Chapter LI: Act 46: , Parl. 3, Act 106, Parl. 7, Act 24, Parl. 11, King James VI., do (27)

The dissolution of houses of this kind began so early as the year 1312, when the Templars were suppressed; and, in 1323, their lands, churches, advowsons, and liberties, here in England, were given by 17 Edward II. stat. iii. to the prior and brethren of the hospital of St. John of Jerusalem. In the years 1390, 1437, 1441, 1459, 1497, 1505, 1508, and 1515, several other houses were dissolved, and their revenues settled on different colleges in Oxford and Cambridge. Soon after the last period, Cardinal Wolsey, by licence of the king and pope, obtained a dissolution of above thirty religious houses for the founding and endowing his colleges at Oxford and Ipswich. About the same time a bull was granted by the same pope to Cardinal Wolsey to suppress monasteries, where there were not above six monks, to the value of eight thousand ducats a year, for endowing Windsor and King’s College in Cambridge; and two other bulls were granted to Cardinals Wolsey and Campeius, where there were less than twelve monks, to annex them to the greater monasteries; and another bull to the same cardinals to inquire about abbeys to be suppressed in order to be made cathedrals. Although nothing appears to have been done in consequence of these bulls, the motive which induced Wolsey and many others to suppress these houses, was the desire of promoting learning; and Archbishop Cranmer engaged in such suppression with a view of carrying on the reformation. There were other causes that concurred to bring on their ruin: many of the monks were loose and vicious; they were generally thought to be in their hearts attached to the pope’s supremacy; their revenues were not employed according to the intent of the donors; many cheats in images, feigned miracles, and counterfeit relics, had been discovered, which brought the monks into disgrace; the Observant friars had opposed the king’s divorce from Queen Catharine; and these circumstances operated, in concurrence with the king’s want of a supply, and the people’s desire to save their money, to forward a motion in parliament, that, in order to support the king’s state, and supply his wants, all the religious houses which were not able to spend above £200 a year, might be conferred upon the Crown; and an act was passed for that purpose, 27 Henry VIII. c. 28. By this act about 380 houses were dissolved, and a revenue of £30,000 or £32,000 a year came to the Crown; besides about £200,000 in plate and jewels. The suppression of these houses occasioned discontent, and at length an open rebellion: when this was appeased, the king resolved to suppress the rest of the monasteries, and appointed a new visitation, which caused the greater abbeys to be surrendered apace; and it was enacted by 31 Henry VIII. c. 13, that all monasteries which had been surrendered since the 4th of February, in the twenty-seventh year of his Majesty’s reign, and which thereafter should be surrendered, should be vested in the king. The knights of St. John of Jerusalem were also suppressed by the 32nd Henry VIII. c. 24. The suppression of these greater houses by these two acts produced a revenue to the king of above £100,000 a year, besides a large sum in plate and jewels. The last act of dissolution in this king’s reign was the act of 37 Henry VIII. c. 4, for dissolving colleges, free chapels, chantries, &c., which act was further enforced by 1 Edward VI. c. 14. By this act were suppressed 90 colleges, 110 hospitals, and 2374 chantries and free chapels.

Whatever were the offences of the race of men then inhabiting them, this destruction of the monasteries was nothing less than sacrilege, and can on no ground be justified. They were the property of the Church; and if, while the Church cast off divers errors in doctrine which she had too long endured, she had been permitted to purge these institutions of some practical errors, and of certain flagrant vices, they might have been exceedingly serviceable to the cause of religion. Cranmer felt this very forcibly, and begged earnestly of Henry VIII. that he would save some of the monasteries for holy and religious uses; but in vain. Ridley also was equally anxious for their preservation. It is a mistake to suppose that the monasteries were erected and endowed by Papists. Many of them were endowed before most of the errors of the Papists were thought of: and the founders of abbeys afterwards built and endowed them, not as Papists, but as churchmen; and when the Church became pure, she did not lose any portion of her right to such endowments as were always made in supposition of her purity. (See Num. xviii. 32; Lev. xxv. 23, 24; Ezek. xlviii. 14.)

Although much of the confiscated property was profligately squandered and consumed by the Russells, the Cavendishes, &c., still, out of the receipts, Henry VIII. founded six new bishoprics, viz. those of Westminster, (which was changed by Queen Elizabeth into a deanery, with twelve prebends and a school,) Peterborough, Chester, Gloucester, Bristol, and Oxford. And in eight other sees he founded deaneries and chapters, by converting the priors and monks into deans and prebendaries, viz. Canterbury, Winchester, Durham, Worcester, Rochester, Norwich, Ely, and Carlisle. He founded also the colleges of Christ Church in Oxford, and Trinity in Cambridge, and finished King’s College there. He likewise founded professorships of divinity, law, physic, and of the Hebrew and Greek tongues in both the said universities. He gave the house of Greyfriars and St. Bartholomew’s Hospital to the city of London, and a perpetual pension to the poor knights of Windsor, and laid out great sums in building and fortifying many ports in the Channel. It is observable that the dissolution of these houses was an act, not of the Church, but of the State, in the period preceding the Reformation, by a king and parliament of the Roman Catholic communion in all points except the king’s supremacy; to which the pope himself, by his bulls and licences, had led the way.

