE CLERGY AND THE LAITY.

SUCH as bore the office of the priesthood were denominated, in distinction from the laity, the clergy, cleri and clerici. Respecting the derivation of this term the learned are much divided in opinion. All agree indeed that it is derived from ziñgos, a lot, but allege very different reasons for using it to denote the priesthood. Some affirm, that men at first were elected to this office by lot, and were therefore called cleri, from xgos. In confirmation of this theory, they allege that this mode of election was common, both among pagans and Jews, and not unknown in the primitive church, as appears from the choice of Matthias, by lot, Acts 1: 17, 25. But this method of electing persons to the sacred office, has never been allowed in the church, except in some extraordinary cases. Jerome says, they were called clergy, either because they are chosen by lot to be the Lord's, or because the Lord is their lot, or heritage. The Jews were of old God's peculiar people, the heritage of the Lord. Such, especially, were the Levites who ministered at the altar. And, after the cessation of the Levitical office, the name was transferred to the ministers of the christian church. Hence the name xλigos, clergy, which primarily signifies a lot, or heritage. Such is the approved derivation of this word. But many learned men derive it from the mode of election, by lot.'

Many allege that this term came into general use in the beginning of the third century, as the name of the religious teachers of the church. But this cannot be accurately determined. The formal distinction between the clergy and laity, was evidently introduced at a period still later. Previous to this, the whole church were styled God's heritage, 1 Pet. 5: 3; and every Christian, a priest of God. And yet, the epithet might with peculiar propriety be applied to those, who devoted themselves to the ministerial office; and the more naturally, inasmuch as this phraseology is common in the Old Testament. With this usage, several passages in the New

Testament very well accord, Acts 16: 18. Col. 1: 12. Eph. 1: 11. The unlearned again, iditαι, in 1 Cor. 14: 16, 23, 24, may, for aught that appears, be laymen or catechumens, as Chrysostom and Theodoret affirm. Different officers there certainly were in the time of the apostles, such as rulers, bishops, elders, deacons, etc., derived immediately from the Jewish synagogue, though they may with propriety be compared also with the Levitical priesthood, as the author of the epistle to the Hebrews has done.

Much importance is attached to the authority of Clemens Romanus on this subject, who, in the first century speaks of the laity, and the several officers of the church and orders of the priesthood, as though they were then the same that they are known to have been in the second and third centuries; that passage, however, relates to the Levitical priesthood. Ignatius is also quoted to the same effect, but the genuineness of the passage is disputed.4

It is worthy of remark, that the advocates of the Episcopal form of church government, labor much to prove that the distinction between the clergy and the laity, was as ancient as the time of the apostles, while the Roman Catholic writers, Rigaltius, Salmasius, and others, deny this early distinction. The dispute, however, is of little importance; for the distinction can, in no case, be proved to be of apostolic authority. It can, therefore, be of little consequence to show, that it was introduced a few years earlier or later. Boehmer, and Rigaltius, have shown that Tertullian may be regarded as the author of the distinction in question,-but in this general sense only, that he distinctly pointed out the difference between the laity and clergy, and clearly defined the limits of the several offices of the church; the confounding of which he complained of, as the leading fault of heretics. And yet, who will venture to affirm, that these distinctions and offices were wholly unknown before Tertullian lived? It may at least be said with truth, that at some time in the first two centuries, the three higher orders, bishops, presbyters, and deacons, were denominated clergy; so that a higher antiquity may be claimed for this name, than for some subordinate classes which had their origin in the third and fourth centuries.5

The clergy were also known by the name of canonici, xavovizoi, oi tov zavóvos. Two reasons are assigned for this appellation. One, that they were subject to the canons, or general rules of the church. The other, that they were wont to be registered in a cata

logue of the church, as the authorized officers of the same. This catalogue was also called a canon, κανών, ἅγιος κανών, κατάλογος ἱερα Tixós, album, matricula, and tabula clericorum.6

They were also called Ecclesiastics, Dogmatists, and Gnostics, names applicable to all Christians, but especially to their officers and teachers. In the middle ages, it was customary to denominate the subordinate officers of the church ecclesiastics.

Another name by which they were less frequently known, is ráSIS TOU BμATOS, order of the altar, or shrine, from their being permitted to enter within the sacred enclosure which surrounded the altar.

The word order, ordo, táşıç iepatıxý, as applied to the priesthood, like that of zoos, has also been the subject of more critical discussion than its importance demands. Many contend, that it is adopted from the Roman language, and used by Tertullian and others in the classic sense, to exhibit the patrician rank of the clergy like the ordo senatorius of the Romans. The result, however, of the discussion is, that the word is derived from the Roman language as a technical phrase, but applied not according to the usus loquendi of the Romans, but, of the church, and of the Scriptures, to denote the distinction between the priesthood and the people,-the ordo ecclesiasticus and the laity; and that, in this sense it has been used since the close of the second century. Jerome uses it as synonymous with gradus, officium, potestas, dignitas, etc.; Basil, as the same as τάξις, τάγμα, βαθμὸς, χώρα, ἀξία, ἀξίωμα, etc.7

The precise time, when this distinction between the superior and inferior clergy was introduced, is unknown. It must, however, have been very early, for the several offices and officers of the church were clearly defined, towards the close of the second, and beginning of the third century. To say nothing of the authority of Ignatius which is justly suspected, there are authorities sufficient to show that, at this early period, the officers of the church were, substantially, the same as in later centuries. On this subject, the remark of Amalarius is worthy of special notice: "that the offices of the priesthood and deacons were instituted by the apostle Paul, because they were indispensable in the church, and that as the church increased, other offices were created, and inferior officers appointed in aid of the superiors, 9"

The Roman Catholics divide the officers of the church into two