A SHORT HISTORY OF

MONKS

AND MONASTERIES

_By_ ALFRED WESLEY WISHART

Sometime _Fellow_ in _Church History_ in _The University of Chicago_

ALBERT BRANDT, PUBLISHERTRENTON, NEW JERSEYMDCCCC

1900

PREFACE

The aim of this volume is to sketch the history of the monasticinstitution from its origin to its overthrow in the Reformation period, for although the institution is by no means now extinct, its power waspractically broken in the sixteenth century, and no new orders ofimportance or new types have arisen since that time. 

A little reflection will enable one to understand the great difficultiesin the execution of so broad a purpose. It was impracticable in themajority of instances to consult original sources, although intermediateauthorities have been studied as widely as possible and the greatestcaution has been exercised to avoid those errors which naturally arisefrom the use of such avenues of information. It was also deemedunadvisable to burden the work with numerous notes and citations. Suchnotes as were necessary to a true unfolding of the subject will be foundin the appendix. 

A presentation of the salient features of the whole history wasessential to a proper conception of the orderly development of theascetic ideal. To understand the monastic institution one must not onlystudy the isolated anchorite seeking a victory over a sinful self in theEgyptian desert or the monk in the secluded cloister, but he must alsotrace the fortunes of ascetic organizations, involving multitudes ofmen, vast aggregations of wealth, and surviving the rise and fall ofempires. Almost every phase of human life is encountered in such anundertaking. Attention is divided between hermits, beggars, diplomatists, statesmen, professors, missionaries and pontiffs. It ishoped the critical or literary student will appreciate the immensedifficulties of an attempt to paint so vast a scene on so small acanvas. No other claim is made upon his benevolence. 

There is a process of writing history which Trench describes as "a moralwhitewashing of such things as in men's sight were as blackamoorsbefore. " Religious or temperamental prejudice often obscures the visionand warps the judgment of even the most scholarly minds. Conscious ofthis infirmity in the ablest writers of history it would be absurd toclaim complete exemption from the power of personal bias. It issincerely hoped, however, that the strongest passion in the preparationof this work has been that commendable predilection for truth andjustice which should characterize every historical narrative, and that, whatever other shortcomings may be found herein, there is an absence ofthat unreasonable suspicion, not to say hatred, of everything monastic, which mars many otherwise valuable contributions to monastic history. 

The author's grateful acknowledgment is made, for kindly services andcritical suggestions, to Eri Baker Hulbert, D. D. , LL. D. , Dean of theDivinity School, and Professor and Head of the Department of ChurchHistory; Franklin Johnson, D. D. , LL. D. , Professor of Church History andHomiletics; Benjamin S. Terry, Ph. D. , Professor of Medieval and EnglishHistory; and Ralph C. H. Catterall, Instructor in Modern History; all ofThe University of Chicago. Also to James M. Whiton, Ph. D. , of theEditorial Staff of "The Outlook"; Ephraim Emerton, Ph. D. , Winn Professorof Ecclesiastical History in Harvard University; S. Giffard Nelson, L. H. D. , of Brooklyn, New York; A. H. Newman, D. D. , LL. D. , Professor ofChurch History in McMaster University of Toronto, Ontario; and Paul VanDyke, D. D. , Professor of History in Princeton University. 

A. W. W. Trenton, March, 1900. 

CONTENTS

 PagePREFACE, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5BIBLIOGRAPHY, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

 I

MONASTICISM IN THE EAST, . . . . . . . . . . 17 The Hermits of Egypt, . . . . . . . . . . 33 The Pillar Saint, . . . . . . . . . . . 51 The Cenobites of the East, . . . . . . . . 57

 II

MONASTICISM IN THE WEST: ANTE-BENEDICTINE MONKS, 340-480 A. D. , . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Monasticism and Women, . . . . . . . . . . 106 The Spread of Monasticism in Europe, . . . . . 115 Disorders and Oppositions, . . . . . . . . 124

 III

THE BENEDICTINES, . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 The Rules of Benedict, . . . . . . . . . . 138 The Struggle Against Barbarism, . . . . . . . 148 The Spread of the Benedictine Rule, . . . . . 158

 IV

REFORMED AND MILITARY ORDERS, . . . . . . . . 173 The Military Religious Orders, . . . . . . . 197

 V

THE MENDICANT FRIARS, . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Francis Bernardone, 1182-1226 A. D. , . . . . . 208 The Franciscan Orders, . . . . . . . . . . 226 Dominic de Guzman, 1170--1221 A. D. , . . . . . 230 The Dominican Orders, . . . . . . . . . . 241 The Success of the Mendicant Orders, . . . . . 242 The Decline of the Mendicants, . . . . . . . 253

 VI

THE SOCIETY OF JESUS, . . . . . . . . . . . 258 Ignatius de Loyola, 1491-1556 A. D. , . . . . . 261 Constitution and Polity of the Order, . . . . . 265 The Vow of Obedience, . . . . . . . . . . 266 The Casuistry of the Jesuits, . . . . . . . 272 The Mission of the Jesuits, . . . . . . . . 276 Retrospect, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284

 VII

THE FALL OF THE MONASTERIES, . . . . . . . . 286 The Character of Henry VIII. , . . . . . . . 290 Events Preceding the Suppression, . . . . . . 293 The Monks and the Oath of Supremacy, . . . . . 301 The Royal Commissioners and their Methods of Investigation, . . . . . . . . . . . . 308 The Report of the Commissioners, . . . . . . 316 The Action of Parliament, . . . . . . . . . 319 The Effect of the Suppression Upon the People, . . 322 Henry's Disposal of Monastic Revenues, . . . . 328 Was the Suppression Justifiable? . . . . . . 331 Results of the Dissolution, . . . . . . . . 347

 VIII

CAUSES AND IDEALS OF MONASTICISM, . . . . . . . 354 Causative Motives of Monasticism, . . . . . . 355 Beliefs Affecting the Causative Motives, . . . . 365 Causes of Variations in Monasticism, . . . . . 371 The Fundamental Monastic Vows, . . . . . . . 375

 IX

THE EFFECTS OF MONASTICISM, . . . . . . . . . 386 The Effects of Self-Sacrifice Upon the Individual, 390 The Effects of Solitude Upon the Individual, . . 393 The Monks as Missionaries, . . . . . . . . 398 Monasticism and Civic Duties, . . . . . . . 399 The Agricultural Services of the Monks, . . . . 403 The Monks and Secular Learning, . . . . . . . 405 The Charity of the Monks, . . . . . . . . . 410 Monasticism and Religion, . . . . . . . . . 412

APPENDIX, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425INDEX, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433

 * * * * *

LIST OF PORTRAITS

SAINT FRANCIS OF ASSISI, DYING, is CONVEYED TO THECHURCH OF SAINTE MARIE DE PORTIUNCULE, . . . . _facing title_. 

After the painting by J. J. Weerts. Originally published byGoupil & Co. Of Paris, and here reproduced by their permission. 

 [Jean Joseph Weerts was born at Roubaix (Nord), on May 1, 1847. He was a pupil of Cabanel, Mils and Pils. He was awarded the second-class medal in 1875, was made Chevalier of the Legion of Honor in 1884, received the silver medal at the Universal Exposition of 1889, and was created an Officer of the Legion of Honor in 1897. He is a member of the "Société des Artistes Français, " and is _hors concours_. ]

SAINT BERNARD, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

After an engraving by Ambroise Tardieu, from a painting on glassin the Convent of the R. P. Minimes, at Rheims. 

 [Ambroise Tardieu was born in Paris, in 1790, and died in 1837. He was an engraver of portraits, landscapes and architecture, and a clever manipulator of the burin. For a time he held the position of "Geographical Engraver" to the Departments of Marine, Fortifications and Forests. He was a member of the French Geographical and Mathematical Societies. ]--_Nagler_. 

SAINT DOMINIC, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

From a photograph of Bozzani's painting, preserved in his cell atSanta Sabina, Rome. Here reproduced from Augusta T. Drane's"History of St. Dominic, " by courtesy of the author and the publishers, Longmans, Green & Co. , of London and New York. 

 ["Although several so-called portraits (of St. Dominic) are preserved, yet none of them can be regarded as the _vera effigies_ of the saint, though that preserved at Santa Sabina probably presents us with a kind of traditionary likeness. "]--_History of St. Dominic_. 

 [In the "History of St. Dominic, " on page 226, the author credits the portrait shown to "Bozzani. " We are unable to find any record of a painter by that name. Nagler, however, tells of a painter of portraits and historical subjects, Carlo Bozzoni by name, who was born in 1607 and died in 1657. He was a son of Luciano Bozzoni, a Genoese painter and engraver. He is said to have done good work, but no other mention is made of him. ]

IGNATIUS DE LOYOLA, . . . . . . . . . . . 261

After the engraving by Greatbach, "from a scarce print by H. Wierz. " Originally published by Richard Bentley, London, in 1842. 

 [W. Greatbach was a London engraver in the first half of the nineteenth century. He worked chiefly for the "calendars" and "annuals" of his time, and did notable work for the general book trade of the better class. ]

 [A search of the authorities does not reveal an engraver named "H. Wierz. " This is probably intended for Hieronymus Wierex (or Wierix, according to Bryant), a famous engraver, born in 1552, and who is credited by Nagler, in his "Künstler-Lexikon, " with having produced "a beautiful and rare plate" of "St. Ignaz von Loyola. " The error, if such it be, is easily explained by the fact that portrait engravers seldom cut the lettering of a plate themselves, but have it engraved by others, who have a special aptitude for making shapely letters. ]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ADAMS, G. B. : Civilization during the Middle Ages. ARCHER, T. A. , and KINGSFORD, CHARLES L. : The Crusaders. BARROWS, JOHN H. , (Editor): The World's Parliment of Religions. BLUNT, I. J. : Sketches of the Reformation in England. BLUNT, JOHN HENRY: The Reformation of the Church of England, its History, Principles and Results. BREWER, JOHN SHERREN: The Reign of Henry VIII. BRYCE, JAMES: The Holy Roman Empire. BURNET, GILBERT: History of the Reformation of the Church of England. BUTLER, ALBAN: Lives of the Saints. CARLYLE, THOMAS: Past and Present: The Ancient Monk. Miscellaneous Papers: Jesuitism. CAZENOVE, JOHN G. : St. Hilary of Poitiers and St. Martin of Tours. CHALIPPE, CANDIDE: The Life of St. Francis of Assisi. CHILD, GILBERT W. : Church and State Under the Tudors. CHURCH, R. W. : The Beginning of the Middle Ages. CLARK, WILLIAM: The Anglican Reformation. CLARKE, STEPHEN REYNOLDS: Vestigia Anglicana. CLARKE, JAMES FREEMAN: Events and Epochs in Religious History. COOK, KENINGALE: The Fathers of Jesus. COX, G. W. : The Crusaders. CUTTS, EDWARD LEWES: St. Jerome and St. Augustine. DILL, SAMUEL: Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire. DRAPER, JOHN WILLIAM: History of the Intellectual Development of Europe. DRAKE, AUGUSTA T. : The History of St. Dominic. DUGDALE, Sir WILLIAM: Monasticum Anglicanum. DURUY, VICTOR: History of Rome. ECKENSTEIN, LINA: Woman Under Monasticism. EDERSHEIM, ALFRED: The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. ELIOT, SAMUEL: History of Liberty. FARRAR, FREDERICK W. : The Early Days of Christianity. FOSBROKE, J. D. : British Monachism. FROUDE, JAMES ANTHONY: History of England. FROUDE, JAMES ANTHONY: Short Studies. GAIRDNER, JAMES, and SPEDDING, JAMES: Studies in English History. GASQUET, FRANCIS A. : Henry VIII. And the English Monasteries. GASQUET, FRANCIS A. : The Eve of the Reformation. GIBBON, EDWARD: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. GIESELER, J. K. L. : Manual of Church History. GNEIST, RUDOLPH: History of the English Constitution. GNEIST, RUDOLPH: The English Parliament. GREEN, JOHN RICHARD: History of the English People. GUÉRANGER, PROSPER: Life of St. Cecilia. GUIZOT, F. P. G. : The History of France. GUIZOT, F. P. G. : The History of Civilization in Europe. HALLAM, HENRY: Europe During the Middle Ages. HALLAM, HENRY: Constitutional History of England. HALLAM, HENRY: Introduction to the Literature of Europe. HARDY, R. SPENCER: Eastern Monasticism. HARDWICK, CHARLES: History of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages. HARNACK, ADOLF: Monasticism: Its Ideals and Its History: _Christian Literature Magazine_, 1894-95. HILL, O'DELL T. : English Monasticism: Its Rise and Influence. HUGHES, T. : Loyola and the Educational System of the Jesuits. HUME, DAVID: The History of England. JAMESON, ANNA: Legends of the Monastic Orders. JESSOPP, AUGUSTUS: The Coming of the Friars. KINGSLEY, CHARLES: The Hermits. KINGSLEY, CHARLES: Hypatia. KINGSLEY, CHARLES: The Roman and the Teuton. LAPPENBERG, J. M. : A History of England Under the Anglo-Saxon Kings. LARNED, J. N. : History for Ready Reference and Topical Reading. LEA HENRY C. : History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages. LEA, HENRY C. : Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church. LECKY, WILLIAM E. H. : History of Rationalism in Europe. LECKY, WILLIAM E. H. : History of European Morals. LEE F. G. : The Life of Cardinal Pole. LINGARD, JOHN: History of England. LINGARD, JOHN: History and Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church. LORD, JOHN: Beacon-Lights of History. LORD, JOHN: The Old Roman World. LUDLOW, JAMES M. : The Age of the Crusades. MACKINTOSH, JAMES: History of England. MAITLAND, SAMUEL R. : The Dark Ages. MAITLAND, SAMUEL R. : Essays on the Reformation. MATHEWS, SHAILER: Social Teachings of Jesus. MILMAN, HENRY H. : The History of Latin Christianity. MILMAN, HENRY H. : The History of Christianity. MONTALEMBERT, C. F. R. : Monks of the West. MOSHIEM, J. L. VON: Institutes of Ecclesiastical History. NEANDER, AUGUSTUS: General History of the Christian Religion and Church. OLIPHANT, MARY O. W. : Life of St. Francis of Assisi. PARKMAN, FRANCIS: The Jesuits in North America in the Seventeenth Century. PIKE, LUKE OWEN: A History of Crime in England. PUTNAM, G. H. : Books and Their Makers in the Middle Ages. READE, CHARLES: The Cloister and the Hearth. RUFFNER, H. : The Fathers of the Desert. SABATIER, PAUL: Life of St. Francis of Assisi. SCHAFF, PHILIP: History of the Christian Church. SCHAFF, PHILIP, and WACE, HENRY, (Editors): The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. (Lives and writings of Jerome, Athanasius, Cassian, St. Martin of Tours, and other early supporters of the monastic movement). SCOTT, WALTER: The Monastery. SCOTT, WALTER: The Abbot. SIENKIEWICZ, HENRY K. : The Knights of the Cross. SMITH, PHILIP: Student's Ecclesiastical History. SMITH, R. F. : St. Basil. STANLEY, ARTHUR P. : History of the Eastern Church. STILLÉ, CHARLES J. : Studies in Medieval History. STORRS, RICHARD S. : Bernard of Clairvaux. STRYPE, J. : Annals of the Reformation. STUBBS, WILLIAM: Lectures on the Study of Medieval History. TAUNTON, ETHELRED L. : The English Black Monks of St. Benedict. THOMPSON, R. W. : The Footprints of the Jesuits. THURSTON, H. : The Life of St. Hugh of Lincoln. TRAILL, H. D. : Social England. TRENCH, RICHARD C. : Lectures on Medieval Church History. TREVELYAN, GEORGE M. : England in the Age of Wycliffe. VAUGHAN, ROBERT: Revolutions in English History. VAUGHAN, ROBERT: Hours with the Mystics. WADDINGTON, GEORGE: History of the Church. WATERMAN, LUCIUS: The Post-Apostolic Age. WHITE, A. D. : A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology. WHITE, JAMES: The Eighteen Christian Centuries. WOODHOUSE, FREDERICK C. : The Military Religious Orders of the Middle Ages. 

ENCYCLOPÆDIAS: McClintock and Strong, Schaff-Herzog, Brittanica, English, and Johnson. (Articles on "Monasticism, " "Benedict, " "Francis, " "Dominic, " "Loyola, " etc. )

Many other authorities were consulted by the author, but onlythose works that are easily accessible and likely to prove of direct valueto the student are cited above. 

MONKS

AND MONASTERIES

I

_MONASTICISM IN THE EAST_

The monk is a type of religious character by no means peculiar toChristianity. Every great religion in ancient and modern times hasexpressed itself in some form of monastic life. 

The origin of the institution is lost in antiquity. Its genesis andgradual progress through the centuries are like the movement of a mightyriver springing from obscure sources, but gathering volume by thecontributions of a multitude of springs, brooks, and lesser rivers, entering the main stream at various stages in its progress. While themysterious source of the monastic stream may not be found, it is easy todiscover many different influences and causes that tended to keep themighty current flowing majestically on. It is not so easy to determinewhich of these forces was the greatest. 

"Monasticism, " says Schaff, "proceeds from religious seriousness, enthusiasm and ambition; from a sense of the vanity of the world, and aninclination of noble souls toward solitude, contemplation, and freedomfrom the bonds of the flesh and the temptations of the world. " A strongascetic tendency in human nature, particularly active in the Orient, undoubtedly explains in a general way the origin and growth of theinstitution. Various forms of philosophy and religious belief fosteredthis monastic inclination from time to time by imparting fresh impetusto the desire for soul-purity or by deepening the sense of disgust withthe world. 

India is thought by some to have been the birthplace of the institution. In the sacred writings of the venerable Hindûs, portions of which havebeen dated as far back as 2400 B. C. , there are numerous legends aboutholy monks and many ascetic rules. Although based on oppositephilosophical principles, the earlier Brahminism and the later system, Buddhism, each tended toward ascetic practices, and they each boastto-day of long lines of monks and nuns. 

The Hindoo (Brahmin) ascetic, or naked philosopher, as the Greeks calledhim, exhausted his imagination in devising schemes of self-torture. Heburied himself with his nose just above the ground, or wore an ironcollar, or suspended weights from his body. He clenched his fists untilthe nails grew into his palms, or kept his head turned in one directionuntil he was unable to turn it back. He was a miracle-worker, an oracleof wisdom, and an honored saint. He was bold, spiritually proud, capableof almost superhuman endurance. We will meet him again in the person ofhis Christian descendant on the banks of the Nile. 

The Buddhist ascetic was, perhaps, less severe with himself, but thegeneral spirit and form of the institution was and is the same as amongthe Brahmins. In each religion we observe the same selfishindividualism, --a desire to save one's own soul by slavish obedience toascetic rules, --the extinction of natural desires by self-punishment. "A Brahmin who wishes to become an ascetic, " says Clarke, "must abandonhis home and family and go live in the forest. His food must be rootsand fruit, his clothing a bark garment or a skin, he must bathe morningand evening, and suffer his hair to grow. "

The fact to be remembered, however, is that in India, centuries beforethe Christian Era, there existed both phases of Christian monasticism, the hermit[A] and the crowded convent. 

[Footnote A: Appendix, Note A. ]

Dhaquit, a Chaldean ascetic, who is said to have lived about 2000 B. C. , is reported to have earnestly rebuked those who tried to preserve thebody from decay by artificial resources. "Not by natural means, " hesaid, "can man preserve his body from corruption and dissolution afterdeath, but only through good deeds, religious exercises and offering ofsacrifices, --by invoking the gods by their great and beautiful names, byprayers during the night, and fasts during the day. "

When Father Bury, a Portuguese missionary, first saw the Chinese bonzes, tonsured and using their rosaries, he cried out, "There is not a singlearticle of dress, or a sacerdotal function, or a single ceremony of theRomish church, which the Devil has not imitated in this country. " I havenot the courage to follow this streamlet back into the devil's heart. The attempt would be too daring. Who invented shaved heads and monkishgowns and habits, we cannot tell, but this we know: long before FatherBury saw and described those things in China, there existed in India theGrand Lama or head monk, with monasteries under him, filled with monkswho kept the three vows of chastity, poverty and obedience. They hadtheir routine of prayers, of fasts and of labors, like the Christianmonks of the middle ages. 

Among the Greeks there were many philosophers who taught asceticprinciples. Pythagoras, born about 580 B. C. , established a religiousbrotherhood in which he sought to realize a high ideal of friendship. His whole plan singularly suggests monasticism. His rules provided for arigid self-examination and unquestioning submission to a master. Manyauthorities claim that the influence of the Pythagorean philosophy wasstrongly felt in Egypt and Palestine, after the time of Christ. "Certainit is that more than two thousand years before Ignatius Loyola assembledthe nucleus of his great society in his subterranean chapel in the cityof Paris, there was founded at Crotona, in Greece, an order of monkswhose principles, constitution, aims, method and final end entitle themto be called 'The Pagan Jesuits[B]. '"

[Footnote B: Appendix, Note B. ]

The teachings of Plato, no doubt, had a powerful monastic influence, under certain social conditions, upon later thinkers and upon those whoyearned for victory over the flesh. Plato strongly insisted on an ideallife in which higher pleasures are preferred to lower. Earthly thoughtsand ambitions are to yield before a holy communion with the Divine. Someof his views "might seem like broken visions of the future, when wethink of the first disciples who had all things in common, and, in laterdays, of the celibate clergy, and the cloisteral life of the religiousorders. " The effect of such philosophy in times of general corruptionupon those who wished to acquire exceptional moral and intellectualpower, and who felt unable to cope with the temptations of social life, may be easily imagined. It meant, in many cases, a retreat from theworld to a life of meditation and soul-conflict. In later times itexercised a marked influence upon ascetic literature. 

Coming closer to Christianity in time and in teaching, we find a Jewishsect, called Essenes, living in the region of the Dead Sea, which boreremarkable resemblances to Christian monasticism. The origin anddevelopment of this band, which numbered four thousand about the time ofChrist, are unknown. Even the derivation of the name is in doubt, therebeing at least twenty proposed explanations. The sect is described byPhilo, an Alexandrian-Jewish philosopher, who was born about 25 B. C. , and by Josephus, the Jewish historian, who was born at Jerusalem A. D. 37. These writers evidently took pains to secure the facts, and fromtheir accounts, upon which modern discussions of the subject are largelybased, the following facts are gleaned. 

The Essenes were a sect outside the Jewish ecclesiastical body, bound bystrict vows and professing an extraordinary purity. While there were novows of extreme penance, they avoided cities as centers of immorality, and, with some exceptions, eschewed marriage. They held aloof fromtraffic, oaths, slave-holding, and weapons of offence. They were strictSabbath observers, wore a uniform robe, possessed all things in common, engaged in manual labor, abstained from forbidden food, and probablyrejected the bloody sacrifices of the Temple, although continuing tosend their thank-offerings. Novitiates were kept on probation threeyears. The strictest discipline was maintained, excommunicationfollowing detection in heinous sins. Evidently the standard of characterwas pure and lofty, since their emphasis on self-mastery did not end inabsurd extravagances. Their frugal food, simple habits, and love ofcleanliness; combined with a regard for ethical principles, conduced toa high type of life. Edersheim remarks, "We can scarcely wonder thatsuch Jews as Josephus and Philo, and such heathens as Pliny, wereattracted by such an unworldly and lofty sect. "

Some writers maintain that they were also worshipers of the sun, andhence that their origin is to be traced to Persian sources. Even if so, they seemed to have escaped that confused and mystical philosophy whichhas robbed Oriental thought of much power in the realm of practicallife. Philo says, "Of philosophy, the dialectical department, as beingin no wise necessary for the acquisition of virtue, they abandon to theword-catchers; and the part which treats of the nature of things, asbeing beyond human nature, they leave to speculative air-gazers, withthe exception of that part of it which deals with the subsistance of Godand the genesis of all things; but the ethical they right wellwork out. "

Pliny the elder, who lived A. D. 23-79, made the following reference tothe Essenes, which is especially interesting because of the tone ofsadness and weariness with the world suggested in its praise of thisJewish sect. "On the western shore (of the Dead Sea) but distant fromthe sea far enough to escape from its noxious breezes, dwelt theEssenes. They are an eremite clan, one marvelous beyond all others inthe whole world; without any women, with sexual intercourse entirelygiven up, without money, and the associates of palm trees. Daily is thethrong of those that crowd about them renewed, men resorting to them innumbers, driven through weariness of existence, and the surges ofill-fortune, to their manner of life. Thus it is that through thousandsof ages--incredible to relate!--their society, in which no one is born, lives on perennial. So fruitful to them is the irksomeness of lifeexperienced by other men. "

Admission to the order was granted only to adults, yet children weresometimes adopted for training in the principles of the sect. Somebelieved in marriage as a means of perpetuating the order. 

Since it would not throw light on our present inquiry, the mootedquestion as to the connection of Essenism and the teachings of Jesus maybe passed by. The differences are as great as the resemblances and theweight of opinion is against any vital relation. 

The character of this sect conclusively shows that some of the elementsof Christian monasticism existed in the time of Jesus, not only inPalestine but in other countries. In an account of the Therapeutæ, ortrue devotees, an ascetic body similar to the Essenes, Philo says, "There are many parts of the world in which this class may be found.... They are, however, in greatest abundance in Egypt. "

During Apostolic times various teachings and practices were current thatmay be characterized as ascetic. The Apostle Paul, in his letter to theColossians, doubtless had in mind a sect or school which despised thebody and abstained from meats and wine. A false asceticism, gatheringinspiration from pagan philosophy, was rapidly spreading amongChristians even at that early day. The teachings of the Gnostics, aspeculative sect of many schools, became prominent in the closing daysof the Apostolic age or very soon thereafter. Many of these schoolsclaimed a place in the church, and professed a higher life and knowledgethan ordinary Christians possessed. The Gnostics believed in thecomplete subjugation of the body by austere treatment. 

The Montanists, so called after Montanus, their famous leader, arose inAsia Minor during the second century, when Marcus Aurelius was emperor. Schaff describes the movement as "a morbid exaggeration of Christianideas and demands. " It was a powerful and frantic protest against thegrowing laxity of the church. It despised ornamental dress andprescribed numerous fasts and severities. 

These facts and many others that might be mentioned throw light on ourinquiry in several ways. They show that asceticism was in the air. Theliterature, philosophy and religion of the day drifted toward an asceticscheme of life and stimulated the tendency to acquire holiness, even atthe cost of innocent joys and natural gratifications. They show thatworldliness was advancing in the church, which called for rebuke and areturn to Apostolic Christianity; that the church was failing to satisfythe highest cravings of the soul. True, it was well-nigh impossible forthe church, in the midst of such a powerful and corrupt heathenenvironment, to keep itself up to its standards. 

It is a common tradition that in the first three centuries the practicesand spirit of the church were comparatively pure and elevated. Harnacksays, "This tradition is false. The church was already secularized to agreat extent in the middle of the third century. " She was "no longer ina position to give peace to all sorts and conditions of men. " It wasthen that the great exodus of Christians from the villages and cities tomountains and deserts began. Although from the time of Christ on therewere always some who understood Christianity to demand completeseparation from all earthly pleasures, yet it was three hundred yearsand more before large numbers began to adopt a hermit's life as the onlymethod of attaining salvation. "They fled not only from the world, butfrom the world within the church. Nevertheless, they did not flee out ofthe church. "

We can now see why no definite cause for the monastic institution can begiven and no date assigned for its origin. It did not commence at anyfixed time and definite place. Various philosophies and religiouscustoms traveled for centuries from country to country, resulting insingular resemblances and differences between different ascetic ormonastic sects. Christian monasticism was slowly evolved, and graduallyassumed definite organization as a product of a curious medley ofHeathen-Jewish-Christian influences. 

A few words should be said here concerning the influence of the Bibleupon monasticism. Naturally the Christian hermits and early fathersappealed to the Bible in support of their teachings and practices. It isnot necessary, at this point, to discuss the correctness of theirinterpretations. The simple fact is that many passages of scripture wereconsidered as commands to attain perfection by extraordinary sacrifices, and certain Biblical characters were reverenced as shining monasticmodels. In the light of the difficulties of Biblical criticism it iseasy to forgive them if they were mistaken, a question to be discussedfarther on. They read of those Jewish prophets described in Hebrews:"They went about in sheepskins, in goatskins; ... Wandering in desertsand mountains and caves, and the holes of the earth. " They pointed toElijah and his school of prophets; to John the Baptist, with his raimentof camel's hair and a leathern girdle about his loins, whose meat waslocusts and wild honey. They recalled the commandment of Jesus to therich young man to sell all his possessions and give to the poor. Theyquoted the words, "Take no thought for the morrow what ye shall eat andwhat ye shall drink or wherewithal ye shall be clothed. " They construedfollowing Christ to mean in His own words, "forsaking father, mother, brethren, wife, children, houses and lands. " They pointed triumphantlyto the Master himself, unmarried and poor, who had not "where to lay hishead. " They appealed to Paul's doctrine of marriage. They rememberedthat the Church at Jerusalem was composed of those who sold theirpossessions and had all things in common. Whatever these and numerousother passages may truly mean, they interpreted them in favor of amonastic mode of life; they understood them to teach isolation, fastings, severities, and other forms of rigorous self-denial. AcceptingScripture in this sense, they trampled upon human affection and gaveaway their property, that they might please God and save their souls. 

Between the time of Christ and Paul of Thebes, who died in the firsthalf of the fourth century, and who is usually recognized as the founderof monasticism, many Christian disciples voluntarily abandoned theirwealth, renounced marriage and adopted an ascetic mode of life, whilestill living in or near the villages or cities. As the corruption ofsociety and the despair of men became more widespread, these anxiousChristians wandered farther and farther away from fixed habitationsuntil, in an excess of spiritual fervor, they found themselves in thecaves of the mountains, desolate and dreary, where no sound of humanvoice broke in upon the silence. The companions of wild beasts, theylived in rapt contemplation on the eternal mysteries of this moststrange world. 

My task now is to describe some of those recluses who still live in thebiographies of the saints and the traditions of the church. Ducis, whilereading of these hermits, wrote to a friend as follows: "I am nowreading the lives of the Fathers of the Desert. I am dwelling with St. Pachomius, the founder of the monastery at Tabenna. Truly there is acharm in transporting one's self to that land of the angels--one couldnot wish ever to come out of it. " Whether the reader will call thesestrange characters angels, and will wish he could have shared their bedsof stone and midnight vigils, I will not venture to say, but at allevents his visit will be made as pleasant as possible. 

In writing the life of Mahomet, Carlyle said, "As there is no danger ofour becoming, any of us, Mahometans, I mean to say all the good ofMahomet I justly can. " So, without distorting the picture that has comedown to us, I mean to say all the good of these Egyptian hermits thatthe facts will justify. 

_The Hermits of Egypt_

Egypt was the mother of Christian monasticism, as she has been of manyother wonders. 

Vast solitudes; lonely mountains, honey-combed with dens and caves; aridvalleys and barren hills; dreary deserts that glistened under theblinding glare of the sun that poured its heat upon them steadily allthe year; strange, grotesque rocks and peaks that assumed all sorts offantastic shapes to the overwrought fancy; in many places no water, noverdure, and scarcely a thing in motion; the crocodile and the birdlazily seeking their necessary food and stirring only as compelled;unbounded expanse in the wide star-lit heavens; unbroken quiet on thelonely mountains--a fit home for the hermit, a paradise to the lover ofsolitude and peace. 

Of life under such conditions Kingsley has said: "They enjoyed nature, not so much for her beauty as for her perfect peace. Day by day therocks remained the same. Silently out of the Eastern desert, day by day, the rising sun threw aloft those arrows of light which the old Greekshad named 'the rosy fingers of the dawn. ' Silently he passed in fullblaze above their heads throughout the day, and silently he dippedbehind the Western desert in a glory of crimson and orange, green andpurple.... Day after day, night after night, that gorgeous pageantpassed over the poor hermit's head without a sound, and though sun, moonand planet might change their places as the years rolled round, theearth beneath his feet seemed not to change. " As for the companionlessmen, who gazed for years upon this glorious scene, they too were ofunusual character, Waddington finely says: "The serious enthusiasm ofthe natives of Egypt and Asia, that combination of indolence and energy, of the calmest languor with the fiercest passions, ... Disposed them toembrace with eagerness the tranquil but exciting duties of religiousseclusion. " Yes, here are the angels of Ducis in real flesh and blood. They revel in the wildest eccentricities with none to molest or makeafraid, always excepting the black demons from the spiritual world. Onedwells in a cave in the bowels of the earth; one lies on the sandbeneath a blazing sun; one has shut himself forever from the sight ofman in a miserable hut among the bleak rocks of yonder projecting peak;one rests with joy in the marshes, breathing with gratitude thepestilential vapors. 

Some of these saints became famous for piety and miraculous power. Athanasius, fleeing from persecution, visited them, and Jerome soughtthem out to learn from their own lips the stories of their lives. Tothese men and to others we are indebted for much of our knowledgeconcerning this chapter of man's history. Less than fifty years afterPaul of Thebes died, or about 375 A. D. , Jerome wrote the story of hislife, which Schaff justly characterizes as "a pious romance. " FromJerome we gather the following account: Paul was the real founder of thehermit life, although not the first to bear the name. During the Decianpersecution, when churches were laid waste and Christians were slainwith barbarous cruelty, Paul and his sister were bereaved of both theirparents. He was then a lad of sixteen, an inheritor of wealth andskilled for one of his years in Greek and Egyptian learning. He was of agentle and loving disposition. On account of his riches he was denouncedas a Christian by an envious brother-in-law and compelled to flee to themountains in order to save his life. He took up his abode in a caveshaded by a palm that afforded him food and clothing. "And that no onemay deem this impossible, " affirms Jerome, "I call to witness Jesus andhis holy angels that I have seen and still see in that part of thedesert which lies between Syria and the Saracens' country, monks of whomone was shut up for thirty years and lived on barley bread and muddywater, while another in an old cistern kept himself alive on five driedfigs a day. "

It is impossible to determine how much of the story which follows ishistorically true. Undoubtedly, it contains little worthy of belief, butit gives us some faint idea of how these hermits lived. Its chief valueconsists in the fact that it preserves a fragment of the monasticliterature of the times--a story which was once accepted as a crediblenarrative. Imagine the influence of such a tale, when believed to betrue, upon a mind inclined to embrace the doctrines of asceticism. Itspower at that time is not to be measured by its reliability now. Jeromehimself declares in the prologue that many incredible things wererelated of Paul which he will not repeat. After reading the followingstory, the reader may well inquire what more fanciful tale could beproduced even by a writer of fiction. 

The blessed Paul was now one hundred and thirteen years old, andAnthony, who dwelt in another place of solitude, was at the age ofninety. In the stillness of the night it was revealed to Anthony thatdeeper in the desert there was a better man than he, and that he oughtto see him. So, at the break of day, the venerable old man, supportingand guiding his weak limbs with a staff, started out, whither he knewnot. At scorching noontide he beholds a fellow-creature, half man, halfhorse, called by the poets Hippo-centaur. After gnashing outlandishutterances, this monster, in words broken, rather than spoken, throughhis bristling lips, points out the way with his right hand and swiftlyvanishes from the hermit's sight. Anthony, amazed, proceeds thoughtfullyon his way when a mannikin, with hooked snout, horned forehead andgoat's feet, stands before him and offers him food. Anthony asks who heis. The beast thus replies: "I am a mortal being, and one of thoseinhabitants of the desert, whom the Gentiles deluded by various forms oferror worship, under the name of Fauns and Satyrs. " As he utters theseand other words, tears stream down the aged traveler's face! He rejoicesover the glory of God and the destruction of Satan. Striking the groundwith his staff, he exclaims, "Woe to thee, Alexandria, who, instead ofGod, worshipest monsters! Woe to thee, harlot city, into which haveflowed together the demons of the world! What will you say now? Beastsspeak of Christ, and you, instead of God, worship monsters. " "Let nonescruple to believe this incident, " says the chronicler, "for a man ofthis kind was brought alive to Alexandria and the people saw him; whenhe died his body was preserved in salt and brought to Antioch that theEmperor might view him. "

Anthony continues to traverse the wild region into which he had entered. There is no trace of human beings. The darkness of the second nightwears away in prayer. At day-break he beholds far away a she-wolfgasping with parched thirst and creeping into a cave. He draws near andpeers within. All is dark, but perfect love casteth out fear. Withhalting step and bated breath, he enters. After a while a light gleamsin the distant midnight darkness. With eagerness he presses forward, buthis foot strikes against a stone and arouses the echoes; whereupon theblessed Paul closes the door and makes it fast. For hours Anthony lay atthe door craving admission. "I know I am not worthy, " he humbly cries, "yet unless I see you I will not turn away. You welcome beasts, why nota man? If I fail, I will die here on your threshold. "

 "Such was his constant cry; unmoved he stood, To whom the hero thus brief answer made. "

"Prayers like these do not mean threats, there is no trickery in tears. "So, with smiles, Paul gives him entrance and the two aged hermits fallinto each other's embrace. Together they converse of things human anddivine, Paul, close to the dust of the grave, asks, Are new housesspringing up in ancient cities? What government directs the world?Little did this recluse know of his fellow-beings and how fared it withthe children of men who dwelt in those great cities around the blueMediterranean. He was dead to the world and knew it no more. 

A raven brought the aged brothers bread to eat and the hours glidedswiftly away. Anthony returned to get a cloak which Athanasius had givenhim in which to wrap the body of Paul. So eager was he to behold againhis newly-found friend that he set out without even a morsel of bread, thirsting to see him. But when yet three days' journey from the cave hesaw Paul on high among the angels. Weeping, he trudged on his way. Onentering the cave he saw the lifeless body kneeling, with head erect andhands uplifted. He tenderly wrapped the body in the cloak and began tolament that he had no implements to dig a grave. But Providence sent twolions from the recesses of the mountain that came rushing with flyingmanes. Roaring, as if they too mourned, they pawed the earth and thusthe grave was dug. Anthony, bending his aged shoulders beneath theburden of the saint's body, laid it lovingly in the grave and departed. 

Jerome closes this account by challenging those who do not know theextent of their possessions, --who adorn their homes with marble and whostring house to house, --to say what this old man in his nakedness everlacked. "Your drinking vessels are of precious stones; he satisfied histhirst with the hollow of his hand. Your tunics are wrought of gold; hehad not the raiment of your meanest slave. But on the other hand, pooras he was, Paradise is open to him; you, with all your gold, will bereceived into Gehenna. He, though naked, yet kept the robe of Christ;you, clad in your silks, have lost the vesture of Christ. Paul liescovered with worthless dust, but will rise again to glory; over you areraised costly tombs, but both you and your wealth are doomed to burning. I beseech you, reader, whoever you may be, to remember Jerome thesinner. He, if God would give him his choice, would sooner take Paul'stunics with his merits, than the purple of kings with their punishment. "

Such was the story circulated among rich and poor, appealing withwondrous force to the hearts of men in those wretched years. 

What was the effect upon the mind of the thoughtful? If he believed suchteaching, weary of the wickedness of the age, and moved by his noblestsentiments, he sold his tunics wrought of gold and fled from his palacesof marble to the desert solitudes. 

But the monastic story that most strongly impressed the age now underconsideration, was the biography of Anthony, "the patriarch of monks"and virtual founder of Christian monasticism. It was said to have beenwritten by Athanasius, the famous defender of orthodoxy and Archbishopof Alexandria; yet some authorities reject his authorship. It exerted apower over the minds of men beyond all human estimate. It scattered theseeds of asceticism wherever it was read. Traces of its influence arefound all over the Roman empire, in Egypt, Asia Minor, Palestine, Italyand Gaul. Knowing the character of Athanasius, we may rest assured thathe sincerely believed all he really recorded (it is much interpolated)of the strange life of Anthony, and, true or false, thousands of othersbelieved in him and in his story. Augustine, the great theologian ofimmortal fame, acknowledged that this book was one of the influencesthat led to his conversion, and Jerome, whose life I will review later, was mightily swayed by it. 

Anthony was born about 251 A. D. , in Upper Egypt, of wealthy and nobleparentage. He was a pious child, an obedient son, and a lover ofsolitude and books. His parents died when he was about twenty years old, leaving to his care their home and his little sister. One day, as heentered the church, meditating on the poverty of Christ, a theme muchreflected upon in those days, he heard these words read from the pulpit, "If thou wouldst be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast, and give tothe poor, and come, follow me. " As if the call came straight from heavento his own soul, he left the church at once and made over his farm tothe people of the village. He sold his personal possessions for a largesum, and distributed the proceeds among the poor, reserving a little forhis sister. Still he was unsatisfied. Entering the church on anotheroccasion, he heard our Lord saying in the gospel, "Take no thought forthe morrow. " The clouds cleared away. His anxious search for truth andduty was at an end. He went out and gave away the remnant of hisbelongings. Placing his sister in a convent, the existence of which isto be noted, he fled to the desert. Then follows a striking statement, "For monasteries were not common in Egypt, nor had any monk at all knownthe great desert; but every one who wished to devote himself to his ownspiritual welfare performed his exercise alone, not far fromthe village. "

Laboring with his hands, recalling texts of Scripture, praying wholesleepless nights, fasting for several days at a time, visiting hisfellow saints, fighting demons, so passed the long years away. He slepton a small rush mat, more often on the bare ground. Forgetting pastausterities, he was ever on the search for some new torture and pressingforward to new and strange experiences. He changed his habitation fromtime to time. Now he lived in a tomb, in company with the silent dead;then for twenty years in a deserted castle, full of reptiles, nevergoing out and rarely seeing any one. From each saint he learned somefresh mode of spiritual training, observing his practice for futureimitation and studying the charms of his Christian character that hemight reproduce them in his own life; thus he would return richly ladento his cell. 

But in all these struggles Anthony had one foe--the arch-enemy of allgood. He suggests impure thoughts, but the saint repels them by prayer;he incites to passion, but the hero resists the fiend with fastings andfaith. Once the dragon, foiled in his attempt to overcome Anthony, gnashed his teeth, and coming out of his body, lay at his feet in theshape of a little black boy. But the hermit was not beguiled intocarelessness by this victory. He resolved to chastise himself moreseverely. So he retired to the tombs of the dead. One dark night a crowdof demons flogged the saint until he fell to the ground speechless withtorture. Some friends found him the next day, and thinking that he wasdead, carried him to the village, where his kinsfolk gathered to mournover his remains. But at midnight he came to himself, and, seeing butone acquaintance awake, he begged that he would carry him back to thetombs, which was done. Unable to move, he prayed prostrate and sang, "Ifan host be laid against me, yet shall not my heart be afraid. " Theenraged devils made at him again. There was a terrible crash; throughthe walls the fiends came in shapes like beasts and reptiles. In amoment the place was filled with lions roaring at him, bulls thrustingat him with their horns, creeping serpents unable to reach him, wolvesheld back in the act of springing. There, too, were bears and asps andscorpions. Mid the frightful clamor of roars, growls and hisses, rosethe clear voice of the saint, as he triumphantly mocked the demons intheir rage. Suddenly the awful tumult ceased; the wretched beings becameinvisible and a ray of light pierced the roof to cheer the prostratehero. His pains ceased. A voice came to him saying, "Thou hast withstoodand not yielded. I will always be thy helper, and will make thy namefamous everywhere. " Hearing this he rose up and prayed, and was strongerin body than ever before. 

This is but one of numerous stories chronicling Anthony's struggles withthe devil. Like conflicts were going on at that hour in many anothercave in those great and silent mountains. 

There are also wondrous tales of his miraculous power. He oftenpredicted the coming of sufferers and healed them when they came. Hisfame for curing diseases and casting out devils became so extensive thatEgypt marveled at his gifts, and saints came even from Rome to see hisface and to hear his words. His freedom from pride and arrogance was asmarked as his fame was great. He yielded joyful obedience to presbytersand bishops. His countenance was so full of divine grace and heavenlybeauty as to render him easily distinguishable in a crowd of monks. Letters poured in upon him from every part of the empire. Kings wrotefor his advice, but it neither amazed him nor filled his heart withpride. "Wonder not, " said he, "if a king writes to us, for he is but aman, but wonder rather that God has written His law to man and spoken tous by His Son. " At his command princes laid aside their crowns, judgestheir magisterial robes, while criminals forsook their lives of crimeand embraced with joy the life of the desert. 

Once, at the earnest entreaty of some magistrates, he came down from themountain that they might see him. Urged to prolong his stay he refused, saying, "Fishes, if they lie long on the dry land, die; so monks whostay with you lose their strength. As the fishes, then, hasten to thesea, so must we to the mountains. "

At last the shadows lengthened and waning strength proclaimed that hisdeparture was nigh. Bidding farewell to his monks, he retired to aninner mountain and laid himself down to die. His countenance brightenedas if he saw his friends coming to see him, and thus his soul wasgathered to his fathers. He is said to have been mourned by fifteenthousand disciples. 

This is the story which moved a dying empire. "Anthony, " saysAthanasius, "became known not by worldly wisdom, nor by any art, butsolely by piety, and that this was the gift of God who can deny?" Thepurpose of such a life was, so his biographer thought, to light up themoral path for men, that they might imbibe a zeal for virtue. 

The "Life of St. Anthony" is even more remarkable for its omissions thanfor its incredible tales. While I reserve a more detailed criticism ofits Christian ideals until a subsequent chapter, it may be well to quotehere a few words from Isaac Taylor. After pointing out some of itsdefects he continues: there is "not a word of justification by faith;not a word of the gracious influence of the Spirit in renewing andcleansing the heart; not a word responding to any of those signalpassages of Scripture which make the Gospel 'Glad Tidings' to guiltymen. " This I must confess to be true, even though I may and do heartilyesteem the saint's enthusiasm for righteousness. 