Of the monasteries which had been attached to cathedrals before the Reformation, the heads were called Priors, (which answered to dean,) never Abbots; as the bishop was considered as virtually the abbot. The bishop of Ely actually occupied, as he still does, the abbot’s place in the choir, (i. e. the stall usually assigned by the dean,) as he did since the Reformation at Carlisle, though in the latter place he had a throne also. Christ Church monastery in Dublin, which had always been a cathedral chapter, was also secularized at the Reformation.

MONASTERY. In architectural arrangement, monastic establishments, whether abbeys, priories, or other convents, followed nearly the same plan.

The great enclosure, (varying, of course, in extent with the wealth and importance of the monastery,) and generally with a stream running beside it, was surrounded by a wall, the principal entrance being through a _gateway_ to the west or north-west. This gateway was a considerable building, and often contained a chapel, with its altar, besides the necessary accommodation for the porter. The _almery_, or place where alms were distributed, stood not far within the great gate, and generally a little to the right hand: there, too, was often a chapel with its altar. Proceeding onwards the west entrance of the church appeared. The church itself was always, where it received its due development, in the form of a Latin cross; a cross, i.e. of which the transepts are short in proportion to the nave. Moreover, in Norman churches, the eastern limb never approached the nave or western limb in length. Whether or no the reason of this preference of the Latin cross is found in the domestic arrangements of the monastic buildings, it was certainly best adapted to it; for the nave of the church with one of the transepts formed the whole of one side and part of another side of a quadrangle; and any other than a long nave would have involved a small quadrangle, while a long transept would leave too little of another side, or none at all, for other buildings. How the internal arrangements were affected by this adaptation of the nave to external requirements, we have seen under the head _Cathedral_, to which also we refer for the general description of the conventual church.

Southward of the church, and parallel with the south transept, was carried the western range of the monastic offices; but it will be more convenient to examine their arrangement within the court. We enter then by a door near the west end of the church, and passing through a vaulted passage, find ourselves in the _cloister court_, of which the nave of the church forms the northern side, the transept part of the eastern side and other buildings, in the order to be presently described, complete the quadrangle. The _cloisters_ themselves extended around the whole of the quadrangle, serving, among other purposes, as a covered way from every part of the convent to every other part. They were furnished, perhaps always, with _lavatories_, on the decoration and construction of which much cost was expended; and sometimes also with desks and closets of wainscot, which served the purpose of a _scriptorium_.

Commencing the circuit of the cloisters at the north-west corner, and turning southward, we have first the _dormitory_, or _dorter_, the use of which is sufficiently indicated by its name. This occupied the whole of the western side of the quadrangle, and had sometimes a groined passage beneath its whole length, called the _ambulatory_, a noble example of which, in perfect preservation, remains at Fountains. The south side of the quadrangle contained the _refectory_, with its correlative, the _coquina_ or _kitchen_, which was sometimes at its side, and sometimes behind it. The refectory was furnished with a pulpit, for the reading of some portion of Scripture during meals. On this side of the quadrangle may also be found, in general, the _locutorium_, or _parlour_, the latter word being, at least in etymology, the full equivalent of the former. The _abbot’s lodge_ commonly commenced at the south-east corner of the quadrangle; but, instead of conforming itself to its general direction, rather extended eastward, with its own chapel, hall, parlour, kitchen, and other offices, in a line parallel with the choir or eastern limb of the church. Turning northwards, still continuing within the cloisters, we come first to an open passage leading outwards, then to the _chapter-house_, or its vestibule; then, after another open passage, to the south transept of the church. Immediately before us is an entrance into the church, and another occurs at the end of the west cloister.

The parts of the establishment especially connected with _sewerage_, were built over or close to the stream; and we may remark that, both in drainage, and in the supply of water, great and laudable care was always taken.

The stream also turned the _abbey mill_, at a small distance from the monastery. Other offices, such as _stables_, _brew-houses_, _bake-houses_, and the like, in the larger establishments, usually occupied another court; and, in the smaller, were connected with the chief buildings in the only quadrangle. It is needless to say that, in so general an account, we cannot enumerate exceptional cases. It may, however, be necessary to say, that the greatest difference of all, that of placing the quadrangle at the north instead of the south side of the church, is not unknown; it is so at Canterbury and at Lincoln, for instance.

The subject may be followed out in the several plans of monasteries scattered among our topographical works, and in a paper read by Mr. Bloxam before the Bedfordshire Architectural Society, and published in their Report for 1850.

MONKS. The word monk, being derived from the Greek μόνος, _solus_, signifies the same as a solitary, or one who lives sequestered from the company and conversation of the rest of the world, and is usually applied to those who dedicate themselves wholly to the service of religion, in some monastery (as it is called) or religious house, and under the direction of some particular statutes, or rule. Those of the female sex who devote themselves in like manner to a religious life, are called nuns. (See _Nuns_.)

There is some difference in the sentiments of learned men concerning the original and rise of the monastic life. But the most probable account of this matter seems to be as follows:

Till the year 250, there were no monks, but only ascetics, in the Church. (See _Ascetics_.)

In the Decian persecution, which was about the middle of the third century, many persons in Egypt, to avoid the fury of the storm, fled to the neighbouring deserts and mountains, where they not only found a safe retreat, but also more time and liberty to exercise themselves in acts of piety and Divine contemplations; which sort of life became so agreeable to them, that when the persecution was over, they refused to return to their habitations again, choosing rather to continue in those cottages and cells which they had made for themselves in the wilderness.

