PREFACE — CHAPTER I. XVIII

The monastic institution of Saint Antony was introduced by his own disciples, while the master was not yet dead, from Egypt into the Orient and even into Persia, at that very time, that is, in the beginning of the fourth century; to which they say that Saint James of Nisibis gave his name in the beginning, and Saint Miles, then bishop of Susa and martyr, of whom [I spoke] above². The declaration of Aphrahat fits aptly into these prosperous beginnings of the monastic militia in Persia: that in his age there were found those who embraced a solitary, religious, and continent life.

I have said these things that I had to write regarding the monastic state of Aphrahat. Now it remains for me to inquire what is the authority of the testimonies of writers who say that Aphrahat was a bishop in that monastery of Saint Matthew. The matter must be weighed by an investigation of the texts.

Two places in Demonstration XIV seem to contribute much to strengthening the aforementioned opinion; the first in the beginning of this letter, which George already brought forward as testimony: when, namely, Aphrahat numbers himself among the clergy, writing: "We have all taken counsel, while we were gathered, to write this letter to all our brothers, the children of the Church, living in various regions; bishops, presbyters, deacons, and the whole Church of God with all her children in diverse places, who are with us: to our most dear and beloved brothers, bishops, presbyters, deacons, along with all the children of the Church who are with you, and all the people of God, existing in Seleucia and Ctesiphon and through various places, may there be much peace from the Lord God and our Vivifier, who gave life to us through Christ, and made us approach Him;" the second, when in the same letter (Ibid. 25) he speaks of the sacred laying on of hands, or sacred ordination, "which men, he says, receive from us."

But because both places (although, in our opinion, interpreted with the best right in this direction), are of doubtful significance, and we ought to acknowledge the very speech as if it were "composed to deceive" ¹, on account of the uncertain inflection of the words bishops, presbyters, deacons in the first, and the likewise ambiguous sense of the preposition ℘ (from us or out of us) in the other, we shall summon other texts, in which Aphrahat, addressing and admonishing bishops with supreme authority, speaks truly in the manner of a bishop.

For the writer of the aforementioned letter openly and harshly reproves the dissensions that had arisen in the church of Seleucia and Ctesiphon due to the vices, pride, and ambition of the Pastors (Demonstr. xiv, 2, seqq.). Those whom he thus addresses are distinguished by the names of pastors (Ibid. 39), priests (Demonstr. vii, 18), rulers of the flock (Demonstr. vii, 26), stewards of the house (Demonstr. xiv, 38), and overseers, as if they were episkopoi bishops (Demonstr. vii, 26), teachers (Demonstr. xiv, 26; vii, 18); they are called chosen and anointed to preside (Demonstr. xiv, 27), gatherers of the flock (Demonstr. xiv, 38), and educators of the children of the Church (ibid.). They themselves beget children from the water of the Church (ibid.), instruct the young, and train the virgins (Demonstr. x, 6); they betroth the Church to God, by the office of the Apostles (Demonstr. xiv, 38, 39). He also addresses the physicians, whose care it is to heal the wounded (Demonstr. vii, 2, 4); who hold the keys of the heavens, so that they may open the door to the penitent (Demonstr. xiv, 26; vii, 11), and not to abuse this power of binding and loosening perversely (Demonstr. xiv, 44); they blow the trumpets and warn the people (Demonstr. vii, 21).

¹ H. Weingarten, Der Ursprung des Mönchtums im nachconstantinischen Zeitalter (Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Gotha, 1877, I pp. 1-35; 545-574); art. Mönchtum in Herzogs Real-Encyclopädie, Leipzig, 1882, vol. X, pp. 776, 777. — Ryssel defends the case of Aphrahat, Notiz über die Anfänge des Mönchtums in Syrien (Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1885, n°16, cc. 387-390).

² See Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, t. III, part. 2, pp. dcclxii, seqq., et dcclxxxvi; Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica, II, 14. Patr. Gr. t. LXVII, c. 968, seqq.