So far I have described chiefly the spiritual experiences of these men, but the details of their physical life are hardly less interesting. There was a holy rivalry among them to excel in self-torture. Theirimaginations were constantly employed in devising unique tests ofholiness and courage. They lived in holes in the ground or in dried upwells; they slept in thorn bushes or passed days and weeks withoutsleep; they courted the company of the wildest beasts and exposed theirnaked bodies to the broiling sun. Macarius became angry because aninsect bit him and in penitence flung himself into a marsh where helived for weeks. He was so badly stung by gnats and flies that hisfriends hardly knew him. Hilarion, at twenty years of age, was more likea spectre than a living man. His cell was only five feet high, a littlelower than his stature. Some carried weights equal to eighty or onehundred and fifty pounds suspended from their bodies. Others sleptstanding against the rocks. For three years, as it is recorded, one ofthem never reclined. In their zeal to obey the Scriptures, theyoverlooked the fact that cleanliness is akin to godliness. It was theirboast that they never washed. One saint would not even use water todrink, but quenched his thirst with the dew that fell on the grass. St. Abraham never washed his face for fifty years. His biographer, not inthe least disturbed by the disagreeable suggestions of thiscircumstance, proudly says, "His face reflected the purity of his soul. "If so, one is moved to think that the inward light must indeed have beenpowerfully piercing, if it could brighten a countenance unwashed forhalf a century. There is a story about Abbot Theodosius who prayed forwater that his monks might drink. In response to his petition a streamburst from the rocks, but the foolish monks, overcome by a pitifulweakness for cleanliness, persuaded the abbot to erect a bath, when lo, the stream dried. Supplications and repentance availed nothing. After ayear had passed, the monks, promising never again to insult Heaven bywishing for a bath, were granted a second Mosaic miracle. 

Thus, unwashed, clothed in rags, their hair uncut, their faces unshaven, they lived for years. No wonder that to their disordered fancy thedesert was filled with devils, the animals spake and Heaven sent angelsto minister unto them. 

_The Pillar Saint_

But the strangest of all strange narratives yet remains. We turn fromEgypt to Asia Minor to make the acquaintance of that saint whom Tennysonhas immortalized, --the idol of monarchs and the pride of theEast, --Saint Simeon Stylites. Stories grow rank around him like theluxuriant products of a tropical soil. How shall I briefly tell of thisman, whom Theodoret, in his zeal, declares all who obey the Roman ruleknow--the man who may be compared with Moses the Legislator, David theKing and Micah the Prophet? He lived between the years 390 and 459 A. D. He was a shepherd's son, but at an early age entered a monastery. Herehe soon distinguished himself by his excessive austerities. One day hewent to the well, removed the rope from the bucket and bound it tightlyaround his body underneath his clothes. A few weeks later, the abbot, being angry with him because of his extreme self-torture, bade hiscompanions strip him. What was his astonishment to find the rope fromthe well sunk deeply into his flesh. "Whence, " he cried, "has this mancome to us, wanting to destroy the rule of this monastery? I pray theedepart hence. "

With great trouble they unwound the rope and the flesh with it, andtaking care of him until he was well, they sent him forth to commence alife of austerities that was to render him famous. He adopted variousstyles of existence, but his miracles and piety attracted such crowdsthat he determined to invent a mode of life which would deliver him fromthe pressing multitudes. It is curious that he did not hide himselfaltogether if he really wished to escape notoriety; but, no, he wouldstill be within the gaze of admiring throngs. His holy and fancifulgenius hit upon a scheme that gave him his peculiar name. He took up hisabode on the top of a column which was at first about twelve feet high, but was gradually elevated until it measured sixty-four feet. Hence, heis called Simeon Stylites, or Simeon the Pillar Saint. 

On this lofty column, betwixt earth and heaven, the hermit braved theheat and cold of thirty years. At its base, from morning to night, prayed the admiring worshipers. Kings kneeled in crowds of peasants todo him homage and ask his blessing. Theodoret says, "The Ishmaelites, coming by tribes of two hundred and three hundred at a time, andsometimes even a thousand, deny, with shouts, the error of theirfathers, and breaking in pieces before that great illuminator, theimages which they had worshiped, and renouncing the orgies of Venus, they received the Divine sacrament. " Rude barbarians confessed theirsins in tears. Persians, Greeks, Romans and Saracens, forgetting theirmutual hatred, united in praise and prayer at the feet of this strangecharacter. 

Once a week the hero partook of food. Many times a day he bowed his headto his feet; one man counted twelve hundred and forty-four times andthen stopped in sheer weariness from gazing at the miracle of endurancealoft. Again, from the setting of the sun to its appearance in the East, he would stand unsoothed by sleep with his arms outstretched likea cross. 

If genius can understand such a life as that and fancy the thoughts ofsuch a soul, Tennyson seems not only to have comprehended theconsciousness of the Pillar Saint, but also to have succeeded in givingexpression to his insight. He has laid bare the soul of Simeon in itscommingling of spiritual pride with affected humility, and of aconsciousness of meritorious sacrifice with a sense of sin. The Saintspurns notoriety and the homage of men, yet exults in his control overthe multitudes. 

The poet thus imagines Simeon to speak as the Saint is praying God totake away his sin:

 "But yet Bethink thee, Lord, while thou and all the saints Enjoy themselves in heaven, and men on earth House in the shade of comfortable roofs, Sit with their wives by fires, eat wholesome food, And wear warm clothes, and even beasts have stalls, I, 'tween the spring and downfall of the light, Bow down one thousand and two hundred times, To Christ, the Virgin Mother, and the Saints; Or in the night, after a little sleep, I wake: the chill stars sparkle; I am wet With drenching dews, or stiff with crackling frost. I wear an undress'd goatskin on my back; A grazing iron collar grinds my neck; And in my weak, lean arms I lift the cross, And strive and wrestle with thee till I die: O mercy, mercy! wash away my sin. 

 O Lord, thou knowest what a man I am; A sinful man, conceived and born in sin: 'Tis their own doing; this is none of mine; Lay it not to me. Am I to blame for this, That here come those that worship me? Ha! ha! They think that I am somewhat. What am I? The silly people take me for a saint, And bring me offerings of fruit and flowers: And I, in truth (thou wilt bear witness here) Have all in all endured as much, and more Than many just and holy men, whose names Are register'd and calendared for saints. 

 Good people, you do ill to kneel to me. What is it I can have done to merit this?

 * * * * *

 Yet do not rise; for you may look on me, And in your looking you may kneel to God. Speak! is there any of you halt or maim'd? I think you know I have some power with Heaven From my long penance: let him speak his wish. 

 Yes, I can heal him. Power goes forth from me. They say that they are heal'd. Ah, hark! they shout 'St. Simeon Stylites. ' Why, if so, God reaps a harvest in me. O my soul, God reaps a harvest in thee. If this be, Can I work miracles and not be saved?"

Once, the devil, in shape like an angel, riding in a chariot of fire, came to carry Simeon to the skies. He whispered to the weary Saint, "Simeon, hear my words, which the Lord hath commanded thee. He has sentme, his angel, that I may carry thee away as I carried Elijah. " Simeonwas deceived, and lifted his foot to step out into the chariot, when theangel vanished, and in punishment for his presumption an ulcer appearedupon his thigh. 

But time plays havoc with saints as well as sinners, and death slays thestrongest. Bowed in prayer, his weary heart ceased to beat and the eyesthat gazed aloft were closed forever. Anthony, his beloved disciple, ascending the column, found that his master was no more. Yet, it seemedas if Simeon was loath to leave the spot, for his spirit appeared to hisweeping follower and said, "I will not leave this column, and thisblessed mountain. For I have gone to rest, as the Lord willed, but dothou not cease to minister in this place and the Lord will repay theein heaven. "

His body was carried down the mountain to Antioch. Heading the solemnprocession were the patriarch, six bishops, twenty-one counts and sixthousand soldiers, "and Antioch, " says Gibbon, "revered his bones asher glorious ornament and impregnable defence. "

_The Cenobites of the East_

We cannot linger with these hermits. I pass now to the cenobitic[C]life. We go back in years and return to Egypt. Man is a social animal, and the social instinct is so strong that even hermits are swayed by itspower and get tired of living apart from one another. When Anthony diedthe deserts were studded with hermitages, and those of exceptional famewere surrounded by little clusters of huts and dens. Into these cellscrowded the hermits who wished to be near their master. 

[Footnote C: Appendix, Note C. ]

Thus, step by step, organized or cenobitic monasticism easily andnaturally came into existence. The anchorites crawled from their densevery day to hear the words of their chief saint, --a practice givingrise to stated meetings, with rules for worship. Regulations as tomeals, occupations, dress, penances, and prayers naturally follow. 

The author of the first monastic rules is said to have been Pachomius, who was born in Egypt about the year 292 A. D. He was brought up inpaganism but was converted in early life while in the army. On hisdischarge he retired with a hermit to Tabenna, an island in the Nile. Itis said he never ate a full meal after his conversion, and for fifteenyears slept sitting on a stone. Natural gifts fitted him to become aleader, and it was not long before he was surrounded by a congregationof monks for whom he made his rules. 

The monks of Pachomius were divided into bands of tens and hundreds, each tenth man being an under officer in turn subject to the hundredth, and all subject to the superior or abbot of the mother house. They livedthree in a cell, and a congregation of cells constituted a laura ormonastery. There was a common room for meals and worship. Each monk worea close fitting tunic and a white goatskin upper garment which was neverlaid aside at meals or in bed, but only at the Eucharist. Their foodusually consisted of bread and water, but occasionally they enjoyed suchluxuries as oil, salt, fruits and vegetables. They ate in silence, whichwas sometimes broken by the solemn voice of a reader. 

"No man, " says Jerome, "dares look at his neighbor or clear his throat. Silent tears roll down their cheeks, but not a sob escapes their lips. "Their labors consisted of some light handiwork or tilling the fields. They grafted trees, made beehives, twisted fish-lines, wove baskets andcopied manuscripts. It was early apparent that as man could not livealone so he could not live without labor. We shall see this principleemphasized more clearly by Benedict, but it is well to notice that atthis remote day provision was made for secular employments. Jeromeenjoins Rusticus, a young monk, always to have some work on hand thatthe devil may find him busy. "Hoe your ground, " says he, "set outcabbages; convey water to them in conduits, that you may see with yourown eyes the lovely vision of the poet, --

 "Art draws fresh water from the hilltop near, Till the stream, flashing down among the rocks, Cools the parched meadows and allays their thirst. "

There were individual cases of excessive self-torture even among thesecongregations of monks but we may say that ordinarily, organizedmonasticism was altogether less severe upon the individual thananchoretic life. The fact that the monk was seeking human fellowship isevidence that he was becoming more humane, and this softening of hisspirit betrayed itself in his treatment of himself. The aspect of lifebecame a little brighter and happier. 

Four objects were comprehended in these monastic roles, --solitude, manual labor, fasting and prayer. We need not pity these dwellers farfrom walled cities and the marts of trade. Indeed, they claim nosympathy. Religious ideals can make strange transformations in man'sdisposition and tastes. They loved their hard lives. 

The hermit Abraham said to John Cassian, "We know that in these, ourregions, there are some secret and pleasant places, where fruits areabundant and the beauty and fertility of the gardens would supply ournecessities with the slightest toil. We prefer the wilderness of thisdesolation before all that is fair and attractive, admitting nocomparison between the luxuriance of the most exuberant soil and thebitterness of these sands. " Jerome himself exclaimed, "Others may thinkwhat they like and follow each his own bent. But to me a town is aprison and solitude paradise. "

The three vows of chastity, poverty and obedience were adopted andbecame the foundation stones of the monastic institution, to be found inevery monastic order. There is a typical illustration in Kingsley'sHypatia of what they meant by obedience. Philammon, a young monk, wasconsigned to the care of Cyril, the Bishop of Alexandria, and afactious, cruel man, with an imperious will. The bishop received andread his letter of introduction and thus addressed its bearer, "Philammon, a Greek. You are said to have learned to obey. If so, youhave also learned to rule. Your father-abbot has transferred you to mytutelage. You are now to obey me. " "And I will, " was the quick response. "Well said. Go to that window and leap forth into the court. " Philammonwalked to it and opened it. The pavement was fully twenty feet below, but his business was to obey and not to take measurements. There was aflower in a vase upon the sill. He quietly removed it, and in an instantwould have leaped for life or death, when Cyril's voicethundered, "Stop!"

The Pachomian monks despised possessions of every kind. The followingpathetic incident shows the frightful extent to which they carried thisprinciple, and also illustrates the character of that submission towhich the novitiate voluntarily assented: Cassian described how Mutiussold his possessions and with his little child of eight asked admissionto a monastery. The monks received but disciplined him. "He had alreadyforgotten that he was rich, he must forget that he was a father. " Hischild was taken, clothed in rags, beaten and spurned. Obediencecompelled the father to look upon his child wasting with pain and grief, but such was his love for Christ, says the narrator, that his heart wasrigid and immovable. He was then told to throw the boy into the river, but was stopped in the act of obeying. 

Yet men, women, and even children, coveted this life of unnaturaldeprivations. "Posterity, " says Gibbon, "might repeat the saying whichhad formerly been applied to the sacred animals of the same country, that in Egypt it was less difficult to find a god than a man. " Thoughthe hermit did not claim to be a god, yet there were more monks in manymonasteries than inhabitants in the neighboring villages. Pachomius hadfourteen hundred monks in his own monastery and seven thousand under hisrule. Jerome says fifty thousand monks were sometimes assembled atEaster in the deserts of Nitria. It was not uncommon for an abbot tocommand five thousand monks. St. Serapion boasted of ten thousand. Altogether, so we are told, there were in the fifth century more thanone hundred thousand persons in the monasteries, three-fourths ofwhom were men. 

The rule of Pachomius spread over Egypt into Syria and Palestine. It wascarried by Athanasius into Italy and Gaul. It existed in variousmodified forms until it was supplanted by the Benedictine rule. 

Leaving Egypt, again we cross the Mediterranean into Asia Minor. Nearthe Black Sea, in a wild forest abounding in savage rocks and gloomyravines, there dwelt a young man of twenty-six. He had traveled inEgypt, Syria and Palestine. He had visited the hermits of the desert andstudied philosophy and eloquence in cultured Athens. In virtue eminent, in learning profound, this poetic soul sought to realize its ideal in alonely and cherished retreat--in a solitude of Pontus. 

The young monk is the illustrious saint and genius, --Basil theGreat, --the Bishop of Cæsarea, and the virtual founder of the monasticinstitution in the Greek church. The forest and glens around his hutbelonged to him, and on the other bank of the river Iris his mother andsister were leading similar lives, having abandoned earthly honors inpursuit of heaven. Hard crusts of bread appeased his hunger. No fires, except those which burned within his soul, protected him from the wintryblast. His years were few but well spent. After a while his powerfulintellect asserted itself and he was led into a clearer view of the truespiritual life. His practical mind revolted against the gross ignoranceand meaningless asceticism of Egypt. He determined to form an order thatwould conform to the inner meaning of the Bible and to a more sensibleconception of the religious life. For his time he was a wise legislator, a cunning workman and a daring thinker. The modification of his asceticideal was attended by painful struggles. Many an hour he spent with hisbosom friend, Gregory of Nazianza, discussing the subject. The middlecourse which they finally adopted is thus neatly described by Gregory:

 "Long was the inward strife, till ended thus: I saw, when men lived in the fretful world, They vantaged other men, but missed the while The calmness, and the pureness of their hearts. They who retired held an uprighter post, And raised their eyes with quiet strength toward heaven; Yet served self only, unfraternally. And so, 'twixt these and those, I struck my path, To meditate with the free solitary, Yet to live secular, and serve mankind. "

Monks in large numbers flocked to this mountain retreat of Basil's. These he banded together in an organization, the remains of which stilllive in the Greek church. So great is the influence of his life andteachings, "that it is common though erroneous to call all Orientalmonks Basilians. " His rules are drawn up in the form of answers to twohundred and three questions. He added to the three monastic vows afourth, which many authorities claim now appeared for the firsttime, --namely, that of irrevocable vows--once a monk, always a monk. 

Basil did not condemn marriage, but he believed that it was incompatiblewith the highest spiritual attainments. For the Kingdom of God's sake itwas necessary to forsake all. "Love not the world, neither the things ofthe world, " embraced to his mind the married state. By avoiding thecares of marriage a man was sure to escape, so he thought, the grosssensuality of the age. He struck at the dangers which attend thepossession of riches, by enforcing poverty. An abbot was appointed overhis cloisters to whom absolute obedience was demanded. Everywhere menneeded this lesson of obedience. The discipline of the armies wasrelaxed. The authority of religion was set at naught; laxity anddisorder prevailed even among the monks. They went roaming over thecountry controlled only by their whims. Insubordination had to bechecked or the monastic institution was doomed. Hence, Basil wasparticular to enforce a respect for law and order. 

Altogether this was an honest and serious attempt to introduce freshpower into a corrupt age and to faithfully observe the Biblical commandsas Basil understood them. The floods of iniquity were engulfing even thechurch. A new standard had to be raised and an inner circle of pious andzealous believers gathered from the multitude of half-pagan Christians, or all was lost. 

The subsequent history of Greek monachism has little interest. InRussia, at a late date, the Greek monks served some purpose in keepingalive the national spirit under the Tartar yoke, but the practicalbenefits to the East were few, in comparison with the vigorous life ofthe Western monasticism. 

Montalembert, the brilliant champion of Christian monasticism, becomesan adverse critic of the system in the East, although it is noteworthyhe now speaks of monasticism as it appears in the Greek church, which heholds to be heretical; yet his indictment is quite true: "They yieldedto all the deleterious impulses of that declining society. They havesaved nothing, regenerated nothing, elevated nothing. "

We have visited the hermit in the desert and in the monastery governedby its abbot and its rules. We must view the monk in one other aspect, that of theological champion. Here the hermit and the monk of themonastery meet on common ground. They were fighters, not debaters;fighters, not disciplined soldiers; fighters, not persuading Christians. They swarmed down from the mountains like hungry wolves. They foughtheretics, they fought bishops, they fought Roman authorities, theyfought soldiers, and fought one another. Ignorant, fanatical and cruel, they incited riots, disturbed the public peace and shed the bloodof foes. 

Theological discord was made a thousand times more bitter by theirparticipation in the controversies of the time. Furious monks became thearmed champions of Cyril, the Bishop of Alexandria. They insulted theprefect, drove out the Jews and, to the everlasting disgrace of themonks, Cyril and the church, they dragged the lovely Hypatia from herlecture hall and slew her with all the cruelty satanic ingenuity coulddevise. Against a background of black and angry sky she stands forth, asa soul through whose reason God made himself manifest. Her unblemishedcharacter, her learning and her grace forever cry aloud against anorthodoxy bereft alike of reason and of the spirit of the Nazarene. 

The fighting monks crowded councils and forced decisions. They deposedhostile bishops or kept their favorites in power by murder and violence. Two black-cowled armies met in Constantinople, and amid curses foughtwith sticks and stones a battle of creeds. Cries of "Holy! Holy! Holy!"mingled with, "It's the day of martyrdom! Down with the tyrant!" Thewhole East was kept in a feverish state. The Imperial soldiers confessedtheir justifiable fears when they said, "We would rather fight withbarbarians than with these monks. "

No wonder our perplexity increases and it seems impossible to determinewhat these men really did for the cause of truth. We have been unable todistinguish the hermit from the beasts of the fields. We hear hisgroans, see his tears, and watch him struggle with demons. We aredisgusted with his filth, amused at his fancies, grieved at hissuperstition. We pity his agony and admire his courage. We watch theprogress of order and rule out of chaos. We see monasteries grow uparound damp caves and dismal huts. We behold Simeon praying among thebirds of heaven, and look into the face of the young and handsome Basil, in whom the monastic institution of the East reaches the zenith ofits power. 

I am free to confess a profound reverence for many of these mendetermined at all hazards to keep their souls unspotted from the world. I bow before a passion for righteousness ready to part with life itselfif necessary. Yet the gross extravagances, the almost incredibleabsurdities of their unnatural lives compel us to withhold our judgment. 

One thing is certain, the strange life of those far-off years is aneloquent testimony to the indestructible craving of the human soul forself-mastery and soul-purity. 

II

_MONASTICISM IN THE WEST: ANTE-BENEDICTINE MONKS 340-480 A. D. _

We are now to follow the fortunes of the monastic system from itsintroduction in Rome to the time of Benedict of Nursia, the founder ofthe first great monastic order. 

Constantine the Great, the first Christian emperor, who madeChristianity the predominant religion in the Roman Empire, died in 337A. D. Three years later Rome heard, probably for the first time, anauthentic account of the Egyptian hermits. The story was carried to theEternal City by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, one of the mostremarkable characters in the early church, a man of surpassing courageand perseverance, an intrepid foe of heresy, "heroic and invincible, " asMilton styled him. Twenty of the forty-six years of his official lifewere spent in banishment. 

Athanasius was an intimate friend of the hermit Anthony and a persistentadvocate of the ascetic ideal. When he fled to Rome, in 340, to escapethe persecutions of the Arians, he took with him two specimens ofmonastic virtue--Ammonius and Isidore. These hermits, so filthy andsavage in appearance, albeit, as I trust, clean in heart, excitedgeneral disgust, and their story of the tortures and holiness of theirEgyptian brethren was received with derision. But men who had faced andconquered the terrors of the desert were not to be so easily repulsed. Aided by other ascetic travelers from the East they persisted in theirpropaganda until contempt yielded to admiration. The enthusiasm of theuncouth hermits became contagious. The Christians in Rome now welcomedthe story of the recluses as a Divine call to abandon a dissolutesociety for the peace and joy of a desert life. 

But before this transformation of public opinion can be appreciated, itis needful to know something of the social and religious condition ofRome in the days when Athanasius and his hermits walked her streets. 

After suffering frightful persecutions for three centuries, the Churchhad at last nominally conquered the Roman Empire; nominally, becausealthough Christianity was to live, the Empire had to die. "No medicinecould have prevented the diseased old body from dying. The time hadcome. When the wretched inebriate embraces a spiritual religion with onefoot in the grave, with a constitution completely undermined, and theseeds of death planted, then no repentance or lofty aspiration canprevent physical death. It was so in Rome. " The death-throes were longand lingering, as befits the end of a mighty giant, but death wascertain. There are many facts which explain the inability of aconquering faith to save a tottering empire, but it is impracticable forus to enter upon that wide field. Some help may be gained from thatwhich follows. 

Of morals, Rome was destitute. She possessed the material remains andsuperficial acquirements of a proud civilization, such as great publichighways, marble palaces, public baths, temples and libraries. Eleganceof manners and acquisitions of wealth indicate specious outwardrefinement. But these things are not sufficient to guarantee thepermanence of institutions or the moral welfare of a nation. In thesouls of men there was a fatal degeneracy. There was outward prosperitybut inward corruption. 

Professor Samuel Dill, in his highly instructive work on "Roman Societyin the Last Century of the Western Empire, " points out the fact thatRome's fall was due to economic and political causes as well as to thedeterioration of her morals. A close study of these causes, however, will reveal the presence of moral influences. Professor Dill says: "Thegeneral tendency of modern inquiry has to discover in the fall of thataugust and magnificent organization, not a cataclysm, precipitated bythe impact of barbarous forces, but a process slowly prepared andevolved by internal and economic causes. " Two of these causes were thedying out of municipal liberty and self-government, and the separationof the upper class from the masses by sharp distributions of wealth andprivilege. It is indeed true that these causes contributed to Rome'sruin; that the central government was weak; that the civil service wasoppressive and corrupt; that the aristocratic class was selfish; andthat the small landed proprietors were steadily growing poorer andfewer, while, on the contrary, the upper or senatorial class wasincreasing in wealth and power. But after due emphasis has been accordedto these destructive factors, it yet remains true that the want ofpublic spirit and the prevailing cultivated selfishness may be traced toa decline of faith in those religious ideals that serve to stimulate themoral life and thus preserve the national integrity. 

Society was divided into three classes. It is computed that one-half thepopulation were slaves. A large majority of the remainder were paupers, living on public charity, and constituting a festering sore thatthreatened the life of the social organism. The rich, who wererelatively few, squandered princely incomes in a single night, andexhausted their imaginations devising new and expensive forms ofsensuous pleasure. The profligacy of the nobles almost surpassescredibility, so that trustworthy descriptions read like works offiction. Farrar says: "A whole population might be trembling lest theyshould be starved by the delay of an Alexandrian corn ship, while theupper classes were squandering a fortune at a single banquet, drinkingout of myrrhine and jeweled vases worth hundreds of pounds, and feastingon the brains of peacocks and the tongues of nightingales. " Thefrivolity of the social and political leaders of Rome, the insane thirstfor lust and luxury, the absence of seriousness in the face offrightful, impending ruin, almost justify the epigram of Silvianus, "Rome was laughing when she died. "

 "On that hard pagan world disgust And secret loathing fell; Deep weariness and sated lust Made human life a hell. In his cool hall, with haggard eyes, The Roman noble lay; He drove abroad in furious guise Along the Appian Way; He made a feast, drank fierce and fast, And crowned his hair with flowers No easier nor no guicker past The impracticable hours. "

Pagan mythology and Pagan philosophy were powerless to resist thisdownward tendency. Although Christianity had become the state religion, it was itself in great danger of yielding to the decay that prevailed. The Empire was, in fact, but nominally Christian. Thousands ofecclesiastical adherents were half pagan in their spirit and practice. Harnack declares, "They were too deeply affected by Christianity toabandon it, but too little to be Christians. Pure religious enthusiasmwaned, ideals received a new form, and the dependence and responsibilityof individuals became weaker. " Even ordinary courage had everywheredeclined and the pleasures of the senses controlled the heart ofChristian society. 

Many of the men who should have resisted this gross secularization ofthe church, who ought to have set their faces against the departure fromapostolic ideals by exalting the standards of the earlier Christianity;these men, the clergy of the Christian church, had deserted their postof duty and surrendered to the prevailing worldliness. 

Jerome describes, with justifiable sarcasm, these moral weaklings, charged with the solemn responsibility of preaching a pure gospel to adying empire. "Such men think of nothing but their dress; they useperfumes freely, and see that there are no creases in their leathershoes. Their curling hair shows traces of the tongs; their fingersglisten with rings; they walk on tiptoe across a damp road, not tosplash their feet. When you see men acting that way, think of themrather as bridegrooms than as clergymen. If he sees a pillow that takeshis fancy, or an elegant table-cover, or, indeed, any article offurniture, he praises it, looks admiringly at it, takes it into hishand, and, complaining that he has nothing of the kind, begs or ratherextorts it from its owner. " Such trifling folly was fatal. The timesdemanded men of vigorous spirit, who dared to face the general decline, and cry out in strong tones against it. The age needed moral warriors, with the old Roman courage and love of sacrifice; martyrs willing to rotin prison or shed their blood in the street, not effeminate men, toyingwith fancy table-covers and tiptoeing across a sprinkled road. "And as abackground, " says Kingsley, "to all this seething heap of corruption, misrule and misery, hung the black cloud of the barbarians, the Teutonictribes from whom we derive our best blood, ever coming nearer andnearer, waxing stronger and stronger, to be soon the conquerors of theCæsars and the masters of the world. "

But there were many pure and sincere Christians--a saving remnant. Thejoyous alacrity with which men and women responded to the monastic call, and entered upon careers of self-torture for the sake of deliverancefrom moral corruption, shows that the spirit of true faith was notextinct. These seekers after righteousness may be described as "a dismaland fanatical set of men, overlooking the practical aims of life, " butit is a fair question to ask, "if they had not abandoned the world toits fate would they not have shared that fate?" "The glory of that age, "says Professor Dill, "is the number of those who were capable of suchself-surrender; and an age should be judged by its ideals, not by themediocrity of conventional religion masking worldly self-indulgence. This we have always with us; the other we have not always. "

Yet the sad fact remains that the transforming power of Christianity waspractically helpless before the surging floods of vice and superstition. The noble struggles of a few saints were as straws in a hurricane. Thechurch had all she could do to save herself. 

"When Christianity itself was in such need of reform, " says Lord, "whenChristians could scarcely be distinguished from pagans in love ofdisplay, and in egotistical ends, how could it reform the world? When itwas a pageant, a ritualism, an arm of the state, a vain philosophy, asuperstition, a formula, how could it save, if ever so dominant? Thecorruptions of the church in the fourth century are as wellauthenticated as the purity and moral elevation of Christians in thesecond century. " Even in the early days of Christianity the ruin of Romewas impending, but, at that time, the adherents of the Christianreligion were few and poor. They did not possess enough power andinfluence to save the state. When monasticism came to Rome, the lords ofthe church were getting ready to sit upon the thrones of princes, butthe dazzling victory of the church was not a spiritual conquest of sin, so the last ray of hope for the Empire was extinguished. Her fall wasinevitable. 

With this outlined picture in mind, fancy Athanasius and his monks atRome. These men despise luxury and contemn riches. They have come tomake Rome ring with the old war cries, --although they wrestled notagainst flesh and blood, but against spiritual wickedness in highplaces. Terror and despair are on every side, but they are not afraid. They know what it means to face the demons of the desert, to lie down atnight with wild beasts for companions. They have not yielded to thedepravity of the human heart and the temptations of a licentious age. They have conquered sinful appetites by self-abnegation and fasting. They come to a distracted society with a message of peace--a peace wonby courageous self-sacrifice. They call men to save their perishingsouls by surrendering their wills to God and enlisting in a campaignagainst the powers of darkness. They appeal to the ancient spirit ofcourage and love of hardship. They arouse the dormant moral energies ofthe profligate nobles, proud of the past and sick of the present. Thestory of Anthony admonished Rome that a life of sensuous gratificationwas inglorious, unworthy of the true Roman, and that the flesh could bemastered by heroic endeavor. 

Women, who spent their hours in frivolous amusements, welcomed withgratitude the discovery that they could be happy without degradation, and joyfully responded to the call of righteousness. "Despisingthemselves, " says Kingsley, "despising their husbands to whom they hadbeen wedded in loveless wedlock, they too fled from a world which hadsated and sickened them. "

Woman's natural craving for lofty friendships and pure aspirations foundsatisfaction in the monastic ideal. She fled from the incessant broilsof a corrupt court, from the courtesans that usurped the place of thewife, from the insolence and selfishness of men who scorned even theappearance of virtue and did not hesitate to degrade even their wivesand sisters. She would disprove the biting sarcasm of Juvenal, --

 "Women, in judgment weak, in feeling strong, By every gust of passion borne along. 

 * * * * *

 A woman stops at nothing, when she wears Rich emeralds round her neck, and in her ears Pearls of enormous size; these justify Her faults, and make all lawful in her eye. "

Therefore did the women hear with tremulous eagerness the story of thesaintly inhabitants of the desert, and flinging away their trinkets, they hastened to the solitude of the cell, there to mourn their follyand seek pardon and peace at the feet of the Most High. 

Likewise, the men, born to nobler tasks than fawning upon princes andsquandering life and fortune in gluttony and debauchery, blushed forshame, and abandoned forever the company of sensualists and parasites. Potitianus, a young officer of rank, read the life of Anthony, and criedto his fellow-soldier: "Tell me, I pray thee, whither all our laborstend? What do we seek? For whom do we carry arms? What can be ourgreatest hope in the palace but to be friend to the Emperor? And howfrail is that fortune! What perils! When shall this be?" Inspired by themonastic story he exchanged the friendship of the Emperor for thefriendship of God, and the military life lost all its attractiveness. 

A philosopher and teacher hears the same narrative, and his countenancebecomes grave; he seizes the arm of Alypius, his friend, and earnestlyasks: "What, then, are we doing? How is this? What hast thou beenhearing? These ignorant men rise; they take Heaven by force, and we, with our heartless sciences, behold us wallowing in the flesh and inour blood! Is it shameful to follow them, and are we not ratherdisgraced by not following them?" So, disgusted with his self-seekingcareer, his round of empty pleasures, he, too, is moved by this highercall to abandon his wickedness and devote his genius to the cause ofrighteousness. 

Ambrose, Paulinus, Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory, and many others, holdingimportant official posts or candidates for the highest honors, abandonedall their chances of political preferment in order to preach the gospelof ascetic Christianity. 

Yes, for good or evil, Rome is profoundly stirred. The pale monk, in allhis filth and poverty, is the master of the best hearts in the capital. Every one in whom aspiration is still alive, who longs for some newlight, and all who vaguely grope after a higher life, hear his voice andbecome pliant to his will. 

"Great historic movements, " says Grimke, "are born not in whirlwinds, inearthquakes, and pomps of human splendor and power, but in the agoniesand enthusiasms of grand, heroic spirits. " Monastic history, likesecular, centers in the biographies of such great men as Anthony, Basil, Jerome, Benedict, Francis, Dominic and Loyola. To understand thecharacter of the powerful forces set in motion by the coming of themonks to Rome, it is necessary to know the leading spirits whosepreeminent abilities and lofty personalities made Western monasticismwhat it was. 

The time is about 418 A. D. ; the place, a monastery in Bethlehem, nearthe cave of the Nativity. In a lonely cell, within these monastic walls, we shall find the man we seek. He is so old and feeble that he has to beraised in his bed by means of a cord affixed to the ceiling. He spendshis time chiefly in reciting prayers. His voice, once clear andresonant, sinks now to a whisper. His failing vision no longer followsthe classic pages of Virgil or dwells fondly on the Hebrew of the OldTestament. This is Saint Jerome, the champion of asceticism, thebiographer of hermits, the lion of Christian polemics, the translator ofthe Bible, and the worthy, brilliant, determined foe of a dissolutesociety and a worldly church. Although he spent thirty-four years of hislife in Palestine, I shall consider Jerome in connection with themonasticism of the West, for it was in Rome that he exercised hisgreatest influence. His translation of the Scriptures is the Vulgate ofthe Roman church, and his name is enrolled in the calendar of hersaints. "He is, " observes Schaff "the connecting link between theEastern and Western learning and religion. "

By charming speech and eloquent tongue Jerome won over the men, butprincipally the women, of Rome to the monastic life. So powerful was hismessage when addressed to the feminine heart, that mothers are said tohave locked their daughters in their rooms lest they should fall underthe influence of his magnetic voice. It was largely owing to his ownlabors that he could write in after years: "Formerly, according to thetestimony of the apostles, there were few rich, few noble, few powerfulamong the Christians. Now, it is no longer so. Not only among theChristians, but among the monks are to be found a multitude of the wise, the noble and the rich. "

Near to the very year that Athanasius came to Rome, or about 340 A. D. , Jerome was born at Stridon, in Dalmatia, in what is now called theAustro-Hungarian monarchy. His parents were modestly wealthy and wereslaveholders. His student days were spent in Rome, where he divided histime between the study of books and the revels of the streets. One daysome young Christians induced him to visit the catacombs with them. Here, before the graves of Christian martyrs, a quiet and holy influencestole into his heart, that finally led to his conversion and baptism. Embracing the monastic ideal, he gathered around him a few congenialfriends, who joined him in a covenant of rigid abstinence and asceticdiscipline. Then followed a year of travel with these companions, through Asia Minor, ending disastrously at Antioch. One of his friendsreturned home, two of them died, and he himself became so sick withfever that his life was despaired of. Undismayed by these evils, broughton by excessive austerities, he determined to retire to a lifeof solitude. 

About fifty miles southeast from Antioch was a barren waste of naturebut a paradise for monks--the Desert of Chalcis. On its western borderwere several monasteries. All about for miles, the dreary solitudes werepeopled with shaggy hermits. They saw visions and dreamed dreams incaves infested by serpents and wild beasts. They lay upon the sands, scorched in summer by the blazing sun, and chilled in winter by thewinds that blew from snowcapped mountains. For five years, Jerome dweltamong these demon-fighting recluses. Clad in sackcloth stained bypenitential tears, he toiled for his daily bread, and struggled againstvisions of Roman dancing girls. He was a most industrious reader ofbooks and a great lover of debate. Monks from far and near visited him, and together they discussed questions of theology and philosophy. 

But we may not follow this varied and eventful life in all its details. After a year or two spent at Constantinople, and three years at Rome, hereturned to the East, visiting the hermits of Egypt on his way, andfinally settled at Bethlehem. His fame soon drew around him a greatcompany of monks. These he organized into monasteries. He built ahospital, and established an inn for travelers. Lacking the necessaryfunds to carry out his projects, he dispatched his brother to the Westwith instructions to sell what was left of his property, and theproceeds of this sale he devoted to the cause. While in Bethlehem hewrote defences of orthodoxy, eulogies of the dead, lives of saints andcommentaries on the Bible. He also completed his translation of theScriptures, and wrote numerous letters to persons dwelling in variousparts of the empire. 

Jerome rendered great service to monasticism by his literary labors. Heinvested the dullest of lives with a halo of glory; under the magictouch of his rhetoric the wilderness became a gladsome place and thedesert blossomed as the rose. His glowing language transfigured the paleface and sunken eyes of the starved hermit into features positivelybeautiful, while the rags that hung loosely upon his emaciated framebecame garments of lustrous white. "Oh, that I could behold the desert, "he cries, "lovelier than any city! Oh, that I could see those lonelyspots made into a paradise by the saints that throng them!" Withoutdetracting from the bitterness of the prospect, he glorifies the couragethat can face the horrors of the desert, and the heart that can rejoicemidst the solitude of the seas. Hear him describe the home of Bonosus, ahermit on an isle in the Adriatic:

"Bonosus, your friend, is now climbing the ladder foreshown in Jacob'sdream. He is bearing his cross, neither taking thought for the morrow, nor looking back at what he has left. Here you have a youth, educatedwith us in the refining accomplishments of the world, with abundance ofwealth and in rank inferior to none of his associates; yet he forsakeshis mother, his sister, and his dearly loved brother, and settles like anew tiller of Eden on a dangerous island, with the sea roaring round itsreefs, while its rough crags, bare rocks and desolate aspect make itmore terrible still.... He sees the glory of God which even the apostlessaw not, save in the desert. He beholds, it is true, no embattled towns, but he has enrolled his name in the new city. Garments of sackclothdisfigure his limbs, yet so he will the sooner be caught up to meetChrist in the clouds. Round the entire island roars the frenzied sea, while the beetling crags along its winding shores resound as the billowsbeat against them. Precipitous cliffs surround his dreadful abode as ifit were a prison. He is careless, fearless, armed from head to foot inthe apostles' armor. "

Listen to these trumpet tones as Jerome calls to a companion of hisyouth in Rome: "O desert, enamelled with the flowers of Christ! Oretreat, which rejoicest in the friendship of God! What dost thou in theworld, my brother, with thy soul greater than the world? How long wiltthou remain in the shadow of roofs, and in the smoky dungeons of cities?Believe me, I see here more light. "

To pass hastily over such appeals, coming from distant lands across thesea to stir the minds of the thoughtful in Rome, is to ignore one of thecauses which produced the great exodus that followed. He made men seethat they were living in a moral Sodom, and that if they would savetheir souls they must escape to the desert. The power of personalinfluence, of inspiring private letters, can hardly be overemphasized instudying the remarkable progress of asceticism. Great awakenings in themoral, as in the political or the social world, may be traced to theprofound influence of individuals, whose prophetic insight and moralenthusiasm unfold the germ of the larger movements. There may bewidespread unrest, the ground may be prepared for the seed, but theimmediate cause of universal uprisings is the clarion call of genius. Thus Luther's was the voice that cried in the wilderness, inciting avast host for whom centuries had been preparing. 

But Jerome's fame as a man of learning, possessing a critical taste anda classic style of rare beauty and simplicity, must not blind us to thecrowning glory of his brilliant career. He was above all a spiritualforce. His chief appeal was to the conscience. He warmed the most torpidhearts by the fervor of his love, and encouraged the most hopeless byhis fiery zeal and heroic faith. As a promoter of monasticism, heclashed with the interests of an enfeebled clergy and a corrupt laity. Nothing could swerve him from his course. False monks might drawterrible rebukes from him, but the conviction that the soul could bedelivered from captivity to the body only by mortification remainedunshaken. He induced men to break the fetters of society that theymight, under the more favorable circumstances of solitude, wage waragainst their unruly passions. 

When parents objected to his monastic views, Jerome quoted the saying ofJesus respecting the renunciation of father and mother, and then said:"Though thy mother with flowing hair and rent garments, should show theethe breasts which have nourished thee; though thy father should lie uponthe threshold; yet depart thou, treading over thy father, and fly withdry eyes to the standard of the cross. The love of God and the fear ofhell easily rend the bonds of the household asunder. The Holy Scriptureindeed enjoins obedience, but he who loves them more than Christ loseshis soul. "

Jerome vividly portrays his own spiritual conflicts. The deserts werecrowded with saintly soldiers battling against similar temptations, thenature of which is suggested by the following excerpt from Jerome'swritings: "How often, " he says, "when I was living in the desert, in thevast solitude which gives to hermits a savage dwelling-place, parched bya burning sun, how often did I fancy myself among the pleasures of Rome!I used to sit alone because I was filled with bitterness. Sack-clothdisfigured my unshapely limbs and my skin from long neglect had becomeblack as an Ethiopian's. Tears and groans were every day my portion; andif drowsiness chanced to overcome my struggles against it, my barebones, which hardly held together, clashed against the ground. Nowalthough in my fear of hell I had consigned myself to this prison whereI had no companions but scorpions and wild beasts, I often found myselfamid bevies of girls. Helpless, I cast myself at the feet of Jesus, Iwatered them with my tears, and I subdued my rebellious body with weeksof abstinence. I remember how I often cried aloud all night till thebreak of day. I used to dread my cell as if it knew my thoughts, andstern and angry with myself, I used to make my way alone into thedesert. Wherever I saw hollow valleys, craggy mountains, steep cliffs, there I made my oratory; there the house of correction for my unhappyflesh. There, also, when I had shed copious tears and had strained myeyes to heaven, I sometimes felt myself among angelic hosts and sang forjoy and gladness. "

No doubt these men were warring against nature. Their yielding to thetemptation to obtain spiritual dominance by self-flagellation andfasting may be criticized in the light of modern Christianity. "Fanaticism defies nature, " says F. W. Robertson, "Christianity refinesit and respects it. Christianity does not denaturalize, but onlysanctifies and refines according to the laws of nature. Christianitydoes not destroy our natural instincts, but gives them a higher andnobler direction. " To all this I must assent, but, at the same time, Icannot but reverence that pure passion for holiness which led men, despairing of acquiring virtue in a degenerate age, to flee from theworld and undergo such torments to attain their soul's ideal. The form, the method of their conflict was transient, the spirit and purposeeternal. All honor to them for their magnificent and terrible struggle, which has forever exalted the spiritual ideal, and commanded meneverywhere to seek first "the Kingdom of God and its righteousness. "

Jerome was always fond of the classics, although pagan writers were notin favor with the early Christians. One night he dreamed he was calledto the skies where he was soundly flogged for reading certain paganauthors. This vision interrupted his classical studies for a time. Inlater years he resumed his beloved Virgil; and he vigorously defendedhimself against those who charged him with being a Pagan and anapostate on account of his love for Greek and Roman literature. If hisadmiration for Virgil was the Devil's work, I but give the Devil his duewhen I declare that much of the charm of Jerome's literary productionsis owing to the inspiration of classic models. 

Our attention must now be transferred from Jerome to the high-born Romanmatrons, who laid off their silks that they might clothe themselves inthe humble garb of the nun. As the narrative proceeds I shall let Jeromespeak as often as possible, that the reader may become acquainted withthe style of those biographies and eulogies which were the talk of Rome, and which have been admired so highly by succeeding generations. 

Those who embraced monasticism in Rome did so in one of two ways. Somesold their possessions, adopted coarse garments, and subsisted on theplainest food, but they did not leave the city and were still to be seenupon the streets. Jerome writes to Pammachius: "Who would have believedthat a last descendant of the consuls, an ornament of the race ofCamillus, could make up his mind to traverse the city in the black robeof a monk, and should not blush to appear thus clad in the midst ofsenators. " Some of those who remained at Rome established a sort ofretreat for their ascetic friends. 

But another class left Rome altogether. Some took up their abode on therugged isles of the Adriatic or the Mediterranean. Large numbers of themwent to the East, principally to Palestine. Jerome was practically theabbot of a Roman colony of monks and nuns. Two motives, beside thegeneral ruling desire to achieve holiness, produced this exodus to theHoly Land, which culminated centuries later in the crusades. One was adesire to see the deserts and caves, the abode of hermits famous forpiety and miracles. Jerome, as I have shown, invested these lonelyretreats and strange characters with a sort of holy romance, and hence, faith, mingled with curiosity, led men to the East. Another motive wasthe desire to visit the land of the Saviour, to tread the soilconsecrated by his labors of love, to live a life of poverty in the landwhere He had no home He could call his own. 

St. Paula was one of the women who left Rome and went to Palestine. Thestory of her life is told in a letter designed to comfort her daughterEustochium at the time of Paula's death. The epistle begins: "If all themembers of my body were to be converted into tongues, and if each of mylimbs were to be gifted with a human voice, I could still do no justiceto the virtues of the holy and venerable Paula. Of the stock of theGracchi, descended from the Scipios, she yet preferred Bethlehem toRome, and left her palace glittering with gold to dwell in a mud cabin. "Her husband was of royal blood and had died leaving her five children. At his death, she gave herself to works of charity. The poor and sickshe wrapped in her own blankets. She began to tire of the receptions andother social duties which her position entailed upon her. While in thisframe of mind, two Eastern bishops were entertained at her home during agathering of ecclesiastics. They seem to have imparted the monasticimpulse, perhaps by the rehearsal of monastic tales, for we are informedthat at this time she determined to leave servants, property andchildren, in order to embrace the monastic life. 

Let us stand with her children and kinsfolk on the shore of the sea asthey take their final farewell of Paula. "The sails were set and thestrokes of the rowers carried the vessel into the deep. On the shorelittle Toxotius stretched forth his hands in entreaty, while Rufina, nowgrown up, with silent sobs besought her mother to wait until she shouldbe married. But still Paula's eyes were dry as she turned themheavenwards, and she overcame her love for her children by her love forGod. She knew herself no more as a mother that she might approve herselfa handmaid of Christ. Yet her heart was rent within her, and shewrestled with her grief as though she were being forcibly separated fromparts of herself. The greatness of the affection she had to overcomemade all admire her victory the more. Though it is against the laws ofnature, she endured this trial with unabated faith. "

So the vessel ploughed onward, carrying the mother who thought she washonoring God and attaining the true end of being through ruthlessstrangling of maternal love. She visited Syria and Egypt and the islandsof Ponta and Cyprus. At the feet of the hermit fathers she begged theirblessing and tried to emulate the virtues she believed they possessed. At Jerusalem she fell upon her face and kissed the stone before thesepulcher. "What tears, she shed, what groans she uttered, what griefshe poured out all Jerusalem knows!"