The first and most noted of these solitaries were Paul and Anthony, two famous Egyptians, whom therefore St. Jerome calls the fathers of the Christian hermits. Some indeed carry up the original of the monastic life as high as John Baptist and Elias. But learned men generally reckon Paul the Thebæan, and Anthony, as the first promoters of this way of living among the Christians.

As yet there were no bodies or communities of men embracing this life, nor any monasteries built, but only a few single persons scattered here and there in the deserts of Egypt, till Pachomius, in the peaceable reign of Constantine, procured some monasteries to be built in Thebais in Egypt, from whence the custom of living in societies was followed by degrees in other parts of the world, and in succeeding ages.

Macarius peopled the Egyptian desert of Scetis with monks. Hilarion, a disciple of Anthony’s, was the first monk in Palestine or Syria. Not long after, Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste, brought monachism into Armenia, Paphlagonia, and Pontus. But St. Basil is generally considered as the great father and patriarch of the Eastern monks. It was he who reduced the monastic life to a fixed state of uniformity, who united the Anchorets and Cœnobites, and obliged them to engage themselves by solemn vows. It was St. Basil who prescribed rules for the government and direction of the monasteries, to which rules most of the disciples of Anthony, Pachomius, and Macarius, and the other ancient fathers of the deserts, submitted. And to this day, all the Greeks, Nestorians, Melchites, Georgians, Mingrelians, and Armenians, follow the rule of St. Basil.

The monastic profession made no less progress in the West. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, retiring to Rome, about the year 339, with several priests, and two Egyptian monks, made known to several pious persons the life of Anthony, who then lived in the desert of Thebais; upon which many were desirous to embrace so holy a profession. To this effect several monasteries were built at Rome, and this example was soon followed all over Italy. Benedict of Nursia appeared in that country in the early part of the sixth century, and published his rule, which was universally received throughout the West; for which reason that saint was styled the patriarch of the Western monks, as St. Basil was of the Eastern.

France owes the institution of the monastic life to St. Martin, bishop of Tours, in the fourth century; who built the monasteries of Lugugé and Marmontier. The Council of Saragossa, in Spain, anno 380, which condemns the practice of clergymen, who affected to wear the monastical habits, is a proof that there were monks in that kingdom in the fourth century, before St. Donatus went thither out of Africa, with seventy disciples, and founded the monastery of Sirbita.

Augustine, being sent into England by Gregory the Great, in the year 596, to preach the faith, at the same time introduced the monastic state into this kingdom. It made so great a progress here, that, within the space of 200 years, there were thirty kings and queens who preferred the religious habit to their crowns, and founded stately monasteries, where they ended their days in retirement and solitude.

The monastic profession was also carried into Ireland by St. Patrick, who is looked upon as the apostle of that kingdom, and multiplied there in so prodigious a manner, that it was called the Island of Saints.—_Broughton._

The monastic life soon made a very great progress all over the Christian world. Rufinus, who travelled through the East in 373, assures us there were almost as many monks in the deserts, as inhabitants in the cities. From the wilderness (contrary to its original institution) it made its way into the towns and cities, where it multiplied greatly: for the same author informs us, that, in the single city of Oxirinca, there were more monasteries than private houses, and above 30,000 monks.

The ancient monks were not, like the modern, distinguished into orders, and denominated from the founders of them; but they had their names from the places where they inhabited, as the monks of _Scetis_, _Tabennesus_, _Nitria_, _Canopus_ in Egypt, &c. or else were distinguished by their different ways of living. Of these the most remarkable were,

1. The anchorets, so called from their retiring from society, and living in private cells in the wilderness. (See _Anchorets_.)

2. The Cœnobites, so denominated from their living together in common. (See _Cœnobites_.)

All monks were, originally, no more than laymen: nor could they well be otherwise, being confined by their own rules to some desert or wilderness where there could be no room for the exercise of the clerical functions. Accordingly St. Jerome tells us, the office of a monk is, not to teach, but to mourn. The Council of Chalcedon expressly distinguishes the monks from the clergy, and reckons them with the laymen. Gratian himself, who is most interested for the moderns, owns it to be plain from ecclesiastical history, that to the time of Pope Sircius and Zosimus, the monks were only mere monks, and not of the clergy.

In some cases, however, the clerical and monastic life were capable of being conjoined; as, first, when a monastery happened to be at so great a distance from its proper church, that the monks could not ordinarily resort thither for Divine service, which was the case of the monasteries in Egypt and other parts of the East. In this case, some one or more of the monks were ordained for the performance of divine offices among them. Another case, in which the clerical and monastic life were united, was, when monks were taken out of monasteries by the bishops, and ordained for the service of the Church. This was allowed, and encouraged, when once monasteries were become schools of learning and pious education. In this case they usually continued their ancient austerities; and upon this account the Greeks styled them ἱερομοναχοι, clergy-monks. Thirdly, it happened sometimes that a bishop and all his clergy embraced the monastic life by a voluntary renunciation of property, and enjoyed all things in common. Eusebius Vercellensis was the first who brought in this way of living, and St. Augustine lived thus among the clergy of Hippo. And so far as this was an imitation of cœnobitic life, and having all things in common, it might be called a monastic as well as a clerical life.