She established two monasteries at Bethlehem, one of which was forwomen. Here, with her daughter, she lived a life of rigid abstinence. Her nuns had nothing they could call their own. If they paid too muchattention to dress Paula said, "A clean body and a clean dress mean anunclean soul. " To her credit, she was more lenient with others than withherself. Jerome admits she went to excess, and prudently observes:"Difficult as it is to avoid extremes, the philosophers are quite rightin their opinion that virtue is a mean and vice an excess, or, as we mayexpress it in one short sentence, in nothing too much. " Paula sweptfloors and toiled in the kitchen. She slept on the ground, covered by amat of goat's hair. Her weeping was incessant. As she meditated over theScriptures, her tears fell so profusely that her sight was endangered. Jerome warned her to spare her eyes, but she said: "I must disfigurethat face which, contrary to God's commandment, I have painted withrouge, white lead and antimony. " If this be a sin against the Almighty, bear witness, O ye daughters of Eve! Her love for the poor continued tobe the motive of her great liberality. In fact, her giving knew nobounds. Fuller wisely remarks that "liberality must have banks as wellas a stream;" but Paula said: "My prayer is that I may die a beggar, leaving not a penny to my daughter and indebted to strangers for mywinding sheet. " Her petition was literally granted, for she died leavingher daughter not only without a penny but overwhelmed in a massof debts. 

As Jerome approaches the description of Paula's death, he says:"Hitherto the wind has all been in my favor and my keel has smoothlyploughed through the heaving sea. But now my bark is running upon therocks, the billows are mountain high, and imminent shipwreck awaits me. "Yet Paula, like David, must go the way of all the earth. Surrounded byher followers chanting psalms, she breathed her last. An immenseconcourse of people attended her funeral. Not a single monk lingered inhis cell. Thus, the twenty hard years of self-torture for this Romanlady of culture ended in the rest of the grave. 

Upon her tombstone was placed this significant inscription:

 "Within this tomb a child of Scipio lies, A daughter of the far-famed Pauline house, A scion of the Gracchi, of the stock Of Agamemnon's self, illustrious: Here rests the lady Paula, well beloved Of both her parents, with Eustochium For daughter; she the first of Roman dames Who hardship chose and Bethlehem for Christ. "

Another interesting character of that period was Marcella, a beautifulwoman of illustrious lineage, a descendant of consuls and prefects. After a married life of seven years her husband died. She determined notto embark on the matrimonial seas a second time, but to devote herselfto works of charity. Cerealis, an old man, but of consular rank, offeredher his fortune that he might consider her less his wife than hisdaughter. "Had I a wish to marry, " was her noble reply, "I should lookfor a husband and not for an inheritance. " Disdaining all enticements toremain in society, she began her monastic career with joy and turnedher home into a retreat for women who, like herself, wished to retirefrom the world. It is not known just what rules governed theirrelations, but they employed the time in moderate fasting, prayers andalms-giving. 

Marcella lavished her wealth upon the poor. Jerome praises herphilanthropic labors thus: "Our widow's clothing was meant to keep outthe cold and not to show her figure. She stored her money in thestomachs of the poor rather than to keep it at her own disposal. " Seldomseen upon the streets, she remained at home, surrounded by virgins andwidows, obedient and loving to her mother. Among the high-born women itwas regarded as degrading to assume the costume of the nun, but she borethe scorn of her social equals with humility and grace. 

This quiet and useful life was rudely and abruptly ended by a dreadfulcatastrophe. Alaric the Goth had seized and sacked Rome. The world stoodaghast. The sad news reached Jerome in his cell at Bethlehem, whoexpressed his sorrow in forceful language: "My voice sticks in mythroat; and as I dictate, sobs choke my utterance. The city which hastaken the whole world is itself taken. " Rude barbarians invaded thesanctity of Marcella's retreat. They demanded her gold, but she pointedto the coarse dress she wore to show them she had no buried treasures. They did not believe her, and cruelly beat her with cudgels. A few daysafter the saintly heroine of righteousness went to her long home toenjoy richly-merited rest and peace. 

 "Who can describe the carnage of that night? What tears are equal to its agony? Of ancient date a sovran city falls; And lifeless in its streets and houses lie Unnumbered bodies of its citizens. In many a ghastly shape doth death appear. "

Marcella and her monastic home fell in the general ruin, but in thewords of Horace, she left "a monument more enduring than brass. " Hernoble life, so full of kind words and loving deeds, still stirs thehearts of her sisters who, while they may reject her ascetic ideal, will, nevertheless, try to emulate her noble spirit. As Jerome said ofPaula: "By shunning glory she earned glory; for glory follows virtue asits shadow; and deserting those who seek it, it seeks those whodespise it. "

Still another woman claims our attention, --Fabiola, the founder of thefirst hospital. Lecky declares that "the first public hospital and thecharity planted by that woman's hand overspread the world, and willalleviate to the end of time the darkest anguish of humanity. " She, too, was a widow who refused to marry again, but broke up her home, sold herpossessions, and with the proceeds founded a hospital into which weregathered the sick from the streets. She nursed the sufferers and washedtheir ulcers and wounds. No task was beneath her, no sacrifice ofpersonal comfort too great for her love. Many helped her with theirgold, but she gave herself. She also aided in establishing a home forstrangers at Portus, which became one of the most famous inns of thetime. Travelers from all parts of the world found a welcome and ashelter on landing at this port. When she died the roofs of Rome werecrowded with those who watched the funeral procession. Psalms werechanted, and the gilded ceilings of the churches resounded to the musicin commendation of her loving life and labors. 

These and other characters of like zeal and fortitude exemplify thespirit of the men and women who interested the West in monasticism. Muchas their errors and extravagances may be deplored, there is no questionthat some of them were types of the loftiest Christian virtues, inspiredby the most laudable motives. 

Noble and true are Kingsley's words: "We may blame those ladies, if wewill, for neglecting their duties. We may sneer, if we will, at theirweaknesses, the aristocratic pride, the spiritual vanity, we fancy wediscover. We must confess that in these women the spirit of the oldRoman matrons, which seemed to have been dead so long, flashed up forone splendid moment ere it sank into the darkness of the middle ages. "

_Monasticism and Women_

The origin of nunneries was coeval with that of monasteries, and thehistory of female recluses runs parallel to that of the men. Almostevery male order had its counterpart in some sort of a sisterhood. Thegeneral moral character of these female associations was higher thanthat of the male organizations. I have confined my treatment in thiswork to the monks, but a few words may be said at this point concerningfemale ascetics. 

Hermit life was unsuited to women, but we know that at a very early datemany of them retired to the seclusion of convent life. It will berecalled that in the biography of St. Anthony, before going into thedesert he placed his sister in the care of some virgins who were livinga life of abstinence, apart from society. It is very doubtful if anyuniform rule governed these first religious houses, or if definitelyorganized societies appear much before the time of Benedict. Thevariations in the monastic order among the men were accompanied bysimilar changes in the associations of women. 

The history of these sisterhoods discloses three interesting andnoteworthy facts that merit brief mention:

First, the effect of a corrupt society upon women. As in the case ofmen, women were moved to forsake their social duties because they wereweary of the sensual and aimless life of Rome. Those were the days ofelaborate toilettes, painted faces and blackened eyelids, of intriguesand foolish babbling. Venial faults--it may be thought--innocentdisplays of tender frailty; but woman's nature demands loftieremployments. A great soul craves occupations and recognizes obligationsmore in harmony with the true nobility of human nature. Rome had nomonitor of the higher life until the monks came with their stories ofheroic self-abnegation and unselfish toil. The women felt the force andtruth of Jerome's criticism of their trifling follies when he said: "Donot seek to appear over-eloquent, nor trifle with verse, nor makeyourself gay with lyric songs. And do not, out of affectation, followthe sickly taste of married ladies, who now pressing their teethtogether, now keeping their lips wide apart, speak with a lisp, andpurposely clip their words, because they fancy that to pronounce themnaturally is a mark of country breeding. "

Professor Dill is inclined to discount the testimony of Jeromerespecting the morals of Roman society. He thinks Jerome exaggerated theperils surrounding women. He says: "The truth is Jerome is not only amonk but an artist in words; and his horror of evil, his vividimagination, and his passion for literary effect, occasionally carry himbeyond the region of sober fact. There was much to amend in the moralsof the Roman world. But we must not take the leader of a great moralreformation as a cool and dispassionate observer. " But this observationamounts to nothing more than a cautionary word against mistaking evilscommon to all times for special symptoms of excessive immorality. Professor Dill practically concedes the truthfulness of contemporarywitnesses, including Jerome, when he says: "Yet, after all allowances, the picture is not a pleasant one. We feel that we are far away from thesimple, unworldly devotion of the freedmen and obscure toilers whoseexistence was hardly known to the great world before the age of theAntonines, and who lived in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount and inconstant expectation of the coming of their Lord. The triumphant Church, which has brought Paganism to its knees, is very different from theChurch of the catacombs and the persecutions. " The picture which Jeromedraws of the Roman women is indeed repulsive, and Professor Dill wouldgladly believe it to be exaggerated, but, nevertheless, he thinks that"if the priesthood, with its enormous influence, was so corrupt, it isonly probable that it debased the sex which is always most underclerical influence. "

But far graver charges cling to the memories of the Roman women. Crimedarkened every household. The Roman lady was cruel and impure. Shedelighted in the blood of gladiators and in illicit love. Roman law atthis time permitted women to hold and to control large estates, and itbecame a fad for these patrician ladies to marry poor men, so that theymight have their husbands within their power. All sorts of alliancescould then be formed, and if their husbands remonstrated, they, holdingthe purse strings, were able to say: "If you don't like it you canleave. " A profligate himself, the husband usually kept his counsel, andas a reward, dwelt in a palace. "When the Roman matrons became the equaland voluntary companions of their lords, " says Gibbon, "a newjurisprudence was introduced, that marriage, like other partnerships, might be dissolved by the abdication of one of the associates. " I havebut touched the fringe of a veil I will not lift; but it is easy tounderstand why those women who cherished noble sentiments welcomed themonastic life as a pathway of escape from scenes and customs from whichtheir better natures recoiled in horror. 

Secondly, the fine quality of mercy that distinguishes woman's characterdeserves recognition. Even though she retired to a convent, she couldnot become so forgetful of her fellow creatures as her male companions. From the very beginning we observe that she was more unselfish in herasceticism than they. It is true the monk forsook all, and to thatextent was self-sacrificing, but in his desire for his own salvation, hewas prone to neglect every one else. The monk's ministrations were toooften confined to those who came to him, but the nun went forth to healthe diseased and to bind up the broken-hearted. As soon as she embracedthe monastic life we read of hospitals. The desire for salvation droveman into the desert; a Christ-like mercy and divine sympathy kept hissister by the couch of pain. 

Lastly, a word remains to be said touching the question of marriage. Atfirst, the nun sometimes entered the marriage state, and, of course, left the convent; but, beginning with Basil, this practice wascondemned, and irrevocable vows were exacted. In 407, Innocent I. Closedeven the door of penitence and forgiveness to those who broke their vowsand married. 

Widows and virgins alike assumed the veil. Marriage itself was notdespised, because the monastic life was only for those who sought ahigher type of piety than, it was supposed, could be attained amid theordinary conditions of life. But marriage, as well as other so-calledsecular relations, was eschewed by those who wished to make theirsalvation sure. Jerome says: "I praise wedlock, I praise marriage, butit is because they give me virgins; I gather the rose from the thorns, the gold from the earth, the pearl from the shell. " He thereforetolerated marriage among people contented with ordinary religiousattainments, but he thought it incompatible with true holiness. Augustine admitted that the mother and her daughter may be both inheaven, but one a bright and the other a dim star. Some writers, asHelvidius, opposed this view and maintained that there was no specialvirtue in an unmarried life; that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was alsothe mother of other children, and as such was an example of Christianvirtue. Jerome brought out his guns and poured hot shot into theenemies' camp. In the course of his answer, which contained manyintolerant and acrimonious statements, he drew a comparison between themarried and the unmarried state. It is interesting because it reflectsthe opinions of those who disparaged marriage, and reveals the characterof the principles which the early Fathers advocated. It is very evidentfrom this letter against Helvidius that Jerome regarded all secularduties as interfering with the pursuit of the highest virtue. 

"Do you think, " he says, "there is no difference between one who spendsher time in prayer and fasting, and one who must, at her husband'sapproach, make up her countenance, walk with a mincing gait, and feign ashow of endearment? The virgin aims to appear less comely; she willwrong herself so as to hide her natural attractions. The married womanhas the paint laid on before her mirror, and, to the insult of herMaker, strives to acquire something more than her natural beauty. Thencome the prattling of infants, the noisy household, children watchingfor her word and waiting for her kiss, the reckoning up of expenses, thepreparation to meet the outlay. On one side you will see a company ofcooks, girded for the onslaught and attacking the meat; there you mayhear the hum of a multitude of weavers. Meanwhile a message is deliveredthat her husband and his friends have arrived. The wife, like a swallow, flies all over the house. She has to see to everything. Is the sofasmooth? Is the pavement swept? Are the flowers in the cup? Is dinnerready? Tell me, pray, amid all this, is there room for the thoughtof God?"

Such was Roman married life as it appeared to Jerome. The very dutiesand blessings that we consider the glory of the family he despised. Iwill return to his views later, but it is interesting to note theabsence at this period, of the modern and true idea that God may beserved in the performance of household and other secular duties. Womenfled from such occupations in those days that they might be religious. The disagreeable fact of Peter's marriage was overcome by the assertionthat he must have washed away the stain of his married life by the bloodof his martyrdom. Such extreme views arose partly as a reaction from anda protest against the dominant corruption, a state of affairs in whichhappy and holy marriages were rare. 

_The Spread of Monasticism in Europe_

Much more might be said of monastic life in Rome, were it not nownecessary to treat of the spread of monasticism in Europe. There aremany noble characters whom we ought to know, such as Ambrose, one ofChristendom's greatest bishops, who led a life of poverty and strictabstinence, like his sister Marcella, whom we have met. He it was, ofwhom the Emperor Theodosius said: "I have met a man who has told me thetruth. " Well might he so declare, for Ambrose refused him admission tothe church at Milan, because his hands were red with the blood of themurdered, and succeeded in persuading him to submit to discipline. ToAmbrose may be applied the words which Gibbon wrote of GregoryNazianzen: "The title of Saint has been added to his name, but thetenderness of his heart and the elegance of his genius reflect a morepleasing luster on his memory. "

The story of John, surnamed Chrysostom, who was born at Antioch, in 347, is exceedingly interesting. He was a young lawyer, who entered thepriesthood after his baptism. He at once set his heart on the monasticlife, but his mother took him to her chamber, and, by the bed where shehad given him birth, besought him in fear, not to forsake her. "My son, "she said in substance, "my only comfort in the midst of the miseries ofthis earthly life is to see thee constantly, and to behold in thy traitsthe faithful image of my beloved husband, who is no more. When you haveburied me and joined my ashes with those of your father, nothing willthen prevent you from retiring into the monastic life. But so long as Ibreathe, support me by your presence, and do not draw down upon you thewrath of God by bringing such evils upon me who have given you nooffence. " This singularly tender petition was granted, but Chrysostomturned his home into a monastery, slept on the bare floor, ate littleand seldom, and prayed much by day and by night. 

After his mother's death Chrysostom enjoyed the seclusion of a monasticsolitude for six years, but impairing his health by excessiveself-mortification he returned to Antioch in 380. He rapidly rose to aposition of commanding influence in the church. His peerless oratoricaland literary gifts were employed in elevating the ascetic ideal and inunsparing denunciations of the worldly religion of the imperial court. He incurred the furious hatred of the young and beautiful EmpressEudoxia, who united her influence with that of the ambitious Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria, and Chrysostom was banished fromConstantinople, but died on his way to the remote desert of Pityus. Hispowerful sermons and valuable writings contributed in no small degree tothe spread of monasticism among the Christians of his time. 

Then there was Augustine, the greatest thinker since Plato. "We shallmeet him, " says Schaff, "alike on the broad highways and the narrowfoot-paths, on the giddy Alpine heights and in the awful depths ofspeculation, wherever philosophical thinkers before him or after himhave trod. " He, too, like all the other leaders of thought in his time, was ascetic in his habits. Although he lived and labored forthirty-eight years at Hippo, a Numidian city about two hundred mileswest of Carthage, in Africa, Augustine was regarded as the intellectualhead not only of North Africa but of Western Christianity. He gatheredhis clergy into a college of priests, with a community of goods, thusapproaching as closely to the regular monastic life as was possible tosecular clergymen. He established religious houses and wrote a set ofrules, consisting of twenty-four articles, for the government ofmonasteries. These rules were superseded by those of Benedict, but theywere resuscitated under Charlemagne and reappeared in the famous AustinCanons of the eleventh century. Little did Augustine think that athousand years later an Augustinian monk--Luther--would abandon hisorder to become the founder of modern Protestantism. 

Augustine published a celebrated essay, --"On the Labor of Monks, "--inwhich he pointed out the dangers of monachism, condemned its abuses, andended by sighing for the quiet life of the monk who divided his daybetween labor, reading and prayer, whilst he himself spent his yearsamid the noisy throng and the perplexities of his episcopate. 

These men, and many others, did much to further monasticism. But we mustnow leave sunny Africa and journey northward through Gaul into the landof the hardy Britons and Scots. 

Athanasius, the same weary exile whom we have encountered in Egypt andin Rome, had been banished by Constantine to Treves, in 336. In 346 and349 he again visited Gaul. He told the same story of Anthony and theEgyptian hermits with similar results. 

The most renowned ecclesiastic of the Gallican church, whose name ismost intimately associated with the spread of monasticism in WesternEurope, before the days of Benedict, was Saint Martin of Tours. He livedabout the years 316-396 A. D. The chronicle of his life is by no meanstrustworthy, but that is essential neither to popularity nor saintship. Only let a Severus describe his life and miracles in glowing rhetoricand fantastic legend and the people will believe it, pronouncing himgreatest among the great, the mightiest miracle-worker of thatmiracle-working age. 

Martin was a soldier three years, against his will, under Constantine. One bleak winter day he cut his white military coat in two with hissword and clothed a beggar with half of it. That night he heard Jesusaddress the angels: "Martin, as yet only a catechumen has clothed mewith his garment. " After leaving the army he became a hermit, and, subsequently, bishop of Tours. He lived for years just outside of Toursin a cell made of interlaced branches. His monks dwelt around him incaves cut out of scarped rocks, overlooking a beautiful stream. Theywere clad in camel's hair and lived on a diet of brown bread, sleepingon a straw couch. 

But Martin's monks did not take altogether kindly to their mode of life. Severus records an amusing story of their rebellion against the meagerallowance of food. The Egyptian could exist on a few figs a day. Butthese rude Gauls, just emerging out of barbarism, were accustomed todevour great slices of roasted meat and to drink deep draughts of beer. Such sturdy children of the northern forests naturally disdained daintymorsels of barley bread and small potations of wine. True, Athanasiushad said, "Fasting is the food of angels, " but these ascetic novices, intheir perplexity, could only say: "We are accused of gluttony; but weare Gauls; it is ridiculous and cruel to make us live like angels; weare not angels; once more, we are only Gauls. " Their complaint comesdown to us as a pathetic but humorous protest of common sense againstascetic fanaticism; or, regarded in another light, it may be consideredas additional evidence of the depravity of the natural man. 

In spite of all complaints, however, Martin did not abate the severityof his discipline. As a bishop he pushed his monastic system into allthe surrounding country. His zeal knew no bounds, and his strengthseemed inexhaustible. "No one ever saw him either gloomy or merry, "remarks his biographer. Amid many embarrassments and difficulties he wasever the same, with a countenance full of heavenly serenity. He was agreat miracle-worker--that is, if everything recorded of him is true. Hecast out demons, and healed the sick; he had strange visions of angelsand demons, and, wonderful to relate, thrice he raised bodies fromthe dead. 

But all conquerors are at last vanquished by the angel of death, andMartin passed into the company of the heavenly host and the category ofsaints. Two thousand monks attended his funeral. His fame spread allover Europe. Tradition tells us he was the uncle of Saint Patrick ofIreland. Churches were dedicated to him in France, Germany, Scotland andEngland. The festival of his birth is celebrated on the eleventh ofNovember. In Scotland this day still marks the winter term, which iscalled Martinmas. Saint Martin's shrine was one of the most famous ofthe middle ages, and was noted for its wonderful cures. No saint isheld, even now, in higher veneration by the French Catholic. 

It is not known when the institution was planted in Spain, but in 380the council of Saragossa forbade priests to assume monkish habits. Germany received the institution some time in the fifth century. Theintroduction of Christianity as well as of monasticism into the BritishIsles is shrouded in darkness. A few jewels of fact may be gathered fromthe legendary rubbish. It is probable that before the days of Benedict, Saint Patrick, independently of Rome, established monasteries in Irelandand preached the gospel there; and, without doubt, before the birth ofBenedict of Nursia, there were monks and monasteries in Great Britain. The monastery of Bangor is said to have been founded about 450 A. D. 

It is probable that Christianity was introduced into Britain before theclose of the second century, and that monasticism arose some time in thefifth century. Tertullian, about the beginning of the third century, boasts that Christianity had conquered places in Britain where the Romanarms could not penetrate. Origen claimed that the power of the Saviorwas manifest in Britain as well as in Muritania. The earliest notice wehave of a British church occurs in the writings of the Venerable Bede(673-735 A. D. ), a monk whose numerous and valuable works on Englishhistory entitle him to the praise of being "the greatest literarybenefactor this or any other nation has produced. " He informs us that aBritish king--Lucius--embraced Christianity during the reign of theEmperor Aurelius, and that missionaries were sent from Rome to Britainabout that time. Lingard says the story is suspicious, since "we knownot from what source Bede, at the distance of five centuries, derivedhis information. " It seems quite likely that there must have been someChristians among the Roman soldiers or civil officials who lived inBritain during the Roman occupation of the country. The whole problemhas been the theme of so much controversy, however, that a fullerdiscussion is reserved for the next chapter. 

_Disorders and Oppositions_

But was there no protest against the progress of these asceticteachings? Did the monastic institution command the unanimous approvalof the church from the outset? There were many and strong outcriesagainst the monks, but they were quickly silenced by the counter-shoutsof praise. Even when rebellion against the system seemed formidable, itwas popular nevertheless. The lifted hand was quickly struck down, andvoices of opposition suddenly hushed. Like a mighty flood the movementswept on, --kings, when so inclined, being powerless to stop it. As Paulawas carried fainting from the funeral procession of Blæsilla, herdaughter, whispers such as these were audible in the crowd: "Is not thiswhat we have often said? She weeps for her daughter, killed withfasting. How long must we refrain from driving these detestable monksout of Rome? Why do we not stone them or hurl them into the Tiber? Theyhave misled this unhappy mother; that she is not a nun from choice isclear. No heathen mother ever wept for her children as she does forBlæsilla. " And this is Paula, who, choked with grief, refused to weepwhen she sailed from her children for the far East!

Unhappily, history is often too dignified to retail the conversations ofthe dinner-table and the gossip of private life. But this narrativeindicates that in many a Roman family the monk was feared, despised andhated. Sometimes everyday murmurs found their way into literature and sopassed to posterity. Rutilius, the Pagan poet, as he sails before ahermit isle in the Mediterranean, exclaims: "Behold, Capraria risesbefore us; that isle is full of wretches, enemies of light. I detestthese rocks scene of a recent shipwreck. " He then goes on to declarethat a young and rich friend, impelled by the furies, had fled from menand gods to a living tomb, and was now decaying in that foul retreat. This was no uncommon opinion. But contrast it with what Ambrose said ofthose same isles: "It is there in these isles, thrown down by God like acollar of pearls upon the sea, that those who would escape from thecharms of dissipation find refuge. Nothing here disturbs their peace, all access is closed to the wild passions of the world. The mysterioussound of waves mingles with the chant of hymns; and, while the watersbreak upon the shores of these happy isles with a gentle murmur, thepeaceful accents of the choir of the elect ascend toward Heaven fromtheir bosom. " No wonder the Milanese ladies guarded their daughtersagainst this theological poet. 

Even among the Christians there were hostile as well as friendly criticsof monasticism; Jovinian, whom Neander compares to Luther, is a type ofthe former. Although a monk himself, he disputed the thesis that anymerit lay in celibacy, fasting or poverty. He opposed the worship ofsaints and relics, and believed that one might retain possession of hisproperty and make good use of it. He assailed the dissolute monks andclaimed that many of Rome's noblest young men and women were withdrawnfrom a life of usefulness into the desert. He held that there was reallybut one class of Christians, namely, those who had faith in Christ, andthat a monk could be no more. But Jovinian was far in advance of hisage, and it was many years before the truth of his view gained anyconsiderable recognition. He was severely attacked by Jerome, who calledhim a Christian Epicurean, and was condemned as a heretic by a synod atMilan, in 390. Thus the reformers were crushed for centuries. The PaganEmperor, Julian, and the Christian, Valens, alike tried in vain toresist the emigration into the desert. Thousands fled, in times of perilto the state, from their civil and military duties, but the emperorswere powerless to prevent the exodus. 

That there were grounds for complaint against the monks we may know fromthe charges made even by those who favored the system. Jerome Ambrose, Augustine, and in fact almost every one of the Fathers tried to correctthe growing disorders. We learn from them that many fled from society, not to become holy, but to escape slavery and famine; and that many werelazy and immoral. Their "shaven heads lied to God. " Avarice, ambition, or cowardice ruled hearts that should have been actuated by a love ofpoverty, self-sacrifice or courage. "Quite recently, " says Jerome, "wehave seen to our sorrow a fortune worthy of Croesus brought to light bya monk's death, and a city's alms collected for the poor, left by willto his sons and successors. "

Many monks traveled from place to place selling sham relics. Augustinewrote against "those hypocrites who, in the dress of monks, wander aboutthe provinces carrying pretended relics, amulets, preservatives, andexpecting alms to feed their lucrative poverty and recompense theirpretended virtue. " It is to the credit of the Fathers of the churchthat they boldly and earnestly rebuked the vices of the monks and triedto purge the monastic system of its impurities. 

But the church sanctioned the monastic movement. She could not have doneanything else. "It is one of the most striking occurrences in history, "says Harnack, "that the church, exactly at the time when she wasdeveloping more and more into a legal institution and a sacramentalestablishment, outlined a Christian life-ideal which was incapable ofrealization within her bounds, but only alongside of her. The more sheaffiliated herself with the world, the higher and more superhuman didshe make her ideal. "

It is also noteworthy that this "life-ideal" seems to have led, inevitably, to fanaticism and other excesses, so that even at this earlydate there was much occasion for alarm. Gross immorality was disclosedas well as luminous purity; indolence and laziness as well as the loveof sacrifice and toil. So we shall find it down through the centuries. "The East had few great men, " says Milman, "many madmen; the West, madmen enough, but still very many, many great men. " We have met somemadmen and some great men. We shall meet more of each type. 

After 450 A. D. , monasticism suffered an eclipse for over half a century. It seemed as if the Western institution was destined to end in thatimbecility and failure which overtook the Eastern system. But there camea man who infused new life into the monastic body. He systematized itsscattered principles and concentrated the energies of the wandering andunorganized monks. 

Our next visit will be to the mountain home of this renowned character, fifty miles to the west of Rome. "A single monk, " says Montalembert, "isabout to form there a center of spiritual virtue, and to light it upwith a splendor destined to shine over regenerated Europe for tencenturies to come. "

III

_THE BENEDICTINES_

Saint Benedict, the founder of the famous monastic order that bears hisname, was born at Nursia, about 480 A. D. His parents, who were wealthy, intended to give him a liberal education; but their plans were defeated, for at fifteen years of age Benedict renounced his family and fortune, and fled from his school life in Rome. The vice of the city shocked anddisgusted him. He would rather be ignorant and holy, than educated andwicked. On his way into the mountains, he met a monk named Romanus, --thespot is marked by the chapel of Santa Crocella, --who gave him ahaircloth shirt and a monastic dress of skins. Continuing his journeywith Romanus, the youthful ascetic discovered a sunless cave in thedesert of Subiaco, about forty miles from Rome. Into this cell heclimbed, and in it he lived three years. It was so inaccessible thatRomanus had to lower his food to him by a rope, to which was attached abell to call him from his devotions. Once the Devil threw a stone at therope and broke it. 

But Benedict's bodily escape from the wickedness of Rome did not securehis spiritual freedom. "There was a certain lady of thin, airy shape, who was very active in this solemnity; her name was Fancy. " Time andagain, he revisited his old haunts, borne on the wings of hisimagination. The face of a beautiful young girl of previous acquaintanceconstantly appeared before him. He was about to yield to the temptationand to return, when, summoning all his strength, he made one mightyeffort to dispel the illusion forever. Divesting himself of his clothes, he rolled his naked body among the thorn-bushes near his cave. It wasdrastic treatment, but it seems to have rid his mind effectually ofdisturbing fancies. This singular self-punishment was used by Godric, the Welsh saint, in the twelfth century. "Failing to subdue hisrebellious flesh by this method, he buried a cask in the earthen floorof his cell, filled it with water and fitted it with a cover, and inthis receptacle he shut himself up whenever he felt the titillations ofdesire. In this manner, varied by occasionally passing the night up tohis chin in a river, of which he had broken the ice, he finallysucceeded in mastering his fiery nature. "

One day some peasants discovered Benedict at the entrance of his cave. Deceived by his savage appearance, they mistook him for a wild beast, but the supposed wolf proving to be a saint, they fell down andreverenced him. 

The fame of the young ascetic attracted throngs of hermits, who took uptheir abodes near his cell. After a time monasteries were established, and Benedict was persuaded to become an abbot in one of them. Hisstrictness provoked much opposition among the monks, resulting incarefully-laid plots to compass the moral ruin of their spiritual guide. An attempt to poison him was defeated by a miraculous interposition, andBenedict escaped to a solitary retreat. 

Again the moral hero became an abbot, and again the severity of hisdiscipline was resented. This time a wicked and jealous priest sought toentrap the saint by turning into a garden in which he was accustomed towalk seven young girls of exquisite physical charms. When Benedictencountered this temptation, he fled from the scene and retired to apicturesque mountain--the renowned Monte Cassino. Let Montalembertdescribe this celebrated spot among the western Apennines: "At the footof this rock Benedict found an amphitheatre of the time of the Cæsars, amidst the ruins of the town of Casinum, which the most learned andpious of Romans, Varro, that pagan Benedictine, whose memory andknowledge the sons of Benedict took pleasure in honoring, had renderedillustrious. From the summit the prospect extended on one side towardsArpinum, where the prince of Roman orators was born, and on the othertowards Aquinum, already celebrated as the birthplace of Juvenal.... Itwas amidst those noble recollections, this solemn nature, and upon thatpredestinated height, that the patriarch of the monks of the Westfounded the capital of the monastic order. "

In the year 529 a great stronghold of Paganism in these wild regionsgave way to Benedict's faith. Upon the ruins of a temple to Apollo, andin a grove sacred to Venus, arose the model of Western monasticism, --thecloister of Monte Cassino, which was to shine resplendent for a thousandyears. The limitations of my purpose will prevent me from following indetail the fortunes of this renowned retreat, but it may not be out ofplace to glance at its subsequent history. 

Monte Cassino is located three and a half miles to the northeast of thetown of Cassino, midway between Rome and Naples. About 589 A. D. TheLombards destroyed the buildings, but the monks escaped to Rome, infulfilment, so it is claimed, of a prophecy uttered by Benedict. It layin ruins until restored by Gregory II. In 719, only to be burned in 884by the Saracens; seventy years later it was again rebuilt. It afterwardspassed through a variety of calamities, and was consecrated, for thethird time, by Benedict XII. , in 1729. Longfellow quotes a writer forthe _London Daily News_ as saying: "There is scarcely a pope or emperorof importance who has not been personally connected with its history. From its mountain crag it has seen Goths, Lombards, Saracens, Normans, Frenchmen, Spaniards, Germans, scour and devastate the land which, through all modern history, has attracted every invader. "

It was enriched by popes, emperors and princes. In its palmy days theabbot was the first baron in the realm, and commanded over four hundredtowns and villages. In 1866, it shared the fate of all the monasteriesof Italy. It still stands upon the summit of the mountain, and can beseen by the traveler from the railway in the valley. At present itserves as a Catholic seminary with about two hundred students. Itcontains a spacious church, richly ornamented with marble, mosaics andpaintings. It has also a famous library which, in spite of bad usage, isstill immensely valuable. Boccaccio made a visit to the place, and whenhe saw the precious books so vilely mutilated, he departed in tears, exclaiming: "Now, therefore, O scholar, rack thy brains in the making ofbooks!" The library contains about twenty thousand volumes, and aboutthirty-five thousand popes' bulls, diplomas and charters. There are alsoabout a thousand manuscripts, some of which are of priceless value, asthey date from the sixth century downward, and consist of ancientBibles and important medieval literature. 

Benedict survived the founding of this monastery fourteen years. Histime was occupied in establishing other cloisters, perfecting his rule, and preaching. Many stories are related of his power over the hearts ofthe untamed barbarians. Galea the Goth, out on a marauding expedition, demanded a peasant to give him his treasures. The peasant, thinking toescape, said he had committed them to the keeping of Benedict. Galeaimmediately ordered him to be bound on a horse and conducted to thesaint. Benedict was seated at the gateway reading when Galea and hisprisoner arrived. Looking up from his book he fastened his eyes upon thepoor peasant, who was immediately loosed from his bonds. The astonishedGalea, awed by this miracle, fell at the feet of the abbot, and, insteadof demanding gold, supplicated his blessing. Once a boy was drowning, and, at the command of Benedict, St. Maur, a wealthy young Roman, whohad turned monk, walked safely out upon the water and rescued the lad. Gregory also tells us many stories of miraculous healing, and of oneresurrection from the dead. 

Benedict's last days were linked with a touching incident. His sister, Scholastica, presided over a convent near his own. They met once a year. On his last visit to her, Scholastica begged him to remain and "speak ofthe joys of Heaven till the morning. " But Benedict would not listen; hemust return. His sister then buried her face in her hands weeping andpraying. Suddenly the sky was overcast with clouds, and a terrific stormburst upon the mountains, which prevented her brother's return. Threedays later Benedict saw the soul of his sister entering heaven. On March21, 543, a short time after his sister's death, two monks beheld ashining pathway of stars over which the soul of Benedict passed fromMonte Cassino to heaven. Such, in brief, is the story preserved for usin his biography by the celebrated patron of monasticism, PopeGregory I. 

_The Rules of Benedict_

The rules, _regulae_, of St. Benedict, are worthy of specialconsideration, since they constitute the real foundation of his successand of his fame. His order was by far the most important monasticbrotherhood until the thirteenth century. Nearly all the other orderswhich sprang up during this interval were based upon Benedictine rules, and were really attempts to reform the monastic system on the basis ofBenedict's original practice. Other monks lived austere lives and workedmiracles, and some of them formulated rules, but it is to Benedict andhis rules that we must look for the code of Western monachism. "By astrange parallelism, " says Putnam, "almost in the very year in which thegreat Emperor Justinian was codifying the results of seven centuries ofRoman secular legislation for the benefit of the judges and thestatesmen of the new Europe, Benedict, on his lonely mountain-top, wascomposing his code for the regulation of the daily life of the greatcivilizers of Europe for seven centuries to come. "

The rules consist of a preface and seventy-three chapters. The prologuedefines the classes of monks, and explains the aim of the "school ofdivine servitude, " as Benedict described his monastery. The following isa partial list of the subjects considered: The character of an abbot, silence, maxims for good works, humility, directions as to divineservice, rules for dormitories, penalties, duties of various monasticofficers, poverty, care of the sick daily rations of food and drink, hours for meals, fasting, entertainment of guests, and dress. They closewith the statement that the Benedictine rule is not offered as an idealof perfection, or even as equal to the teaching of Cassian or Basil, butfor mere beginners in the spiritual life, who may thenceproceed further. 

The Benedictine novitiate extended over one year, but was subsequentlyincreased to three. At the close of this period the novice was given theopportunity to go back into the world. If he still persisted in hischoice, he swore before the bones of the saints to remain forever cutoff from the rest of his fellow beings. If a monk left the monastery, orwas expelled, he could return twice, but if, after the third admission, he severed his connection, the door was shut forever. 

The monk passed his time in manual labor, copying manuscripts, reading, fasting and prayer. He was forbidden to receive letters, tokens orgifts, even from his nearest-relatives, without permission from theabbot. His daily food allowance was usually a pound of bread, a pint ofwine, cider or ale, and sometimes fish, eggs, fruit or cheese. He wasdressed in a black cowl. His clothing was to be suitable to the climateand to consist of two sets. He was also furnished with a straw mattress, blanket, quilt, pillow, knife, pen, needle, handkerchief and tablets. Hewas, in all things, to submit patiently to his superior, to keepsilence, and to serve his turn in the kitchen. In the older days themonks changed their clothes on the occasion of a bath, which used to betaken four times a year. Later, bathing was allowed only twice a year, and the monks changed their clothes when they wished. 

Various punishments were employed to correct faults. Sometimes theoffender was whipped on the bare shoulders with a thick rod; others hadto lie prostrate in the doorway of the church at each hour, so that themonks passed over his body on entering or going out. 

The monks formerly rose at two o'clock, and spent the day in variousoccupations until eight at night, when they retired. The following rulesonce governed St. Gregory's Monastery in England: "3:45 A. M. Rise. 4A. M. Matins and lauds, recited; half-hour mental prayer; prime _sung_;prime B. V. M. Recited. 6:30 A. M. Private study; masses; breakfast forthose who had permission. 8 A. M. Lectures and disputations. 10 A. M. Little hours B. V. M. , recited; tierce, mass, sext, _sung_. 11:30 A. M. Dinner. 12 noon. None _sung_; vespers and compline B. V. M. , recited. 12:30 P. M. Siesta, 1 P. M. Hebrew or Greek lecture. 2 P. M. Vespers_sung_. 2:30 P. M. Lectures and disputations. 4 P. M. Private study. 6P. M. Supper. 6:30 P. M. Recreation. 7:30 P. M. Public spiritual reading;compline _sung_; matins and lauds B. V. M. , recited; half-hour mentalprayer. 8:45 P. M. Retire[D]. "

[Footnote D: Appendix, Note D. ]

Such a routine suggests a dreary life, but that would depend upon themonk's temperament. Regularity of employment kept him healthy, and if hedid not take his sins too much to heart, he was free from gloom. Hillvery justly observes: "Whenever men obey that injunction of labor, nomatter what their station, there is in the act the element of happiness, and whoever avoids that injunction, there is always the shadow of theunfulfilled curse darkening their path. " Thus, their ideal was "tosubdue one's self and then to devote one's self, " which De Tocquevillepronounces "the secret of strength. " How well they succeeded inrealizing their ideal by the methods employed we shall see later. 

The term "order, " as applied to the Benedictines, is used in a differentsense from that which it has when used of later monastic bodies. EachBenedictine house was practically independent of every other, while thehouses of the Dominicans, Franciscans or Jesuits were bound togetherunder one head. The family idea was peculiar to the Benedictines. Theabbot was the father, and the monastery was the home where theBenedictine was content to dwell all his life. In the later monasticsocieties the monks were constantly traveling from place to place. Taunton says: "As God made society to rest on the basis of the family, so St. Benedict saw that the spiritual family is the surest basis forthe sanctification of the souls of his monks. The monastery therefore isto him what the 'home' is to lay-folk.... From this family idea comesanother result: the very fact that St. Benedict did not found an Orderbut only gave a Rule, cuts away all possibility of that narrowing_esprit de corps_ which comes so easily to a widespread andhighly-organized body. "

In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, however, it became necessaryfor the general good of each family to secure some kind of union. TheChapter then came into existence, which was a representative body, composed of the heads of the different houses and ordinary monksregularly appointed as delegates. To the Chapter were committed variousmatters of jurisdiction, and also the power of sending visitors to thedifferent abbeys in the pope's name. 

Each society was ruled by an abbot, who governed in Christ's stead. Sometimes the members of the monastery were consulted, the older onesordinarily, the whole congregation; in important matters. But implicitobedience to the abbot, as the representative of God, was demandedby the vows. 

The abbot was to be elected by the monks. At various periods popes andprinces usurped this power, but the monks always claimed the right as anoriginal privilege. Carlyle quotes Jocelin on Abbot Samson, who saysthat the monks of St. Edmundsbury were compelled to submit their choiceto Henry II. , who, looking at the committee of monks somewhat sternly, said: "You present to me Samson; I do not know him; had it been yourprior, whom I do know, I should have accepted him; however, I will nowdo as you wish. But have a care of yourselves. By the true eyes of God, if you manage badly, I will be upon you. "

In Walter Scott's novel, "The Abbot, " there is an interesting contrastdrawn between the ceremonies attending an abbot's installation, when themonasteries were in their glory, and the pitiable scenes in the days oftheir decline, when Mary Stuart was a prisoner in Lochleven. In themonastery of Kennaquhair, which had been despoiled by the fury of thetimes, a few monks were left to mourn the mutilated statues and weepover the fragments of richly-carved Gothic pillars. Having secretlyelected an abbot, they assembled in fear and trembling to invest himwith the honors of his office. "In former times, " says Scott, "this wasone of the most splendid of the many pageants which the hierarchy ofRome had devised to attract the veneration of the faithful. When thefolding doors on such solemn occasions were thrown open, and the newabbot appeared on the threshold in full-blown dignity, with ring andmitre and dalmatique and crosier, his hoary standard-bearers andjuvenile dispensers of incense preceding him, and the venerable train ofmonks behind him, his appearance was the signal for the magnificentjubilate to rise from the organ and the music-loft and to be joined bythe corresponding bursts of 'Alleluiah' from the whole assembledcongregation. 

"Now all was changed. Father Ambrose stood on the broken steps of thehigh altar, barefooted, as was the rule, and holding in his hand hispastoral staff, for the gemmed ring and jewelled mitre had becomesecular spoils. No obedient vassals came, man after man, to make theirhomage and to offer the tribute which should provide their spiritualsuperior with palfrey and trappings. No bishop assisted at the solemnityto receive into the higher ranks of the church nobility a dignitarywhose voice in the legislature was as potent as his own. "

We are enabled by this partially-quoted description to imagine theimportance attached to the election of an abbot. He became, in feudaltimes, a lord of the land, the richest man in the community, and atremendous power in political councils and parliaments. A Benedictineabbot once confessed: "My vow of poverty has given me a hundred thousandcrowns a year; my vow of obedience has raised me to the rank of asovereign prince. "

No new principle seems to be disclosed by the Benedictine rules. Thecommand to labor had been emphasized even in the monasteries of Egypt. The Basilian code contained a provision enforcing manual labor, but thework was light and insufficient to keep the mind from brooding. Themonastery that was to succeed in the West must provide for men who notonly could toil hard, but who must do so if they were to be kept pureand true; it must welcome men accustomed to the dangerous adventures ofpioneer life in the vast forests of the North. The Benedictine systemmet these conditions by a unique combination and application ofwell-known monastic principles; by a judicious subordination of minormatters to essential discipline; by bringing into greater prominencethe doctrine of labor; by tempering the austerities of the cell to meetthe necessities of a severe climate; and lastly, by devising a scheme oflife equally adaptable to the monk of sunny Italy and the rude Goth ofthe northern forests. 

It was the splendid fruition of many years of experiment amid varyingresults. "It shows, " says Schaff, "a true knowledge of human nature, thepractical wisdom of Rome and adaptation to Western customs; it combinessimplicity with completeness, strictness with gentleness, humility withcourage and gives the whole cloister life a fixed unity and compactorganization, which, like the episcopate, possessed an unlimitedversatility and power of expansion. "

_The Struggle against Barbarism_

No institution has contributed as much to the amelioration of humanmisery or struggled as patiently and persistently to influence societyfor good as the Christian church. In spite of all that may be saidagainst the followers of the Cross, it still remains true, that theyhave ever been foremost in the establishment of peace and justiceamong men. 

The problem that confronted the church when Benedict began his labors, was no less than that of reducing a demoralized and brutal society tolaw and order. Chaos reigned, selfishness and lust ruled the hearts ofRome's conquerors. The West was desolated by barbarians; the Eastdismembered and worn out by theological controversy. War had ruined thecommerce of the cities and laid waste the rural districts. Vast swampsand tracts of brush covered fields once beautiful with the products ofagricultural labor. The minds of men were distracted by apprehensions ofsome frightful, impending calamity. The cultured Roman, the untutoredGoth and the corrupted Christian were locked in the deadly embrace ofdespair. "Constantly did society attempt to form itself, " says Guizot, "constantly was it destroyed by the act of man, by the absence of themoral conditions under which alone it can exist. "

But notwithstanding failures and discouragements, the work ofreconstructing society moved painfully on, and among the brave masterbuilders was Benedict of Nursia. "He found the world, physical andsocial, in ruins, " says Cardinal Newman, "and his mission was to restoreit in the way, --not of science, but of nature; not as if setting aboutto do it; not professing to do it by any set time, or by any series ofstrokes; but so quietly, patiently, gradually, that often till the workwas done, it was not known to be doing. It was a restoration rather thana visitation, correction or conversion. The new world he helped tocreate was a growth rather than a structure. "

But the chaos created by the irruption of the barbarous nations at thisperiod seriously affected the moral character and influence of theclergy and the monks. The church seemed unequal to the stupendousundertaking of converting the barbarians. The monks, as a class, werelawless and vicious. Benedict himself testifies against them, anddeclares that they were "always wandering and never stable; that theyobey their own appetites, whereunto they are enslaved. " Unable tocontrol their own desires by any law whatsoever, they were unfitted tothe task before them. It was imperative, then, that unity and ordershould be introduced among the monasteries; that some sort of a uniformrule, adapted to the existing conditions, should be adopted, not onlyfor the preservation of the monastic institution, but for thepreparation of the monks for their work. Therefore, although theChristianity of that time was far from ideal, it was, nevertheless, areligion within the grasp of the reckless barbarians; and subsequentevents prove that it possessed a moral power capable of humanizingmanners, elevating the intellect, and checking the violent temper ofthe age. 

Excepting always the religious services of the Benedictine monks, theirgreatest contribution to civilization was literary and educational[E]. The rules of Benedict provided for two hours a day of reading, and itwas doubtless this wise regulation that stimulated literary tastes, andresulted in the collecting of books and the reproduction of manuscripts. "Wherever a Benedictine house arose, or a monastery of any one of theOrders, which were but offshoots from the Benedictine tree, books weremultiplied and a library came into existence, small indeed at first, butincreasing year by year, till the wealthier houses had gathered togethercollections of books that would do credit to a modern university. "There was great danger that the remains of classic literature might bedestroyed in the general devastation of Italy. The monasteries rescuedthe literary fragments that escaped, and preserved them. "For a periodof more than six centuries the safety of the literary heritage ofEurope, --one may say of the world, --depended upon the scribes of a fewdozen scattered monasteries. "

[Footnote E: Appendix, Note E. ]

The literary services of the earlier monks did not consist in originalproduction, but in the reproduction and preservation of the classics. This work was first begun as a part of the prescribed routine ofEuropean monastic life in the monastery at Vivaria, or Viviers, France, which was founded by Cassiodorus about 539. The rules of this cloisterwere based on those of Cassian, who died in the early part of the fifthcentury. Benedict, at Monte Cassino, followed the example ofCassiodorus, and the Benedictine Order carried the work on for the sevensucceeding centuries. 

Cassiodorus was a statesman of no mean ability, and for over forty yearswas active in the political circles of his time, holding high officialpositions under five different Roman rulers. He was also an exceptionalscholar, devoting much of his energy to the preservation of classicliterature. His magnificent collection of manuscripts, rescued from theruins of Italian libraries, "supplied material for the pens of thousandsof monastic scribes. " If we leave out Jerome, it is to Cassiodorus thatthe honor is due for joining learning and monasticism. 

"Thus, " remarks Schaff, "that very mode of life, which, in its founder, Anthony, despised all learning, became in the course of its developmentan asylum of culture in the rough and stormy times of the migration andthe crusades, and a conservator of the literary treasures of antiquityfor the use of modern times. "

Cassiodorus, with a noble enthusiasm, inspired his monks to their task. He even provided lamps of ingenious construction, that seem to have beenself-trimming, to aid them in their work. He himself set an example ofliterary diligence, astonishing in one of his age. 

Putnam is justified in his praises of this remarkable character when hedeclares: "It is not too much to say that the continuity of thought andcivilization of the ancient world with that of the middle ages was due, more than to any other one man, to the life and labors of Cassiodorus. "

But the monk was more than a scribe and a collector of books, he becamethe chronicler and the school-teacher. "The records that have come downto us of several centuries of medieval European history are due almostexclusively to the labors of the monastic chroniclers. " A vast fund ofinformation, the value of which is impaired, it is true, by much uselessstuff, concerning medieval customs, laws and events, was collected bythese unscientific historians and is now accessible to the student. 

At the end of the ninth century nearly all the monasteries of Europeconducted schools open to the children of the neighborhood. Thecharacter of the educational training of the times is not to be judgedby modern standards. A beginning had to be made, and that too at a time"when neither local nor national governments had assumed anyresponsibilities in connection with elementary education, and when themunicipalities were too ignorant, and in many cases too poor, to makeprovision for the education of the children. " It is therefore to thelasting credit of Benedict, inspired no doubt by the example ofCassiodorus, that he commanded his monks to read, encouraged literarywork, and made provision for the education of the young. 

The Benedictines rendered a great social service in reclaiming desertedregions and in clearing forests. "The monasteries, " says Maitland, "were, in those days of misrule and turbulence, beyond all price, notonly as places where (it may be imperfectly, but better than elsewhere)God was worshipped, ... But as central points whence agriculture was tospread over bleak hills and barren downs and marshy plains, and deal itsbread to millions perishing with hunger and its pestilential train. "Roman taxation and barbarian invasions had ruined the farmers, who lefttheir lands and fled to swell the numbers of the homeless. The monkrepeopled these abandoned but once fertile fields, and carriedcivilization still deeper into the forests. Many a monastery with itssurrounding buildings became the nucleus of a modern city. The moreawful the darkness of the forest solitudes, the more the monks lovedit. They cut down trees in the heart of the wilderness, and transformeda soil bristling with woods and thickets into rich pastures and ploughedfields. They stimulated the peasantry to labor, and taught them manyuseful lessons in agriculture. Thus, they became an industrial, as wellas a spiritual, agency for good. 

The habits of the monks brought them into close contact with nature. Even the animals became their friends. Numerous stories have beenrelated of their wonderful power over wild beasts and theirconversations with the birds. "It is wonderful, " says Bede, "that he whofaithfully and loyally obeys the Creator of the universe, should, in histurn, see all the creatures obedient to his orders and his wishes. " Theylived, so we are told, in the most intimate relations with the animalcreation. Squirrels leaped to their hands or hid in the folds of theircowls. Stags came out of the forests in Ireland and offered themselvesto some monks who were ploughing, to replace the oxen carried off by thehunters. Wild animals stopped in their pursuit of game at the command ofSt. Laumer. Birds ceased singing at the request of some monks untilthey had chanted their evening prayer, and at their word the featheredsongsters resumed their music. A swan was the daily companion of St. Hugh of Lincoln, and manifested its miraculous knowledge of hisapproaching death by the most profound melancholy. While all the detailsof such stories are not to be accepted as literally true, no doubt someof this poetry of monastic history rests upon interesting andcharming facts. 

A fuller discussion of the permanent contributions which the monk madeto civilization is reserved for the last chapter. I have somewhatanticipated a closer scrutiny of his achievements in order to present aclearer view of his life and labors. His religious duties were, perhaps, wearisome enough. We might tire of his monotonous chanting and incessantvigils, but it is gratifying to know that he also engaged in practicaland useful employments. The convent became the house of industry as wellas the temple of prayer. The forest glades echoed to the stroke of theaxe as well as to hymns of praise. Yes, as Carlyle writes of the twelfthcentury, "these years were no chimerical vacuity and dreamland peopledwith mere vaporous phantasms, but a green solid place, that grew cornand several other things. The sun shone on it, the vicissitudes ofseasons and human fortunes. Cloth was woven and worn; ditches were dug, furrowed fields ploughed and houses built. "

_The Spread of the Benedictine Rule_

It is generally held that Benedict had no presentiment of the vasthistorical importance of his system; and that he aspired to nothingbeyond the salvation of his own soul and those of his brethren. 

But the rule spread with wonderful rapidity. In every rich valley arosea Benedictine abbey. Britain, Germany, Scandinavia, France and Spainadopted his rule. Princes, moved by various motives, hastened to bestowgrants of land on the indefatigable missionary who, undeterred by thewildness of the forest and the fierceness of the barbarian, settled inthe remotest regions. In the various societies of the Benedictines therehave been thirty-seven thousand monasteries and one hundred and fiftythousand abbots. For the space of two hundred and thirty-nine years theBenedictines governed the church by forty-eight popes chosen from theirorder. They boast of two hundred cardinals, seven thousand archbishops, fifteen thousand bishops and four thousand saints. The astonishingassertion is also made that no less than twenty emperors and forty-sevenkings resigned their crowns to become Benedictine monks. Their conventsclaim ten empresses and fifty queens. Many of these earthly rulersretired to the seclusion of the monastery because their hopes had beencrushed by political defeat, or their consciences smitten by reason ofcrime or other sins. Some were powerfully attracted by the heroicelement of monastic life, and these therefore spurned the luxuries andemoluments of royalty, in order by personal sacrifice to achievespiritual domination in this life, and to render their future salvationcertain. But whatever the motive that drew queens and princes to themonastic order, the retirement of such large numbers of the nobilityindicates the influence of a religious system which could cope sosuccessfully with the attractions of the palace and the natural passionfor political dominion. 

Saint Gregory the Great, the biographer of Benedict, who was born atRome in 540 A. D. And so was nearly contemporaneous with Benedict was azealous promoter of the monastic ideal, and did as much as any one toadvance its ecclesiastical position and influence. He founded sevenmonasteries with his paternal inheritance, and became the abbot of oneof them. He often expressed a desire to escape the clamor of the worldby retirement to a lonely cell. Inspired by the loftiest estimates ofhis holy office, he sought to reform the church in its spirit and life. Many of his innovations in the church service bordered upon a dangerousand glittering pomp; but the musical world will always revere his memoryfor the famous chants that bear his name. 

Gregory surrounded himself with monks, and did everything in his powerto promote their interests. He increased the novitiate to two years, andexempted certain monasteries from the control of the bishops. Otherpopes added to these exemptions, and thus widened the breach whichalready existed between the secular clergy and the monks. He also fixeda penalty of lifelong imprisonment for abandonment of themonastic life. 

Under Gregory's direction many missionary enterprises were carried on, notably that of Augustine to England. The story runs that one dayGregory saw some men and beautiful children from Britain put up for salein the market-place. Deeply sighing, he exclaimed: "Alas for grief! Thatthe author of darkness possesses men of so bright countenance, and thatso great grace of aspect bears a mind void of inward grace!" He thenasked the children the name of their nation. "Angles, " was the reply. "It is well, " he said, "for they have _angelic_ faces. What is the nameof your province?" It was answered, "Deira. " "Truly, " he said, "_De-ira-ns, _ drawn from anger, and called to the mercy of Christ. Howis your king called?" They answered, "Ælla, or Ella. " Then he cried"_Alleluia!_ it behooves that the praise of God the Creator should besung in those parts. " While it is hard to accept this evidently fancifulstory in its details, it seems quite probable that the sale of someEnglish slaves in a Roman market drew the attention of Gregory to theneeds of Britain. 

Some years afterwards, in 596, Gregory commissioned Augustine, prior ofthe monastery of St. Andrew's on the Celian Hill, at Rome, with fortycompanions, to preach the gospel in Britain. When this celebratedmissionary landed on the island of Thanet, he found monasticism hadpreceded him. But what was the nature of this British monasticism? Onthat question Rome and England are divided. 

The Romanist declares that no country received the Christian faith moredirectly from the Church of Rome than did England; that the most carefulstudy of authentic records reveals no doctrinal strife, no diversity ofbelief between the early British monks and the Pope of Rome; that St. Patrick, of Ireland, and St. Columba, of Scotland, were loyal sons oftheir Roman mother. 

The Anglican, on the other hand, believes that Christianity wasintroduced into Britain independently of Rome. As to the precise meansemployed, he has his choice of ten legends. He may hold with Lane thatit is reasonable to suppose one of Paul's ardent converts, burning withfervent zeal, led the Britons to the cross. Or he may argue with others:"What is more natural than to imagine that Joseph of Arimathea, drivenfrom Palestine, sailed away to Britain. " In proof of this assumption, weare shown the chapel of St. Joseph, the remains of the oldest Christianchurch, where the holy-thorn blossoms earlier than in any other part ofEngland. Many Anglicans wisely regard all this as legendary. It is alsoheld that St. Patrick and St. Columba were not Romanists, butrepresented a type of British Christianity, which, although temporarilysubjected to Rome, yet finally threw off the yoke under Henry VIII. Andreasserted its ancient independence. Still others declare that whenAugustine was made archbishop, the seat of ecclesiastical authority wastransferred from Rome to Canterbury, and the English church became anindependent branch of the universal church. It was Catholic, butnot Roman. 

The difficulty of ascertaining when and by whom Christianity wasoriginally introduced into southern Britain must be apparent to everystudent. But some things may be regarded as historically certain. Thewhole country had been desolated by war when Augustine arrived. For ahundred and fifty years the brutality and ignorance of the barbarianshad reigned supreme. All traces of Roman civilization had nearlydisappeared with the conquest of the heathen Anglo-Saxons. Whatever maybe thought about the subsequent effects of the triumph of RomanChristianity, it is due to Rome to recognize the fact that with thecoming of the Roman missionaries religion and knowledge began anew life. 

The Anglo-Saxons had destroyed the Christian churches and monasteries, whose origin, as we have seen, is unknown. They drove away or massacredthe priests and monks. Christianity was practically extirpated in thosedistricts subject to the Germanic yoke. But when Augustine landedBritish monks were still to be found in various obscure parts of thecountry, principally in Ireland and Wales. Judging from what is known ofthese monks, it is safe to say that their habits and teachings werebased on the traditions of an earlier Christianity, and that originallyBritish Christianity was independent of Rome. 

The monks in Britain at the time when Augustine landed differed from theRoman monks in their tonsures, their liturgy, and the observance ofEaster, although no material difference in doctrine can be established. The clergy did not always observe the law of celibacy nor perhaps theRoman rules of baptism. It is also admitted, even by Catholichistorians, that the British monks refused to acknowledge Augustinetheir archbishop; that this question divided the royal family; and thatthe old British church was not completely subdued until Henry II. Conquered Ireland and Wales. These statements are practically supportedby Ethelred L. Taunton, an authoritative writer, whose sympathy withRoman monasticism is very strong. He thinks that a few of the Britishmonks submitted to Augustine, but of the rest he says: "They would notheed the call of Augustine, and on frivolous pretexts refused toacknowledge him. " A large body of British monks retired to the monasteryof Bangor, and when King Ethelfrid invaded the district of Wales, heslew twelve hundred of them in the open field as they were upon theirknees praying for the success of the Britons. It was then that the powerof the last remnants of Celtic or British Christianity was practicallybroken, and the Roman type henceforth gradually acquired the mastery. 

Montalembert says: "In no other country has Catholicism been persecutedwith more sanguinary zeal; and, at the same time, none has greater needof her care. " While the latter observation is open to dispute, it iscertainly true that England has never remained quiet under the dominionof Rome. Goldsmith's tribute to the English character suggests areasonable explanation of this historic fact:

 "Stern o'er each bosom reason holds her state, Fierce in their native hardiness of soul, True to imagined right, above control, While even the peasant boasts those rights to scan, And learns to venerate himself as man. "

The fact to be remembered, as we emerge from these ecclesiasticalquarrels and the confusions of this perplexing history, is that themonks were the intellectual and religious leaders of those days. Theyexercised a profound influence upon English society, and had much to dowith the establishment of English institutions. 

But, on the other hand, the continent is indebted to England for thegift of many noble monks who served France and Germany as intellectualand moral guides, at a time when these countries were in a state ofextreme degradation. Boniface, the Apostle to the Germans, who isregarded by Neander as the Father of the German church and the realfounder of the Christian civilization of Germany, was the gift of theEnglish cloisters, and a native of Devonshire. Alcuin, theecclesiastical prime minister of Charlemagne and the greatest educatorof his time, was born and trained in England. Nearly all the leadingschools of France were founded or improved by this celebrated monk. Itwas largely due to Alcuin's unrivaled energy and splendid talents thatCharlemagne was able to make so many and so glorious educationalimprovements in his empire. 

Notable among the men who introduced the Benedictine rule into Englandwas St. Wilfred (634-709 A. D. ), who had traveled extensively in Franceand Italy, and on his return carried the monastic rule into northernBritain. He also is credited with establishing a course of musicaltraining in the English monasteries. He was the most active prelate ofhis age in the founding of churches and monasteries, and in securinguniformity of discipline and harmony with the Church of Rome. 

One of the most famous monastic retreats of those days was the wild andlonely isle of Iona, the Mecca of monks and the monastic capital ofScotland. It is a small island, three miles long and one broad, lyingwest of Scotland. Many kings of Scotland were crowned here on a stonewhich now forms a part of the British coronation chair. Its greatmonastery enjoyed the distinction from the sixth to the eighth centuryof being second to none in its widespread influence in behalf of theintellectual life of Europe. 

This monastery was originally founded in the middle of the sixth centuryby Columba, the Apostle to Caledonia, an Irish saint actively associatedwith a wonderful intellectual awakening. The rule of the monastery isunknown, but it is probable that it could not have been, at the first, of the Benedictine type. Columba's followers traveled as missionariesand teachers to all parts of Europe, and it is said, they dared to sailin their small boats even as far as Iceland. 

Dr. Johnson says in his "Tour to the Hebrides": "We are now treadingthat illustrious island which was once the luminary of the Caledonianregions, whence savage clans and roving barbarians derived the benefitsof knowledge and the blessing of religion. That man is little to beenvied whose patriotism would not gain force upon the plain of Marathon, or whose piety would not grow warmer among the ruins of Iona. " Themonastery which Columba founded here was doubtless of the same characteras the establishments in Ireland. Many of these Celtic buildings weremade of the branches of trees and supported by wooden props. It was sometime before properly-constructed wooden churches or monasteries becamegeneral in these wild regions. In such rude huts small libraries werecollected and the monks trained to preach. Ireland was then the centerof knowledge in the North. Greek, Latin, music and such science as themonks possessed were taught to eager pupils. Copies of their manuscriptsare still to be found all over Europe. Their schools were open to therich and poor alike. The monks went from house to house teaching anddistributing literature. As late as the sixteenth century, students fromvarious parts of the Continent were to be found in these Irish schools. 

There is an interesting story related of Columba's literary activities. It is said that on one occasion while visiting his master, Finnian, heundertook to make a clandestine copy of the abbot's Psalter. When themaster learned of the fact, he indignantly charged Columba with theft, and demanded the copy which he had made, on the ground that a copy madewithout permission of the author was the property of the original owner, because a transcript is the offspring of the original work. Putnam, towhom I am indebted for this story, says: "As far as I have been able toascertain, this is the first instance which occurs in the history ofEuropean literature of a contention for a copyright. " The conflict forthis copyright afterwards developed into a civil war. The copy of theLatin Psalter "was enshrined in the base of a portable altar as thenational relic of the O'Donnell clan, " and was preserved by that familyfor thirteen hundred years. It was placed on exhibition as late as 1867, in the museum of the Royal Irish Academy. 

Enough has now been said to enable the reader to understand something ofthe spirit and labors of the monks in an age characteristicallybarbaric. For five centuries, from the fifth to the tenth, thecondition of Europe was deplorable. "It may be doubted, " says an oldwriter, "whether the worst of the Cæsars exceeded in dark malignity, orin capriciousness of vengeance, the long-haired kings of France. " Themoral sense of even the most saintly churchmen seems to have beenblunted by familiarity with atrocities and crimes. Brute force was thecommon method of exercising control and administering justice. Thebarbarians were bold and independent, but cruel and superstitious. Theirfurious natures needed taming and their rude minds tutoring. Even thoughduring this period churches and monasteries were raised in amazingnumbers, yet the spirit of barbarism was so strong that the Christianscould scarcely escape its influence. The power of Christianity wasmodified by the nature of the people, whose characters it aimed totransform. The remarks of William Newton Clarke respecting theChristians of the first and second centuries are also appropriate to theperiod under review: "The people were changed by the new faith, but thenew faith was changed by the people. " Christianity "made a new people, better than it found them, but they in turn made a new Christianity, with its strong points illustrated and confirmed in their experience, but with weakness brought in from their defects. "

Yes, the work of civilizing the Germanic nations was a task of herculeanproportions and of tremendous significance. Out of these tribes were tobe constructed the nations of modern Europe. To this important missionthe monks addressed themselves with such courage, patience, faith andzeal, as to entitle them to the veneration of posterity. With singularwisdom and unflinching bravery they carried on their missionary andeducational enterprises, in the face of discouragements and obstaclessufficient to dismay the bravest souls. The tenacious strength of thosewild forces that clashed with the tenderer influences of the cloistershould soften our criticism of the inconsistencies which detract fromthe glory of those early ministers of righteousness and exemplars ofgentleness and peace. 

IV

_REFORMED AND MILITARY ORDERS_

The monastic institution was never entirely good or entirely bad. Inperiods of general degradation there were beautiful exceptions inmonasteries ruled by pure and powerful abbots. From the beginningvarious monasteries soon departed from their discipline by shelteringiniquity and laziness, while other establishments faithfully observedthe rules. But during the eighth, ninth and tenth centuries there was awidespread decline in the spirit of devotion and a shameful relaxationof monastic discipline. Malmesbury, King Alfred, Alcuin, in England, andmany continental writers, sorrowfully testified against the monksbecause of their vices, their revelings, their vain and gorgeousornaments of dress and their waning zeal for virtue. The priests huntedand fought, prayed, preached, swore and drank as they pleased. "Wecannot wonder, " says an anonymous historian, "that they should committhe more reasonable offence of taking wives. " Disorders were commoneverywhere; the monastic vows were sadly neglected. Political andreligious ideals were lost sight of amid the prevailing confusion andwild commotion of those dark days. "It is true, " says Carlyle, "allthings have two faces, a light one and a dark. It is true in threecenturies much imperfection accumulates; many an ideal, monastic orotherwise, shooting forth into practice as it can, grows to a strangereality; and we have to ask with amazement, Is this your ideal? For alasthe ideal has to grow into the real, and to seek out its bed and boardthere, often in a sorry way. "

This, then, may be accepted as the usual history of a monastery or amonastic order. First, vows of poverty, obedience and chastity zealouslycherished and observed; as a result of loyalty to this ideal, a spiritof devotion to righteousness is created, and a pure, lofty type ofChristian life is formed, which, if not the highest and truest, issufficiently exalted to win the reverence of worldly men and anextra-ordinary power over their lives and affections. There naturallyfollow numerous and valuable gifts of land and gold. The monks becomerich as well as powerful. Then the decline begins. Vast riches havealways been a menace to true spirituality. Perhaps they always will be. The wealthy monk falls a prey to pride and arrogance; he becomesluxurious in his habits, and lazy in the performance of duty. Vicecreeps in and his moral ruin is complete. The transformation in thecharacter of the monk is accompanied by a change in public opinion. Themonk is now an eyesore; his splendid buildings are viewed with envy bysome, with shame by others. Then arise the vehement cries for thedestruction of his palatial cloister, and the heroic efforts of theremnant that abide faithful to reform the institution. This has been thepathway over which every monastic order has traveled. As long as therewas sufficient vitality to give birth to reformatory movements, newsocieties sprang up as off-shoots of the older orders, some of whichadopted the original rules, while others altered them to suit the viewsof the reforming founder. "For indeed, " says Trench, "those orders, wonderful at their beginning, and girt up so as to take heaven by storm, seemed destined to travel in a mournful circle from which there was noescape. " These facts partly explain the reformatory movements whichappear from the ninth century on. 

The first great saint to enter the lists against monastic corruption wasBenedict of Aniane (750-821 A. D. ), a member of a distinguished family insouthern France. The Benedictine rule in his opinion was formed fornovices and invalids. He attributed the prevailing laxity among themonks to the mild discipline. As abbot of a monastery he undertook toreform its affairs by adopting a system based on Basil of Asia Minor andPachomius of Egypt. But he leaned too far back for human nature in theWest, and the conclusion was forced upon him that Benedict of Nursia hadformulated a set of rules as strict as could be enforced among theWestern monks. Accordingly he directed his efforts to secure a faithfulobservance of the original Benedictine rules, adding, however, a numberof rigid and burdensome regulations. Although at first the monks doubtedhis sanity, kicked him and spat on him, yet he afterwards succeeded ingathering about three hundred of them under his rule. Several colonieswere sent out from his monastery, which was built on his patrimonialestate near Montpellier. His last establishment, which was located nearAix-la-Chapelle, became famous as a center of learning and sanctity. 

One of the most celebrated reform monasteries was the convent of Cluny, or Clugny, in Burgundy, about fifteen miles from Lyons, which wasfounded by Duke William of Aquitaine in 910. It was governed by a codebased on the rule of St. Benedict. The monastery began with twelve monksunder Bruno, but became so illustrious that under Hugo there were tenthousand monks in the various convents under its rule. It was madeimmediately subject to the pope, --that is, exempt from the jurisdictionof the bishop. Some idea of its splendid equipment may be formed fromthe fact that it is said, that in 1245, after the council of Lyons, itentertained Innocent IV. , two patriarchs, twelve cardinals, threearchbishops, fifteen bishops, many abbots, St. Louis, King of France, several princes and princesses, each with a considerable retinue, yetthe monks were not incommoded. It gave to the church threepopes, --Gregory VII. , Urban II. And Paschal II. 

From his cell at Cluny, Hildebrand, who became the famous Gregory VII. , looked out upon a world distracted by war and sunk in vice. "InHildebrand's time, while he was studying those annals in Cluny, " saysThomas Starr King, "a boy pope, twelve years old, was master of thespiritual scepter, and was beginning to lead a life so shameful, fouland execrable that a subsequent pope said, 'he shuddered todescribe it. '"

Connected with the monastery was the largest church in the world, surpassed only a little, in later years, by St. Peter's at Rome. Itsconstruction was begun in 1089 by the abbot Hugo, and it was consecratedin 1131, under the administration of Peter the Venerable. It boasted oftwenty-five altars and many costly works of art. 

So great was the fame and influence of this establishment that numerousconvents in France and Italy placed themselves under its control, thusforming "The Congregation of Cluny. "

After the administration of Peter the Venerable (1122-1156), thisillustrious house began to succumb to the intoxication of success, andit steadily declined in character and influence until its property wasconfiscated by the Constituent Assembly, in 1799, and the church soldfor one hundred thousand francs. It is now in ruin. 

But in spite of every attempt at reform during the ninth and tenthcenturies the decline of the continental monasteries continued. Manypersons of royal blood, accustomed to the license of palaces, enteredthe cloister and increased the disorders. The monks naturally respectedtheir blood and relaxed the discipline in their favor. The result wascostly robes, instead of the simple, monastic garb, riotous living, anda general indifference to spirituality. Spurious monasteries sprang upwith rich lay-abbots at their head, who made the office hereditary intheir families. Laymen were appointed to rich benefices simply that theymight enjoy the revenues. These lay-abbots even went so far as to livewith their families in their monasteries, and rollicking midnightbanquets were substituted for the asceticism demanded by the vows. Theytraveled extensively attended by splendid retinues. Some of the monksseemed intent on nothing but obtaining charters of privileges andexemptions from civil and military duties. 

In England the state of affairs was even more distressing than on theContinent. The evil effects of the Saxon invasion, the demoralizationthat accompanied the influx of paganism, and the almost completedestruction of the religious institutions of British Christianity havealready been noted. About the year 700, the island was divided amongfifteen petty chiefs, who waged war against one another almostincessantly. Christianity, as introduced by Augustine, had somewhatmitigated the ferocity of war, and England had begun to make someapproach toward a respect for law and a veneration for the Christianreligion, when the Danes came, and with them another period ofdisgraceful atrocities and blighting heathenism. The Danish invasion hadalmost extirpated the monastic institution in the northern districts. Carnage and devastation reigned everywhere. Celebrated monasteries fellin ruins and the monks were slain or driven into exile. Hordes ofbarbaric warriors roamed the country, burning and plundering. 

"At the close of this calamitous period, " says Lingard, in his "Historyand Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church, " "the Anglo-Saxon churchpresented a melancholy spectacle to the friends of religion: 1. Thelaity had resumed the ferocious manners of their pagan forefathers. 2. The clergy had grown indolent, dissolute and illiterate. 3. The monasticorder had been apparently annihilated. It devolved on King Alfred, victorious over his enemies, to devise and apply the remedies for theseevils. " The good king endeavored to restore the monastic institution, but, owing to the lack of candidates for the monastic habit, he wascompelled to import a colony of monks from Gaul. 

The moral results of Alfred's reformatory measures, as well as those ofhis immediate successors, were far from satisfactory, although he didvastly stimulate the educational work of the monastic schools. Hedevoted himself so faithfully to the gathering of traditions, that he issaid to be the father of English history. The tide of immorality, however, was too strong to be stemmed in a generation or two. It was acentury and a half before there was even an approach to substantialvictory over the disgraceful abuses among the clergy and the monks. 

The churchman who is credited with doing most to distinguish the monksas a zealous and faithful body was Dunstan (924-988 A. D. ), first Abbotof Glastonbury, then Bishop of Winchester, and finally Archbishop ofCanterbury. He is the most conspicuous ecclesiastical personage in thehistory of those dark days, but his character and labors have given riseto bitter and extensive controversy. 

It was Dunstan's chief aim to subjugate the Anglo-Saxon church to thepower of Rome, and to correct existing abuses by compelling the clergyand the monks to obey the rule of celibacy. He was a fervent believer inthe efficacy of the Benedictine vows, and in the value of clericalcelibacy as a remedy for clerical licentiousness. Naturally, Protestantwriters, who hold that papal supremacy never was a blessing in anycountry or in any age, and who think that clerical celibacy has alwaysbeen a fruitful source of crime and sin, condemn the reforms of Dunstanin the most unqualified terms. A statement of a few of the many andperplexing facts may assist us to form a fairly just judgment of theman and his work. 

The principle of sacerdotal celibacy appeared early in the history ofChristianity, and for many centuries it was the subject of sharpcontention. Roman Catholics themselves have been divided upon it. Inevery Christian country, from the Apostolic period onward, there werepriests and teachers who opposed the imposition of this rule upon theclergy, and, on the other hand, there were those who practiced andadvocated celibacy as the indispensable guarantee of spiritual powerand purity. 

What the rule of celibacy was at this period, in England, seemsuncertain. Lingard maintains that marriage was always permitted to theclergy in minor orders, who were employed in various subordinatepositions, but that those in higher orders, whose office it was tominister at the altar and to offer the sacrifice, were expressly boundto a life of the strictest continence. During the invasion of the Danes, when confusion reigned, many priests in the higher orders had not onlyforsaken their vows of chastity, but had plunged into frightfulimmoralities; and married clerks of inferior orders were raised to thepriesthood to fill the ranks depleted by war. These promoted clerks werepreviously required to separate from their wives, but apparently many ofthem did not do so. Consequently, from several causes, the marriedpriests became a numerous body, and since the common opinion seems tohave been that a married priest was disgracing his office, this body wasregarded as a menace to the welfare of the church and the state. 

Lea, in his elaborate "History of Sacerdotal Celibacy, " holds that therule of celibacy was only binding on the regulars, or monks, and thatthe secular priesthood was at liberty to marry. But from several otherpassages in his work it seems that he also recognizes the fact that, while marriage was common, it was in defiance of an ancient canon. "Itis evident, " he says, "that the memory of the ancient canons was notforgotten, and that their observance was still urged by some ardentchurchmen, but that the customs of the period had rendered themvirtually obsolete, and that no sufficient means existed of enforcingobedience. If open scandals and shameless bigamy and concubinage couldbe restrained, the ecclesiastical authorities were evidently content. Celibacy could not be enjoined as a law, but was rendered attractive bysurrounding it with privileges and immunities denied to him who yieldedto the temptations of the flesh. "

Throughout Western Christendom the law of celibacy was openly andshamefully trampled upon, and every reformer seemed to think that thevery first step toward any improvement in clerical morals was to betaken by enforcing this rule. 

When Dunstan commenced his reforms, the clergy were guilty of graversins than that of living in marriage relations. Adultery, bigamy, swearing, fighting and drinking were the order of the day. Themonasteries were occupied by secular priests with wives or concubines. All the chroniclers of this period agree in charging the monks andclergy with a variety of dissipations and disorders. 

It is quite clear, therefore, that in Dunstan's view he was doing theonly right thing in trying to correct the existing abuses by compellingthe priests to adopt that celibate life without which it was popularlybelieved the highest holiness and the largest usefulness could not beattained. In the light of this purpose and this common opinion of histime, Dunstan and his mission should be judged. 

Dunstan was aided in his work by King Edgar the Pacific, who, by theway, was himself compelled to go without his crown seven years forviolating the chastity of a nun. Oswald, the Bishop of Worcester, andEthelwold, the Bishop of Winchester, were also zealously engaged in thetask of reform. 

A law was enacted providing that priests, deacons and sub-deacons shouldlive chastely or resign. As a result of this law, many priests wereejected from the monasteries and from their official positions. Strictmonks were put in their places. A strong opposition party was created, and the ejected clergy aroused such discontent that a civil war wasbarely averted. This state of things continued until the Normaninvasion, when the monks and secular clergy joined forces in the commondefence of their property and ecclesiastical rights. 

It would seem that many writers, misled by legends for which Dunstanmust not be held responsible, and blinded by religious prejudice, haveunjustly charged him with hypocrisy and even crime. All his methods maynot be defensible when estimated in the light of modern knowledge, andeven his ideal may be rejected when judged by modern standards ofChristian character, but he must be considered with the moral andintellectual life of his times in full view. He was a champion of theoppressed, a friend of the poor, an unflinching foe of sinful men in thepulpit or on the throne. His will was inflexible, his independence nobleand his energy untiring. In trying to bring the Anglo-Saxon church intoconformity to Rome he was actuated by a higher motive than the merelyselfish desire for ecclesiastical authority. He regarded this harmony asthe only remedy for the prevailing disorders. He believed, like manyother churchmen of unquestioned purity and honesty, that it wasnecessary to compel temporal authorities to recognize the power of thechurch in order to overcome that defiance of moral law which was thechief characteristic of the kings and princes in that turbulent period. 

What the Anglo-Saxon church might have been if the rule of celibacy hadnot been forced upon her, and if she had not submitted to Romanauthority in other matters, is a theme for speculation only. The factis that Dunstan found a church corrupt to the core and left it, as aresult of his purifying efforts, with some semblance, to say the least, of moral influence and spiritual purity. Some other kind ofecclesiastical polity than that advocated by Dunstan might have achievedthe same results as his, but the simple fact is that none did. In so faras Dunstan succeeded in his monastic measures, he laid the foundationsof an ecclesiastical power which afterwards became a serious menace tothe political freedom of the Anglo-Saxon race. The battle begun by himraged fiercely between the popes, efficiently supported by the monks, and the kings of England, with varying fortunes, for many centuries. Butperhaps, under the plans of that benign Providence who presides over thedestiny of nations, it was essentially in the interests of civilization, that the lawlessness of rulers and the vices of the people should berestrained by that ecclesiastical power, which, in after years, and atthe proper time, should be forced to recede to its legitimate sphere andfunctions. 

Another celebrated reformatory movement was begun by St. Bruno, whofounded the Carthusian Order about the year 1086. Ruskin says: "Intheir strength, from the foundation of the order at the close of theeleventh century to the beginning of the fourteenth, they reared intheir mountain fastnesses and sent out to minister to the world asuccession of men of immense mental grasp and serenely authoritativeinnocence, among whom our own Hugh of Lincoln, in his relations withHenry II. And Coeur de Lion, is to my mind the most beautiful sacerdotalfigure known to me in history. "

Bruno, with six companions, established the famous Grand Chartreuse in arocky wilderness, near Grenoble, in France, separated from the rest ofthe world by a chain of wild mountains, which are covered with ice andsnow for two-thirds of the year. 

Until the time of Guigo (1137), the Grand Chartreuse was governed byunwritten rules. Thirteen monks only were permitted to live together, and sixteen converts in the huts at the foot of the hill. The policy ofthis monastery was at first opposed to all connection with othermonasteries. But applications for admission were so numerous thatcolonies were sent out in various directions, all subject to the motherhouse. The Carthusians differed in many respects from other orders. Therules of Dom Guigo indicate that the chief aim was to preclude the monksfrom intercourse with the world, and largely with each other, for eachmonk had separate apartments, cooked his own food, and so rarely metwith his brethren, that he was practically a hermit. The clothingconsisted of a rough hair shirt, worn next the skin, a white cassockover it, and, when they went out, a black robe. Fasting was observed atleast three days a week, and meat was strictly forbidden. Respectingcontact with women Dom Guigo says: "Under no circumstances whatever dowe allow women to set foot within our precincts, knowing as we do thatneither wise man, nor prophet, nor judge, nor the entertainer of God, nor the sons of God, nor the first created of mankind, fashioned byGod's own hands, could escape the wiles and deceits of women. "

Blistering and bleeding, as well as fasting, were employed to controlevil impulses. On the whole, the austerities were as severe as humannature in that wild and cold region could endure. Yet the prosperitythat rewarded the piety and labors of the Carthusian monks proved morethan a match for their rigorous discipline, and in the middle of thethirteenth century we read charges of laxity and disorder. 

The Carthusians settled in England in the twelfth century, and had afamous monastery in London, since called the Charterhouse. The order wasin many respects the most successful attempt at reform, but as has beensaid, "the whole order, and each individual member, is like apetrifaction from the Middle Ages. " Owing to its extremely solitaryideal and its severe discipline, it was unfitted to secure extensivecontrol, or to gain a permanent influence upon the rapidly-developingEuropean nations. Its chief contributions to modern civilization weremade by the gift of noble men who passed from the seclusion of the cellinto the active life of the world, thus practically proving that themonks' greatest usefulness was attained when loyalty to their vowsyielded to a broader ideal of Christian character and service. 

Thus the months passed into years and the years into centuries. Man wasslowly working out his salvation. Painfully, laboriously he emerged outof barbarism into the lower forms of civilization; wearily he trudgedon his way toward the universal kingdom of righteousness and peace. 

There were many other attempts at reform which may not even bementioned, but one character deserves brief consideration, --Bernard ofClairvaux, --the fairest flower of those corrupt days. The order to whichhe belonged was the Cistercians, so named because their mother house wasat Citeaux (Latin, _Cistercium_), in France. Its members are sometimescalled the "White Monks, " because of their white tunics. Theirbuildings, with their bare walls and low rafters, were a rebuke to thesplendid edifices of the richer orders. Austere simplicity characterizedtheir churches, liturgy and habits. Gorgeousness in decoration andostentation in public services were carefully avoided. They used nopictures, stained glass or images. Once a week they flogged their sinfulbodies. Only four hours' sleep was allowed. Seeking out the wildestspots and most rugged peaks they built their retreats, beautiful intheir simplicity and furnishing some of the finest examples of monasticarchitecture. The order spread into England, where the firstCistercians were characterized by devoutness and poverty. After a whilethe hand of fate wrote of them as it had of so many, "none were moregreedy in adding farm to farm; none less scrupulous in obtaining grantsof land from wealthy patrons. " In general, the order was no better andno worse than the rest, but its chief glory is derived from the lusterthat was shed upon it by Bernard. 

[Illustration: SAINT BERNARD]

This illustrious counselor of kings and Catholic saint was born inBurgundy in 1091. When about twenty years of age he entered themonastery at Citeaux with five of his brothers. His genius might havesecured ecclesiastical preferment, but he chose to dig ditches, plantfields and govern a monastery. He entered the cloister at Citeauxbecause the monks were few and poor, and when it became crowded becauseof his fame, and its rule became lax because of the crowds, he left thecloister to found a home of his own. The abbot selected twelve monks, following the number of apostles, and at their head placed youngBernard. He led the twelve to the valley of Wormwood, and there, in acheerless forest, he established the monastery of Clairvaux, or ClearValley. His rule was fiercely severe because he himself loved hardshipsand rough fare. "It in no way befits religion, " he writes, "to seekremedies for the body, nor is it good for health either. You may now andthen take some cheap herb, --such as poor men may, --and this is donesometimes. But to buy drugs, to hunt up doctors, to take doses, isunbecoming to religion and hostile to purity. " His success in winningmen to the monastic life was almost phenomenal. It was said that"mothers hid their sons, wives their husbands, and companions theirfriends, lest they be persuaded by his eloquent message to enter thecloister. " "He was avoided like a plague, " says one. 

Bernard's monks changed the whole face of the country by felling treesand tilling the ground. Their spiritual power rid the valley of Wormwoodof its robbers, and the district grew rich and prosperous. Thus Bernardbecame the most famous man of his time. He was the arbiter in papalelections, the judge in temporal quarrels, the healer of schisms and apowerful preacher of the crusades. He was the embodiment of all that wasbest in the thought of his age. His weaknesses and faults may largely beexplained by the fact that no man can rise entirely above the spirit ofhis times and absolutely free himself from all pernicious tendencies. "As an advocate for the rights of the church, for the immunities of theclergy, no less than for the great interests of morality, he was fierce, intractable, unforgiving, haughty and tyrannical. " There was, however, no note of insincerity in his work or writings, and no tinge ofhypocrisy in fervent zeal. He was brave, honest and pure; controlledalways by a consuming passion for the moral welfare of the people. 

Our chief interest in Bernard relates to his monastic work which shedundying luster on his name. Vaughan, in his "Hours with the Mystics, "says of him: "His incessant cry for Europe is, Better monasteries, andmore of them. Let these ecclesiastical castles multiply; let them coverand command the land, well garrisoned with men of God, and then, despiteall heresy and schism, theocracy will flourish, the earth shall yieldher increase, and all people praise the Lord.... Bernard had thesatisfaction of improving and extending monasticism to the utmost; ofsewing together, with tolerable success, the rended vesture of thepapacy; of suppressing a more popular and more scriptural Christianityfor the benefit of his despotic order; of quenching for a time, by theextinction of Abelard, the spirit of free inquiry, and of seeing hisascetic and superhuman ideal of religion everywhere accepted as thegenuine type of Christianity. "

But in spite of Dunstans, Brunos and Bernards, the monastic institutionkeeps on crumbling. The edifice will not stand much more propping andtinkering. While we admire this display of moral force, this commendablestruggle of fresh courage and new hope against disintegrating forces, the conviction gains ground that something is radically wrong with theinstitution. There is something in it which fosters greed and desperateambition. "Is it not a shame, " we feel compelled to ask, "that so muchsplendid, chivalrous courage and magnificent energy should be expendedin trying to prevent a structure from falling, which, it seems, couldnot possibly have been saved?" But while the decay could not be stayed, we must admire the noble aims and pious enthusiasm of the reformers whosought to preserve an institution which to them seemed the only hope ofa sinful world. 

Dr. Storrs, in his life of Bernard, says: "His soon-canonized name hasshone starlike in history ever since he was buried; and it will nothereafter decline from its height or lose its luster, while men continueto recognize with honor the temper of devoted Christian consecration, acharacter compact of noble forces, and infused with self-forgetful lovefor God and man. "

_The Military Religious Orders_

The life of Bernard forms an appropriate introduction to a considerationof the Military Religious Orders. Although weary with labor and theweight of years, he traveled over Europe preaching the second crusade. "To kill or to be killed for Christ's sake is alike righteous and alikesafe, " this was his message to the world. In spite of the opposition ofcourt advisers, Bernard induced Louis VII. And Conrad of Germany to takethe crusader's vow. He gave the Knights Templars a new rule and kindledafresh a zeal for the knighthood. Although the members of the MilitaryOrders were not monks in the strict sense of the word, yet they weresoldier-monks, and as such deserve to be mentioned here. 

At the basis of all monastic orders, as has been pointed out, were thethree vows of obedience, celibacy and poverty. Certain orders, by addingto these rules other obligations, or by laying special stress on one ofthe three ancient vows, produced new and distinct types of monasticcharacter and life. 

The Knights of the Hospital assumed as their peculiar work the care ofthe sick. The Begging Friars, as will be seen later, were distinguishedby the importance which they attached to the rule of poverty; theJesuits, by exalting the law of unquestioning obedience. In view of thewarlike character of the Middle Ages it is strange the soldier-monk didnot appear earlier than he did. The abbots, in many cases, were feudallords with immense possessions which needed protection like secularproperty, but as this could not be secured by the arts of peace, we findtraces of the union of the soldier and the monk before the distinctorders professing that character. The immediate cause of suchorganizations was the crusades. There were numerous societies of thischaracter, some of them so far removed from the monastic type asscarcely to be ranked with monastic institutions. One list mentions twohundred and seven of these Orders of Knighthood, comprising manyvarieties in theory and practice. The most important were three, --theKnights of the Hospital, or the Knights of St. John; the KnightsTemplars; and the Teutonic Knights. The Hospitallers wore black mantleswith white crosses, the Templars white mantles with red crosses, and theTeutonic Knights white mantles with black crosses. The mantles were infact the robe of the monk adorned with a cross. The whole system wasreally a marriage of monasticism and chivalry, as Gibbon says: "Thefirmest bulwark of Jerusalem was founded in the Knights of the Hospitaland of the Temple, that strange association of monastic and militarylife. The flower of the nobility of Europe aspired to wear the cross andprofess the vows of these orders; their spirit and discipline wereimmortal. "

A passage in the Alexiad quoted in Walter Scott's "Robert of Paris"reads: "As for the multitude of those who advanced toward the great citylet it be enough to say, that they were as the stars in the heaven oras the sand of the seashore. They were in the words of Homer, as many asthe leaves and flowers of spring. " This figurative description is almostliterally true. Europe poured her men and her wealth into the East. Noone but an eye-witness can conceive of the vast amount of sufferingendured by those fanatical multitudes as they roamed the streets ofJerusalem looking for shelter, or lay starving by the roadside on abed of grass. 

The term Hospitallers was applied to certain brotherhoods of monks andlaymen. While professing some monastic rule, the members of thesesocieties devoted themselves solely to caring for the sick and the poor, the hospitals in those days being connected with the monasteries. 

About the year 1050 some Italian merchants secured permission to build aconvent in Jerusalem to shelter Latin pilgrims. The hotels which sprangup after this were gradually transformed into hospitals for the care ofthe sick and presided over by Benedictine monks. The sick were carefullynursed and shelter granted to as many as could be accommodated. Noblesabandoned the profession of arms and, becoming monks, devotedthemselves to caring for the unfortunate crusaders in these inns. Thework rapidly increased in extent and importance. In the year 1099, Godfrey de Bouillon endowed the original hospital, which had beendedicated to St. John. He also established many other monasteries onthis holy soil. The monks, most of whom were also knights, formed anorganization which received confirmation from Rome, as "The Knights ofSt. John of Jerusalem. " The order rapidly assumed a distinctly militarycharacter, for, to do its work completely, it must not only care for thesick in Jerusalem, but defend the pilgrim on his way to the Holy City. This ended in an undertaking to defend Christendom against Mohammedaninvasion and in fighting for the recovery of the Holy Sepulcher. 