The Cœnobites, or such monks as lived in communities, were chiefly regarded by the Church, and were therefore under the direction of certain laws and rules of government, of which we shall here give a short account. And,

First, All men were not allowed to turn monks at pleasure, because such an indiscriminate permission would have been detrimental both to the Church and State. Upon this account the civil law forbids any of those officers called _curiales_ to become monks, unless they parted with their estates to others, who might serve their country in their stead. For the same reason servants were not to be admitted into any monastery without their masters’ leave. Indeed, Justinian afterwards abrogated this law by an edict of his own, which first set servants at liberty from their masters, under pretence of betaking themselves to a monastic life. The same precautions were observed in regard to married persons and children. The former were not to embrace the monastic life, unless with the mutual consent of both parties. This precaution was afterwards broke through by Justinian; but the Church never approved of this innovation. As to children, the Council of Gangra decreed that if any 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 becoming monks or clerks. And as children were not to turn monks without consent of their parents, so neither could parents oblige their children to embrace a monastic life against their own consent. But the fourth Council of Toledo, A. D. 633, set aside this precaution, and decreed that, whether the devotion of their parents, or their own profession, made them monks, both should be equally binding, and there should be no permission to return to a secular life again, as was before allowable, when a parent offered a child before he was capable of giving his own consent.

The manner of admission to the monastic life was usually by some change of habit or dress, not to signify any religious mystery, but only to express their gravity and contempt of the world. Long hair was always thought an indecency in men, and savouring 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: they were to be decent and grave, as became their profession. 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 singularity or affectation. The 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 spectators. In short, the Western monks used only a common habit, the philosophic pallium, as many other Christians did. And Salvian seems to give an exact description 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, without reviling, and bestowing some reproachful language on him.”

We read of no solemn vow, or profession, required at their admission: but they underwent a triennial probation, during which time they were inured to the exercises of the monastic life. If, after that time was expired, they chose to continue the same exercises, they were then admitted without any further ceremony into the community. This was the method prescribed by Pachomius, the father of the monks of Tabennesus, from which all others took their model.

Nor was there, as yet, any solemn vow of poverty required; though it was customary for men voluntarily to renounce the world by disposing of their estates to charitable uses, before they entered into a community, where they were to enjoy all things in common. Nor did they, after renouncing their own estates, seek to enrich themselves, or their monasteries, by begging, or accepting, the estates of others. The Western monks did not always adhere to this rule, as appears from some Imperial laws made to restrain their avarice. But the monks of Egypt were generally just in their pretensions, and would accept of no donations but for the use of the poor. Some, indeed, did not wholly renounce all property, but kept their estates in their own hands, the whole yearly revenue of which they distributed in charitable uses.

As the monasteries had no standing revenues, all the monks were obliged to exercise themselves in bodily labour to maintain themselves, without being burdensome to others. They had no idle mendicants among them; they looked upon a monk that did not work as no better than a covetous defrauder. Sozomen tells us, that Serapion presided over a monastery of ten thousand monks, near Arsinoë in Egypt, who all laboured with their own hands, by which means they not only maintained themselves, but had enough to relieve the poor.

The monasteries were commonly divided into several parts, and proper officers appointed over each of them. Every ten monks were subject to one, who was called the _decanus_, or _dean_, from his presiding over ten; and every hundred had another officer called _centenarius_, from his presiding over a hundred. Above these were the _patres_, or fathers of the monasteries, called likewise _abbates_, _abbots_, from the Greek ἄββας, which signifies _father_; and _hegumeni_ (ἡγούμενοι) _presidents_; and _archimandrites_, from _mandru_, a sheep-fold. The business of the deans was to exact every man’s daily task, and bring it to the _œconomus_, or steward, who gave a monthly account thereof to the father, or abbot. (See _Abbot_.)

To their bodily exercises they joined others that were spiritual. The first of these was a perpetual repentance. Upon which account the life of a monk is often styled the _life of a mourner_. And in allusion to this, the isle of Canopus, near Alexandria, formerly a place of great lewdness, was, upon the translation and settlement of the monks of Tabennesus there, called _Insulæ Metanœæ_, the _Isle of Repentance_.

The next spiritual exercise was extraordinary fasting. The Egyptian monks kept every day a fast till three in the afternoon, excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and the fifty days of Pentecost. Some exercised themselves with very great austerities, fasting two, three, four, or five days together; but this practice was not generally approved. They did not think such excessive abstinence of any use, but rather a disservice to religion. Pachomius’s rule, which was said to be given him by an angel, permitted every man to eat, drink, and labour, according to his bodily strength. So that fasting was a discretionary thing, and matter of choice, not of compulsion.

Their fastings were accompanied with extraordinary and frequent returns of devotion. The monks of Palestine, Mesopotamia, and other parts of the East, had six or seven canonical hours of prayer. Besides which they had their constant vigils, or nocturnal meetings. The monks of Egypt met only twice a day for public devotion; but, in their private cells, whilst they were at work, they were always repeating psalms, and other parts of Scripture, and intermixing prayers with their bodily labour. St. Jerome’s description of their devotion is very lively: “When they are assembled together, (says that father,) psalms are sung, and the Scriptures read: then, prayers being ended, they all sit down, and the father begins a discourse to them, which they hear with the profoundest silence and veneration. His words make a deep impression on them; their eyes overflow with tears, and the speaker’s commendation is the weeping of his hearers. Yet no one’s grief expresses itself in an indecent strain. But when he comes to speak of the kingdom of heaven, of future happiness, and the glory of the world to come, then one may observe each of them, with a gentle sigh, and eyes lifted up to heaven, say within himself, ‘Oh that I had the wings of a dove, for then would I flee away, and be at rest!’” In some places, they had the Scriptures read during their meals at table. This custom was first resorted to in the monasteries of Cappadocia, to prevent idle discourses and contentions. But in Egypt they had no occasion for this remedy; for they were taught to eat their meat in silence. Palladius mentions one instance more of their devotion, which was only occasional; namely, their psalmody at the reception of any brethren, or the conducting them with singing of psalms to their habitation.

The laws did not allow monks to interest themselves in any public affairs, either ecclesiastical or civil; and those who were called to any employment in the Church, were obliged to quit their monastery thereupon. Nor were they permitted to encroach upon the duties, or rights and privileges, of the secular clergy.

By the laws of their first institution, in all parts of the East, their habitation was not to be in cities, or places of public concourse, but in deserts, and private retirements, as their very name implied. The famous monk Anthony used to say, “That the wilderness was as natural to a monk, as water to a fish; and therefore a monk in a city was quite out of his element, like a fish upon dry land.” Theodosius enacted, that all who made profession of the monastic life should be obliged by the civil magistrate to betake themselves to the wilderness, as their proper habitation. Baronius, by mistake, reckons this law a punishment, and next to a persecution of the monks. Justinian made laws to the same purpose, forbidding the Eastern monks to appear in cities; but, if they had any business of concern to be transacted there, they might do it by their _Apocrisarii_ or _Responsales_, that is, their proctors or syndics, which every monastery was allowed for that purpose.

But this rule admitted of some exceptions. As, first, in times of common danger to the faith. Thus Anthony came to Alexandria, at the request of Athanasius, to confute the Arian heresy. Sometimes they thought it necessary to come and intercede with the emperors and judges for condemned criminals. Thus the monks in the neighbourhood of Antioch forsook their cells, to intercede with the emperor Theodosius, who was highly displeased with that city for demolishing the imperial statues. Afterwards, indeed, this practice grew into an abuse, and the monks were not contented to petition, but would sometimes come in great bodies or troops, and deliver criminals by force. To repress which tumultuous way of proceeding, Arcadius published a law, forbidding any such attempts under very severe penalties.

As the monks of the ancient Church were under no solemn vow or profession, they were at liberty to betake themselves to a secular life again. Julian himself was once in the monastic habit. The same is observed of Constans, the son of that Constantine, who, in the reign of Honorius, usurped the empire in Britain. The rule of Pachomius, by which the Egyptian monks were governed, has no mention of any vow at their entrance, nor any punishment for such as deserted their station afterwards.

In process of time, it was thought proper to inflict some punishment on such as returned to a secular life. The civil law excludes deserters from the privilege of ordination. Justinian added another punishment; which was, that if they were possessed of any substance, it should be all forfeited to the monastery which they had deserted. The censures of the Church were likewise inflicted on deserting monks in the fifth century.

MONOPHYSITES. (From μόνος, _only_, and φύσις, _nature_.) A general name given to all those sectaries in the Levant who only own one nature in our blessed SAVIOUR and who maintain that the Divine and human nature of JESUS CHRIST were so united as to form only one nature, yet without any change, confusion, or mixture of the two natures. (See _Eutychians_.)

MONOTHELITES. Christian heretics in the seventh century, so called from the Greek words μόνος (_only_) and θέλημα (_will_), because they maintained, that, though there were two natures in JESUS CHRIST, the human and the Divine, there was but one will, which was the Divine.

The author of this sect was Theodore, bishop of Pharan in Arabia, in 626, who first started the question, and maintained that the manhood in CHRIST was so united to the WORD, that, though it had its faculties, it did not act by itself, but the whole act was to be ascribed to the WORD, which gave it the motion. Thus, he said, it was the manhood of CHRIST that suffered hunger, thirst, and pain; but the hunger, thirst, and pain were to be ascribed to the WORD. In short, the WORD was the sole author and mover of all the operations and wills in CHRIST.

Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, was of the same sentiment; and the emperor Heraclius embraced the party so much the more willingly, as he thought it a means of reconciling some other heretics to the Church.

Pope Martin I. called a council at Rome in 649, upon the question about the two operations and two wills. In this council, at which were present 105 Italian bishops, the doctrine of the Monothelites was generally condemned. The emperor Constans, who looked upon this condemnation as a kind of rebellion, caused Pope Martin to be violently carried away from Rome, and, after most cruel usage, banished him to Chersona.

However, this heresy was finally condemned in the sixth general council, held at Constantinople, under Constantine Pogonatus, in the year 680.

MONTANISTS. Christian heretics, who sprung up about the year 171, in the reign of the emperor Marcus Aurelius. They were so called from their leader, the heresiarch Montanus, a Phrygian by birth, whence they are sometimes styled Phrygians and Cataphrygians.