After visiting some of these Palestinian monasteries, a king of Hungarythus describes his impressions: "Lodging in their houses, I have seenthem feed every day innumerable multitudes of poor, the sick laid ongood beds and treated with great care. In a word, the Knights of St. John are employed sometimes like Martha, in action, and sometimes likeMary, in contemplation, and this noble militia consecrate their dayseither in their infirmaries or else in engagements against the enemiesof the cross. "

The Knights Templars were far more militant than the Knights of St. John, but they also were actuated by the monastic spirit. Bernard triedto inspire this order with a strong Christian zeal so that, as he said, "War should become something of which God could approve. " The successwhich attended its operations led as usual to its corruption anddecline. Beginning with a few crusaders leagued together for service andliving on the site of the ancient Temple at Jerusalem, it soon widenedthe scope of its services and became a powerful branch of the crusadingarmy. It was charged by Philip IV. Of France, in 1307, with the mostfearful crimes, to sustain or to deny which accusations many volumeshave been composed. Five years later the order was suppressed and itsvast accumulations transferred to the Knights of St. John. "The horriblefate of the Templars, " says Allen, "was taken by many as a beginning andomen of the destruction that would soon pass upon all the hatedreligious orders. And so this final burst of enthusiasm and splendor inthe religious life was among the prognostics of a state of things inwhich monasticism must fade quite away. "

Wondrous changes have taken place in those dark and troubled years sinceBenedict began his labors at Monte Cassino, in 529. The monk has prayedalone in the mountains, and converted the barbarian in the forest. Hehas preached the crusades in magnificent cathedrals, and crossed stormyseas in his frail bark. He has made the schools famous by his literaryachievements, and taught children the alphabet in the woodland cell. Hehas been good and bad, proud and humble, rich and poor, arrogant andgentle. He has met the shock of lances on his prancing steed, andtrudged barefoot from town to town. He has copied manuscripts in thelonely Scottish isle, and bathed the fevered brow of the pilgrim in thehospital at Jerusalem. He has dug ditches, and governed the world as thepope of the Church. He has held the plow in the furrow, and thwarted thedevices of the king. He has befriended the poor, and imposed penanceupon princes. He has imitated the poverty and purity of Jesus, and apedthe pomp and vice of kings. He has dwelt solitary on cold mountains, subsisting on bread, roots and water, and he has surrounded himself withmenials ready to gratify every luxurious wish, amid the splendor ofpalatial cloisters. Still there are new types and phases of monasticismyet to appear. The monk has other tasks to undertake, for the world isnot yet sufficiently wearied of his presence to destroy his cloister andbanish him from the land. 

V

_THE MENDICANT FRIARS_

Abraham Lincoln only applied a general principle to a specific case whenhe said, "This nation cannot long endure half slave and half free. "Glaring inconsistencies between faith and practice will eventuallydestroy any institution, however lofty its ideal or noble itsfoundation. God suffers long and is kind, but His forbearance is notlimitless. Monasticism, as has been shown, was never free from seriousinconsistency, from moral dualism. But the power of reform prolonged itsexistence. It was constantly producing fresh models of its ancientideals. It had a hidden reserve-force from which it supplied shiningexamples of a living faith and a self-denying love, just at the timewhen it seemed as if the system was about to perish forever. When thesefresh exhibitions of monastic fidelity likewise became tarnished, whenmen had tired of them and predicted the speedy collapse of theinstitution, forth from the cloister came another body of monkishrecruits, to convince the world that monasticism was not dead; that itdid not intend to die; that it was mightier than all its enemies. Theday came, however, when the world lost its confidence in an institutionwhich required such constant reforming to keep it pure, which demandedso much cleansing to keep it clean. Ideals that could so quickly losetheir influence for good came to be looked upon with suspicion. 

At the beginning of the thirteenth century we are confronted by theanomaly of a church grossly corrupt but widely obeyed. She is nearingthe pinnacle of her power and the zenith of her glory, although theparochial clergy have sunk into vice and incapacity, and the monks, as aclass, are lazy, ignorant and notoriously corrupt. Two things, especially, command the attention, --first, the immorality and laxity ofthe monks; and second, the growth of heresies and the tendency towardopen schism. The necessity of reform was clearly apprehended by thechurch as well as by the heretical parties, but, since the church hadsuch a hold upon society, those who sought to reform the monasteries byreturning to old beliefs and ancient customs were much more in favorthan those who left the church and opposed her from the outside. Theimpossibility of substantial, internal reform had not yet come to begenerally recognized. As time passed the conviction that it was of nouse to attempt reforms from the inside gained ground; then theseparatists multiplied, and the shedding of blood commenced. The worldhad to learn anew that it was futile to put new wine into old bottles orto patch new cloth on an old garment. 

"It is the privilege of genius, " says Trench, "to evoke a new creation, where to common eyes all appears barren and worn out. " Francis andDominic evoked this new creation; but although the monk now will appearin a new garb, he will prove himself to be about the same old characterwhom the world has known a great many years; when this discovery is mademonasticism is doomed. Perplexed Europe will anxiously seek some meansof destruction, but God will have Luther ready to aid in the solution ofthe problem. 

_Francis Bernardone_, 1182-1226 _A. D. _. 

Saint Francis, the founder of the Franciscan Order, was born at Assisi, a walled town of Umbria, in Italy. His father, Peter Bernardone, orBernardo, was in France on business when his son was born and named. Onhis return, or, as some say, at a later time, he changed his son's namefrom John to Francis. His wealth enabled him to supply Francis with thefunds necessary to maintain his leadership among gay companions. Catholic writers are fond of describing the early years of their saintsas marked by vice in order to portray them as miracles of grace. It istherefore uncertain whether Francis was anything worse than a happy, joyous lad, who loved fine clothes, midnight songs and parties ofpleasure. He was certainly a very popular and courteous lad, very muchin love with the world. During a short service in the army he was takenprisoner. After his release he fell sick, and experienced a temporarydisgust with his past life. With his renewed health his love offestivities and dress returned. 

Walking out one day, dressed in a handsome new suit, he met a poor andill-clad soldier; moved to pity, he exchanged his fine clothes for therags of the stranger. That night Francis dreamed of a splendid castle, with gorgeous banners flying from its ramparts, and suits of armoradorned with the cross. "These, " said a voice, "are for you and for yoursoldiers. " We are told that this was intended to be taken spirituallyand was prophetic of the Begging Friars, but Francis misunderstood thedream, taking it as a token of military achievements. The next day heset off mounted on a fine horse, saying as he left, "I shall be a greatprince. " But his weak frame could not endure such rough usage and he wastaken sick at Spoleto. Again he dreamed. This time the vision revealedhis misinterpretation of the former message, and so, on his recovery, hereturned somewhat crestfallen to Assisi, where he gave his friends afarewell feast. Thus at the threshold of his career we note twoimportant facts, --disease and dreams. All through his life he had thesefits of sickness, attended by dreams; and throughout his life he wasguided by these visions. Neander remarks: "It would be a matter of someimportance if we could be more exactly informed with regard to thenature of his disease and the way in which it affected his physical andmental constitution. Perhaps it might assist us to a more satisfactoryexplanation of the eccentric vein in his life, that singular mixture ofreligious enthusiasm bordering insanity; but we are left wholly inthe dark. "

Francis now devoted himself to his father's business, but dreams andvisions continued to distress him. His spiritual fervor increased daily. He grieved for the poor and gave himself to the care of the sick, especially the lepers. During a visit to Rome he became so sad at thesight of desperate poverty that he impetuously flung his bag of goldupon the altar with such force as to startle the worshipers. He went outfrom the church, exchanged his clothes for a beggar's rags, and stoodfor hours asking alms among a crowd of filthy beggars. 

But though Francis longed to associate himself in some way with thelowest classes, he could obtain no certain light upon his duty. Whileprostrated before the crucifix, in the dilapidated church of St. Damian, in Assisi, he heard a voice saying, "Francis, seest thou notthat my house is in ruins? Go and restore it for me. " Again it is saidthat this pointed to his great life-work of restoring spiritual power tothe church, but he again accepted the message in a literal sense. Delighted to receive a command so specific, the kneeling Francisfervently responded, "With good will, Lord, " and gladly entered upon thetask of repairing the church of St. Damian. "Having fortified himself bythe sign of the cross, " he took a horse and a valuable bundle of goodsbelonging to his father and sold both at Falingo. Instead of turning theproceeds over to his father, Francis offered them to the priest of St. Damian, who, fearing the father's displeasure, refused to accept thestolen funds. The young zealot, "who had utter contempt for money, "threw the gold on one of the windows of the church. Such is the story asgleaned from Catholic sources. The heretics, who have criticised Francisfor this conduct, are answered by the following ingenious but dangeroussophistry: "It is certainly quite contrary to the ordinary law ofjustice for one man to take for himself the property of another; but ifAlmighty God, to whom all things belong, and for whom we are onlystewards, is pleased to dispense with this His own law in a particularcase, and to bestow what He has hitherto given to one upon another, Heconfers at the same time a valid title to the gift, and it is no robberyin him who has received it to act upon that title. "

Fearing his father's wrath, Francis hid himself in the priest's room, and contemporary authors assure us that when the irate parent entered, Francis was miraculously let into the wall. Wading (1731 A. D. ) says thehollow place may still be seen in the wall. 

After a month, the young hero, confident of his courage to face hisfather, came forth pale and weak, only to be stoned as a madman by thepeople. His father locked him up in the house, but the tenderercompassion of his mother released him from his bonds, and he foundrefuge with the priest. When his father demanded his return, Francistore off his clothes and, as he flung the last rag at the feet of hisastounded parent, he exclaimed: "Peter Bernardone was my father; I havebut one father, He that is in Heaven. " The crowd was deeply moved, especially when they saw before them the hair shirt which Francis hadsecretly worn under his garments. Gathering up all that was left to himof his son, the father sadly departed, leaving the young enthusiast tofight his own way through the world. Many times after that, the parents, who tenderly watched over the lad in sickness and prayed for hisrecovery, saw their beloved son leading his barefooted beggars throughthe streets of his native town. But he will never more sing his gaysongs underneath their roof or sally forth with his merry companions insearch of pleasure. Francis was given a laborer's cloak, upon which hemade the sign of a cross with some mortar, "thus manifesting what hewished to be, a half-naked poor one, and a crucified man. " Such was thesaint, in 1206, in his twenty-fifth year. 

Francis now went forth, singing sacred songs, begging his food, andhelping the sick and the poor. He was employed "in the vilest affairs ofthe scullery" in a neighboring monastery. At this time he clothedhimself in the monk's dress, a short tunic, a leathern girdle, shoes anda staff. He waited upon lepers and kissed their disgusting ulcers. Yetmore, he instantly cured a dreadfully cancerous face by kissing it. Heate the most revolting messes, reproaching himself for recoiling innausea. Thus the pauper of Jesus Christ conquered his pride andluxurious tastes. 

Francis finally returned to repair the church of St. Damian. The peoplederided, even stoned him, but he had learned to rejoice in abuse. Theydid not know of what stern stuff their fellow-townsman was made. He boreall their insults meekly, and persevered in his work, carrying stoneswith his own hands and promising the blessing of God on all who helpedhim in his joyful task. His kindness and smiles melted hatred; derisionturned to admiration. "Many were moved to tears, " says his biographers, "while Francis worked on with cheerful simplicity, begging hismaterials, stone by stone, and singing psalms about the streets. "

Two years after his conversion, or in 1208, while kneeling in the churchof Sta. Maria dei Angeli, he heard the words of Christ: "Provide neithergold nor silver nor brass in your purses, neither two coats nor shoesnor staff, but go and preach. " Afterwards, when the meaning of thesewords was explained to him, he exclaimed: "This is what I seek for!" Hethrew away his wallet, took off his shoes, and replaced his leathergirdle by a cord. His hermit's tunic appearing too delicate, he put on acoarse, gray robe, reaching to his feet, with sleeves that came downover his fingers; to this he added a hood, covering his head and face. Clothing of this character he wore to the end of his life. This was in1208, which is regarded as the first year of the Order of St. Francis. The next year Francis gave this habit to those who had joined him. 

So the first and chief of Franciscan friars, unattended by mortalcompanions, went humbly forth to proclaim the grandeur and goodness of aGod, who, according to monastic teaching, demands penance and poverty ofhis creatures as the price of his highest favor and richest blessings. Nearly seven hundred long years have passed since that eventful day, butthe begging Brothers of Francis still traverse those Italian highwaysover which the saint now journeyed with meek and joyous spirit. 

 "He was not yet far distant from his rising Before he had begun to make the earth Some comfort from his mighty virtue feel. For he in youth his father's wrath incurred For certain Dame, to whom, as unto death, The gate of pleasure no one doth unlock; And was before his spiritual court _Et coram patre_ unto her united; Then day by day more fervently he loved her. 

 * * * * *

 But that too darkly I may not proceed, Francis and Poverty for these two lovers Take thou henceforward in my speech diffuse. "

 --_Dante_. 

In 1210, with eleven companions, his entire band, Francis went to Rometo secure papal sanction. Pope Innocent III. Was walking in a garden ofthe Lateran Palace when a beggar, dusty and pale, confronted him. Provoked at being disturbed in his thoughts, he drove him away. Thatnight it was the pope's turn to dream. He saw a falling church supportedby a poor and miserable man. Of course, that man was Francis. Four orfive years later the pope will dream the same thing again. Then the poorman will be Dominic. In the morning he sent for the monk whom he haddriven from him as a madman the day before. Standing before his holinessand the college of cardinals, Francis pleaded his cause in a touchingand eloquent parable. His quiet, earnest manner and clear blue eyesimpressed every one. The pope did not give him formal sanctionhowever--this was left for Honorius III. , November 29, 1223--but heverbally permitted him to establish his order and to continue hispreaching. 

Several times Francis set out to preach to the Mohammedans, but failedto reach his destination. He finally visited Egypt during the siege ofDamietta, and at the risk of his life he went forth to preach to thesultan encamped on the Nile. He is described by an eye-witness "as anignorant and simple man, beloved of God and men. " His courage andpersonal magnetism won the Mohammedan's sympathy but not his soul. Although Francis courted martyrdom, and offered to walk through fire toprove the truth of his message, the Oriental took it all toogood-naturedly to put him to the test, and dismissed him with kindness. 

Francis was a great lover of birds. The swallows he called his sisters. A bird in the cage excited his deepest sympathy. It is said he sometimespreached to the feathered songsters. Longfellow has cast one of thesehomilies into poetic form:

 "O brother birds, St. Francis said, Ye come to me and ask for bread, But not with bread alone to-day Shall ye be fed and sent away. 

 * * * * *

 Oh, doubly are ye bound to praise The great Creator in your lays; He giveth you your plumes of down, Your crimson hoods, your cloaks of brown. 

 He giveth you your wings to fly And breathe a purer air on high, And careth for you everywhere, Who for yourselves so little care. "

Like all ascetics, Francis was tempted in visions. One cold night hefancied he was in a home of his own, with his wife and children aroundhim. Rushing out of his cell he heaped up seven hills of snow torepresent a wife, four sons and daughters, and two servants. "Makehaste, " he cried, "provide clothing for them lest they perish with thecold, " and falling upon the imaginary group, he dispelled the vision ofdomestic bliss in the cold embrace of the winter's snow. Mrs. Oliphantpoints out the fact that, unlike most of the hermits and monks, Francisdreams not of dancing girls, but of the pure love of a wife and themodest joys of a home and children. She beautifully says: "Had he, forone sweet, miserable moment, gone back to some old imagination and seenthe unborn faces shine beside the never-lighted fire? But Francis doesnot say a word of any such trial going on in his heart. He dissipatesthe dream by the chill touch of the snow, by still nature hushing thefiery thoughts, by sudden action, so violent as to stir the blood in hisveins; and then the curtain of prayer and silence falls over him, andthe convent walls close black around. "

The experience of the saint on Mount Alverno deserves specialconsideration, not merely on account of its singularity, but alsobecause it affords a striking illustration of the difficulties oneencounters in trying to get at the truth in monastic narratives. Francishad retired to Mount Alverno, a wild and rugged solitude, to meditateupon the Lord's passion. For days he had been almost distracted withgrief and holy sympathy. Suddenly a seraph with six wings stood beforehim. When the heavenly being departed, the marks of the Crucified Oneappeared upon the saint's body. St. Bonaventure says: "His feet andhands were seen to be perforated by nails in their middle; the heads ofthe nails, round and black, were on the inside of the hands, and on theupper parts of the feet; the points, which were rather long, and whichcame out on the opposite sides, were turned and raised above the flesh, from which they came out. " There also appeared on his right side a redwound, which often oozed a sacred blood that stained his tunic. 

This remarkable story has provoked considerable discussion. One'sconclusions respecting its credibility will quite likely be determinedby his general view of numerous similar narratives, and by the degree ofhis confidence in the value of human testimony touching such matters. The incongruities and palpable impostures that seriously impair thegeneral reliability of monkish historians render it difficult todistinguish between the truths and errors in their writings. 

Some authorities hold that the marks did not appear on St. Francis, andthat the story is without foundation. But Roman writers bring forwardthe three early biographers of Francis who claim that the marks didappear. Pope Alexander IV. Publicly averred that he saw the wounds, andpronounced it heresy to doubt the report. Popes Benedict XI. , SixtusIV. , and Sixtus V. Consecrated and canonized the impressions byinstituting a particular festival in their honor. Numerous persons aresaid to have seen the marks and to have kissed the nails, after thedeath of the saint. Singularly enough, the Dominicans were inclined toregard the story as a piece of imposture designed to exalt Francisabove Dominic. 

But, if it be admitted that the marks did appear, as it is notimprobable, how shall the phenomenon be explained? At least fourtheories are held: 1. Fraud; 2. The irresponsible self-infliction of thewounds; 3. Physical effects due to mental suggestion or some otherpsychic cause; 4. Miracle. 

1. The temptation is strong to claim a fraud, especially because thesame witnesses who testify to the truth of the tale, also relate suchmonstrous, incredible stories, that one is almost forced to doubteither their integrity or their sanity. But there is no evidence insupport of so serious an indictment. After showing that signs andportents attend every crisis in history, Mrs. Oliphant says: "Everygreat spiritual awakening has been accompanied by phenomena quiteincomprehensible, which none but the vulgar mind can attribute totrickery and imposture;" but still she herself remains in doubt aboutthe whole story. 

2. Although Mosheim uses the term "fraud, " it would seem that he meansrather the irresponsible self-infliction of the wounds. He says: "As he[Francis] was a most superstitious and fanatical mortal, it isundoubtedly evident that he imprinted on himself the holy wounds. Paul'swords, 'I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus, ' may havesuggested the idea of the fraud. " The notion certainly prevailed thatFrancis was a sort of second Christ, and a book was circulated showinghow he might be compared to Christ in forty particulars. There are manythings in his biography which, if true, indicate that Francis yearned toimitate literally the experiences of his Lord. 

3. Numerous experiments, conducted by scientific men, have establishedthe fact that red marks, swellings, blisters, bleeding and wounds havebeen produced by mental suggestion. Björnstrom, in his work on"Hypnotism, " after recounting various experiments showing the effect ofthe imagination on the body, says, respecting the _stigmata_ of theMiddle Ages: "Such marks can be produced by hypnotism without deceit andwithout the miracles of the higher powers. " Prof. Fisher declares:"There is no room for the suspicion of deceit. The idea of a strangephysical effect of an abnormal state is more plausible. " Trench thinksthis is a reasonable view in the case of a man like Francis, "with atemperament so irrepressible, of an organization so delicate, permeatedthrough and through with the anguish of the Lord's sufferings, passionately and continually dwelling on the one circumstance of hiscrucifixion. " But others, despairing of any rational solution, cut theGordian knot and declare that "the kindest thing to think about Francisis that he was crazy. "

4. Roman Catholics naturally reject all explanations that exclude thesupernatural, for, as Father Candide Chalippe affirms: "Catholics oughtto be cautious in adopting anything coming from heretics; their opinionsare almost always contagious. " He therefore holds fast to the miraclesin the lives of the saints, not only because he accepts the evidence, but because he believes these wonderful stories "add great resplendencyto the merits of the saints, and, consequently, give great weight to theexample they afford us. "

It is altogether probable that each one will continue to view the wholeaffair as his predispositions and religious convictions direct; someunconvinced by traditionary evidence and undismayed by charges ofheresy; others devoutly accepting every monkish miracle and marveling atthe obstinacy of unbelief. 

Two years after the event just described Francis was carried on a cotoutside the walls of Assisi, where, lifting his hands he blessed hisnative city. Some few days later, on October 4, 1226, he passed away, exclaiming, "Welcome, Sister Death!"

Whatever we may think of the legends that cluster about his life, Francis himself must not be held responsible for all that has beenwritten about him. He himself was no phantom or mythical being, but areal, earnest man who, according to his light, tried to serve hisgeneration. As he himself said: "A man is just so much and no more as heis in the sight of God. " "Francis appears to me, " says Forsyth, "agenuine, original hero, independent, magnanimous, incorruptible. Hispowers seemed designed to regenerate society; but taking a wrongdirection, they sank men into beggars. " Through the mist of traditionthe holy beggar and saintly hero shines forth as a loving, gentle soul, unkind to none but himself. However his biography may be regarded, hislife illustrates the beauty and power of voluntary renunciation, --thefountain not only of religion but of all true nobility of character. Hemay have been ignorant, perhaps grossly so, as Mosheim thinks, butnevertheless he merits our highest praise for striving honestly to keephis vow of poverty in the days when worldly monks disgraced their sacredprofession by greed, ambition, and lustful indulgence. 

_The Franciscan Orders_

The orders which Francis founded were of three classes:

1. Franciscan Friars or Order of Friars Minor, called also Gray orBegging Friars. The year in which Francis took the habit, 1208, isreckoned the first year of the order, but the Rule was not givenuntil 1210. 

This Rule, which has not been preserved, was very simple, and doubtlessconsisted of a group of gospel passages, bearing on the vow of poverty, together with a few precepts about the occupations of the brethren. Thepope was not asked to sanction the Rule but only to give his approbationto the missions of the little band. Some of the cardinals expressedtheir doubts about the mode of life provided for in the rules. "But, "replied Giovanni di San Paolo, "if we hold that to observe gospelperfection and make profession of it is an irrational and impossibleinnovation, are we not convicted of blasphemy against Christ, the Authorof the Gospel?"

There was also the Rule of 1221, which makes an intermediate stagebetween the first Rule and that which was approved by the pope November29, 1223. The Rule of 1210 was thoroughly Franciscan. It was theexpression of the passionate, fervent soul of Francis. It was the cry ofthe human heart for God and purity. The Rule of 1223 shows that thechurch had begun to direct the movement. Sabatier says of these tworules: "At the bottom of it all is the antinome of law and love. Underthe reign of law we are the mercenaries of God, bound down to an irksometask, but paid a hundred-fold, and with an indisputable right to ourwages. " Such was the conception underlying the Rule of 1223. That of1210 is thus described: "Under the rule of love we are the sons of God, and co-workers with Him; we give ourselves to Him without bargaining andwithout expectation; we follow Jesus, not because this is well, butbecause we cannot do otherwise, because we feel that He has loved us andwe love Him in our turn. "

Francis would not allow his monks to be called Friars; he preferredFriars Minor or Little Brothers as a more humble designation[F]. 

[Footnote F: Appendix, Note F. ]

Ten years after the founding of the order, it is claimed, over fivethousand friars assembled in Rome for the general chapter. The monkslodged in huts made of matting and hence this convention has been calledthe "Chapter of Mats. " The order was strongest numerically about fiftyyears after the death of Francis, when it numbered eight thousandconvents and two hundred thousand monks. Many of its members were highlydistinguished, such as St. Bonaventura, Duns Scotus, Roger Bacon andCardinal Ximenes. 

2. Nuns of St. Clara or Poor Claras, dates from 1212, but it did notreceive its rule from Francis until 1224. The order was founded in thefollowing manner: Clara, a daughter of a noble family, was distinguishedfor her beauty and by her love for the poor. Francis often met her, and, in the language of his biographer, "exhorted her to a contempt of theworld and poured into her ears the sweetness of Christ. " Guided, nodoubt, by his counsel, she stole one night from her home to aneighboring church where Francis and his beggars were assembled. Herlong and beautiful hair was cut off, while a coarse woolen gown wassubstituted for her own rich garments. Standing in the midst of theragged monks, she renounced the dregs of Babylon and a wicked world, pledging her future to the monastic institution. Out from this littlechurch into the darkness of the night, Francis led this beautiful girlof seventeen years and committed her to a Benedictine nunnery. Later onClara became the abbess of a Franciscan convent at St. Damian, and theSisterhood of St. Clara was established. It was an order of sadness andpenitential tears. It is said that Clara never but once (when shereceived the blessing of the pope) lifted her eyelids so that the colorof her eyes might be discerned. 

3. The Third Order, called also "Brotherhood of Penitence, " was composedof lay men and women. So many husbands and wives were desirous ofleaving their homes in order to enter the monastic state, that Francis, not wishing to break up happy marriages, so it is said, was compelled togive these enthusiasts some sort of a rule by which they mightcompromise between their established life and the monastic career. Thisstate of things led to the formation, in 1221, of the Third Order ofSt. Francis, or the Order of Tertiaries, in relation to the Friars Minorand the Poor Claras. Sabatier says this generally-accepted date iswrong; that it is impossible to fix any date, for that which came to beknown as the Third Order was born of the enthusiasm excited by thepreaching of Francis soon after his return from Rome in 1210. Candidatesfor admission into this order were required to make profession of allthe orthodox truths, special care being employed to guard against theintrusion of heretics. Days of fasting and abstinence were enjoined, andmembers were urged to avoid profanity, the theater, dancing andlaw-suits. The order met with astonishing success, cardinals, bishops, emperors, empresses, kings and queens, gladly enrolling themselves amongthe followers of St. Francis. 

_Dominic de Guzman, 1170-1221 A. D. _

Half-way between Osma and Aranda in Old Castile, Spain, is a littlevillage known as "the fortunate Calahorra. " Here was the castle of theGuzmans, where Dominic was born. His family was of high rank andcharacter, a noble house of warriors, statesmen and saints. If we acceptthe legends, his greatness was foreshadowed. Before his birth, hismother dreamed she saw her son under the figure of a black-and-whitedog, with a torch in his mouth. "A true dream, " says Milman, "for hewill scent out heresy and apply the torch to the faggots;" but, as willbe seen later, this observation does not rest on undisputed evidence. 

[Illustration: PHOTOGRAVURE--RINGLER CO

SAINT DOMINIC

FROM A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PAINTING PRESERVED IN HIS CELL IN THE CONVENTOF SANTA SABINA, AT ROME

TRENTON: ALBERT BRANDT, PUBLISHER, 1900]

In the year 1191, when Spain was desolated by a terrible famine, Dominicwas just finishing his theological studies. He gave away his money andsold his clothes, his furniture and even his precious manuscripts, thathe might relieve distress. When his companions expressed astonishmentthat he should sell his books, Dominic replied: "Would you have me studyoff these dead skins, when men are dying of hunger?" This nobleutterance is cherished by his admirers as the first saying from his lipsthat has passed to posterity. 

Dominic was educated in the schools of Palencia, afterwards auniversity, where he devoted six years to the arts and four to theology. In 1194, when twenty-five years of age, Dominic became a canon regular, at Osma, under the rule of St. Augustine. Nine years after heaccompanied his bishop, Don Diego, on an embassy for the king ofCastile. When they crossed the Pyrenees they found themselves in anatmosphere of heresy. The country was filled with preachers of strangedoctrines, who had little respect for Dominic, his bishop, or theirRoman pontiff. The experiences of this journey inspired in Dominic adesire to aid in the extermination of heresy. He was also deeplyimpressed by an important and significant observation. Many of theseheretical preachers were not ignorant fanatics, but well-trained andcultured men. Entire communities seemed to be possessed by a desire forknowledge and for righteousness. Dominic clearly perceived that onlypreachers of a high order, capable of advancing reasonable argument, could overthrow the Albigensian heresy. 

It would be impossible, in a few words, to tell the whole story of thisAlbigensian movement. Undoubtedly the term stood for a variety oftheological opinions, all of which were in opposition to the teachingsof Rome. "From the very invectives of their enemies, " says Hallam, "andthe acts of the Inquisition, it is manifest that almost every shade ofheterodoxy was found among these dissidents, till it vanished in asimple protestation against the wealth and tyranny of the clergy. " Manyof the tenets of these enthusiasts were undoubtedly borrowed from theancient Manicheism, and would be pronounced heretical by every modernevangelical denomination. But associated with those holding suchdoctrines were numerous reformers, whose chief offense consisted intheir incipient Protestantism. However heretical any of these sects mayhave been, it is impossible to make them out enemies to the socialorder, except as all opponents of established religious traditionscreate disturbance. "What these bodies held in common, " says Hardwick, "and what made them equally the prey of the inquisitor, was theirunwavering belief in the corruption of the medieval church, especiallyas governed by the Roman pontiffs. "

In 1208 Dominic visited Languedoc a second time, and on his way heencountered the papal legates returning in pomp to Rome, foiled in theirattempt to crush this growing schism. To them he administered his famousrebuke: "It is not the display of power and pomp, cavalcades ofretainers, and richly-houseled palfreys, or by gorgeous apparel, thatthe heretics win proselytes; it is by zealous preaching, by apostolichumility, by austerity, by seeming, it is true, but by seeming holiness. Zeal must be met by zeal, humility by humility, false sanctity by realsanctity, preaching falsehood by preaching truth. " It is extremelyunfortunate for the reputation of Dominic that he ever departed from thespirit of these noble words, which so clearly state the conditions oftrue religious progress. 

Dominic now gathered about him a few men of like spirit and began histask of preaching down heresy. But "the enticing words of man's wisdom"failed to win the Albigensians from what they believed to be the wordsof God. So, unmindful of his admonition to the papal legates, Dominicobtained permission of Innocent III. To hold courts, before which hemight summon all persons suspected of heresy. When eloquence and courtsfailed, the pope let loose the "dogs of war. " Then followed twenty yearsof frightful carnage, during which hundreds of thousands of hereticswere slain, and many cities were laid waste by fire and sword. "This wasto punish a fanaticism, " says Hallam, "ten thousand times more innocentthan their own, and errors which, according to the worst imputations, left the laws of humanity and the peace of social life unimpaired. "Peace was concluded in 1229, but the persecution of heretics went on. 

What part Dominic personally had in these bloody proceedings islitigated history. His admirers strive to rescue his memory from thecharge that he was "a cruel and bloody man. " It is argued that while thepope and temporal princes carried on the sanguinary war against theheretics, Dominic confined himself to pleading with them in a spirit oftrue Christian love. He was a minister of mercy, not an avenging angel, sword in hand. It has to be conceded that the constant tradition of theDominican order that Dominic was the first Inquisitor, whether he borethe title or not, rests upon good authority. But what was the nature ofthe office as held by the saint? As far as Dominic was concerned, it isargued by his friends that the office "was limited to the_reconciliation_ of heretics and had nothing to do with their_punishment_. " It is also claimed that while Dominic did imposepenances, in some cases public flagellation, no evidence can be producedshowing that he ever delivered one heretic to the flames. Those who wereburned were condemned by secular courts, and on the ground that theywere not only heretics but enemies of the public peace and perpetratorsof enormous crimes. 

But while it may not be proved that Dominic himself passed the sentenceof death or applied the torch to the faggots with his own hand, he is byno means absolved from all complicity in those frightful slaughters, orfrom all responsibility for the subsequent establishment of the HolyInquisition. The principles governing the Inquisition were practicallythose upon which Dominic proceeded; the germs of the later atrocitiesare to be found in his aims and methods. By what a narrow margin doesDominic escape the charge of cruelty when it is boasted "that heresolutely insisted on no sentence being carried out until all means hadbeen tried by which the conversion of a prisoner could be effected. "Another statement also contains an inkling of a significant fact, namely, that secular judges and princes were constantly under theinfluence of the monks and other ecclesiastical persons, who incitedthem to wage war, and to massacre, in the Albigensian war as in othercrusades against heresy. No word from Dominic can be produced indicatingthat he remonstrated with the pope, or that he tried to stop thecrusade. In a few instances he seems to have interceded with the crazedsoldiery for the lives of women and children. But he did not oppose thebloody crusade itself. He was constantly either with the army orfollowing in its wake. He often sat on the bench at the trial ofdissenters. He remained the life-long friend of Simon de Montfort, thecruel agent of the papacy, and he blessed the marriage of his sons andbaptized his daughter. Special courts for trying heretics wereestablished, previous to the more complete organization of theInquisition, and in these he held a commission. 

The Holy Office of the Inquisition was made a permanent tribunal byGregory IX. , in 1233, twelve years after the death of Dominic, andcuriously enough, in the same year in which he was canonized. TheCatholic Bollandists claim that although the _title_ of Inquisitor wasof later date than Dominic, yet the _office_ was in existence, and thatthe splendor of the Holy Inquisition owes its beginning to that saint. Certain it is that the administration of the Inquisition was mainly inthe hands of Dominican monks. 

In view of all these facts, Professor Allen is justified in hisconclusions respecting Dominic and his share in the persecution ofheretics: "Whatever his own sweet and heavenly spirit according toCatholic eulogists, his name is a synonym of bleak and intolerantfanaticism. It is fatally associated with the blackest horrors of thecrusade against the Albigenses, as well as with the infernal skill anddeadly machinery of the Inquisition. "

In 1214, Dominic established himself, with six followers, in the houseof Peter Cellani, a rich resident of Toulouse. Eleven years of activeand public life had passed since the Subprior of Osma had forsaken thequietude of the monastery. He now resumed his life of retirement andsubjected himself and his companions to the monastic rules of prayer andpenance. But the restless spirit of the man could not long remaincontent with the seclusion and inactivity of a monk's life. The schemeof establishing an order of Preaching Friars began to assume definiteshape in his mind. He dreamed of seven stars enlightening the world, which represented himself and his six friends. The final result of hisdeliberations was the organization of his order, and the appearance ofDominic in the city of Rome, in 1215, to secure the approval of thepope, Innocent III. Although some describe his reception as "mostcordial and flattering, " yet it required supernatural interference toinduce the pope to grant even his approval of the new order. It was notformally confirmed until 1216 by Honorius III. 

Dominic now made his headquarters at Rome, although he traveledextensively in the interests of his growing brotherhood of monks. He wasmade Master of the Sacred Palace, an important official post, includingamong its functions the censorship of the press. It has ever since beenoccupied by members of the Dominican order. 

Throughout his life Dominic is said to have zealously practiced rigorousself-denial. He wore a hair shirt, and an iron chain around his loins, which he never laid aside, even in sleep. He abstained from meat andobserved stated fasts and periods of silence. He selected the worstaccommodations and the meanest clothes, and never allowed himself theluxury of a bed. When traveling, he beguiled the journey with spiritualinstruction and prayers. As soon as he passed the limits of towns andvillages, he took off his shoes, and, however sharp the stones orthorns, he trudged on his way barefooted. Rain and other discomfortselicited from his lips nothing but praises to God. 

Death came at the age of fifty-one and found him exhausted with theausterities and labors of his eventful career. He had reached theconvent of St. Nicholas, at Bologna, weary and sick with a fever. Herefused the repose of a bed and bade the monks lay him on some sackingstretched upon the ground. The brief time that remained to him wasspent in exhorting his followers to have charity, to guard theirhumility, and to make their treasure out of poverty. Lying in ashes uponthe floor he passed away at noon, on the sixth of August, 1221. He wascanonized by Gregory IX. , in 1234. 

_The Dominican Orders_

The origin of the Order of the Preaching Friars has already beendescribed. It is not necessary to dwell upon the constitution of thisorder, because in all essential respects it was like that of theFranciscans. The order is ruled by a general and is divided intoprovinces, governed by provincials. The head of each house is called aprior. Dominic adopted the rules laid down by St. Augustine, because thepope ordered him to follow some one of the older monastic codes, but healso added regulations of his own. 

Soon after the founding of the order, bands of monks were sent out toParis, to Rome, to Spain and to England, for the purpose of plantingcolonies in the chief seats of learning. The order produced manyeminent scholars, some of whom were Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, Echard, Tauler and Savonarola. 

As among the Franciscans, there was also an Order of Nuns, founded in1206, and a Third Order, called the Militia of Jesus Christ, which wasorganized in 1218. 

_The Success of the Mendicant Orders_

In 1215, Innocent III. Being pope, the Lateran council passed thefollowing law: "Whereas the excessive diversity of these [monastic]institutions begets confusion, no new foundations of this sort must beformed for the future; but whoever wishes to become a monk must attachhimself to some of the already existing rules. " This same pope approvedthe two Mendicant orders, urging them, it is true, to unite themselvesto one of the older orders; but, nevertheless, they became distinctorganizations, eclipsing all previous societies in their achievements. The reason for this disregard of the Lateran decree is doubtless to befound in the alarming condition of religious affairs at that time, andin the hope held out to Rome by the Mendicants, of reforming themonasteries and crushing the heretics. 

The failure of the numerous and varied efforts to reform the monasticinstitution and the danger to the church arising from the unwontedstress laid upon poverty by different schismatic religious societies, necessitated the adoption of radical measures by the church to preserveits influence. At this juncture the Mendicant friars appeared. Theconditions demanded a modification of the monastic principle which hadhitherto exalted a life of retirement. Seclusion in the cloister was nolonger possible in the view of the remarkable changes in religiousthought and practice. 

Innocent III. Was wise enough to perceive the immediate utility of thenew societies based upon claims to extraordinary humility and poverty. The Mendicant orders were, in themselves, not only a rebuke to theluxurious indolence and shameful laxity of the older orders, but whensanctioned by the church, the existence of the new societies attestedRome's desire to maintain the highest and the purest standards ofmonastic life. Hence, the Preaching Friars were permitted to reproachthe clergy and the monks for their vices and corruptions. 

"The effect of such a band of missionaries, " says John Stuart Mill, "must have been great in rousing and feeding dormant devotionalfeelings. They were not less influential in regulating those feelings, and turning into the established Catholic channels those vagaries ofprivate enthusiasm which might well endanger the church, since theyalready threatened society itself. "

Two novel monastic features, therefore, now appear for the first time:1. The substitution of itineracy for the seclusion of the cloister; and2. The abolition of endowments. 

1. The older orders had their traveling missionaries, but the generalpractice was to remain shut up within the monastic walls. The Mendicantsat the start had no particular abiding place, but were bound to traveleverywhere, preaching and teaching. It was distinctly the mission ofthese monks to visit the camps, the towns, cities and villages, themarket places, the universities, the homes and the churches, to preachand to minister to the sick and the poor. They neither loved theseclusion of the cell nor sought it. Theirs to tramp the dusty roads, with their capacious bags, begging and teaching. Only by this itinerantmethod could the people be reached and the preachers of heresy beencountered. 

2. One of the chief sources of strength in the heretical sects was thejustness of their attack upon the Catholic monastic orders, whoseimmense riches belied their vows of poverty. The heretics practicedausterities and adopted a simplicity of life that won the hearts of thepeople, by reason of its contrast to the loose habits of the monks andclergy. Since it was impossible to reform the older orders, it becameabsolutely essential to the success of the Mendicants that they shouldrigorously respect the neglected discipline. As the abuse of the vow ofpoverty was particularly common, the Mendicants naturallyemphasized this vow. 

While it is true that a begging monk was by no means unknown, yet now, for the first time, was the practice of mendicity formally adopted byentire orders. Owing to the excessive multiplication of mendicantsocieties, Pope Gregory X. , at a general council held at Lyons in 1272, attempted to check the growing evil. The number of Mendicant orders wasconfined to four, viz. , the Dominicans, the Franciscans, the Carmelitesand the Augustinians or Hermits of Augustine. The Council of Trentconfined mendicity to the Observantines and Capuchins, since the othersocieties had practically abandoned their original interpretation oftheir vow of poverty and had acquired permanent property. 

When Francis tried to enforce the rule of poverty, his rigor gave riseto most serious dissensions, which began in his own lifetime and endedafter his death in open schism. Some of his followers were not pleasedwith his views on that subject. They resisted his extreme strictness, and after his death they continued to advocate the holding of property. The popes tried to settle the quarrel, but ever and anon it broke outafresh with volcanic fierceness. They finally interpreted the rule ofpoverty to mean that the friars could not hold property in their ownnames, but they might enjoy its use. Under this interpretation of therule, the beggars soon became very rich. Matthew of Paris said: "Thefriars who have been founded hardly forty years have built even in thepresent day in England residences as lofty as the palaces of our kings. "But the better element among the Franciscans refused to consent to sucha palpable evasion of the rule. A portion of this class separatedthemselves from the Franciscans, rejected their authority, and formed anew sect called the _Fratricelli_, or Little Brothers. It is veryimportant to keep the history of this name clearly in mind, for itfrequently appears in the Reformation period and has been the cause ofmuch misunderstanding. The word "Fratricelli" came to be a term ofderision applied to any one affecting the dress or the habits of themonks. When heretical sects arose, it was applied to them as a stigma, but it was used first by a sect of rigid Franciscans who deserted theirorder, adopted this name as their own, and exulted in its use. Thequarrel among the monks led to a variety of complications and isintricately interwoven with the political and religious history of thethirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. "These rebelliousFranciscans, " says Mosheim, "though fanatical and superstitious in somerespects, deserve an eminent rank among those who prepared the way forthe Reformation in Europe, and who excited in the minds of the people ajust aversion to Rome. "

The Mendicants were especially active in educational work. This is to beattributed to several causes. Unquestionably the general and increasinginterest in theological doctrines and the craving for knowledge affectedthe monastic orders. Europe was just arousing from her medievalslumbers. The faint rays of the Reformation dawn were streaking thehorizon. The intellect as well as the conscience was touched by theSpirit of God. The revolt against moral iniquity was often accompaniedby skepticism concerning the authority and dogmas of the church. Questions were being asked that ignorant monks could not answer. Toolong had the church ignored these symptoms of the approach of a neworder of things. The church was forced to meet the heretics on their ownground, to offset the example of their simplicity and purity of life byexalting the neglected standards of self-denial, and to silence them, ifpossible, by exposing their errors. Then came the Franciscans, withtheir austere simplicity and their insistence upon poverty. Then alsoappeared the Dominicans, or as they were called, "The Watch-dogs of theChurch, " who not only barked the church awake, but tried to devourthe heretics. 

Francis halted for some time before giving encouragement to educationalenterprises. A life of devotion and prayer attracted him, because, as hesaid, "Prayer purifies the affections, strengthens us in virtue, andunites us to the sovereign good. " But, he went on, "Preaching rendersthe feet of the spiritual man dusty; it is an employment whichdissipates and distracts, and which causes regular discipline to berelaxed. " After consulting Brother Sylvester and Sister Clara, hedecided to adopt their counsel and entered upon a ministry of preaching. The example and success of the Dominicans probably inspired theFranciscans to give themselves more and more to intellectual work. 

Both orders received appointments in all the leading universities, butthey did not gain this ascendency without a severe conflict. The regularprofessors and the clergy were jealous of them for various causes, andresisted them at every point. The quarrel between the Dominicans and theUniversity of Paris is the most famous of these struggles. It began in1228 and did not end until 1259. The Dominicans claimed the right to twotheological professorships. One had been taken from them, and a law waspassed that no religious order should have what these friars demanded. The Dominicans rebelled and the University passed sentences ofexpulsion. Innocent IV. , wishing to become master of Italy, sided withthe University, but the next month he was dead, --in answer to theirprayers, said the Dominicans, but rumor hinted an even blacker cause. The thirty-one years of the struggle dragged wearily on, disturbed bypapal bulls, appeals, pamphlets and university slogans. At lastAlexander IV. , in 1255, decided that the Dominicans might have thesecond professorship and also any other they thought proper. The noiseof conflict now grew louder and boded ill for the peace of the church. The pulpits flashed forth fiery utterances. The monks were assailed inevery quarter. William of Amour published his essay on "The Perils ofthe Last Times, " in which he claimed that the perilous times predictedby the Apostle Paul were now fulfilled by these begging friars. Heexposed their iniquities and bitterly complained of their arrogance andvice. His book was burned and its author banished. Although meaning tobe a friend of Rome, he unconsciously contributed his share to thecoming reform. In 1259, Rome thundered so loud that all Europe wasterrified and the University was awed into submission. 

Another interesting feature in the history of their educationalenterprises is the entrance of the Mendicants into England, where theyacted a leading part in the educational and political history of thecountry. The Dominicans settled first at Oxford, in 1221. TheFranciscans, after a short stay at Canterbury, went to Oxford in 1224. The story of how the two Gray friars journeyed from Canterbury to Oxfordruns as follows: "These two forerunners of a famous brotherhood, beingnot far from Oxford, lost their way and came to a farmhouse of theBenedictines. It was nearly night and raining. They gently knocked, andasked admittance for God's sake. The porter gazed on their patched robesand beggarly aspect and supposed them to be mimics or despised persons. The prior, pleased with the tidings, invited them in. But instead ofsportively performing, these two friars insisted, with sedatecountenances, that they were men of God. Whereat the Benedictines injealousy, and displeased to be cheated out of their expected fun, kickedand buffeted the two poor monks and turned them out of doors. One youngmonk pitied them and smuggled them into a hay-loft where we trust theyslept soundly and safe from the cold and rain. " The two friars finallyreached Oxford and were well received by their Dominican brothers. Suchwas the simple beginning of a brilliant career that was profoundly toaffect the course of English history. Both at Cambridge and Oxford themonastic orders exercised a remarkable influence. Traces of their laborsand power may still be seen in the names of the colleges, and in thereligious portions of the university discipline. They built fineedifices and manned their schools with the best teachers, so that theybecame great rivals of the regular colleges which did not have the fundsnecessary to compete with these wealthy beggars. Another cause of theirrapid progress was the exodus of students from Paris to England. Duringthe quarrel at Paris, Henry III. Of England offered many inducements tothe students, who left for England in large numbers. Many of them wereprejudiced in favor of the friars, and they naturally drifted to themonastic college. The secular clergy charged the friars with inducingthe college students to enter the monasteries or to turn begging monks. The pope, the king, and the parliament became involved in the struggle, which grew more bitter as the years passed. After a while Wyclifappeared, and when he began his mighty attack upon the friars the joywith which the professors viewed the struggle can be appreciated. 