Montanus, it is said, embraced Christianity in hopes of rising to the dignities of the Church. He pretended to inspiration, and gave out that the HOLY GHOST had instructed him in several points which had not been revealed to the apostles. Priscilla and Maximilla, two enthusiastic women of Phrygia, presently became his disciples, and in a short time he had a great number of followers. The bishops of Asia, being assembled together, condemned his prophecies, and excommunicated those who dispersed them. Afterwards, they wrote an account of what had passed to the Western Churches, where the pretended prophecies of Montanus and his followers were likewise condemned.

The Montanists, finding themselves exposed to the censure of the whole Church, formed a schism, and set up a distinct society, under the direction of those who called themselves prophets. Montanus, in conjunction with Priscilla and Maximilla, was at the head of the sect.

These sectaries made no alteration in the creed. They only held that the HOLY SPIRIT made Montanus his organ for delivering a more perfect form of discipline than that which was delivered by the apostles. They refused communion for ever to those who were guilty of notorious crimes, and believed that the bishops had no authority to reconcile them. They held it unlawful to fly in time of persecution. They condemned second marriages, allowed the dissolution of marriage, and observed three Lents.

The Montanists became separated into two branches, one of which were the disciples of Proclus, and the other of Æschines. The latter are charged with following the heterodoxy of Praxeas and Sabellius concerning the Trinity. The celebrated Tertullian was a Montanist.

MONUMENT. The memorial placed over the body of a Christian, after his burial in consecrated ground.

The earliest monuments in England which have come down to us are, perhaps, not older than the Norman Conquest; and the most ancient is the simplest form. A stone coffin is covered with a single stone slab, which is also the only recipient of whatever device may be designed to commemorate the tenant of the narrow dwelling over which it closes. So early as the middle of the ninth century, (840,) Kenneth, king of Scotland, made an ordinance that such coffins should be adorned with the sign of the cross, in token of sanctity, on which no one was on any account to tread; and, perhaps, there were none but purely religious emblems employed for some generations after this time. The sign of the cross still continued for centuries the most usual ornament of tombs, but by-and-by it became associated with others which were most of them intended to designate the profession of him whose dust they honoured. Hence we have the crosier and mitre, with perhaps a chalice and paten, upon the tomb of an ecclesiastic, of an abbot, or a bishop; the knight has a sword, and his shield at first plain, but afterwards charged with his arms on his tomb. Sometimes an approach to religious allegory is discovered on monuments even of these very early ages, such as, for instance, the cross or crosier stuck into the mouth of a serpent or cockatrice, indicating the victory of the cross and of the Church over the devil. These, and the like devices, occurring before any attempt at the human figure was made, are in a low relief, or indented outline.

By-and-by the human figure was added, recumbent, and arrayed in the dress of the individual commemorated; and this figure soon rose from low relief to an effigy in full proportions. The knight and the ecclesiastic are now discovered so perfectly attired according to their order and degree, that the antiquary gathers his knowledge of costume from these venerable remains. Some affecting lessons of mortality are now forcibly inculcated by circumstances introduced into the sepulchre; for instance, the figure of the deceased appears nearly reduced to a skeleton, and laid in a shroud; a few instances occur in which the corpse thus represented is below a representation of the living person. Another interesting intimation of the character of the deceased appears in the crossed legs of those who had vowed a pilgrimage to the Holy Land; and the lion is frequently found, as well as the serpent, at the feet of the recumbent figure, perhaps in allusion to the words of the psalmist, “Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under thy feet.”

All this time the tomb has been gradually increasing in height and in general splendour, the sides are adorned with figures in several compartments, which run into niches or panels, according to the advance of architectural design, and at last they are surmounted with an arch, low at first and little decorated, but afterwards very elaborately wrought into a rich canopy. Religious allegories become more complex on the sides of the tomb, and we have instances of some which have since been borrowed by artists of name, and perhaps accounted new by many; for instance, it is not rare to see a representation of the soul of the dying conveyed to heaven by angels, while the corpse lies upon the litter, and this was a design chosen for the cenotaph of the Princess Charlotte. The relatives of the deceased are sometimes represented by many small statues in the niches; or armorial bearings are introduced, sparing at first, and often, as on the tomb of Lionell Lord Wells, in Methley church, supported on the breasts of angels. Angels also frequently support the head of the recumbent figure, and at the feet are sometimes one or more priests with an open book in their hands. The space in the wall behind the tomb and beneath the canopy allows of allegorical devices, sometimes in fresco, sometimes in mosaic. But what most demands attention are the recumbent figures themselves, generally with both hands raised in the attitude of prayer; or, if they be bishops, with the right hand as if giving a blessing. The effigies of the man and his wife appear always on the same tomb, lying side by side, and in the same pious attitude; a frequently recurring sight, which inspired the lines of Piers Plowman:—

“=Knyghts in ther conisance clad for the nones,
Alle it semed seyntes ysacred opon erthe,
And lovely ladies ywrought leyen by her sides.=”

And surely there is a beauty and propriety in that character of monuments for Christian men in Christian churches, which could suggest the words,

=“Alle it semed seyntes ysacred opon erthe,”=

far greater than we recognise in the vain-glorious boastings of success in secular pursuits, perhaps even in sinful undertakings, which cumber church walls. It is a holier thought to remember what was sacred in the Christian man; who, imperfect as he may have been, was yet, as he was a Christian, in some sense a saint, and to embody it in some pious attitude upon his tomb, than to forget everything that is Christian, and to celebrate only the secular or the vicious.

Gorgeous as some of these tombs are, they did not satisfy the splendour of that age, and the canopy swells into an actual chapel, sometimes in the body of the larger church, as that of William of Wykeham, in Winchester, and those of Cardinal Beaufort, and Bishops Waynflete and Fox, in the same cathedral. Sometimes the chapel is a building complete in itself, as that of the Beauchamps, at St. Mary’s church, Warwick, and that of Henry VII. at Westminster.

MORALITIES, MYSTERIES, and MIRACLES. A kind of theatrical representations, which were made by the monks, friars, and other ecclesiastics of the middle ages, the vehicle of instruction to the people. Their general character was the same, but the _miracles_ may be distinguished as those which represented the miracles wrought by the holy confessors, and the sufferings by which the perseverance of the martyrs was manifested; of which kind the first specified by name is a scenic representation of the legend of St. Catherine. The _moralities_ were certain allegorical representations of virtues or vices, always so contrived as to make virtue seem desirable, and vice ridiculous and deformed. The _mysteries_ were representations often of great length, and requiring several days’ performance, of the Scripture narrative, or of several parts of it, as, for instance, the descent of CHRIST into hell. Of these mysteries two complete series have lately been published from ancient manuscripts, _the Townley Mysteries_, performed by the monks of Woodchurch, near Wakefield, and the different leading companies of that town; and _the Coventry Mysteries_, performed with like help of the trades in Coventry, by the Grey Friars of that ancient city. Both of these collections begin with the creation, and carry on the story in different pageants or scenes until the judgment-day.

It will not be supposed that these plays are free from the deformities of every other kind of literature of the times to which they are referred; nor that the performance of them was without a great deal more of the coarseness of an unrefined age than would be tolerated now: neither need it be concealed that the theology therein embodied was sometimes rather Popish than Catholic.

On the whole it may fairly be said, that these _miracles_, _mysteries_, and _moralities_, were wholesome for the times; and that though they afterwards degenerated into actual abuses, yet that they are not to be condemned without measure and without mercy.

Their history and character are interesting, not only as giving a fair picture of the character of remote ages, but also because they seem to be the original from which arose stage plays and oratorios.

As a specimen of these old moralities see in Dodsley’s collection of Old Plays—_God’s Promises_, by Bale, bishop of Ossory, which dramatizes the leading events of the Sacred History. It was printed in 1538.

MORAVIANS, or UNITED BRETHREN. A sect generally said to have arisen under Nicholas Lewis, count of Zinzendorf, a German nobleman of the last century, and thus called because the first converts to the system were some Moravian families. According to the society’s own account, however, they derive their origin from the Greek Church in the ninth century, when, by the instrumentality of Methodius and Cyrillus, two Greek monks, the kings of Bulgaria and Moravia, being converted to the faith, were, together with their subjects, united in communion with the Greek Church. Methodius was their first bishop, and for their use Cyrillus translated the Scriptures into the Sclavonian language.

It is sometimes supposed that because the Moravians have bishops, they are less to be blamed than other dissenting sects. But, to say nothing of the doubt that exists with respect to the validity of their orders, an episcopal church may be, as the Moravians and Romanists of this country are, in a state of schism. And the very fact that the difference between them and the Church is not great, if this be so, makes the sin of their schism, in not conforming, yet greater.

Though the Brethren acknowledge no other standard of truth than the sacred Scriptures, they in general profess to adhere to the Augsburg Confession of Faith. Both in their Summary of Christian Doctrine, which is used for the instruction of their children, and in their general instructions and sermons, they teach the doctrine of the Trinity; and in their prayers, hymns, and litanies address the FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST, in the same manner as is done in other Christian Churches; yet they chiefly direct their hearers to JESUS CHRIST, as the appointed channel of the Deity, in whom GOD is known and made manifest unto man. They dwell upon what he has done and suffered, and upon the glorious descriptions given of him as an Almighty Saviour. They recommend love to him, as the constraining principle of the Christian’s conduct; and their general manner is more by beseeching men to be reconciled to GOD, than by alarming them with the terrors of the law, and the threatenings against the impenitent, which they, however, do not fail occasionally to set before their hearers. They avoid, as much as possible, everything that would lead to controversy; and though they strongly insist upon salvation by grace alone through faith, yet they will not enter into any explanation, or give any decided opinion, concerning particular election. They have, therefore, been considered by high Calvinists as leaning to Arminianism, and by others as Calvinists; but they themselves decline the adoption of either name, and conceive that the gospel may be preached by both. They profess to believe that the kingdom of CHRIST is not confined to any party, community, or church; and they consider themselves, though closely united in one body or visible Church, as spiritually joined in the bond of Christian love to all who are taught of GOD, and belong to the universal Church of CHRIST, however much they may differ in forms, which they deem non-essentials.

See _Crantz’s History of the Brethren_; _Spangenberg’s Exposition of Christian Doctrine_; _Ratio Disciplinæ Unit. Fratrum_, by Loretz, &c.

MORMONISTS, or LATTER DAY SAINTS. The Census Report published in 1854, gives the following account of these enthusiasts. Although, in origin, the Mormon movement is not English, but American, yet, as the new creed, by the missionary zeal of its disciples, has extended into England, and is making some not inconsiderable progress with the poorer classes of our countrymen, it seems desirable to give, as far as the inadequate materials permit, some brief description of a sect, the history of whose opinions, sufferings, and achievements, shows, perhaps, the most remarkable religious movement that has happened since the days of Mahomet.