_The Decline of the Mendicants_

The Mendicant friars won their fame by faithful and earnest labors. Menadmired them because they identified themselves with the lowest ofmankind and heroically devoted themselves to the poor and sick. These"sturdy beggars, " as Francis called his companions, were contrasted withthe lazy, rich, and, too often, licentious monks of the other orders. Everywhere the friars were received with veneration and joy. The peoplesought burial in their rags, believing that, clothed in the garments ofthese holy beggars, they would enter paradise more speedily. 

Instead of seeking the seclusion of the convent to save his own soul, the friar displayed remarkable zeal trying to save mankind. He becamethe arbiter in the quarrels of princes, the prime mover in treatiesbetween nations, and the indispensable counselor in politicalcomplications. The pope employed him as his authorized agent in the mostdifficult matters touching the welfare of the church. His influence uponthe common people is thus described by the historian Green: "The theoryof government wrought out in the cell and lecture-room was carried overthe length and breadth of the land by the Mendicant brother begging hisway from town to town, chatting with the farmer or housewife at thecottage door and setting up his portable pulpit in village green ormarket-place. The rudest countryman learned the tale of a king'soppression or a patriot's hope as he listened to the rambling, passionate, humorous discourse of the beggar friar. "

By these methods the Mendicants were enabled to render most efficientservice to their patrons at Rome in their efforts to establish theirtemporal power. They were, in fact, before the Reformation, just whatthe Jesuits afterwards became, "the very soul of the hierarchy. " Yes, they were immensely, prodigiously successful. The popes hastened to dothem honor. Because the friars were such enthusiastic supporters of thechurch, the popes poured gold and privileges into their capaciouscoffers. Thankful peasants threw in their mites and the admiring noblebestowed his estates. 

The secular clergy, with envy and chagrin, awoke to the alarming factthat the beggars had won the hearts of the people; their hatred wasincreased by the fact that when the Roman pontiffs enriched theseindefatigable toilers and valiant foes of heresy, they did so at theexpense of the bishops and clergy, which, perhaps, was robbing Paul topay Peter. 

Baluzii says: "No religious order had the distribution of so many andsuch ample indulgences as the Franciscans. In place of fixed revenues, lucrative indulgences were placed in their hands. " So ill-judged was thedistribution of these favors that discipline was overturned. Manychurchmen, feeling that their rights were being encroached upon, complained bitterly, and resolved on retaliation. It is just here that apotent cause of the Mendicant's fall is to be found. He helped to dighis own grave. 

Having elevated monasticism to the zenith of its power, the Mendicantorders, like all the other monastic brotherhoods, entered upon theirshameful decline. The unexampled prosperity, so inconsistent with theoriginal intentions of the founders of the orders, was attended bycorruptions and excesses. The decrees of councils, the denunciations ofpopes and high ecclesiastical dignitaries, the satires of literature, the testimony of chroniclers and the formation of reformatory orders, constitute a body of irrefragable evidence proving that the lowest levelof sensuality, superstition and ignorance had been reached. The monksand friars lost whatever vigor and piety they ever possessed. 

It is again evident that a monk cannot serve God and mammon. Successruins him. Wealth and popular favor change his character. The peopleslowly realize the fact that the fat and lazy medieval monk is not dead, after all, but has simply changed his name to that of Begging Friar. AsAllen neatly observes: "Their gray gown and knotted cord wrapped aspiritual pride and capacity of bigotry, fully equal to the rest. "

Here, then, are the "sturdy beggars" of Francis, dwelling in palatialconvents, arrogant and proud, trampling their ideal into the dust. Thusit came to pass in accordance with the principle stated at the beginningof this chapter, that when the ideal became a cloak to cover up sham, decay had set in, and ruin, even though delayed for years, was sure tocome. The poor, sad-faced, honest, faithful friar everybody praised, loved and reverenced. The insolent, contemptuous, rich monk all menloathed. So a change of character in the friar transformed the songs ofpraise into shouts of condemnation. Those golden rays from the morningsun of the Reformation are ascending toward the highest heaven, anddaybreak is near. 

VI

_THE SOCIETY OF JESUS_

In many respects it would be perfectly proper to consider the Mendicantorders as the last stage in the evolution of the monastic institution. Although the Jesuitical system rests upon the three vows of poverty, celibacy and obedience, yet the ascetic principle is reduced to aminimum in that society. Father Thomas E. Sherman, the son of the famousgeneral, and a Jesuit of distinguished ability, has declared: "We arenot, as some seem to think, a semi-military band of men, like theTemplars of the Middle Ages. We are not a monastic order, seekinghappiness in lonely withdrawal from our fellows. Our enemies within andwithout the church would like to make us monks, for then we would becomparatively useless, since that is not our end or aim.... We areregulars in the army of Christ; that is, men vowed to poverty, chastityand obedience; we are a collegiate body with the right to teach grantedby the Catholic church[G]. "

[Footnote G: Appendix, Note G. ]

The early religious orders were based upon the idea of retirement fromthe world for the purpose of acquiring holiness. But as has already beenshown, the constant tendency of the religious communities was towardparticipation in the world's affairs. This tendency became very markedamong the friars, who traveled from place to place, and occupiedimportant university positions, and it reaches its culmination in theSociety of Jesus. Retirement among the Jesuits is employed merely as apreparation for active life. Constant intercourse with society wasprovided for in the constitution of the order. Bishop John J. Keane, aRoman Catholic authority, says: "The clerks regular, institutedprincipally since the sixteenth century, were neither monks nor friars, but priests living in common and busied with the work of the ministry. The Society of Jesus is one of the orders of clerks regular. "

Other differences between the monastic communities and the Jesuits areto be observed. The Jesuit discards the monastic gown, and is decidedlyaverse to the old monastic asceticism, with its rigorous and painfultreatment of the body. While the older religious societies wereessentially democratic in spirit and government, the monks sharing inthe control of the monastic property and participating in the electionof superiors, the Jesuitical system is intensely monarchical, adespotism pure and simple. In the older orders, the welfare of theindividual was jealously guarded and his sanctification was sought. Among the Jesuits the individual is nothing, the corporate bodyeverything. Admission to the monastic orders was encouraged and easilyobtained. The novitiate of the Jesuits is long and difficult. Access tothe highest grades of the order is granted only to those who have servedthe society many weary years. 

[Illustration: IGNATIUS DE LOYOLA

AFTER GREATBACH'S ENGRAVING FROM THE WIERZ PRINT

BENTON: ALBERT BRANDT, PUBLISHER, 1900]

But in spite of such variations from the old monastic type, the Societyof Jesus would doubtless never have appeared, had not the way for itsexistence been paved by previous monastic societies. Its aims and itsmethods were the natural sequence of monastic history. They were merelya development of past experiences, for the objects of the society werepractically the objects of the Mendicants; the vows were the same with achange of emphasis. The abandonment of austerities as a means ofsalvation or spiritual power was the natural fruit of past experimentsthat had proved the uselessness of asceticism merely for the sake ofacquiring a spirit of self-denial. The extirpation of heresy undertakenby Ignatius had already been attempted by the friars, while theeducation of the young had long been carried on with considerablesuccess by the Benedictine and Dominican monks. The spirit of itsfounder, however, gave the Society of Jesus a unique character, andmonasticism now passed out from the cell forever. The Jesuit may fairlybe regarded as a monk, unlike any of his predecessors but neverthelessthe legitimate fruit of centuries of monastic experience. 

_Ignatius de Loyola, 1491-1556 A. D. _

Inigo Lopez de Recalde, or Loyola, as he is commonly known, was born atGuipuzcoa, in Spain, in 1491. He was educated as a page in the court ofFerdinand the Catholic. He afterwards became a soldier and led a verywild life until his twenty-ninth year. During the siege of Pamplona, in1521, he was severely wounded, and while convalescing he was given livesof Christ and of the saints to read. His perusal of these stories ofspiritual combat inspired a determination to imitate the gloriousachievements of the saints. For a while the thirst for military renownand an attraction toward a lady of the court, restrained his spiritualimpulses. But overcoming these obstacles, he resolutely entered upon hisnew career. 

Sometime after he visited the sanctuary of Montserrat, where he hung hisshield and sword upon the altar of the Virgin Mary and gave his oath offealty to the service of God. A tablet, erected by the abbot of themonastery in commemoration of this event, reads as follows: "Here, blessed Ignatius of Loyola, with many prayers and tears, devoted himselfto God and the Virgin. Here, as with spiritual arms, he fortifiedhimself in sackcloth, and spent the vigil of the night. Hence he wentforth to found the Society of Jesus, in the year MDXXII. "

After spending ten months in Manresa, Loyola went on a pilgrimage to theHoly Land, intending to remain there, but he was sent home by theEastern monks, and reached Italy in 1524. 

Now began his struggle for an education. At the age of thirty-three hetook his seat on the school-bench at Barcelona. In 1526 he entered theUniversity at Alcala. He was here looked upon as a dangerous innovator, and was imprisoned six weeks, by order of the Inquisition, for preachingwithout authority, since he was not in holy orders. After his release heattended the University of Salamanca, but he finally took his degree ofMaster of Arts at the University of Paris, in 1533. 

During this period he was several times imprisoned as a dangerousfanatic, but each time he succeeded in securing a verdict in his favor. The hostility to Ignatius and his work forms a strange parallel to thebitter antagonism which his society has always encountered. 

Nine men, among whom was Francis Xavier, afterwards widely renowned, hadbeen chosen with great care, as the companions of Ignatius. He calledthem together in July, 1534, and on August 15th of the same year heselected six of them and bade them follow him to the Church of theBlessed Virgin, at Montmartre, in Paris. There and then they boundthemselves to renounce all their goods, and to make a voyage toJerusalem, in order to convert the Eastern infidels; if that schemeproved impracticable, they agreed to offer themselves to the sovereignpontiff for any service he might require of them. War prevented thejourney to the Holy Land, and so, after passing through a variety ofexperiences, Ignatius and his companions met at Rome, to secure thesanction of Pope Paul III. For the new society. After a year and a halfof deliberation and discussion a favorable decision was reached, whichwas, no doubt, partly facilitated by the growth of the Reformation. Thenew society was chartered on September 27, 1540, for the "defence andadvance of the faith. "

Ignatius was elected as the general of the order and entered upon hisduties, April 17, 1541. He soon prepared a constitution which was notadopted until after his death, and then in an amended form. Loyola endedhis remarkable and stormy career, July 31, 1556. 

_Constitution and Polity of the Order_

The _Institutum_, which contains the governing laws of the society, is acomplex document consisting of papal bulls and decrees, a list of theprivileges which have been granted to the order, ten chapters of rules, decrees of the general congregations, the plan of studies (_ratiostudiorum_), and three ascetic writings, of which the SpiritualExercises of Ignatius constitute the chief part. 

The society is distributed into six grades: novices, scholastics, temporal coadjutors, spiritual coadjutors, professed of the three vows, and professed of the four vows. 

The professed form only a small percentage of the entire body, andconstitute a sort of religious aristocracy, from which the officers ofthe society are selected. Only the professed of the fourth vow, who addto the three vows a pledge of unconditional obedience to the pope, possess the full rights of membership. This final grade cannot bereached until the age of forty-five, so that if the candidate enters theorder at the earliest age permissible, fourteen, he has been onprobation thirty-one years when he reaches the final grade. 

The society is ruled by a general, to whom unconditional obedience isrequired. The provinces, into which the order is divided, are governedby provincials, who must report monthly to the general. The heads of allhouses and colleges must report weekly to their provincials. Anelaborate system of checks and espionage is employed to ensure theperfect working of this complex ecclesiastical machinery. Fraud orevasion is carefully guarded against, and every possible means isemployed to enable the general to keep himself fully informed concerningthe minutest details of the society's affairs. 

_The Vow of Obedience_

That which has imparted a peculiar character to the Jesuit andcontributed more than any other force to his success, is the insistenceupon unquestioning submission to the will of the superior. This emphasison the vow of obedience deserves, therefore, special consideration. Loyola, in his "Spiritual Exercises, " commanded the novice to preservehis freedom of mind, but it is difficult for the fairest critic toconceive of such a possibility in the light of Loyola's rule ofobedience, which reads: "I ought not to be my own, but His who createdme, and his too by whose means God governs me, yielding myself to bemoulded in his hands like so much wax.... I ought to be like a corpse, which has neither will nor understanding, or like a small crucifix, which is turned about at the will of him who holds it, or like a staffin the hands of an old man, who uses it as may best assist orplease him. "

As an example of the kind of obedience demanded of the Jesuit, Loyolacited the obedience of Abraham, who, when he believed that Jehovahcommanded him to commit the crime of infanticide, was ready to obey. Thethirteenth of the rules appended to the Spiritual Exercises says: "Ifthe Church shall have defined that to be black which to our eyes appearswhite, we ought to pronounce the thing in question black. "

Loyola is reported as having said to his secretary that "in those whooffer themselves he looked less to purely natural goodness than tofirmness of character and ability for business. " But that he did notmean _independent_ firmness of character is clearly seen in the obviousattempt of the order to destroy that noble and true independence whichis the crowning glory of a lofty character. The discipline ismarvelously contrived to "scoop the will" out of the individual. CountPaul von Hoensbroech, who recently seceded from the society, has setforth his reasons for so doing in two articles which appeared in the"Preussische Jahrbücher. " A most interesting discussion of thesearticles, in the "New World, " for December, 1894, places the opinions ofthe Count at our disposal. It is quite evident that he is no passionate, blind foe of the society. His tone is temperate and his praisescordially given. While recognizing the genius shown in the machinery ofthe society and the nobility of the real aims of the Jesuiticaldiscipline, and while protesting against the unfounded charges ofimpurity, and other gross calumnies against the order, Count Paulnevertheless maintains that it "rests on so unworthy a depreciation ofindividuality, and so exaggerated an apprehension of the virtue ofobedience, as to render it unfit for its higher ends. " The uniform ofthe Jesuit is not an external garb, but such freedom is insignificant inthe light of the "veritable strait-jacket, " which is placed upon theinward man. The unformed and pliable novice, usually between the ages ofsixteen and twenty, is subjected to "a skillful, energetic andunremitting assault upon personal independence. " Every device that ashrewd and powerful intellect could conceive of is employed to break upthe personal will. "The Jesuit scheme prescribes the gait, the way tohold the hands, to incline the head, to direct the eyes, to hold andmove the person. "

Every novice must go through the "Spiritual Exercises" in completesolitude, twice in his life. They occupy thirty days. The "Account ofthe Conscience" is of the very essence of Jesuitism. The ordinaryconfession, familiar to every Catholic, is as nothing compared with thismarvelous inquiry into the secrets of the human heart and mind. Everyfault, sin, virtue, wish, design, act and thought, --good, bad orindifferent, --must be disclosed, and this revelation of the inner lifemay be used against him who makes it, "for the good of the order. "Thus, after fifteen years of such ingenious and detailed discipline, theyoung man's intellectual and moral faculties are moulded into Jesuiticalforms. He is no longer his own. He is a pliable and obedient, eventhough it may be a virtuous and brilliant, tool of a spiritualmaster-mechanic who will use him according to his own purposes, in theinterest of the society. 

The Jesuits have signally failed to convince the world that the type ofcharacter produced by their system is worthy of admiration. The"sacrifice of the intellect"--a familiar watchword of the Jesuit--is fartoo high a price to pay for whatever benefits the discipline may confer. It is contrary to human nature, and hence to the divine intention, tokeep a human soul in a state of subordination to another human will. AsVon Hoensbroech says of the society: "Who gave it a right to break downthat most precious possession of the individual being, which God gave, and which man has no authority to take away?"

It is true that no human organization has so magnificently brought toperfection a unity of purpose and oneness of will. It is also true thata spirit of defiance toward human authority is often accompanied by adisobedience of divine law. But the remedy for the abuses of humanfreedom is neither in the annihilation of the will itself, nor in itsmere subjection to some other will irrespective of its moral character. Carlyle may have been too vehement in some of his censures of Jesuitism, but he certainly exposed the fallaciousness of Loyola's views concerningthe value of mere obedience, at the same time justly rebuking the tooardent admirers of the perverted principle: "I hear much also of'obedience, ' how that and kindred virtues are prescribed and exemplifiedby Jesuitism; the truth of which, and the merit of which, far be it fromme to deny.... Obedience is good and indispensable: but if it beobedience to what is wrong and false, good heavens, there is no name forsuch a depth of human cowardice and calamity, spurned everlastingly bythe gods. Loyalty? Will you be loyal to Beelzebub? Will you 'make acovenant with Death and Hell'? I will not be loyal to Beelzebub; I willbecome a nomadic Choctaw rather, ... Anything and everything isvenial to that. "

_The Casuistry of the Jesuits_

It is often asserted, even by authoritative writers, that a Jesuit isbound by his vows to commit either venial or mortal sin at the commandof his superior; and that the maxim, "The end justifies the means, " hasnot only been the principle upon which the society has prosecuted itswork but is also explicitly taught in the rules of the order. There isnothing in the constitution of the society to justify these two seriouscharges, which are not to be regarded as malicious calumnies, however, because the slovenly Latin in one of the rules on obedience has misledsuch competent scholars as John Addington Symonds and the historianRanke. Furthermore, judging from the doctrines of the society as setforth by many of their theologians and the political conduct of itsrepresentatives, the conclusion seems inevitable that while the societymay not teach in its rules that its members are bound to obedience evento the point of sin, yet practically many of its leaders have so heldand its emissaries have rendered that kind of obedience. 

Bishop Keane admits that one of the causes for the decline and overthrowof the society was its marked tendency toward lax moral teaching. Therecan be but little doubt that the Jesuits have ever been indulgent towardmany forms of sin and even crime, when committed under certaincircumstances and for the good of the order or "the greater gloryof God. "

To enable the reader to form some sort of an independent judgment onthis question, it is necessary to say a few words on the subject ofcasuistry and the doctrine of probabilism. 

Casuistry is the application of general moral rules to given cases, especially to doubtful ones. The medieval churchmen were much given toinventing fanciful moral distinctions and to prescribing rules to governsupposable problems of conscience. They were not willing to trust theindividual conscience or to encourage personal responsibility. Theindividual was taught to lean his whole weight on his spiritual adviser, in other words, to make the conscience of the church his own. As aresult there grew up a confused mass of precepts to guide the perplexedconscience. The Jesuits carried this system to its farthest extreme. AsCharles C. Starbuck says: "They have heaped possibility upon possibilityin their endeavors to make out how far there can be subjective innocencein objective error, until they have, in more than one fundamental point, hopelessly confused their own perceptions of both[H]. "

[Footnote H: Appendix, Note H. ]

The doctrine of probabilism is founded upon the distinctions betweenopinions that are sure, less sure, or more sure. There are severalschools of probabilists, but the doctrine itself practically amounts tothis: Since uncertainty attaches to many of our decisions in moralaffairs, one must follow the more probable rule, but not always, casesoften arising when it is permissible to follow a rule contrary to themore probable one. Furthermore, as the Jesuits made war upon individualauthority, which was the key-note of the Reformation, and contended forthe authority of the church, the teaching naturally followed, that theopinion of "a grave doctor" may be looked upon "as possessing a fairamount of probability, and may, therefore, be safely followed, eventhough one's conscience insist upon the opposite course. " It is easy tosee that this opens a convenient door to those who are seekingjustification for conduct which their consciences condemn. No doubt onecan find plausible excuses for the basest crimes, if he stills the voiceof conscience and trusts himself to confusing sophistry. The glory ofGod, the gravity of circumstances, necessity, the good of the church orof the order, and numerous other practical reasons can be urged toremove scruples and make a bad act seem to be a good one. But crime, even "for the glory of God, " is crime still. 

This disagreeable subject will not be pursued further. To say less thanhas been said would be to ignore one of the most prominent causes of theJesuits' ruin. To say more than this, even though the facts mightwarrant it, would incur the liability of being classed among thosemalicious fomentors of religious strife, for whom the writer has mingledfeelings of pity and contempt. The Society of Jesus is not the RomanCatholic Church, which has suffered much from the burden ofJesuitism--wounds that are scarcely atoned for by the meritorious andself-sacrificing services on her behalf in other directions. TheProtestant foes have never equaled the Catholic opponents of Jesuitism, either in their fierce hatred of the system or in their ability toexpose its essential weakness. A writer in the "Quarterly Review, "September, 1848, says: "Admiration and detestation of the Jesuitsdivide, as far as feeling is concerned, the Roman Catholic world, with aschism deeper and more implacable than any which arrays Protestantagainst Protestant. "

_The Mission of the Jesuits_

The Society of Jesus has been described as "a naked sword, whose hilt isat Rome, and whose point is everywhere. " It is an undisputed historicalfact that Loyola's consuming passion was to accomplish the ruin ofProtestantism, which had twenty years the start of him and wasthreatening the very existence of the Roman hierarchy. It has alreadybeen shown that the destruction of heresy was the chief aim of theDominicans. What the friars failed to attain, Loyola attempted. Theprincipal object of the Jesuits was the maintenance of papal authority. Even to-day the Jesuit does not hesitate to declare that his mission isto overthrow Protestantism. The Reformation was inspired by a newconception of individual freedom. The authority of tradition and of thechurch was set at naught. Loyola planted his system upon the doctrine ofabsolute submission to authority. The partial success of the Jesuits, for they did beat back the Reformation, is no doubt attributable totheir fidelity, virtue and learning. Their devotion to the cause theyloved, their willingness to sacrifice life itself, their marvelous andinstantaneous obedience to the slightest command of their leaders, madethem a compact and powerful papal army. Their methods, in manyparticulars, were not beyond question, and, whatever their character, the order certainly incurred the fiercest hostility of every nation inEurope, and even of the church itself. 

Professor Anton Gindely, in his "History of the Thirty Years' War, "shows that Maximilian, of Bavaria, and Ferdinand, of Austria, theleaders on the Catholic side, were educated by Jesuits. He also fixesthe responsibility for that war partly upon them in the plainest terms:"In a word, they had the consciences of Roman Catholic sovereigns andtheir ministers in their hands as educators, and in their keeping asconfessors. They led them in the direction of war, so that it was at thetime, and has since been called the Jesuits' War. "

The strictures of Carlyle, Macaulay, Thackeray, and Lytton have beenrepeatedly denounced by the Jesuits, but even their shrewd, sophisticaldefences of their order afford ample justification for the attitude oftheir foes. For example, in a masterful oration, previously quoted from, in which the virtues of the Jesuits are extolled and defended, FatherSherman says: "We are expelled and driven from pillar to post because weteach men to love God. " He describes Loyola as "the knightly, the loyal, the true, the father of heroes, and the maker of saints, the lover ofthe all-good and the all-beautiful, crowned with the honor of sainthood, the best-loved and the best-hated man in all the world, save only hisMaster and ours. " "'Twas he that conceived the daring plan of forgingthe weapon to beat back the Reformation. " No one but a Jesuit couldreconcile the aim of "preaching the love of God" with "beating back theReformation, " especially in view of the methods employed. 

Numerous gross calumnies have been circulated against the Society ofJesus. The dread of a return to that deplorable intellectual and moralslavery of the pre-Reformation days is so intense, that a calm, dispassionate consideration of Jesuit history is almost impossible. Butafter all just concessions have been made, two indisputable factsconfront the student: first, the universal antagonism to the order, ofthe church that gave birth to it, as well as of the states that havesuffered from its meddling in political affairs; and second, thecomplete failure of the order's most cherished schemes. France, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Great Britain and other nations, have been compelledin sheer self-defence to expel it from their territories. Such asignificant fact needs some other explanation than that the Jesuit hasincurred the enmity of the world merely for preaching the love of God. 

Clement XIV. , when solemnly pronouncing the dissolution of the order, atthe time his celebrated bull, entitled "_Dominus ac Redemptor Noster_"which was signed July 21, 1773, was made public, justified his action inthe following terms: "Recognizing that the members of this society havenot a little troubled the Christian commonwealth, and that for thewelfare of Christendom it were better that the order should disappear, "etc. When Rome thus delivers her _ex cathedra_ opinion concerning herown order, an institution which she knows better than any one else, onecannot fairly be charged with prejudice and sectarianism in speakingevil of it. 

But while there is much to be detested in the methods of the order, history does not furnish another example of such self-abnegation andintense zeal as the Jesuits have shown in the prosecution of their aims. They planted missions in Japan, China, Africa, Ceylon, Madagascar, Northand South America. 

In Europe the Mendicant friars by their coarseness had disgusted theupper classes; the affable and cultured Jesuit won their hearts. TheJesuits became chaplains in noble families, learned the secrets of everygovernment in Europe, and became the best schoolmasters in the age. Theywere to be found in various disguises in every castle of note and inevery palace. "There was no region of the globe, " says Macaulay, "nowalk of speculative or active life in which Jesuits were not to befound. " That they were devoted to their cause no one can deny. They werecareless of life and, as one facetiously adds, of truth also. Theyeducated, heard confessions, plotted crimes and revolutions, andpublished whole libraries. Worn out by fatigue, the Jesuits still toiledon with marvelous zeal. Though hated and opposed, they wore serene andcheerful countenances. In a word, they had learned to control everyfaculty and every passion, and to merge every human aspiration andpersonal ambition into the one supreme purpose of conquering an opposingfaith and exalting the power of priestly authority. They hold up beforethe subjects of the King of Heaven a wonderful example of loving anduntiring service, which should be emulated by every servant of Christwho too often yields an indifferent obedience to Him whom he professesto love and to serve. 

Francis Parkman, in his brilliant narrative of "The Jesuits in NorthAmerica, " presents the following interesting contrast between thePuritan and the Jesuit: "To the mind of the Puritan, heaven was God'sthrone; but no less was the earth His footstool; and each in its degreeand its kind had its demands on man. He held it a duty to labor and tomultiply; and, building on the Old Testament quite as much as on theNew, thought that a reward on earth as well as in heaven awaited thosewho were faithful to the law. Doubtless, such a belief is widely open toabuse, and it would be folly to pretend that it escaped abuse in NewEngland; but there was in it an element manly, healthful andinvigorating. On the other hand, those who shaped the character, and ina great measure the destiny, of New France had always on their lips thenothingness and the vanity of life. For them, time was nothing but apreparation for eternity, and the highest virtue consisted in arenunciation of all the cares, toils and interests of earth. That such adoctrine has often been joined to an intense worldliness, all historyproclaims; but with this we have at present nothing to do. If allmankind acted on it in good faith, the world would sink intodecrepitude. It is the monastic idea carried into the wide field ofactive life, and is like the error of those who, in their zeal tocultivate their higher nature, suffer the neglected body to dwindle andpine, till body and mind alike lapse into feebleness and disease. "

Notwithstanding the success of the Jesuits in stopping the progress ofthe Reformation, it may be truthfully said that they have failed. Theprinciples of the Reformation dominate the world and are slowlymodifying the Roman church in America. "In truth, " says Macaulay, "ifsociety continued to hold together, if life and property enjoyed anysecurity, it was because common sense and common humanity restrained menfrom doing what the order of Jesus assured them they might with a safeconscience do. " Our hope for the future progress of society lies in theguiding power of this same common sense and common humanity. 

The restoration of the order by Pius VII. , August 7th, 1814, while itrenewed the papal favor, did not allay the hostility of the civilpowers. Various states have expelled them since that time, and whereverthey labor, they are still the objects of open attack or ill-disguisedsuspicion. Although the order still shows "some quivering in fingers andtoes, " as Carlyle expresses it, the principles of the Reformation aretoo widely believed, and its benefits too deeply appreciated, tojustify any hope or fear of the ultimate triumph of Jesuitism. 

_Retrospect_

So the Christian monk has greatly changed since he first appeared in thedeserts of Nitria, in Egypt. He has come from his den in the mountainsto take his seat in parliaments, and find his home in palaces. He is nolonger filthy in appearance, but elegant in dress and courtly in manner. He has exchanged his rags for jewels and silks. He is no longer therecluse of the lonely cliffs, chatting with the animals and gazing atthe stars. He is a man of the world, with schemes of conquest fillinghis brain and a love of dominion ruling his heart. He is no longer aditch-digger and a ploughman, but the proud master of councils or thecultured professor of the university. He still swears to the three vowsof celibacy, poverty and obedience, but they do not mean the same thingto him that they did to the more ignorant, less cultured, but moregenuinely frank monk of the desert. Yes, he has all but completely lostsight of his ancient monastic ideal. He professes the poverty ofChrist, but he cannot follow even so simple a man as his Saint Francis. 

It is a long way from Jerome to Ignatius, but the end of the journey isnigh. Loyola is the last type of monastic life, or changing the figure, the last great leader in the conquered monastic army. The good withinthe system will survive, its truest exponents will still fire thecourage and win the sympathy of the devout, but best of all, man willrecover from its poison. 

VII

_THE FALL OF THE MONASTERIES_

The rise of Protestantism accelerated the decline and final ruin of themonasteries. The enthusiasm of the Mendicants and the culture of theJesuits failed to convince the governments of Europe that monasticismwas worthy to survive the destruction awaiting so many medievalinstitutions. The spread of reformatory opinions resulted in adetermined and largely successful attack upon the monasteries, whichwere rightly believed to constitute the bulwark of papal power. Soimperative were the popular demands for a change, that popes andcouncils hastened to urge the members of religious orders to abolishexisting abuses by enforcing primitive rules. But while Rome practicallyfailed in her attempted reformations, the Protestant reformers in churchand state were widely successful in either curtailing the privilegesand revenues of the monks or in annihilating the monasteries. 

Since the sixteenth century the leading governments of Europe, evenincluding those in Catholic countries, have given tangible expression topopular and political antagonism to monasticism, by the abolition ofconvents, or the withdrawal of immunities and favors, for a long time asource of monastic revenue and power. The results of this hostility havebeen so disastrous, that monasticism has never regained its formerprestige and influence. Several of the older orders have risen from theruins, and a few new communities have appeared, some of which aredistinguished by their most laudable ministrations to the poor and thesick, or by their educational services. Yet notwithstanding themodifications of the system to suit the exigencies of modern times, itseems altogether improbable that the monks will ever again wield thepower they possessed before the Reformation, In the present chapter attention will be confined to the dissolution ofthe monasteries under Henry VIII. , in England. The suppression in thatcountry was occasioned partly by peculiar, local conditions, and wasmore radical and permanent than the reforms in other lands, yet it isentirely consistent with our general purpose to restrict this narrativeto English history. Penetrating beneath the varying externalitiesattending the ruin of the monasteries in Germany, Spain, France, Switzerland, Italy, and other countries, it will be found that theunderlying cause of the destruction of the monasteries was that themonastic ideal conflicted with the spirit of the modern era. Aconspicuous and dramatic example of this struggle between medievalism, as embodied in the monastic institution, and modern political, socialand religious ideals, is to be found in the dissolution of the Englishmonasteries. The narrative of the suppression in England also conveyssome idea of the struggle that was carried on throughout Europe, withvarying intensity and results. 

There is no more striking illustration of the power of the personalequation in the interpretation of history than that afforded by theconflicting opinions respecting the overthrow of monasticism in England. Those who mourn the loss of the monasteries cannot find words strongenough with which to condemn Henry VIII. , whom they regard as"unquestionably the most unconstitutional, the most vicious king thatever wore the English crown. " Forgetting the inevitable cost of humanfreedom, and lightly passing over the iniquities of the monastic system, they fondly dwell upon the departed glory of the ancient abbeys. Theyrecall with sadness the days when the monks chanted their songs ofpraise in the chapels, or reverently bent over their books of parchment, bound in purple and gold, not that they might "winnow the treasures ofknowledge, but that they might elicit love, compunction and devotion. "The charming simplicity and loving service of the cloister life, in thedays of its unbroken vows, appeal to such defenders of the monks withsingular potency. 

Truly, the fair-minded should attempt to appreciate the sorrow, theindignation and the love of these friends of a ruined institution. Passionless logic will never enable one to do justice to the sentimentsof those who cannot restrain their tears as they stand uncovered beforethe majestic remains of a Melrose Abbey, or properly to estimate themotives and methods of those who laid the mighty monastic institutionin the dust. 

_The Character of Henry VIII_

Before considering the actual work of suppression, it may be interestingto glance at the royal destroyer and his times. The character of HenryVIII. Is utterly inexplicable to many persons, chiefly because they donot reflect that even the inconsistencies of a great man may beunderstood when seen in the light of his times. A masterly andcomprehensive summary of the virtues and vices of the Tudor monarch, whohas been described as "the king, the whole king, and nothing but theking, " may be found in "A History of Crime in England, " by Luke OwenPike. The distinguished author shows that in his brutality, his love ofletters, his opposition to Luther, his vacillation in religiousopinions, King Henry reflects with remarkable fidelity the age in whichhe lived, both in its contrasts and its inconsistencies. "It is only theprevious history of England which can explain all the contradictionsexhibited in his conduct, --which can explain how he could be rapaciousyet sometimes generous, the Defender of the Faith yet under sentence ofexcommunication, a burner of heretics yet a heretic himself, the pope'sadvocate yet the pope's greatest enemy, a bloodthirsty tyrant yet thebest friend to liberty of thought in religion, an enthusiast yet aturncoat, a libertine and yet all but a Puritan. He was sensual becausehis forefathers had been sensual from time immemorial, rough in speechand action because there had been but few men in Britain who had beenotherwise since the Romans abandoned the island. He was superstitiousand credulous because few were philosophical or gifted with intellectualcourage. Yet he had, what was possessed by his contemporaries, a faintand intermittent thirst for knowledge, of which he himself hardly knewthe meaning. " Henry was shrewd, tenacious of purpose, capricious andversatile. In spite of his unrestrained indulgences and his monstrousclaims of power, which, be it remembered, he was able to enforce, andnotwithstanding any other vices or faults that may be truthfully chargedagainst him, he was, on the whole, a popular king. Few monarchs haveever had to bear such a strain as was placed upon his abilities andcharacter. Rare have been the periods that have witnessed suchconfusion of principles, social, political and religious. Those were thedays when liberty was at work, "but in a hundred fantastical andrepulsive shapes, confused and convulsive, multiform, deformed. " Blindviolence and half-way reforms characterized the age because theprinciples that were to govern modern times were not yet formulated. 

Judged apart from his times Henry appears as an arrogant, cruel andfickle ruler, whose virtues fail to atone for his vices. But still, withall his faults, he compares favorably with preceding monarchs and evenwith his contemporaries. If he had possessed less intelligence, courageand ambition, he would not now be so conspicuous for his vices, but thehistory of human liberty and free institutions, especially in England, would have been vastly different. His praiseworthy traits were notsufficiently strong to enable him to control his inherited passions, butthey were too regnant to permit him to submit without a struggle to thehierarchy which had dominated his country so many centuries. Such was

 "the majestic lord, That broke the bonds of Rome. "

_Events Preceding the Suppression_

Many causes and incidents contributed to the progress of the reformationin England, and to the demolition of the monasteries. Only a few of themcan be given here, and they must be stated with a brevity that conveysno adequate conception of their profound significance. 

Henry VIII. Ascended the throne, in the year 1509, when eighteen yearsof age. In 1517, Luther took his stand against Rome. Four years laterHenry wrote a treatise in defence of the Seven Sacraments and inopposition to the German reformer. For this princely service to thechurch the king received the title "Defender of the Faith" from PopeLeo X. 

About 1527 it became known that Henry was questioning the validity ofhis marriage with Catharine of Aragon, whom he had married when he wastwelve years old. She was the widow of his brother Arthur. The kingprofessed conscientious scruples about his marriage, but undoubtedly hisdesire for male offspring, and later, his passion for Anne Boleyn, prompted him to seek release from his queen. In 1529, Henry andCatharine stood before a papal tribunal, presided over by CardinalWolsey, the king's prime minister, and Cardinal Campeggio, from Rome, for the purpose of determining the validity of the royal marriage. Thetrial was a farce. The enraged king laid the blame upon Wolsey, andretired him from office. The great cardinal was afterwards charged withtreason, but died broken-hearted, on his way to the Tower, November29, 1530. 

The breach between Henry and Rome, complicated by numerous internationalintrigues, widened rapidly. Henry began to assume an attitude of bolddefiance toward the pope, which aroused the animosity of the Catholicprinces of Europe. 

Notwithstanding the desire of a large body of the English people toremain faithful to Rome, the dangers which menaced their country fromabroad and the ecclesiastical abuses at home, which had been a fruitfulcause for complaint for many years, tended to lessen the ancient horrorof heresy and schism, and inclined them to support their king. Anotherfactor that assisted in preparing the English people for thedestruction of the monasteries was Lollardism. As an organized sect, theLollards had ceased to exist, but the spirit and the doctrines of Wyclifdid not die. A real and a vital connection existed between the Lollardsof the fourteenth, and the reformers of the sixteenth, centuries. InHenry's time, many Englishmen held practically the same views of Romeand of the monks that had been taught by Wyclif[I]. 

[Footnote I: Appendix, Note I. ]

A considerable number of Henry's subjects, however, while ostensiblyloyal to him, were inwardly full of hot rebellion. The king wassurrounded with perils. The princes of the Continent were eagerlyawaiting the bull for his excommunication. Henry's throne and hiskingdom might at any moment be given over by the pope to invasion by thecontinental sovereigns. 

Reginald Pole, afterwards cardinal, a cousin of the king, and a strongCatholic, stood ready to betray the interests of his country to Rome. Writing to the king, he said: "Man is against you; God is against you;the universe is against you; what can you look for but destruction?""Dream not, Caesar, " he encouragingly declared to Emperor Charles V. , "that all generous hearts are quenched in England; that faith and pietyare dead. In you is their trust, in your noble nature, and in your zealfor God--they hold their land till you shall come. " Thus, on thetestimony of a Roman Catholic, there were traitors in England waitingonly for the call of Charles V. , "To arms!" Pole was in full sympathywith all the factions opposed to the king, and stood ready to aid themin their resistance. He publicly denounced the king in severalcontinental countries. 

The monks were especially enraged against Henry. They did all they couldto inflame the people by preaching against him and the reformers. FriarPeyto, preaching before the king, had the assurance to say to him: "Manylying prophets have deceived you, but I, as a true Micah, warn you thatthe dogs will lick your blood as they did Ahab's. " While the courage ofthis friar is unquestioned, his defiant attitude illustrates theposition occupied by the monks toward those who favored separation fromRome. The whole country was at white heat. The friends of Rome lookedupon Henry as an incarnate fiend, a servant of the devil and an enemyof all religion. Many of them opposed him with the purest and bestmotives, believing that the king was really undermining the church ofGod and throwing society into chaos. 

In 1531, the English clergy were coerced into declaring that Henry was"the protector and the supreme head of the church and of the clergy ofEngland, " which absurd claim was slightly modified by the words, "in sofar as is permitted by the law of Christ. " Chapuys, in one of hisdespatches informing Charles V. Of this action of convocation, said thatit practically declared Henry the Pope of England. "It is true, " hewrote, "that the clergy have added to the declaration that they did soonly so far as permitted by the law of God. But that is all the same, asfar as the king is concerned, as if they had made no reservation, for noone will now be so bold as to contest with his lord the importance ofthe reservation. " Later on, Chapuys says that the king told the pope'snuncio that "if the pope would not show him more consideration, he wouldshow the world that the pope had no greater authority than Moses, andthat every claim not grounded on Scripture was mere usurpation; thatthe great concourse of people present had come solely and exclusively torequest him to bastinado the clergy, who were hated by both nobles andthe people. " ("Spanish Despatches, " number 460. )

Parliament, in 1534, conferred on Henry the title "Supreme Head of theChurch of England, " and empowered him "to visit, and repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain, or amend all errors, heresies, abuses, offences, contempts, and enormities, which fell under any spiritualauthority or jurisdiction. " The "Act of Succession" was also passed byParliament, cutting off Princess Mary and requiring all subjects to takean oath of allegiance to Elizabeth. 

It was now an act of treason to deny the king's supremacy. All personssuspected of disloyalty were required to sign an oath of allegiance toHenry, and to Elizabeth as his successor, and to acknowledge thesupremacy of the king in church and state. This resulted in the death ofsome prominent men in the realm, among them Sir Thomas More. In thepreamble of the oath prescribed by law, the legality of the king'smarriage with Anne was asserted, thus implying that his former marriagewith Catharine was unlawful. More was willing to declare his allegianceto the infant Elizabeth, as the king's successor, but his consciencewould not permit him to affirm that Catharine's marriage was unlawful. 

The life of the brilliant and lovable More is another illustration ofthe mental confusions and inconsistencies of that age. As an apostle ofculture he favored the new learning, and yet he viewed the gatheringmomentum of reformatory principles with alarm, and cast in his lot withthe ultra-conservatives. Four years of his young manhood were spent in amonastery. He devoted his splendid talents to a criticism of Englishsociety, and recommended freedom of conscience, yet he became an ardentfoe of reform and even a persecutor of heretics, of whom he said: "I doso detest that class of men that, unless they repent, I am the worstenemy they have. " When a man, whom even Protestant historians hasten topronounce "the glory of his age, " so magnificent were his talents and soblameless his character, was tainted with superstition, and sanctionedthe persecution of liberal thinkers, is it remarkable that inferiorintellects should have been swayed by the brutality and tyranny ofthe times?

The unparalleled claims of Henry and his attitude toward the pope madethe breach between England and Rome complete, but many years of painfulinternal strife and bloodshed were to elapse before the whole nationsubmitted to the new order of things, and before that subjective freedomfrom fear and superstition without which formal freedom has littlevalue, was secured. 

The breach with Rome was essential to the attainment of that religiousand political freedom that England now enjoys. But the first step towardmaking that separation an accomplished fact, acquiesced in by the peopleas a whole, was to break the power of the monastic orders. It maypossibly be true that the same ends would have been eventually attainedby trusting to the slower processes of social evolution, but the historyof the Latin nations of Europe would seem to prove the contrary. As thefacts stand it would appear that peace and progress were impossible withthousands of monks sowing seeds of discord, and employing every measure, fair or foul, to win the country back to Rome. Gairdner and othersargue that Henry was far too powerful a king to have been successfullyresisted by the pope, unless the pope was backed by a union of theChristian princes, which was then impracticable. That fact may make theexecution of More, Fisher and the Charterhouse monks inexcusable, but itby no means proves that Henry would have been strong enough to maintainhis position if the monasteries had been permitted to exist as centersof organized opposition to his will. Many of the monks, when pressed bythe king's agents, took the oath of allegiance. Threats, bribes andviolence were used to overcome the opposition of the unwilling. 

_The Monks and the Oath of Supremacy_

It is quite evident that the king's purpose to destroy the wholemonastic institution was partly the result of the determined resistancewhich the monks offered to his authority. The contest between the kingand the monks was exceedingly fierce and bloody. Many good men losttheir lives and many innocent persons suffered grievously. Perhaps themost pathetic incident in the sanguinary struggle between the king andthe monks was the tragic fall of the Charterhouse of London. The factsare given at length by Froude, in his "History of England, " who baseshis account on the narrative of Maurice Channey, one of the monks whoescaped death by yielding to the king. The unhappy monk confesses thathe was a Judas among the apostles, and in a touching account of the ruinthat came upon his monastic retreat he praises the boldness and fidelityof his companions, who preferred death to what seemed to them dishonor. 

The pages of Channey are filled with the most improbable stories ofmiracles, but his charming picture of the cloister life of theCarthusians is doubtless true to reality. The Carthusian fathers werethe best fruit of monasticism in England. To a higher degree than any ofthe other monastic orders they maintained a good discipline andpreserved the spirit of their founders. "A thousand years of the world'shistory had rolled by, " says Froude, "and these lonely islands of prayerhad remained still anchored in the stream; the strands of the ropeswhich held them, wearing now to a thread, and very near their lastparting, but still unbroken. " In view of the undisputed purity andfearlessness of these noble monks, a recital of their woes will placethe case for the monastic institution in the most favorable light. 

Channey says the year 1533 was ushered in with signs, --the end of theworld was nigh. Yes, the monk's world was drawing to a close; the moon, for him, was turning into blood, and the stars falling from heaven. 

More and Fisher were in the Tower. The former's splendid talents andnoble character still swayed the people. It was no time for trifling;the Carthusian fathers must take the oath of allegiance or perish. Soone morning the royal commissioners appeared before the monastery doorof the Charterhouse to demand submission. Prior Houghton answered them:"I know nothing of the matter mentioned; I am unacquainted with theworld without; my office is to minister to God, and to save poor soulsfrom Satan. " He was committed to the Tower for one month. Then Dr. Bonner persuaded the prior to sign with "certain reservations. " He wasreleased and went back to his cloister-cell to weep. Calling his monkstogether he said he was sorry; it looked like deceit, but he desired tosave his brethren and their order. The commissioners returned; the monkswere under suspicion; the reservations were disliked, and they must signwithout conditions. In great consternation the prior assembled themonks. All present cried out: "Let us die together in our integrity, andheaven and earth shall witness for us how unjustly we are cut off. "Prior Houghton conceived a generous idea. "If it depends on me alone; ifmy oath will suffice for the house, I will throw myself on the mercy ofGod; I will make myself anathema, and to preserve you from thesedangers, I will consent to the king's will. " Thus did the noble old manconsent to go into heaven with a lie on his conscience, hoping to escapeby the mercy of God, because he sought to save the lives of hisbrethren. But all this was of no avail; Cromwell had determined thatthis monastery must fall, and fall it did. The monks prepared for theirend calmly and nobly; beginning with the oldest brother, they kneltbefore each other and begged forgiveness for all unkindness and offence. "Not less deserving, " says Froude, "the everlasting remembrances ofmankind, than those three hundred, who, in the summer morning, satecombing their golden hair in the passes of Thermopylæ. " But rebellionwas blazing in Ireland, and the enemies of the king were praying andplotting for his ruin. These monks, with More and Fisher, were aninspiration to the enemies of liberty and the kingdom. Catholic Europecrouched like a tiger ready to spring on her prostrate foe. It is sad, but these recluses, praying for the pope, instilling a love for thepapacy in the confessional, these honest and conscientious but dangerousmen must be shorn of their power to encourage rebels. There was a farceof a trial. Houghton was brought to the scaffold and died protesting hisinnocence. His arm was cut off and hung over the archway of theCharterhouse, as other arms and heads were hideously hanging over many amonastic gate in Merry England. Nine of the monks died of prison fever, and others were banished. The king's court went into mourning, and Henryknotted his beard and henceforth would be no more shaven--eloquentevidence to the world that whatever motive dominated the king's heart, these bloody deeds were unpleasantly disturbing. Certainly such aspectacle as that of a monk's arm nailed to a monastery was never seenby Englishmen before. 

The Charterhouse fell, let it be carefully noted, because the monkscould not and would not acknowledge the king's supremacy, and notbecause the monks were immoral. Some spies in Cromwell's service offeredto, bring in evidence against six of these monks of "laziness andimmorality. " Cromwell indignantly refused the proposal, saying, "Hewould not hear the accusation; that it was false, wilfully so. "

The news of these proceedings, and of the beheading of More and Fisher, awakened the most violent rage throughout Catholic Europe. Henry wasdenounced as the Nero of his times. Paul III. Immediately excommunicatedthe king, dissolved all leagues between Henry and the Catholic princes, and gave his kingdom to any invader. All Catholic subjects were orderedto take up arms against him. Although these censures were passed, thepope decided to defer their publication, hoping for a peacefulsettlement. But Henry knew, and the Catholic princes of Europe knew, that the blow might fall at any time. He had to make up his mind to gofurther or to yield unconditionally to the pope. The world soondiscovered the temper of the enraged and stubborn monarch. He mightvacillate on speculative questions, but there were no tokens of feeblehesitancy in his dealings with Rome. The hour of doom for themonasteries had struck. 

Having thus glanced at the character of Henry VIII. , the prime mover inthe attack upon the monasteries, and having surveyed some of the eventsleading up to their fall, we are now prepared to consider the actualwork of suppression, which will be described under the following heads:First, The royal commissioners and their methods of investigation;Second, The commissioners' report on the condition of affairs; Third, The action of Parliament; Fourth, The effect of the suppression upon thepeople; and Fifth, The use Henry made of the monastic possessions. Thesematters having been set forth, it will then be in order to inquire intothe justification, real or alleged, of the suppression. 

_The Royal Commissioners and Their Methods of Investigation_

The fall of Sir Thomas More left Thomas Cromwell the chief power underthe king, and for seven years he devoted his great administrativeabilities to making his royal patron absolute ruler in church and state. 

Cromwell, Earl of Essex, was of lowly origin, but his energy andshrewdness, together with the experience acquired by extensive travels, commanded the attention of Cardinal Wolsey, who took him into hisservice. He was successively merchant, scrivener, money-lender, lawyer, member of parliament, master of jewels, chancellor, master of rolls, secretary of state, vicar-general in ecclesiastical affairs, lord privyseal, dean of Wells and high chamberlain. 

Close intimacy with Wolsey enabled Cromwell to grasp the fullsignificance of Henry's ambition, and his desire to please his royalmaster, coupled with his own love of power, prompted him to throwhimself with characteristic energy into the work of centralizing allauthority in the hands of the king and of his prime minister. In secularaffairs, this had already been accomplished. The task before him was tosubdue the church to the throne, to execute which he became theprotector of Protestantism and the foe of Rome. Green says: "He had anabsolute faith in the end he was pursuing, and he simply hews his way toit, as a woodman hews his way through the forest, axe in hand. " Froudesays: "To him ever belonged the rare privilege of genius to see whatother men could not see, and therefore he was condemned to rule ageneration which hated him, to do the will of God and to perish in hissuccess. He pursued an object, the excellence of which, as his mind sawit, transcended all other considerations, the freedom of England and thedestruction of idolatry, and those who, from any motive, noble or base, pious or impious, crossed his path, he crushed and passed on overtheir bodies. "

There seems to be a general agreement that Cromwell was not aProtestant. His struggle against the temporal power of the pope fosteredthe reformatory movement, but that did not make Cromwell a Protestantany more than it did his master, Henry VIII. Foxe describes Cromwell "asa valiant soldier and captain of Christ, " but Maitland retorts "thatFoxe forgot, if he ever knew, who was the father of lies. "

Without doubt Cromwell ruled with an iron hand. He was guilty ofaccepting bribes, and, as some maintain, "was the great patron ofribaldry, and the protector of the low jester and the filthy. " But, sadly enough, that is no serious charge against one in his times. It issaid that Henry used to say, when a knave was dealt to him in a game ofcards, "Ah, I have a Cromwell!" Francis Aidan Gasquet, a Benedictinemonk, in his valuable work on "Henry VIII. And the English Monasteries, "says of Cromwell: "No single minister in England ever exercised suchextensive authority, none ever rose so rapidly, and no one has ever leftbehind him a name covered with greater infamy and disgrace. "

In 1535, Henry, as supreme head of the church, appointed Cromwell as his"Vicegerent, Vicar-General and Principal Commissary in causesecclesiastical. " His immediate duty was to enforce recognition of theking's supremacy. The monks and the clergy were now to be coerced intosubmission. A royal commission, consisting of Legh, Layton, Ap Rice, London and various subordinates, was appointed to visit the monasteriesand to report on their condition. 

Henry Griffin says in his chronicle: "I was well acquainted with all thecommissioners; indeed I knew them well; they were very smart men, whounderstood the value of money, for they had tasted of adversity. I thinkthe priests were the worst of the whole party, although they had a goodreputation at the time, but they were wicked, deceitful men. I am sorryto speak thus of my own order, but I speak God's truth. " "It is adreadful undertaking, " said Lord Clinton. "Ah! but I have great faith inthe tact and judgment of the men I am about to select, "retorted Cromwell. 

Dr. John London was a base tool of Cromwell, and a miserable exponent ofthe reform movement. He joined Gardiner in burning heretics, wasconvicted of adultery at Oxford, was pilloried for perjury and died injail. The other royal agents were also questionable characters. DeanLayton wrote the most disgusting letters to Cromwell. Once he informedhis patron that he prayed regularly for him, prefacing this informationwith the remark, "I will now tell you something to make you laugh. "

Father Gasquet sums up his view of the commissioners in the words ofEdmund Burke: "It is not with much credulity that I listen to any whenthey speak ill of those whom they are going to plunder. I rather suspectthat vices are feigned, or exaggerated, when profit is looked for in thepunishment--an enemy is a bad witness; a robber worse. " Burkeindignantly declares: "The inquiry into the moral character of thereligious houses was a mere pretext, a complete delusion, an insidiousand predetermined foray of wholesale and heartless plunder. "

Such are the protests from the defenders of the monasteries even beforea hearing is granted. "What, " say they, "believe such perjurers, adulterers and gamblers; men forsworn to bring in a bad report; men whowere selected because they were worthless characters who could berelied on to return false charges against an institution loved bythe people?"

The commissioners began their work at Oxford, in September, 1535. Thework was vigorously pushed. On reaching the door of a monastery, theydemanded admittance; if it was not granted, they entered by breakingdown the gate with an axe. They then summoned the monks before them, andplied them with questions. An inventory was taken of everything; nothingescaped their searching eyes. When the king decided to suppress thelesser monasteries, and ordered a new visitation of the larger ones, they seized and sold all they could lay their hands on; "stained glass, ironwork, bells, altar-cloths, candles, books, beads, images, capes, brewing-tubs, brass bolts, spits for cooking, kitchen utensils, plates, basins, all were turned into money. " Many valuable books were destroyed;jewels and gold and silver clasps were torn from old volumes, and thepaper sold as waste; parchment manuscripts were used to scour tubs andgrease boots. Out of the wreck about a hundred and thirty thousandmanuscripts have been saved. It must be admitted that the commissionerswere not delicate in their labors; that they insulted many nuns, robbedthe monks, violated the laws of decency and humanity, and needlesslyexcited the rage of the people and outraged the religious sentiments ofthe Catholics. They even used sacred altar-cloths for blankets on theirhorses, and rode across the country decorated in priestly and monkishgarments. There seems to be some ground for the statement that Henry wasignorant, or at least not fully informed, of their unwarranted violenceand gross sacrilege. The abbey of Glastonbury was one of the oldest andfinest cloisters in England. It was a majestic pile of buildings in themidst of gardens and groves covering sixty acres; its aisles were vocalwith the chanting of monks, who marched in gorgeous processions amongthe tall, gray pillars. The exterior of the buildings was profuselydecorated with sculpture; monarchs, temple knights, mitered abbots, martyrs and apostles stood for centuries in their niches of stone whileprinces came and passed away, while kingdoms rose and fell. The noblesand bishops of the realm were laid to rest beneath the altars aroundwhich many generations of monks had assembled to praise and to pray. Theroyal commissioners one day appeared before the walls. The abbot, Richard Whiting, who was then eighty-four years of age, was atSharphorn, another residence of the community. He was brought back andquestioned. At night when he was in bed, they searched his study forletters and books, and they claimed to have found a manuscript ofWhiting's arguments against the divorce of the king and Queen Catharine;it had never been published; they did not know whether the venerableabbot had such intent or not. Stephen declares the spies themselvesbrought the book into the library. However, the abbot was chained to acart and taken to London. The abbey had immense wealth; every Wednesdayand Friday it fed and lodged three hundred boys; it was esteemed veryhighly in the neighborhood and received large donations from the knightsin the vicinity. The abbot was accused of treason for concealing thesacred vessels; he was old, deaf, and sick, but was allowed no counsel. He asked permission to take leave of his monks, and many littleorphans; Russell and Layton only laughed. The people heard of hiscaptivity and determined "to deliver or avenge" their favorite, butRussell hanged half a dozen of them and declared that "law, order andloyalty were vindicated. " Whiting's body was quartered, and the piecessent to Wells, Bath, Chester and Bridgewater, while his head, adornedwith his gray hairs clotted by blood, was hung over the abbey gate. 

_The Report of the Commissioners_

The original report of the commissioners does not exist. Burnet declaresthat he saw an extract from it, concerning one hundred and forty-fourhouses, which contained the most revolting revelations. Many of thecommissioners' letters and various documents touching the suppressionhave been collected and published by the Camden Society. Waiving, forthe present, the inquiry into the truth of the report, it was insubstance as follows:

The commissioners reported about one-third of the houses to be fairlywell conducted, some of them models of excellent management and pureliving; but the other two-thirds were charged with looseness beyonddescription. The number of inmates in some cloisters was kept below therequired number, that there might be more money to divide among themonks. The number of servants sometimes exceeded that of the monks. Abbots bought and sold land in a fraudulent manner; gifts forhospitality were misapplied; licentiousness, gaming and drinkingprevailed extensively. Crime and absolution for gold went hand in hand. One friar was said to have been the proud father of an illegitimatefamily of children, but he had in his possession a forged license fromthe pope, who permitted his wandering, "considering his frailty. "Froude, in commenting upon the report, says: "If I were to tell thetruth, I should have first to warn all modest eyes to close the book andread no farther. "

All sorts of pious frauds were revealed. At Hales the monks claimed tohave the blood of Christ brought from Jerusalem, and not visible toanyone in mortal sin until he had performed good works, or, in otherwords, paid enough for his absolution. Two monks took the blood of aduck, which they renewed every week; this they put into a phial, oneside of which consisted of a thin, transparent crystal; the other thickand opaque; the dark side was shown until the sinner's gold wasexhausted, when, presto! change, the blood appeared by turning the otherside of the phial. Innumerable toe-parings, bones, pieces of skin, threeheads of St. Ursula, and other anatomical relics of departed saints, were said to cure every disease known to man. They had relics that coulddrive away plagues, give rain, hinder weeds, and in fact, render thenatural world the plaything of decaying bones and shreds of dried skin. The monks of Reading had an angel with one wing, who had preserved thespear with which our Lord was pierced. Abbots were found to haveconcubines in or near the monasteries; midnight revels and drunkenfeasts were pleasant pastimes for monks weary with prayers and fasting. While it would be unjust to argue that the existence of "pious frauds"affords a justification for the suppression of the monasteries, it mustbe remembered that they constituted one element in that condition ofecclesiastical life that was becoming repugnant to the English people. For several generations there had been a marked growth in the hostilitytoward various forms of superstition. True, neither Henry nor Cromwellcan be accredited with the lofty intention of exterminatingsuperstition, but the attitude of many people toward "pious frauds"helped to reconcile them to the destruction of the monasteries. 

_The Action of Parliament_

The report of the commissioners was laid before Parliament in 1536. Asit declared that the smaller monasteries were more corrupt than thelarger ones, Parliament ordered the suppression of all those houseswhose revenues were less than two hundred pounds per annum. By this act, three hundred and seventy-six houses were suppressed, whose aggregaterevenue was thirty-two thousand pounds yearly. Movable property valuedat about one hundred thousand pounds was also handed over to the "Courtof Augmentations of the King's Revenue, " which was established to takecare of the estates, revenues and other possessions of the monasteries. It is claimed that ten thousand monks and nuns were turned out into theworld, to find bed and board as best they could. In 1538, two yearslater, the greater monasteries met a similar fate, which was no doubthastened by the rebellions that followed the abolition of the smallerhouses. Many of the abbots and monks were suspected of aiding in therebellion against the king's authority by inciting the people to take uparms against him. Apprehending the coming doom, many abbots resigned;others were overcome by threats and yielded without a struggle. In manyinstances such monks received pensions varying from fifty-threeshillings and four pence to four pounds a year. The investigations wereconstantly carried on, and all the foul stories that could be gatheredwere given to the people, to secure their approval of the king's action. With remorseless zeal the king and his commissioners, supported byvarious acts of parliament, persevered in their work of destruction, until even the monastic hospitals, chantries, free chapels andcollegiate churches, fell into the king's hands. By the year 1545, theruin was complete. The monastic institution of England was no more. Thetotal number of monasteries suppressed is variously estimated, but thefollowing figures are approximately correct: monasteries, 616; colleges, 90; free chapels, 2, 374; and hospitals, 110. The annual income was aboutone hundred and fifty thousand pounds, which was a smaller sum than wasthen believed to be in the control of the monks. Nearly fifty thousandpersons were driven from the houses, to foment the discontent and toarouse the pity of the people. Such, in brief, was the extent of thesuppression, but a little reflection will show that these statements ofcold facts convey no conception of the confusion and sorrow that musthave accompanied this terrific and wholesale assault upon an institutionthat had been accumulating its possessions for eight hundred years. Atthis distance from those tragic events, it is impossible to realize thedismay of those who stood aghast at this ruthless destruction of suchvenerable establishments. 

_The Effect of the Suppression Upon the People_

For months the country had seen what was coming; letters from abbots andpriors poured in upon the king and parliament, begging them to spare theancient strongholds of religion. The churchmen argued: "If he plundersthe monasteries, will not his next step be to plunder the churches?"They recalled what Sir Thomas More had said of their sovereign: "It istrue, his majesty is very gracious with me, but if only my head wouldgive him another castle in France, it would not be long before itdisappeared. " Sympathy for the monks, an inborn conservatism, a naturallove for ancient institutions, a religious dread of trampling upon thatwhich was held sacred by the church, a secret antipathy to reform, allthese and other forces were against the suppression. But the report ofthe visitors was appalling, and the fear of the king's displeasure waswidespread; so the bill was passed amid mingled feelings of joy, sympathy, hatred, fear, anxiety and uncertainty. The bishops weresullen; Latimer was disappointed, for he wanted the church to havethe proceeds. 

Outside of Parliament there was much discontent among the nobles andgentry of Roman tendencies. Even the indifferent felt bitter against theking, because it seemed unjust that the monks, who had been sheltered, honored and enriched by the people, should be so rudely and so suddenlyturned out of their possessions. A dangerously large portion of thepeople felt themselves insulted and outraged. At first, however, therewere few who dared to voice their protests. "As the royal policydisclosed itself, " says Green, "as the monarchy trampled under foot thetradition and reverence of ages gone by, as its figure rose, bare andterrible, out of the wreck of old institutions, England simply held herbreath. It is only through the stray depositions of royal spies that wecatch a glimpse of the wrath and hate which lay seething under thesilence of the people. " That silence was a silence of terror. To use thefigure by which Erasmus describes the time, men felt "as if a scorpionlay sleeping under every stone. " They stopped writing, gossiping, goingto confession, and sending presents for the most thoughtless word ordeed might be tortured into treason against the king by the commandof Cromwell. 

The rebellion which followed the first attack upon the monasteries wasnot caused wholly by religious sentiments. The nobles regarded Cromwellas a base-born usurper and yearned for his fall, while the clergy feltoutraged by his monstrous claims of authority in ecclesiastical affairs. In a sense the conflict that ensued was but a continuation of thelong-standing struggle between the king, the barons, and the clergy forthe supreme power. From the reign of Edward I. , the people had commencedto assert their rights and the struggle had become a four-sided one. 

These four factions were constantly shifting their allegiance, accordingto the varying conditions, and guided by their changing interests. Atthis time, the clergy, the nobles and the people in northern England, particularly, combined against the king, although the alliance was notformidable enough to overcome the forces supporting the king. 

The secular clergy felt that they were disgraced and coerced intosubmission. They felt their revenues, their honors, their powers, theirglory, slipping away from them; they joined their mutterings anddiscontent with that of the monks, and then the fires of the rebellionblazed forth in the north, where the monasteries were more popular thanin any other part of England. 

The first outbreak occurred in Lincolnshire, in the autumn of 1536. Itwas easily and quickly suppressed. But another uprising in Yorkshire, innorthern England, followed immediately, and for a time threatenedserious consequences. Some of the best families in that part of thecountry joined the revolt, although it is noteworthy that these samefamilies were afterwards Protestant and Puritan; the rebel army numberedabout forty thousand men, well equipped for service. Many prominentabbots and sixteen hundred monks were in the ranks. The masses werebound by oath "to stand together for the love which they bore toAlmighty God, His faith, the Holy Church, and the maintenance thereof;to the preservation of the king's person and his issue; to the purifyingof the nobility, and to expel all villein blood and evil counsellorsfrom the king's presence; not from any private profit, nor to do hispleasure to any private person, nor to slay or murder through envy, butfor the restitution of the Church, and the suppression of heretics andtheir opinions. " It is clear, from the language of the oath, that therebels aimed their blows at Cromwell. The secular clergy hated himbecause he had shorn them of their power; the monks hated him because hehad turned them out of their cloisters, and clergy and people loathedhim as a maintainer of heresy, a low-born foe of the Church. Theinsurgents carried banners on which was printed a crucifix, a chaliceand host, and the five wounds, hence they called themselves "Pilgrims ofGrace. " The revolt was headed by Robert Aske, a barrister. 

Cromwell acted most cautiously; he selected the strongest men to takethe field. Richard Cromwell said of one of them, Sir John Russell, "formy lord admiral, he is so earnest in the matter that I dare say he couldeat the Pilgrims without salt. " The Duke of Norfolk was entrusted withthe command of the king's forces. 

Henry preferred negotiation to battle, in accepting which the rebelswere doomed. To wait was to fail. Their demands reduced to paper were:1. The religious houses should be restored. 2. England should bereunited with Rome. 3. The first fruits and tenths should not be paid tothe crown. 4. Heretics, meaning Cranmer, Latimer and others, shouldcease to be bishops. 5. Catharine's daughter Mary should be restored asheiress to the crown. These and other demands, the granting of whichwould have meant the death of the Reformation, were firmly refused bythe king, who marveled that ignorant churls, "brutes and inexpert folk"should talk of theological and political subjects to him and tohis council. 

After several ineffectual attempts to meet the royal army in battle, partly due to storms and lack of subsistence, the rebels were induced todisperse and a general amnesty was declared. But new insurrections brokeout in various quarters, and the enraged king determined to stamp outthe smoldering fires of sedition. About seventy-five persons werehanged, and many prominent men were imprisoned and afterwards executed. This effectually suppressed the rebellion. 

The revolt showed the strength of the opponents to the king's will, butit also proved conclusively that the monarchy was the strongest power inthe realm; that the star of ecclesiastical domination had set forever inEngland; that henceforth English kings and not Italian popes were togovern the English people. True, the king was carrying things with ahigh hand, but one reform at a time; the yoke of papal power must firstbe lifted, even if at the same time the king becomes despotic in theexercise of his increased power. Once free from Rome, constitutionalrights may be asserted and the power of an absolute monarchy judiciouslyrestricted. 

Following the Pilgrimage of Grace came the complete overthrow of themonastic system by the dissolution of the larger monasteries. 

_Henry's Disposal of Monastic Revenues_

What use did Henry make of the revenues that fell into his hands? Assoon as the vast estates of the monks were under the king's control, hewas besieged by nobles, "praying for an estate. " They kneeled beforehim and specified what lands they wanted. They bribed Cromwell, who soldmany of the estates at the rate of a twenty years' purchase, and in someinstances presented valuable possessions to the king's followers. Manyfamilies, powerful in England at the present time, date the beginning oftheir wealth and position to the day when their ancestors received theirshare of the king's plunder. 

The following interesting passage from Sir Edward Coke's Institutes, shows that Henry sought to quiet the fears of the people by making themost captivating promises concerning the decrease of taxes, and othermagnificent schemes for the general welfare: "On the king's behalf, themembers of both houses were informed in Parliament that no king orkingdom was safe but where the king had three abilities: 1. To live ofhis own and able to defend his kingdom upon any sudden invasion orinsurrection. 2. To aid his confederates, otherwise they would neverassist him. 3. To reward his well-deserving servants. Now the projectwas, that if Parliament would give unto him all the abbeys, priories, friaries, nunneries, and other monasteries, that forever in time thento come he would take order that the same should not be converted toprivate uses, but first, that his exchequer, for the purpose aforesaid, should be enriched; secondly, the kingdom should be strengthened by acontinual maintenance of forty thousand well-trained soldiers; thirdly, for the benefit and ease of the subject, who never afterwards (as wasprojected), in any time to come, should be charged with subsidies, fifteenths, loans or other common aids; fourthly, lest the honor of therealm should receive any diminution of honor by the dissolution of thesaid monasteries, there being twenty-nine lords of Parliament of theabbots and priors, ... That the king would create a number of nobles. "

The king was granted the revenues of the monasteries. About half themoney was expended in coast defences and a new navy; and much of it waslavished upon his courtiers. With the exception of small pensions to themonks and the establishment of a few benefices, very little of thesplendid revenue was ever devoted to religious or educational purposes. Small sums were set apart for Cambridge, Oxford and new grammar schools. Not-withstanding the pensions, there was much suffering; it is saidmany of the outcast monks and nuns starved and froze to death by theroadside. Latimer and others wanted the king to employ the revenues forreligious purposes, but Henry evidently thought the church had enoughand refused. He did, however, intend to allot eighteen thousand pounds ayear for eighteen new bishoprics, but once the gold was in hispossession, his pious intentions suffered a decline, and he establishedonly six, with inferior endowments, five of which exist to-day. 

_Was the Suppression Justifiable?_

It is quite common to restrict this inquiry to a consideration of thereport made by the commissioners against the monks, and to the methodsemployed by them in their investigations. The implication is that if theaccusations against the monasteries can be discredited, or if it can beshown that the motives of the destroyers were selfish and their methodscruel, then it follows that the overthrow of the monasteries was a mostiniquitous and unwarrantable proceeding. Reflection will show that thequestion cannot be so restricted. It may be found that the monasticinstitution should have been destroyed, even though the charges againstthe monks were grossly exaggerated, the motives of the king unworthy, and the means he employed despicable. 

At the outset a few facts deserve mention. It is usual for Protestantsto recall with pride the glorious heroism of Protestant martyrs, but itshould be remembered that Roman Catholicism also has had its martyrs. Protestant powers have not been free from tyranny and bloodshed. Thatnoble spirit of self-sacrifice which has glorified many a character inhistory is not to be despised in one who dies for what we may pronounceto be false. 

It must also be granted that the action of the king was not dictated bya pure passion for religious reform. Indeed it is a fair questionwhether Henry may be claimed by the Protestants at all. Aside from hisrejection of the pope's authority, he was thoroughly Catholic inconviction and in practice. His impatience with the pope's positionrespecting his divorce, his need of money, his love of power, and manyother personal considerations determined his attitude towardthe papacy. 

It should also be freely conceded that the royal commissioners were farfrom exemplary characters, and that they were often insolent and cruelin the prosecution of their work. 

"Our posterity, " says John Bale, "may well curse this wicked fact of ourage; this unreasonable spoil of England's most noble antiquities. " "Onthe whole, " says Blunt, "it may be said that we must ever look back onthat destruction as a series of transactions in which the sorrow, thewaste, the impiety that were wrought, were enough to make the angelsweep. It may be true that the monastic system had worn itself out forpractical good; or at least, that it was unfitted for those coming ageswhich were to be so different from the ages that were past. Butslaughter, desecration and wanton destruction, were no remedies for itssins, or its failings; nor was covetous rapacity the spirit ofreformation. "

Hume observes that "during times of faction, especially of a religiouskind, no equity is to be expected from adversaries; and as it was knownthat the king's intention in this visitation was to find a pretext forabolishing the monasteries, we may naturally conclude that the reportsof the commissioners are very little to be relied upon. " Hallam declaresthat "it is impossible to feel too much indignation at the spirit inwhich the proceedings were conducted. "

But these and other just and honorable concessions in the interests oftruth, which are to be found on the pages of eminent Protestanthistorians, are made to prove too much. It must be said that writersfavorable to monasticism take an unfair advantage of these admissions, which simply testify to a spirit of candor and a love of truth, but donot contain the final conclusions of these historians. Employing thesewitnesses to confirm their opinions, the defenders of monasticismproceed with fervid, glowing rhetoric, breathing devotion and love onevery page, to paint the sorrows and ruin of the Carthusian Fathers, andthe abbots of Glastonbury and Reading. They ask, "Is this your boastedfreedom, to slay these men in cold blood, not for immorality, butbecause they honestly did not acknowledge what no Protestant of to-dayadmits, viz. : that King Henry was the Supreme Head of the Church?"Having pointed out the exaggerations in the charges against the monksand having made us weep for the aged fathers of the Charterhouse, theyskillfully lead the unwary to the conclusion that the suppression shouldnever have taken place. This conclusion is illogical. The case isstill open. 

Furthermore, if one cared to indulge in historical reminiscences, hemight justly express astonishment that Rome should object to aninvestigation conducted by men whose minds were already made up, or thatshe should complain because force was employed to carry out a neededreform. Did the commissioners take a few altar-cloths and decorate theirhorses? Did Rome never adorn men in garments of shame and parade themthrough streets to be mocked by the populace, and finally burned at thestake? Were the altar-cloths dear to Catholic hearts? Were not theBibles burned in France, in Germany, in Spain, in Holland, in England, dear to the hearts of the reformers? But however justifiable such a lineof argument may be, there is little to be gained by charging the sins ofthe past against the men of to-day. Nevertheless, if these facts andmany like them were remembered, less would be said about the crueltiesthat accompanied the suppression of the monasteries. 

Were the charges against the monks true? It seems impossible to doubtthat in the main they were, although it should be admitted that manymonasteries were beyond reproach. Eliminating gross exaggerations, liesand calumnies, there still remains a body of evidence that compels theverdict of guilt. The legislation of the church councils, the decrees ofpopes, the records of the courts, the reports of investigatingcommittees appointed by various popes, the testimony of the ordersagainst each other, the chronicles, letters and other extant literature, abound in such detailed, specific charges of monastic corruption that itis simply preposterous to reject the testimony. All the efforts atreformation, and they were many, had failed. Many bishops confessedtheir inability to cope with the growing disorders. It is beyondquestion that lay robbers were encouraged to perpetrate acts ofsacrilege because the monks were frequently guilty of forgery andviolence. Commenting upon the impression which monkish lawlessness musthave made upon the minds of such men as Wyclif, Pike says: "They sawwith their own eyes those wild and lawless scenes, the faint reflectionof which in contemporaneous documents may excite the wonder of modernlawyers and modern moralists. " The legislation of church and state for acentury before Henry VIII. Shows that the monks were guilty of brawling, frequenting taverns, indulging in licentious pleasures and upholdingunlawful games. 

Bonaventura, the General of the Franciscan Order in its earliest days, and its palmiest, for the first years of a monastic order were alwaysits best years--this mendicant, their pride and their glory, tells usthat within fifty years of the death of its founder there were manymendicants roaming around in disorderly fashion, brazen and shamelessbeggars of scandalous fame. This unenviable record was kept up down tothe days of Wyclif, who charged the begging friars with representingthemselves as holy and needy, while they were robust of body, rich inpossessions, and dwelt in splendid houses, where they gave sumptuousbanquets. What shall one say of the hysterical ravings against Henry ofthe "Holy Maid of Kent, " whose fits and predictions were palmed off byfive ecclesiastics, high in authority, as supernatural manifestations?What must have been the state of monasteries in which such meretriciousschemes were hatched, to deceive silly people, thwart the king and stopthe movements for reform?

Moreover, the various attempts to reform or to suppress the monasteriesprior to Henry's time show he was simply carrying out what, in a smallway, had been attempted before. King John, Edward I. And Edward III. , had confiscated "alien priories. " Richard II. And Henry IV. Had madesimilar raids. In 1410, the House of Commons proposed the confiscationof all the temporalities held by bishops, abbots and priors, that themoney might be used for a standing army, and to increase the income ofthe nobles and secular clergy. It was not done, but the attempt showsthe trend of public opinion on the question of abolishing themonasteries. In 1416, Parliament dissolved the alien priories and vestedtheir estates in the crown. There is extant a letter of Cardinal Morton, Legate of the Apostolic See, and Archbishop of Canterbury, to the abbotof St. Albans, one of the mightiest abbeys in all England. It waswritten as the result of an investigation started by Innocent VIII. , in1489. In this communication the abbot and his monks were charged withthe grossest licentiousness, waste and thieving. Lina Eckenstein, in herinteresting work on "Woman Under Monasticism, " says: "It were idle todeny that the state of discipline in many houses was bad, but thecircumstances under which Morton's letter was penned argue that thecharges made in it should be accepted with some reservation. " In 1523, Cardinal Wolsey obtained bulls from the pope authorizing the suppressionof forty small monasteries, and the application of their revenues toeducational institutions, on the ground that the houses were homesneither of religion nor of learning. 

What Henry did, every country in Europe has felt called upon to do inone way or another. Germany, Italy, Spain, France have all suppressedmonasteries, and despite the suffering which attended the dissolution inEngland, the step was taken with less loss of life and less injury tothe industrial welfare of the people than anywhere else in Europe[J]. 

[Footnote J: Appendix, Note J. ]

Hooper, who was made a bishop in the reign of Edward VI. , expressed theProtestant view of Henry's reforms in a letter written about the year1546. "Our king, " he says, "has destroyed the pope, but not popery.... The impious mass, the most shameful celibacy of the clergy, theinvocation of saints, auricular confession, superstitious abstinencefrom meats, and purgatory, were never before held by the people ingreater esteem than at the present moment. " In other words, theindependence of the Church of England was secured by those who, if theywere not Roman Catholics, were certainly closer in faith to Rome thanthey were to Protestantism. The Protestant doctrines did not become thedoctrines of the Church of England until the reign of Edward VI. , and itwas many years after that before the separation from Rome was completein doctrine as well as respects the authority of the pope. 

These facts indicate that there must have been other causes for thesuccess of the English Reformation than the greed or ambition of themonarch. Those causes are easily discovered. One of them was thehostility of the people to the alien priories. The origin of the alienpriories dates back to the Norman conquest. The Normans shared thespoils of their victory with their continental friends. Englishmonasteries and churches were given to foreigners, who collected therents and other kinds of income. These foreign prelates had no otherinterest in England than to derive all the profit they could from theirpossessions. They appointed whom they pleased to live in their houses, and the monks, being far away from their superiors, became a source ofconstant annoyance to the English people. The struggle against thesealien priories had been carried on for many years, and so many of themhad been abolished that the people became accustomed to the seizure ofmonasteries. 

Large sums of money were annually paid to the pope, and the Englishpeople were loudly complaining of the constant drain on their resources. It was a common saying in the reign of Henry III. , that "England is thepope's farm. " The "Good Parliament, " in 1376, affirmed "that the taxespaid to the church of Rome amounted to five times as much as thoselevied for the king; ... That the brokers of the sinful city of Romepromoted for money unlearned and unworthy caitiffs to benefices of thevalue of a thousand marks, while the poor and learned hardly obtain oneof twenty. " Various laws, heartily supported by the clergy as well as bythe civil authorities, were enacted from time to time, aimed at theabuses of papal power. So steadfast and strong was the opposition to theinterference of foreigners in English affairs, it would be possible toshow that there was an evolution in the struggle against Rome that wascertain to culminate in the separation, whether Henry had accomplishedit or not. What might have occurred if the monks had reformed and thepope withdrawn his claims it is impossible to know. The fact is that themonks grew worse instead of better, and the arrogance of foreignersbecame more unendurable. "The corruption of the church establishment, infact, " says Lea, "had reached a point which the dawning enlightenment ofthe age could not much longer endure.... Intoxicated with centuries ofdomination, the muttered thunders of growing popular discontent wereunheeded, and its claims to spiritual and temporal authority wereasserted with increasing vehemence, while its corruptions were dailydisplayed before the people with more careless cynicism. " In view ofthis condition of affairs, the existence of which even the adherents ofmodern Rome must acknowledge, one cannot but wonder that the ruin of themonasteries should be attributed to Henry's desire "to overthrow therights of women, to degrade matrimony and to practice concubinage. " Suchan explanation is too superficial; it ignores a multitude ofhistorical facts. 

The monasteries had to fall if England was to be saved from the horrorsof civil war, if the hand of the pope was to remain uplifted from her, if the insecure gains of the Reformation were to become established andglorious achievements; if, in fact, all those benefits accompanyinghuman progress were to become the heritage of succeeding ages. 

Whatever benefits the monks had conferred upon mankind, and these wereneither few nor slight, they had become fetters on the advancement offreedom, education and true religion. They were the standing army of thepope, occupying the last and strongest citadel. They were the unyieldingadvocates of an ideal that was passing away. It was sad to see theCarthusian house fall, but in spite of the high character of itsinmates, it was a part of an institution that stood for the right offoreigners to rule England. It was unfortunate they had thrownthemselves down before the car of progress but there they were; theywould not get up; the car must roll on, for so God himself had decreed, and hence they were crushed in its advance. Their martyrdom was truly apoor return for their virtues, but there never has been a moral orpolitical revolution that has furthered the general well-being ofhumanity, in which just and good men have not suffered. It would bedelightful if freedom and progress could be secured, and effeteinstitutions destroyed or reformed, without the accompaniment ofdisaster and death, but it is not so. 

The monks stood for opposition to reform, and therefore came into directconflict with the king, who was blindly groping his way toward thefuture, and who was, in fact, the unconscious agent of many reformforces that concentrated in him. He did not comprehend the significanceof his proceedings. He did not take up the cause of the English peoplewith the pure and intelligent motive of encouraging free thought andfree religion. He did not realize that he was leading the mighty army ofProtestant reformers. He little dreamed that the people whose cause hechampioned would in turn assert their rights and make it impossible foran English sovereign to enjoy the absolute authority which he wielded. Truly "there is a power, not ourselves, " making for freedom, progressand truth. 

Thus a number of causes brought on the ruin of the monasteries. Henry'sneed of money; the refusal of the monks to sign the acts of supremacyand succession; the general drift of reform, and the iniquity of themonks. They fell from natural causes and through the operation of lawswhich God alone controls. As Hill neatly puts it, "Monasticism washealthy, active and vigorous; it became idle, listless and extravagant;it engendered its own corruption, and out of that corruptioncame death. "

Richard Bagot, a Catholic, in a recent article on the question, "WillEngland become Catholic?" which was published in the "Nuova Antologia, "says: "Though it is impossible not to blame the so-called Reformers forthe acts of sacrilege and barbarism through which they obtained thereligious and political liberty so necessary to the intellectual andsocial progress of the race, it cannot be denied that no sooner had thepower of the papacy come to an end in England than the English nationentered upon that free development which has at last brought it to itspresent position among the other nations of the world. " Mr. Bagot alsoadmits that "the political intrigues and insatiable ambition of thepapacy during the succeeding centuries constituted a perpetual menaceto England. "

The true view, therefore, is that two types of religious and politicallife, two epochs of human history, met in Henry's reign. The king andthe pope were the exponents of conflicting ideals. The fall of themonasteries was an incident in the struggle. "The Catholics, " saysFroude, "had chosen the alternative, either to crush the free thoughtwhich was bursting from the soil, or to be crushed by it; and the futureof the world could not be sacrificed to preserve the exotic graces ofmedieval saints. "

The problem is reduced to this, Was the Reformation desirable? IsProtestantism a curse or a blessing? Would England and the world bebetter off under the sway of medieval religion than under the influenceof modern Protestantism? If monasticism were a fetter on human libertyand industry, if the monasteries were "so many seminaries ofsuperstition and of folly, " there was but one thing to do--to break thefetters and to destroy the monasteries. To have succeeded in so radicala reform as that begun by King Henry, with forty thousand monkspreaching treason, would have been an impossibility. Henry cannot beblamed because the monks chose to entangle themselves with politics andto side with Rome as against the English nation. 

_Results of the Dissolution_

Many important results followed the fall of the monasteries. Themajority of the House of Lords was now transferred from the abbots tothe lay peers. The secular clergy, who had been fighting the monks forcenturies, were at last accorded their proper standing in the church. Numerous unjust ecclesiastical privileges were swept aside, and in manyrespects the whole church was strengthened and purified. Credulity andsuperstition began to decline. Ecclesiastical criminals were no longerable to escape the just penalty for their crimes. Naturally all thesebeneficent ends were not attained immediately. For a while there wasgreat disorder and distress. Society was disturbed not only by thestoppage of monastic alms-giving, but the wandering monks, unaccustomedto toil and without a trade, increased the confusion. 

In this connection it is well to point out that some writers make verymuch of the poverty relieved by the monks, and claim that the nobles, into whose hands the monastic lands fell, did almost nothing to mitigatethe distresses of the unfortunate. But they ignore the fact that a blindand undiscriminating charity was the cause, and not the cure, of much ofthe miserable wretchedness of the poor. Modern society has learned thatthe monastic method is wholly wrong; that fraud and laziness arefostered by a wholesale distribution of doles. The true way to help thepoor is to enable the poor to assist themselves; to teach them tradesand give them work. The sociological methods of to-day are thoroughlyanti-monastic. 

On the other hand, the infidel Zosimus, quoted by Gibbon, was not farwrong when he said "the monks robbed an empire to help a few beggars. "The fact that the religious houses did distribute alms and entertainstrangers is not disputed; indeed it is pleasant to reflect upon thisnoble charity of the monks; it is a bright spot in their history. But itis in no sense true that they deserve all the credit for relievingdistress. They received the money for alms in the shape of rents, giftsand other kinds of income. Hallam says, "There can be no doubt that manyof the impotent poor derived support from their charity. But the blindeleemosynary spirit inculcated by the Romish church is notoriously thecause, not the cure, of beggary and wickedness. The monasticfoundations, scattered in different countries, could never answer theends of local and limited succor. Their gates might, indeed, be open tothose who knocked at them for alms.... Nothing could have a strongertendency to promote that vagabond mendicity which severe statutes wereenacted to repress. "

It seems almost ungracious to quote such an observation, because it maybe distorted into a criticism of charity itself, or made to serve thepurposes of certain anti-Romanists who cannot even spare those noblewomen who minister to the sick in the home or hospital from theirbigoted criticisms. Small indeed must be the soul of that man whopermits his religious opinions to blind his eyes to the inestimableservices of those heroic and self-sacrificing women. But even RomanCatholic students of social problems must recognize the folly ofindiscriminate alms-giving. "In proportion as justice between man andman has declined, that form of charity which consists in giving moneyhas been more quickened. " The promotion of industry, the repression ofinjustice, the encouragement of self-reliance and thrift, are needed farmore than the temporary relief of those who suffer from oppression orfrom their own wrong-doing. 

Some of those who deplore the fall of the monasteries make much of thefact that the modern world is menaced by materialism. "With very rareexceptions, " cries Maitre, a French Catholic, "the most undisguisedmaterialism has everywhere replaced the lessons and recollections of thespiritual life. The shrill voice of machinery, the grinding of the sawor the monotonous clank of the piston, is heard now, where once wereheard chants and prayers and confessions. Once the monk freely undidthe door to let the stranger in, and now we see a sign, 'no admittance, 'lest a greedy rival purloin the tricks of trade. " Montalembert, referring to the ruin of the cloisters in France, grieves thus:"Sometimes the spinning-wheel is installed under the ancient sanctuary. Instead of echoing night and day the praises of God, these dishonoredarches too often repeat only the blasphemies of obscene cries. " Theelement of truth in these laments gives them their sting, but one shouldbeware of the fervid rhetoric of the worshipers of medievalism. Thiscentury is nobler, purer, truer, manlier, and more humane than any ofthe centuries that saw the greatest triumphs of the monks. They, too, had their blasphemies, often under the cloak of piety; they, too, hadtheir obscene cries. Their superstitions and frauds concealed beneaththose "dishonored arches" were infinitely worse than the noise ofmachinery weaving garments for the poor, or producing household comfortsto increase the happiness of the humblest man. 

There is much that is out of joint, much to justify doleful prophecies, in the social and religious conditions of the present age, but thesigns of the times are not all ominous. At all events, nothing would begained by a return to the monkish ideals of the past. The hope of theworld lies in the further development and completer realization of thosegreat principles of human freedom that distinguish this century from thepast. The history of monasticism clearly shows that the monasteriescould not minister to that development of liberty, truth and justice, which constitute the indispensable condition of human happiness andhuman progress. Unable to adjust themselves to the new age, unwilling towelcome the new light, rejecting the doctrine of individual freedom, themonks were forced to retire from the field. 

So fell in England that institution which, for twelve centuries, hadexercised marvelous dominion over the spiritual and temporal interestsof the continent, and for eight hundred years had suffered or thrived onEnglish soil. "The day came, and that a drear winter day, when its lastmass was sung, its last censer waved, its last congregation bent in raptand lovely adoration before the altar. " Its majestic and solemn ruinsproclaim its departed grandeur. Its deeds of mercy, its conflicts withkings and bishops, its prayers and chants and penances, its virtues andits vices, its trials and its victories, its wealth and its poverty, allare gone. Silence and death keep united watch over cloister and tomb. Weshould be ungrateful if we forgot its blessings; we should be untrue if, ignoring its evils, we sought to bring back to life that which God haslaid in the sepulcher of the dead. 

 "Where pleasant was the spot for men to dwell, Amid its fair broad lands the abbey lay, Sheltering dark orgies that were shame to tell, And cowled and barefoot beggars swarmed the way, All in their convent weeds of black, and white, and gray. 

 From many a proud monastic pile, o'erthrown, Fear-struck, the brooded inmates rushed and fled; The web, that for a thousand years had grown O'er prostrate Europe, in that day of dread Crumbled and fell, as fire dissolves the flaxen thread. "

 --_Bryant_. 

VIII

_CAUSES AND IDEALS OF MONASTICISM_

All forms of religious character and conduct are grounded in certaincravings of the soul, which, in seeking satisfaction, are influenced bytheoretical opinions. The longings of the human heart constitute theimpulse, or the energy, of religion. The intellectual convictions act asguiding forces. As a religious type, therefore, the monk was produced bythe action of certain desires, influenced by specific opinionsrespecting God, the soul, the body, the world and their relations. 

The existence of monasticism in non-Christian religions implies thatwhatever impetus the ascetic impulses in human nature received fromChristian teaching, there is some broader basis for monastic life thanthe tenets of any creed. Biblical history and Christian theology furnishsome explanation of the rise of Christian monasticism, but they do notaccount for the monks of ancient India. The teachings of Jesus exerted aprofound influence upon the Christian monks, but they cannot explain theOriental asceticism that flourished before the Christ of the NewTestament was born. There must have been some motive, or motives, operating on human nature as such, a knowledge of which will help toaccount for the monks of Indian antiquity as well as the begging friarsof modern times. It will therefore be in order to begin the presentinquiry by seeking those causes which gave rise to monasticismin general. 

_Causative Motives of Monasticism_

Whatever the origin of religion itself, it is certain that it is man'sinalienable concern. He is, as Sabatier says, "incurably religious. " Ofall the motives ministering to this ruling passion, the longing forrighteousness and for the favor of God is supreme. The savage onlypartially grasps the significance of his spiritual aspirations, anddimly understands the nature of the God he adores or fears. His worshipmay be confined to frantic efforts to ward off the vengeful assaults ofan angry deity, but however gross his religious conceptions, there is atthe heart of his religion a desire to live in peaceful relations withthe Supreme Being. 

As religion advances, the ethical character of God and the nature oftrue righteousness are more clearly apprehended. But the idea that moralpurity and fellowship with God are in some way associated withself-denial has always been held by the religious world. But what doessuch a conception involve? What must one do to deny self? The answer tothat question will vastly influence the form of religious conduct. Thuswhile all religious men may unite in a craving for holiness by aparticipation in the Divine nature, they will differ widely in theiropinions as to the nature of this desirable righteousness and as to themeans by which it may be attained. Roman Catholicism, by the voice ofthe monk, whom it regards as the highest type of Christian living, givesone answer to these questions; Protestantism, protesting againstasceticism, gives a different reply. 

The desire for salvation was, therefore, the primary cause of allmonasticism. Many quotations might be given from the sacred writings ofIndia, establishing beyond dispute, that underlying the confusingvariety of philosophical ideas and ascetic practices of thenon-Christian monks, was a consuming desire for the redemption of thesoul from sin. Buddha said on seeing a mendicant, "The life of a devoteehas always been praised by the wise. It will be my refuge and the refugeof other creatures, it will lead us to a real life, to happiness andimmortality. "

Dharmapala, in expounding the teachings of the Buddha, at the World'sParliament of Religions, in Chicago, clearly showed that the aim of theBuddhist is "the entire obliteration of all that is evil, " and "thecomplete purification of the mind. " That this is the purpose of theasceticism of India is seen by the following quotation from Dharmapala'saddress: "The advanced student of the religion of Buddha when he hasfaith in him thinks: 'Full of hindrances is household life, a pathdefiled by passions; free as the air is the life of him who hasrenounced all worldly things. How difficult is it for the man who dwellsat home to live the higher life in all its fullness, in all its purity, in all its perfection! Let me then cut off my hair and beard, let meclothe myself in orange-colored robes and let me go forth from ahousehold life into the homeless state!'"