Joseph Smith, the prophet of the new belief, was born in humble life in 1805, at Sharon in the state of Vermont, from whence in 1815 he removed with his parents to Palmyra, New York. When about 15 years old, being troubled by convictions of his spiritual danger, and perplexed by the multitude of mutually hostile sects, he saw, he says, while praying in a grove, a vision of “two personages,” who informed him that his sins were pardoned, and that all existing sects were almost equally erroneous. This vision was repeated three years afterwards, in 1823, when an angel, he reports, informed him that the American Indians were a remnant of the Israelites, and that certain records, written by the Jewish prophets and containing history and prophecy, had, when the Indians fell into depravity, been buried in the earth at a spot which the angel indicated. Smith was further told, that _he_ had been selected as the instrument by which these valuable records should be brought to light; the revelations they contained being necessary for the restoration of that purity of creed and worship from which all the modern churches had alike departed.

Accordingly, upon the 22nd of September, 1823, Smith, the story runs, discovered in the side of a hill, about four miles from Palmyra in Ontario County, a stone box, just covered by the earth, in which was deposited the “Record,”—a collection of thin plates of gold, held together by three golden rings. Part of this golden book was sealed, but the portion open to inspection was engraven thickly with “Reformed Egyptian” characters. Together with the book he found two crystal lenses “set in the two rims of a bow,” apparently resembling an enormous pair of spectacles; this instrument he said was the Urim and Thummim used by ancient seers.

The simple inspection of these treasures was the whole extent of Smith’s achievements on his first discovery of them; he was not permitted by the angel to remove them until four years afterwards, on the 22nd of September, 1827. During the interval he received occasional instruction from his supernatural visitant.

The news of his discovery attracted such attention, and procured him so much obloquy, that, according to the narrative of his biographers, he was exposed to personal violence, and was obliged to fly to Pennsylvania, carrying his golden plates concealed in a barrel of beans. When thus in some security, he, by the aid of the Urim and Thummim, set to work upon the translation of the unsealed portion, which, when complete, composed a bulky volume, which he called the “Book of Mormon”—“Mormon” meaning, he explained, _more good_, from “_mor_,” a contraction for _more_, and “_mon_,” Egyptian for _good_. “Mormon,” too, was the name of a supposed prophet living in the fourth or fifth century, who, after the principal portion of the American Israelites had fallen in battle, and the whole of them become degenerate, engraved on plates a summary of their history and prophecies. These plates, his son, Moroni, in the troublous times which followed, hid for safety in a hill then called Cumora, about the year A. D. 420.

Mormons defend the authenticity of this recital, by asserting the improbability that Smith, an illiterate person, could invent it, and, unaided, write so large and peculiar a volume. To the objection that the golden plates are not produced, they give Smith’s own reply to the applications made to him by his disciples for a view—that such an exhibition of them is prohibited by special revelation. Nevertheless, in further proof of Smith’s veracity, three “witnesses” were found to testify that they had actually _seen_ the plates, an angel having shown them; and a similar testimony was borne by eight other “witnesses,”—four of those belonging to a family named Whitmer, and three being the two brothers and the father of Smith. The utmost that Smith did towards allowing access by indifferent parties to the plates, was to give to one of his inquiring followers a copy upon paper of a portion of the plates in the original hieroglyphics, viz. the “Reformed Egyptian.” This was submitted by the yet unsatisfied disciple to Professor Anthon of New York, who, however, did not recognise the characters as those of any ancient language known to him. The Mormon advocates appear to think these evidences irresistible.—Upon the other hand, it is asserted, by opponents of the Mormons, that about the years 1809–12, a person of the name of Solomon Spaulding, who had been a clergyman, conceived and executed the design of writing a religious tale, the scenes and narrative of which should be constructed on the theory that the American Indians were the lost ten tribes of Israel. This work, when finished, he entitled “_The Manuscript found_;” and the purport of the fiction was, to trace the progress of the tribes from Jerusalem to America, and then describe their subsequent adventures in the latter country,—“Mormon” and his son “Moroni” being prominent characters, and Nephi, Lehi, and the Lamanites (names frequently occurring in the Book of Mormon) being also mentioned. The MS. of this production, it is further stated, found its way into the hands of one Sidney Rigdon, who was intimately connected with Smith from the commencement of his career.

The “_Book of Mormon_” was succeeded by a “_Book of Doctrine and Covenants_,” being a collection of the special revelations made to Smith and his associates upon all points connected with the course and welfare of the Church. This was continually enlarged as further revelations, consequent upon the varying fortunes and requirements of the body, were received. Amongst these was one by which the “Aaronic Priesthood” was revived—another by which baptism by immersion was commanded—a third for the institution of “Apostles”—and others for the temporal regulation of the Church from time to time. In these productions the peculiar phraseology of the sacred Scriptures was profusely imitated.

It appears that at the end of about three years after Smith’s announcement of himself as a prophet, about thirty persons were convinced of the reality of his pretensions, and from this time forward converts rapidly increased. Smith removed to Kirtland in Ohio, and set up a mill, a store, and a bank.