In the same parliament, Mozoomdar, the brilliant and attractiverepresentative of the Brahmo Somaj, in describing "Asia's Service toReligion, " thus stated the motives and spirit of Oriental asceticism:"What lesson do the hermitages, the monasteries, the cave temples, thediscipline and austerities of the religious East teach the world?Renunciation. The Asiatic apostle will ever remain an ascetic, acelibate, a homeless Akinchana, a Fakeer. We Orientals are all thedescendants of John the Baptist. Any one who has taken pains atspiritual culture must admit that the great enemy to a devoutconcentration of mind is the force of bodily and worldly desire. Communion with God is impossible, so long as the flesh and its lusts arenot subdued.... It is not mere temperance, but positive asceticism; notmere self-restraint, but self-mortification; not mere self-sacrifice, but self-extinction; not mere morality, but absolute holiness. " Andfurther on in his address, Mozoomdar claimed that this asceticism ispractically the essential principle in Christianity and the meaning ofthe cross of Christ: "This great law of self-effacement, poverty, suffering, death, is symbolized in the mystic cross so dear to you anddear to me. Christians, will you ever repudiate Calvary? Oneness of willand character is the sublimest and most difficult unity with God. " Thechief value of these quotations from Mozoomdar lies in the fact thatthey show forth the underlying motive of all asceticism. It would beunjust to the distinguished scholar to imply that he defends thoseextreme forms of monasticism which have appeared in India or inChristian countries. On the contrary, while he maintains, in hischarming work, "The Oriental Christ, " that "the height of self-denialmay fitly be called asceticism, " he is at the same time fully alive toits dangerous exaggerations. "Pride, " he says, "creeps into the holiestand humblest exercises of self-discipline. It is the supremest naturesonly that escape. The practice of asceticism therefore is alwaysattended with great danger. " The language of Mozoomdar, however, likethat of many Christian monastic writers, opens the door to many graveexcesses. It is another evidence of the necessity for defining what onemeans by "self-mortification" and "self-extinction. "

Turning now to Christian monasticism, it will be found that, as in thecase of Oriental monasticism the yearning for victory over self wasuppermost in the minds of the best Christian monks. A few words from aletter written by Jerome to Rusticus, a young monk, illustrates thetruth of this observation: "Let your garments be squalid, " he says, "toshow that your mind is white, and your tunic coarse, to show that youdespise the world. But give not way to pride, lest your dress and yourlanguage be found at variance. Baths stimulate the senses, and aretherefore to be avoided. "

To keep the mind white, to despise the world, to overcome pride, to stopthe craving of the senses for gratification, --these were the objects ofthe monks, in order to accomplish which they macerated and starved theirbodies, avoided baths, wore rags, affected humble language and fled fromthe scenes of pleasure. The goal was highly commendable, even if themeans employed were inadequate to produce the desired results. 

All down through the Middle Ages, the idea continued to prevail that themonastic life was the highest and purest expression of the Christianreligion, and that the monks' chances of heaven were much better thanthose of any other class of men. The laity believed them to be a littlenearer God than even the clergy, and so they paid them gold for theirprayers. It will readily be understood that in degenerate times, soprofitable a doctrine would be earnestly encouraged by the monks. Theknight, whose conscience revolted against his conduct but who could notbring himself to a complete renunciation of the world, believed thatheaven would condone his faults or crimes if in some way he could makefriends with the dwellers in the cloister. To this end, he foundedabbeys and sustained monasteries by liberal gifts of gold and land. Sucha donation was made in the following language: "I, Gervais, who belongto the chivalry of the age, caring for the salvation of my soul, andconsidering that I shall never reach God by my own prayers and fastings, have resolved to recommend myself in some other way to those who, nightand day, serve God by these practices, so that, thanks to theirintercession, I may be able to obtain that salvation which I of myselfam unable to merit. " Another endowment was made by Peter, Knight ofMaull, in these quaint terms: "I, Peter, profiting by this lesson, anddesirous, though a sinner and unworthy, to provide for my futuredestiny, I have desired that the bees of God may come to gather theirhoney in my orchards, so that when their fair hives shall be full ofrich combs, they may be able to remember him by whom the hivewas given. "

The people believed that the prayers of the monks lifted their soulsinto heaven; that their curses doomed them to the bottomless pit. Amonastery was the safe and sure road to heaven. The observation ofGibbon respecting the early monks is applicable to all of them: "Eachproselyte who entered the gates of a monastery was persuaded that hetrod the steep and thorny path of eternal happiness. "

The second cause for monasticism in general was a natural love ofsolitude, which became almost irresistible when reinforced by a despairof the world's redemption. The poet voiced the feelings of almost everysoul, at some period in life, when he wrote:

 "O for a lodge in some vast wilderness, Some boundless contiguity of shade, Where rumor of oppression or deceit, Of unsuccessful or successful war, Might never reach me more. "

The longing for solitude accompanied the desire for salvation. Anunconquerable weariness of the world, with its strife and passion, overcame the seeker after God. A yearning to escape the duties of sociallife, which were believed to interfere with one's duty to God, possessedhis soul. The flight from the world was merely the method adopted tosatisfy his soul-longings. If such times of degeneracy and rampantiniquity ever return, if humanity is again compelled to stagger underthe moral burdens that crushed the Roman Empire, without doubt the loveof solitude, which is now held in check by the satisfactions of acomparatively pure and peaceful social life, will again arise in itsold-time strength and impel men to seek in waste and lonely places thevirtues they cannot acquire in a decaying civilization. 

Even amid the delights of human fellowship, and surrounded by so muchthat ministers to restfulness of soul, it is often hard to repress alonging to shatter the fetters of custom, to flee from the noise andconfusion of this hurrying, fretful world, and to pass one's days in acoveted retirement, far from the maddening strife and tumult. Montalembert's profound appreciation of monastic life was never moreaptly illustrated than in the following declaration: "In the depths ofhuman nature there exists without doubt, a tendency instinctive, thoughconfused and evanescent, toward retirement and solitude. What man, unless completely depraved by vice or weighed down by care and cupidity, has not experienced once, at least, before his death, the attraction ofsolitude?"

While the motives just described were unquestionably preeminent amongthe causative factors in monasticism, it should not be taken for grantedthat there were no others, or that either or both of these motivescontrolled every monk. The personal considerations tending to keep upthe flight from the world were numerous and active. It would be amistake to credit all the monks, and at some periods even a majority ofthem, with pure and lofty purposes. Oftentimes criminals were pardonedthrough the intercession of abbots on condition that they would retireto a monastery. The jilted lover and the commercial bankrupt, thedeserted or bereaved wife, the pauper and the invalid, the socialoutcast and the shirker of civic duties, the lazy and the fickle wereall to be found in the ranks of the monastic orders. Ceasing to feel anyinterest in the joys of society, they had turned to the cloister as awelcome asylum in the hour of their sorrow or disappointment. To some itwas an easy way out of the struggle for existence, to others it meant anend to taxes and to military service, to still others it was a haven ofrest for a weary body or a disappointed spirit. Thus many specific, individual considerations acted with the general desires for salvationand solitude to strengthen and to perpetuate the institution. 

_Beliefs Affecting the Causative Motives_

In the first chapter it was shown that a variety of views respecting therelation of the body and the soul influenced the origin and developmentof Christian monasticism. It will not now be necessary to repeat whatwas there said. The essential teaching of all these false opinions wasthat the body was in itself evil, that the gratification of naturalappetites was inherently wrong, and that true holiness consisted in thecomplete subjection of the body by self-denial and torture. Jeromedistinctly taught that what was natural was opposed to God. The Gnosticsand many of the early Christians believed that this world was ruled bythe devil. The Gnostics held that this opposition of the kingdom ofmatter to God was fundamental and eternal. The Christians, however, maintained that the antagonism was temporary, the Lord having given theworld over to evil spirits for a time. The prevailing opinion amongalmost all schools was that a union with God was only possible to thosewho had extinguished bodily desires. 

The ascetic theory undoubtedly derived much support from the views heldconcerning the teachings of the Bible. The Oriental monks frequentlyquoted from their sacred books to justify their habits and ideals. Inlike manner, the Christian monks believed that they, and they alone, were literally obeying the commands of Christ and his apostles. Thisphase of the subject will receive attention when the three vows ofmonasticism are considered. 

In the West, two conditions, one political and social, the otherreligious, set in motion all these spiritual desires and ascetic beliefstending toward monasticism. One was the corrupted state, of Romansociety and the approaching overthrow of the Roman Empire. The other wasthe secularization of the church. 

Men naturally cling to society as long as there exists any well-foundedhope for its regeneration, but when every expectation for the survivalof righteousness yields to a conviction that doom is inevitable, thenthe flight from the world begins. This was precisely the situation inthe declining days of Rome and Alexandria, when Christian monasticismcame into being. The monks believed that the end of the world was nigh, that all things temporal and earthly were doomed, and that God's handwas against the empire. "That they were correct in their judgment of theworld about them, " says Kingsley, "contemporary history provesabundantly. That they were correct, likewise, in believing that somefearful judgment was about to fall on man, is proved by the fact that itdid fall. "

So they fled to escape being caught in the ruins of society's totteringstructure, --fled to make friends with the angels and with God. If onecannot live purely in the midst of corruption, by all means let him livepurely away from corruption, but let him never forget that his piety isof a lower order than that which abides uncorrupted in the midst ofdegenerate society. There is much truth in the observation of CharlesReade in "The Cloister and the Hearth": "So long as Satan walks thewhole earth, tempting men, and so long as the sons of Belial do neverlock themselves in caves but run like ants, to and fro corruptingothers, the good man that sulks apart, plays the Devil's game, or atleast gives him the odds. "

But the early Christian monks believed that their safety was only inflight. It was not altogether an unworthy motive; at least it is easy tosympathize with these men struggling against odds, of the magnitude ofwhich the modern Christian has only the faintest conception. 

The conviction that the only true and certain way to secure salvationis by flight from the world, continued to prevail during the succeedingcenturies of monastic history, and it can hardly be said to haveentirely disappeared even at the present time. Anselm of Canterbury, inthe twelfth century, wrote to a young friend reminding him that theglory of this world was perishing. True, not monks only are saved, "but, " says he, "who attains to salvation in the most certain, who inthe most noble way, the man who seeks to love God alone, or he who seeksto unite the love of God with the love of the world?... Is it rationalwhen danger is on every side, to remain where it is the greatest?"

The Christian church set up an ideal of life which it was impossible torealize within her borders, and one which differed in many respects fromthe teachings of Jesus. Her demands involved a renunciation of theworld, a superiority to all the enticements of bodily appetites, a loftyscorn of secular bonds and social concerns. A vigorous religious faithhad conquered a mighty empire, but corruption attended its victory. Thestandard of Christian morals was lowered, or had at least degeneratedinto a cold, formal ideal that no one was expected to realize; hencenone strove to attain it but the monks. When Roman society with itsselfishness, lust and worldliness, swept in through the open doors ofthe church and took possession of the sanctuary, those who had cherishedthe ascetic ideal gave up the fight against the world, and the flightfrom the world-church began. They could not tolerate this union of thechurch with a pagan state and an effete civilization. In some respects, as a few writers maintain, many of these hermits were like the oldJewish prophets, fighting single-handed against corruption in church andstate, refusing to yield themselves as slaves to the authority ofinstitutions that had forsaken the ideals of the past. 

Thus the conviction that the end of human society was nigh, and that thechurch could no longer serve as an asylum for the lovers ofrighteousness, with certain philosophical ideas respecting the body, theworld and God, united to produce the assumption that salvation was morereadily attainable in the deserts; and Christian monasticism, in itshermit form, began its long and eventful history. 

_Causes of Variations in Monasticism_

Prominent among the causes producing variations in the monastic type wasthe influence of climatic conditions and race characteristics. 

The monasticism as well as the religion of the East has always differedfrom the monasticism and the religion of the West. The Eastern mind ismystical, dreamy, contemplative; the Western mind loves activity, isintensely practical. Representatives of the Eastern faiths in the recentParliament of Religions accused the West of materialism, of loving thebody more than the soul. They affected to despise all materialprosperity, and gloried in their assumed superiority, on account oftheir love for religious contemplation. This radical difference betweenthe races of the East and West is clearly seen in the monasticinstitution. Benedict embodied in his rules the spirit and active lifeof the West, and hence, the monastic system, then in danger of dying, orstagnating, revived and spread all over Europe. Again, the hermit lifewas ill-adapted to the West. Men could not live out of doors in Europeand subsist on small quantities of food as in Egypt. The rigors of theclimate in Europe demanded an adaptation to new conditions. 

But aside from the differences between Eastern and Western monasticism, the Christian institution passed through a variety of changes. Thegrowth of monasticism from the hermit stage to the cloistral life hasalready been described. To what shall the development of the communitysystem be attributed? No religious institution can remain stationary, unaffected by the changing conditions of the society in which it exists. The progress of the intellect, and the development of social, politicaland industrial conditions, effect great transformations in religiousorganizations. 

The monastic institution grew up amid the radical changes of Europeansociety. In its early days it witnessed the invasion of the barbarians, which swept away old political divisions and destroyed many of theheritages of an ancient civilization. Then the process of reconstructionslowly began. New states were forming; nations were crystallizing. Thebarbarian was to lay the foundations of great cities and organizepowerful commonwealths out of wild but victorious tribes. The monkcould not remain in hiding. He was brother to the roving warrior. Theblood in his veins was too active to permit him to stand still amid themighty whirl of events. Without entirely abandoning his cloistral life, he became a zealous missionary of the church among the barbarians, apatron of letters and of agriculture, in short a stirring participant inthe work of civilization. 

Next came the crusades. Jerusalem was to be captured for Christ and thechurch. The monk then appeared as a crusade-preacher, a warrior on thebattle-field, or a nurse in the military hospital. 

The rise of feudalism likewise wrought a change in the spirit andposition of the monks. The feudal lord was master of his vassals. "Thegenius of feudalism, " says Allen, "was a spirit of uncontrolledindependence. " So the abbot became a feudal lord with immensepossessions and powers. He was no longer the obscure, spiritual fatherof a little family of monks, but a temporal lord also, an aristocrat, ruling wide territories, and dwelling in a monastery little differentfrom the castle of the knight and often exceeding it in splendor. Withwealth came ease, and hard upon the heels of ease came laziness, arrogance, corruption. 

Then followed the marvelous intellectual awakening, the moral revival, the discoveries and inventions of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The human mind at last had aroused itself from a long repose, or turnedfrom a profitless activity into broad and fruitful fields. Thecorruption of the monasteries meant the laxity of vows, the cessation ofministration to the poor and the sick. Then arose the tender and lovingFrancis, with his call to poverty and to service. The independentexercise of the intellect gave birth to heresies, but the Dominicansappeared to preach them down. 

The growth of the secular spirit and the progress of the new learningwere too much for the old monasticism. The monk had to adapt himself toa new age, an age that is impatient of mere contemplation, that spurnsthe rags of the begging friar and rebels against the fierce intoleranceof the Dominican preaching. So, lastly, came the suave, determined, practical, cultured Jesuit, ready to comply, at least outwardly, withall the requirements of modern times. Does the new age reject monasticseclusion? Very well, the Jesuit throws off his monastic garb andforsakes his cloister, to take his place among men. Are the ignoranceand the filth of the begging friars offensive? The Jesuit is cultured, affable and spotlessly clean. Does the new age demand liberty?"Liberty, " cries the Jesuit, "is the divine prerogative, colossal inproportion, springing straight from the broad basin of thesoul's essence!"

Such in its merest outlines is the story of the development of themonastic type and its causes. 

_The Fundamental Monastic Vows_

The ultimate monastic ideal was the purification of the soul, but whentranslated into definite, concrete terms, the immediate aim of the monkwas to live a life of poverty, celibacy and obedience. Riches, marriageand self-will were regarded as forms of sinful gratification, whichevery holy man should abandon. The true Christian, according tomonasticism, is poor, celibate and obedient. The three fundamentalmonastic vows should therefore receive special consideration. 

1. The Vow of Poverty. The monks of all countries held the possession ofriches to be a barrier to high spiritual attainments. In view of thefact that an inordinate love of wealth has proved disastrous to manynations, and that it is extremely difficult for a rich man to escape thehardening, enervating and corrupting influences of affluence, theposition of the monks on this question is easily understood. TheChristian monks based their vow of poverty upon the Bible, andespecially upon the teachings of Christ, who, though he was rich, yetfor our sakes became poor. He said to the rich young man, "Sell all thatthou hast and give to the poor. " In commissioning the disciples topreach the gospel He said: "Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brassin your purses; nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, norshoes. " In the discourse on counting the cost of discipleship, He said:"So therefore, whosoever he be of you that renounceth not all that hehath, he cannot be my disciple. " He promised rewards to "every one thatleft houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands for my name's sake. " "It is easier, " He once said, "for acamel to go through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter thekingdom of heaven. " He portrayed the pauper Lazarus as participating inthe joys of heaven, while the rich Dives endured the torments of thelost. As reported in Luke, He said, "Blessed are ye poor. " He Himselfwas without a place to lay His head, a houseless wanderer uponthe earth. 

The apostle James cries to the men of wealth: "Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl, for your miseries that shall come upon you. " John said:"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If anyman love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. "

Whatever these passages, and many others of like import, may signify, itis not at all strange that Christians, living in times when wealth wasabused, and when critical Biblical scholarship was unknown, should haveunderstood Christ to command a life of poverty as an indispensablecondition of true holiness. 

There are three ways of interpreting Christ's doctrine of wealth. First, it may be held that Jesus intended His teachings to be literally obeyed, not only by His first disciples but by all His followers in subsequentyears, and that such literal obedience is practicable, reasonable andconducive to the highest well-being of society. Secondly, it has beensaid that Jesus was a gentle and honest visionary, who erroneouslybelieved that the possession of riches rendered religious progressimpossible, but that strict compliance with His commands would bedestructive of civilization. Laveleye declares that "if Christianitywere taught and understood conformably to the spirit of its Founder, theexisting social organism could not last a day. " Thirdly, neither ofthese views seems to do justice to the spirit of Christ, for they failto give proper recognition to many other injunctions of the Master andto many significant incidents in his public ministry. Exhaustivetreatment of this subject is, of course, impossible here. Briefly it maybe remarked, that Jesus looked upon wealth as tending oftentimes tofoster an unsocial spirit. Rich men are liable to become enemies of thebrotherhood Jesus sought to establish, by reason of their covetousnessand contracted sympathies. The rich man is in danger of erecting falsestandards of manhood, of ignoring the highest interests of the soul byan undue emphasis on the material. Wealth, in itself, is not an evil, but it is only a good when it is used to advance the real welfare ofhumanity. Jesus was not intent upon teaching economics. His purpose wasto develop the man. It was the moral value and spiritual influence ofmaterial things that concerned him. Professor Shailer Mathews admirablystates the true attitude of Jesus towards rich men: "Jesus was a friendneither of the working man nor the rich man as such. He calls the poorman to sacrifice as well as the rich man. He was the Son of Man, not theson of a class of men. But His denunciation is unsparing of those menwho make wealth at the expense of souls; who find in capital noincentive to further fraternity; who endeavor so to use wealth as tomake themselves independent of social obligations, and to grow fat withthat which should be shared with society;--for those men who are gainingthe world but are letting their neighbors fall among thieves and Lazarusrot among their dogs. "

Jesus was therefore not a foe to rich men as such, but to thatantisocial, abnormal regard for wealth and its procurements, which leadsto the creation of class distinctions and impedes the full and freedevelopment of our common humanity along the lines of brotherly love andcoöperation. A Christian may consistently be a rich man, provided heuses his wealth in furthering the true interests of society, andrealizes, as respects his own person, that "a man's life consisteth notin the abundance of the things which he possesseth. " The error ofmonasticism consists in making poverty a virtue and an essentialcondition of the highest holiness. It is true that some callingspreclude the prospect of fortune. The average clergyman cannot hope toamass wealth. The resident of a social settlement may possess capacitiesthat would win success in business, but he must forego financialprospects if he expects to live and labor among the poor. In so far asthe monks deliberately turned their backs on the material rewards ofhuman endeavors that they might be free to devote themselves to theservice of humanity, their vow of poverty was creditable and reasonable. But they erred when they exalted poverty as of itself commending them ina peculiar degree to the mercy of God. 

2. The Vow of Celibacy. "The moral merit of celibacy, " says Allen, "washarder to make out of the Scripture, doubtless, since family life isboth at the foundation of civil society and the source of all the commonvirtues. " The monks held that Christ and Paul both taught and practicedcelibacy. In the early and middle ages celibacy was looked upon by allchurchmen as in itself a virtue. The prevailing modern idea is thatmarriage is a holy institution, in no sense inferior in sacredness toany ecclesiastical order of life. He who antagonizes it plays into thehands of the foes to social purity and individual virtue. 

The ideas of Jerome, Ambrose, and all the early Fathers, respectingmarriage, are still held by many ecclesiastics. One of them, indefending the celibacy of existing religious orders, says: "Celibacy isenjoined on these religious orders as a means to greater sanctification, greater usefulness, greater absorption in things spiritual, and tofacilitate readier withdrawal from things earthly. " He gives two reasonsfor the celibacy of the priesthood, which are all the more interestingbecause they substantially represent the opinions held by the Christianmonks in all ages: First, "That the service of the priest to God may beundivided and unrestrained. " In support of this, he quotes I. Cor. , 7:32, 33, which reads: "But I would have you free from cares. He that isunmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how he may please theLord: but he that is married is careful for the things of the world, howhe may please his wife. " And secondly, "Celibacy, " according to Trent, "is more blessed than marriage. " He also quotes the words of Christ thatthere are "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. " He then adds: "Itis desirable that those called to the ministry of the altar espouse alife of continence because holier and more angelic. "

It is generally admitted that the vow of celibacy was not demanded ofthe clergy in primitive Christian times. It was only after many years ofbitter debate and in response to the growing influence of the monasticideal, that celibacy finally came to be looked upon as the highest formof Christian virtue, and was enforced upon the clergy. As in the case ofthe vow of poverty, there certainly can be no reasonable objection tothe individual adoption of celibacy, if one is either disinclined tomarriage or feels that he can do better work unmarried. But neitherScripture nor reason justifies the imposition of celibacy upon any man, nor the view that a life of continence is holier than marriage. It maybe reverently said that God would be making an unreasonable demand uponmankind, if the holiness He requires conflicted with the propersatisfaction of those impulses He himself has deeply implanted inhuman nature. 

3. The Vow of Obedience. The monks were required to render absoluteobedience to the will of their superiors, as the representatives of God. Dom Guigo, in his rules for the Carthusian Order, declares: "Moreover, if the Prior commands one of his religious to take more food, or tosleep for a longer time, in fact, whatever command may be given us byour Superior, we are not allowed to disobey, lest we should disobey Godalso, who commands us by the mouth of our Superior. All our practices ofmortification and devotion would be fruitless and of no value, withoutthis one virtue of obedience, which alone can make them acceptableto God. "

Thus a strict and uncomplaining obedience, not to the laws of God asinterpreted by the individual conscience, but to the judgment and willof a brother man, was demanded of the monks. 

 "Theirs not to reason why, Theirs not to make reply, Theirs but to do and die. "

They were often severely beaten or imprisoned and sometimes mutilatedfor acts of disobedience. While the monks, especially the Friars andJesuits, carried this principle of obedience to great extremes, yet inthe barbarous ages its enforcement was sadly needed. Law and order werewords which the untamed Goth could not comprehend. He had to be taughthabits of obedience, a respect for the rights of others, and a properappreciation of his duty to society for the common good. But while, atthe beginning, the monastic vow of obedience helped to inculcate thesedesirable lessons, and vastly modified the ferocity of uncheckedindividualism, it tended, in the course of time, to generate a servilehumility fatal to the largest and freest personal development. In theinterests of passive obedience, it suppressed freedom of thought andaction. Obedience became mechanical and unreasoning. The consequence wasthat the passion for individual liberty was unduly restrained, and theextravagant claims of political and ecclesiastical tyrants were greatlystrengthened. 

Such was the monastic ideal and such were some of the means employed torealize it. The ascetic spirit manifests itself in a great variety ofways, but all these visible and changing externals have one commonsource. "To cherish the religious principle, " says William E. Channing, "some have warred against their social affections, and have led solitarylives; some against their senses, and have abjured all pleasure inasceticism; some against reason, and have superstitiously feared tothink; some against imagination, and have foolishly dreaded to readpoetry or books of fiction; some against the political and patrioticprinciples, and have shrunk from public affairs, --all apprehending thatif they were to give free range to their natural emotions theirreligious life would be chilled or extinguished. "

IX

_THE EFFECTS OF MONASTICISM_

"We read history, " said Wendell Phillips, "not through our eyes butthrough our prejudices. " Yet if it were possible entirely to lay asideone's prepossessions respecting monastic history, it would still be noeasy task to estimate the influences of the monks upon human life. 

In every field of thought and activity monasticism wrought good andevil. Education, industry, government and religion have been bothfurthered and hindered by the monks. What Francis Parkman said of theRoman Catholic Church is true of the monastic institution: "Clearly sheis of earth, not of heaven; and her transcendently dramatic life is atype of the good and ill, the baseness and nobleness, the foulness andpurity, the love and hate, the pride, passion, truth, falsehood, fierceness, and tenderness, that battle in the restless heart of man. "

A careful and sympathetic survey of monastic history compels theconclusion that monasticism, while not uniformly a blessing to theworld, was not an unmitigated evil. The system presents one long seriesof perplexities and contradictions. One historian shuts his eyes to itspernicious effects, or at least pardons its transgressions, on theground that perfection in man or in institutions is unattainable. Another condemns the whole system, believing that the sum of its evilsfar outweighs whatever benefits it may have conferred upon mankind. Schaff cuts the Gordian knot, maintaining that the contradiction iseasily solved on the theory that it was not monasticism, as such, whichhas proved a blessing to the Church and the world. "It was Christianityin monasticism, " he says, "which has done all the good, and used thisabnormal mode of life as a means of carrying forward its mission of loveand peace. "

To illustrate the diversities of opinion on this subject, andincidentally to show how difficult it is to present a well-balanced, symmetrically fair and just estimate of the monastic institution as awhole, contrast the opinions of four celebrated men. Pius IX. Refers tothe, monks as "those chosen phalanxes of the army of Christ which havealways been the bulwark and ornament of the Christian republic as wellas of civil society. " But then he was the Pope of Rome, the Arch-prelateof the Church. "Monk, " fiercely demands Voltaire, "Monk, what is thatprofession of thine? It is that of having none, of engaging one's selfby an inviolable oath to be a fool and a slave, and to live at theexpense of others. " But he was the philosophical skeptic of Paris. "Where is the town, " cries Montalembert, "which has not been founded orenriched or protected by some religious community? Where is the churchwhich owes not to them a patron, a relic, a pious and popular tradition?Wherever there is a luxuriant forest, a pure stream, a majestic hill, wemay be sure that religion has left there her stamp by the hand of themonk. " But this was Montalembert, the Roman Catholic historian, and theavowed champion of the monks. "A cruel, unfeeling temper, " writesGibbon, "has distinguished the monks of every age and country; theirstern indifference, which is seldom mollified by personal friendship, is inflamed by religious hatred; and their merciless zeal hasstrenuously administered the holy office of the Inquisition. " But thiswas Gibbon, the hater of everything monastic. Between these extremeviews lies a wide field upon which many a deathless duel has been foughtby the writers of monastic history. 

The variety of judgments respecting the nature and effects ofmonasticism is partly due to the diversity in the facts of its history. Monasticism was the friend and the foe of true religion. It was theinspiration of virtue and the encouragement of vice. It was the patronof industry and the promoter of idleness. It was a pioneer in educationand the teacher of superstition. It was the disburser of alms and amany-handed robber. It was the friend of human liberty and the abettorof tyranny. It was the champion of the common people and the defender ofclass privileges. It was, in short, everything that man was and is, sovaried were its operations, so complex was its influence, socomprehensive was its life. 

Of some things we may be certain. Any religious institution or ideal oflife that has survived the changes of twelve centuries, and that hasenlisted the enthusiastic services and warmest sympathies of numerousmen and women who have been honorably distinguished for theirintellectual attainments and moral character, must have possessedelements of truth and moral worth. A contemptuous treatment ofmonasticism implies either an ignorance of its real history or a wilfuldisregard of the deep significance of its commendable features. 

It is also certain that while the methods of monasticism, judged bytheir effects upon the individual and upon society, may be justlycensured, it is beyond question that many monks, groping their waytoward the light in an age of ignorance and superstition, were inspiredby the purest motives. "Conscience, " observes Waddington, "howevermisguided, cannot be despised by a reflecting mind. When it leads one toself-sacrifice and moral fortitude we cannot but admire his spirit, while we condemn his sagacity and method. "

_The Effects of Self-Sacrifice Upon the Individual_

Christianity requires some sort of self-denial as the condition of trueChristian discipleship. Self-love is to yield to a love of others. Insome sense, the Christian is to become dead to the world and itsdemoralizing pleasures. But this primal demand upon the soul needs to beinterpreted. What is it to love the world? What is it to keep the bodyin subjection? What are harmful indulgences? To give wrong answers tothese questions is to set up a false ideal; the more strenuously suchfalse ideal is followed, the more disastrous are the consequences. One'sstruggle for moral purity may end in failure, and one's efficiency forgood may be seriously impaired by a perversion of the principle ofself-abnegation. Unnatural severity and excessive abstinence oftenproduce the opposite effect from that intended. Instead of a peacefulmind there is delirium, and instead of freedom from temptation there area thousand horrible fiends hovering in the air and ready, at any moment, to pounce upon their prey. "The history of ascetics, " says Martensen, "teaches us that by such overdone fasting the fancy is often excited toan amazing degree, and in its airy domain affords the very things thatone thought to have buried, by means of mortification, a magicalresurrection. " In attempting to subdue the body, many necessaryrequirements of the physical organism were totally ignored. The bodyrebelled against such unnatural treatment, and the mind, so closelyrelated to it, in its distraction, gave birth to the wildest fancies. Men, who would have possessed an ordinarily pure mind in some usefuloccupation of life, became the prey of the most lewd and obnoxiousimaginations. Then they fancied themselves vile above their fellows, andlaid on more stripes, put more thorns upon their pillows, and fastedmore hours, only to find that instead of fleeing, the devils becameblacker and more numerous. 

Self-forgetfulness is the key to happiness. The monk thought otherwise, and slew himself in his vain attempt to fight against nature. He neverlifted his eyes from his own soul. He was always feeling his spiritualpulse, staring at his lean spiritual visage, and tearfully watching hisgrowth in grace. An interest in others and a strong mind in a strongbody are the best antidotes to religious despair and the temptations ofthe soul. Life in the monastery was generally less severe than in thedesert's solitude. There was more and better food, shelter, and comfort, but there were many unnecessary and unnatural restrictions, even in thebest days of monasticism. There were too many hours of prayer, too manyneedless regulations for silence, fasting and penance, to produce ahealthy, vigorous type of religious life. 

_The Effects of Solitude Upon the Individual_. 

It has already been shown that some solitude is essential to our richestculture. Our higher nature demands time for reflection and meditation. But the monks carried this principle to an extreme, and theyoverestimated its benefits. "Ambition, avarice, irresolution, fear, andinordinate desires, " says Montaigne, "do not leave us because we forsakeour native country, they often follow us even to cloisters andphilosophical schools; nor deserts, nor caves, nor hair shirts, norfasts, can disengage us from them. "

Besides these passions, which the monks carried with them, theirsolitary life tended to foster spiritual pride, contract sympathy, andengender an inhumane spirit. True, there were exceptions; but thesublime characters which survive in monastic history are by no meanstypical of its usual effects. Seclusion did not benefit the averagemonk. Indeed there is something wanting in even the loftiest monasticcharacters. "The heroes of monasticism, " says Allen, "are not the heroesof modern life. All put together, they would not furnish out one suchsoul as William of Orange, or Gustavus, or Milton. Independence ofthought and liberty of conscience, they renounced once for all, intaking upon them the monastic vow. All the larger enterprises, all thebroad humanities, which to our mind make a greater career, were rigidlyshut off by a barrier that could not be crossed. All the warmth andwealth of social and domestic life was a field of forbidden fruit, to beentered only through the gate of unpardonable sin. "

Thus self-excluded from a normal life in society, often the subject ofself-inflicted pain, it is no wonder that the monk impaired all thenobler and manlier feelings of the soul, that he became strangelyindifferent to human affection, that bigotry and pride often sat asjoint rulers on the throne of his heart. He who had trampled on allfilial relations would scarcely recognize the bonds of humanbrotherhood. He who heard not the prayer of his own mother would not belikely to listen to the cry of the tortured heretic for mercy. Man asman was not reverenced. It was the monk in man who was esteemed. AsMilman puts it, "Bigotry has always found its readiest and sternestexecutioners among those who have never known the charities of life. "

Nor is it a matter of surprise that the monk was spiritually proud. Hewas supposed to stand in the inner circle, a little nearer the throne ofGod than his fellow-mortals. When dead, he was worshiped as a saint andregarded as an intercessor between God and his lower fellow-creatures. His hatred of the base world easily passed over into a sense ofsuperiority and ignoble pride. 

"True social life, " says Martensen, "leads to solitude. " This truth themonks emphasized to the exclusion of the converse, "true life insolitude leads back to society. " John Tauler, the mystic monk, realizedthis truth when he said: "If God calls me to a sick person, or to theservice of preaching, or to any other service of love, I must follow, although I am in the state of highest contemplation. " The hermits of thedesert, and too often the monks of the cloister, escaped from all suchservices, and selfishly gave themselves up to saving their own souls bycontemplation and prayer. Ministration to the needy is the external sideof the inner religious life. It is the fruit of faith and prayer. Themonk sought solitude, not for the purpose of fitting himself for a placein society, but for selfish, personal ends. Saint Bruno, in a letter tohis friend Ralph le Verd, eulogizes the solitude of the monastic cell, and among other sentiments he gives expression to the following: "I amspeaking here of the contemplative life; and although its sons are lessnumerous than those of active life, yet, like Joseph and Benjamin, theyare infinitely dearer to their Father.... O my brother, fear not then tofly from the turmoil and the misery of the world; leave the storms thatrage without, to shelter yourself in this safe haven. "

Thus sinful and sorrowing humanity, needing the guidance and comfortthat holy men can furnish, was forgotten in the desire for personalpeace and future salvation. 

Another baneful result of isolation was the strangulation of filiallove. When the monk abandoned the softening, refining influence of womenand children, one side of his nature suffered a serious contraction. AnEgyptian mother stood at the hut of two hermits, her sons. Weepingbitterly, she begged to see their faces. To her piteous entreaties, theysaid: "Why do you, who are already stricken with age, pour forth suchcries and lamentations?" "It is because I long to see you, " she replied. "Am I not your mother? I am now an old and wrinkled woman, and my heartis troubled at the sound of your voices. " But even a mother's love couldnot cope with their fearful fanaticism. , and she went away with theircold promise that they would meet in heaven. St. John of Calama visitedhis sister in disguise, and a chronicler, telling the story afterwards, said, "By the mercy of Jesus Christ he had not been recognized, and theynever met again. " Many hermits received their parents or brothers andsisters with their eyes shut. When the father of Simeon Stylites died, his widowed mother prayed for entrance into her son's cell. For threedays and nights she stood without, and then the blessed Simeon prayedthe Lord for her, and she immediately gave up the ghost. 

These as well as numerous other stories of a similar character thatmight be quoted illustrate the hardening influence of solitude. Insteadof cherishing a love of kindred, as a gift of heaven and a spring ofvirtue, the monk spurned it and trampled it beneath his feet as anobstacle to his spiritual progress. "The monks, " says Milman, "seemalmost unconscious of the softening, humanizing effect of the naturalaffections, the beauty of parental tenderness and filial love. "

_The Monks as Missionaries_

The conversion of the barbarians was an indispensable condition ofmodern civilization. Every step forward had to be taken in the face ofbarbaric ignorance and cruelty. In this stupendous undertaking the monksled the way, displaying in their labors remarkable generalship andundaunted courage. Whatever may be thought of later monasticism, theBenedictine monks are entitled to the lasting gratitude of mankind fortheir splendid services in reducing barbaric Europe to some sort oforder and civilization. But again the mixture of good and evil isstrangely illustrated. It seems impossible to accord the monksunqualified praise. The potency of the evil tendencies within theirsystem vitiated every noble achievement. Their methods and practicalideals were so at variance with the true order of nature that everycommendable victory involved a corresponding obstacle to real social andreligious progress. The justice of these observations will be moreapparent as this inquiry proceeds. 

_Monasticism and Civic Duties_

The withdrawal of a considerable number of men of character and talentfrom the exercise of civic duties is injurious to the state. The burdensupon those who remain become heavier, while society is deprived of themoral influence of those who forsake their civic responsibilities. Whenthe monk, from the outside as it were, attempted to exert an influencefor good, he largely failed. His ideals of life were not formulated in areal world, but in an artificial, antisocial environment. He was unableto appreciate the political needs of men. He could not entersympathetically into their serious employments or innocent delights. Controlled by superstition, and exalting a servile obedience to humanauthority, he became a very unsafe guide in political affairs. He couldnot consistently labor for secular progress, because he had forsaken aworld in which secular interests were prominent. 

It may be true that in the early days of monasticism the monks pursuedthe proper course in refusing to become Roman patriots. No human powercould have averted the ruin which overtook that corrupt world. Perhapstheir non-combatant attitude gave them more influence with theconquerors of Rome, who were to become the founders of modern nations. 

In later years, the abbots of the principal monasteries occupied seatsin the legislative assemblies of Germany, Hungary, Spain, England, Italy, and France. In many instances they stood between the violence ofthe nobles and the unprotected vassal. Political monks, inspired by anatural breadth of vision and a love of humanity, secured the passage ofwise and humane regulations. Palgrave says: "The mitre has resisted manyblows which would have broken the helmet, and the crosier has kept morefoes in awe than the lance. It is, then, to these prelates that wechiefly owe the maintenance of the form and spirit of free government, secured to us, not by force, but by law; and the altar has thus been thecorner-stone of our ancient constitution. "

Although there is much truth in the foregoing observation, yet on theother hand, when the influence of the monastic ideal upon civilizationis studied in its deeper aspects, it cannot be justly maintained thatthe final effects of monasticism minister to the development of a normalcivilization. Industrial, mental and moral progress depend upon acertain breadth of mind and energy of soul. Asceticism saps the vitalityof human nature and confines the activity of the mind within artificiallimits. "Hence the dreary, sterile torpor, " says Lecky, "thatcharacterized those ages in which the ascetic principle has beensupreme, while the civilizations which have attained the highestperfection have been those of ancient Greece and modern Europe, whichwere most opposed to it. "

The monks did not hesitate to become embroiled in military quarrels, orto incite the fiercer passions of men when it suited their purpose. Their opposition to kings and princes was often not based on a love ofpopular freedom, but on an indisposition to share power with secularrulers. The legislative enactments against heretics, many of which theyinspired, clearly show that they neither desired nor tolerated libertyof speech or conduct. They were the Almighty's vicars on earth, beforewhom it was the duty of king and subject to bow down. Vaughan writes ofthe period just prior to the Reformation: "The great want was freedomfrom ecclesiastical domination; and from the feeling of the hour, scarcely any price would be deemed too great to be paid for thatobject. " The history of modern Jesuitism, against which the legislationof almost every civilized nation has been directed, affords abundanttestimony to the inherent hostility of the monastic system, even in itsmodified modern form, to every species of government which in any wayguarantees freedom of thought to its people. This stern fact confrontsthe student, however much he may be inclined to yield homage to theearly monks. It must be held in mind when one reads this pleasingsentence from Macaulay: "Surely a system which, however deformed bysuperstition, introduced strong moral restraints into communitiespreviously governed only by vigor of muscle and by audacity of spirit, asystem which taught the fiercest and mightiest ruler that he was, likehis meanest bondman, a responsible being, might have seemed to deserve amore respectful mention from philosophers and philanthropists. "

The general effect of monasticism on the state is, therefore, not to bedetermined by fixing the gaze on any one century of its history, or byholding up some humane and patriotic monk as a representative product ofthe system. 

_The Agricultural Services of the Monks_

Europe must ever be indebted to Benedict and his immediate followers fortheir services in reclaiming waste lands, and in removing the stigmawhich a corrupt civilization had placed upon labor. Benedict came beforethe world saying: "No person is ever more usefully employed than whenworking with his hands or following the plough, providing food for theuse of man. " Care was taken that councils should not be called whenploughing was to be done or wheat to be threshed. Benedict bent himselfto the task of teaching the rich and the proud, the poor and the lazythe alphabet of prosperity and happiness. Agriculture was at its lowestebb. Marshes covered once fertile fields, and the men who should havetilled the land spurned the plough as degrading, or were too indolent toundertake the tasks of the farm. The monks left their cells and theirprayers to dig ditches and plough fields. The effect was magical. Menonce more turned back to a noble but despised industry. Peace and plentysupplanted war and poverty. "The Benedictines, " says Guizot, "have beenthe great clearers of land in Europe. A colony, a little swarm of monks, settled in places nearly uncultivated, often in the midst of a paganpopulation--in Germany, for example, or in Brittany; there, at oncemissionaries and laborers, they accomplish their double service, throughperil and fatigue. "

It is to be regretted that history throws a shadow across this pleasingscene. When labor came to be recognized as honorable and useful, alongcame the begging friars, creating, both by precept and example, aprejudice against labor and wealth. Rags and laziness came to beassociated with holiness, and a beggar monk was held up as an ideal andsacred personage. "The spirit that makes men devote themselves in vastnumbers, " says Lecky, "to a monotonous life of asceticism and poverty isso essentially opposed to the spirit that creates the energy andenthusiasm of industry, that their continued coexistence may be regardedas impossible. " But such a fatal mistake could not long captivate themind, or cause men to forget Benedict and his industrial ideal. Theblessings of wealth rightly administered, and the dignity of laborwithout which wealth is impossible, came to be recognized as necessaryfactors in the true progress of man. 

_The Monks and Secular Learning_

For many centuries, as has been previously shown, the monks were theschoolmasters of Europe. They also preserved the manuscripts of theclassics, produced numerous theological works, transmitted many pioustraditions, and wrote some interesting and some worthless chronicles. They laid the foundations of several great universities, including thoseof Paris, Oxford and Cambridge. For these, and other valuable services, the monks merit the praise of posterity. It is, however, too much toaffirm, as Montalembert does, that "without the monks, we should havebeen as ignorant of our history as children. " It is altogetherimprobable that the human mind would have been unproductive in the fieldof historical writing had monasticism not existed during the middleages. While, also, the monks should be thanked for preserving theclassics, it should not be supposed that all knowledge of Latin andGreek literature would have perished but for them. 

It is surprising that the literary men of the medieval period shouldhave written so little of interest to the modern mind, or that helps usto an understanding of the momentous events amid which they lived. Unfortunately the monkish mind was concentrated upon a theology, thepremises of which have been largely set aside by modern science. Theirwritings are so permeated by grotesque superstitions that they arepractically worthless to-day. Their hostility to secular affairs blindedthem to the tremendous significance of the mighty political and socialmovements of the age. 

It is undeniable that the monks never encouraged a love of secularlearning. They did not try to impart a love of the classics which theypreserved. The spirit of monasticism was ever at war with trueintellectual progress. The monks imprisoned Roger Bacon fourteen years, and tried to blast his fair name by calling him a magician, merelybecause he stepped beyond the narrow limits of monkish inquiry. Manysuffered indignities, privations or death for questioning tradition orfor conducting scientific researches. 

So while it is true that the monks rendered many services to the causeof education, it is also true that their monastic theories tended tonarrow the scope of intellectual activity. "This, " says Guizot, "is thefoundation of their instruction; all was turned into commentary of theScriptures, historical, philosophical, allegorical, moral commentary. They desired only to form priests; all studies, whatsoever their nature, were directed to this result. " There was no disinterested love oflearning; no desire to become acquainted with God's world. In fact, theold hostility to everything natural characterizes all monastic history. Europe did not enter upon that broad and noble intellectual developmentwhich is the glory of our era, until the right arm of monasticism wasstruck down, the dread of heresy banished from the human mind, andsecular learning welcomed as a legitimate and elevated field formental activity. 

Hamilton W. Mabie, in his delightful essay on "Some Old Scholars, "describes this step from the gloom of the cloister to the light of God'sworld: "Petrarch really escaped from a sepulcher when he stepped out ofthe cloister of medievalism, with its crucifix, its pictures ofunhealthy saints, its cords of self-flagellation, and found the heavensclear, beautiful, and well worth living under, and the world full ofgood things which one might desire and yet not be given over to evil. Heventured to look at life for himself and found it full of wonderfuldignity and power. He opened his Virgil, brushed aside the cobwebs whichmonkish brains had spun over the beautiful lines, and met the old poetas one man meets another; and lo! there arose before him a new, untrodden and wholly human world, free from priestcraft and pedantry, near to nature and unspeakably alluring and satisfying. "

The Dominicans and Jesuits set their faces like flint against alleducation tending to liberalize the mind. Here is a passage from adocument published by the Jesuits at their first centenary: "It isundeniable that we have undertaken a great and uninterrupted war in theinterests of the Catholic church against heresy. Heresy need never hopethat the society will make terms with it, or remain quiescent ... Nopeace need be expected, for the seed of hatred is born within us. WhatHamilcar was to Hannibal, Ignatius is to us. At his instigation, we havesworn upon the altars eternal war. " When this proclamation is read inthe light of history, its meaning stands forth with startling clearness. Almost every truth in science and philosophy, no matter how valuable itwas destined to become as an agent in enhancing the well-being of therace, has had to wear the stigma of heresy. 

It is an interesting speculation to imagine what the intellectualdevelopment of Europe would have been, had secular learning beencommended by the monks, and the common people encouraged to exercisetheir minds without fear of excommunication or death. It is sad toreflect how many great thoughts must have perished still-born in thestudent's cloister cell, and to picture the silent grief with whichmany a brilliant soul must have repressed his eager imagination. 

_The Charity of the Monks_

In the eleventh century, a monk named Thieffroy wrote the following: "Itmatters little that our churches rise to heaven, that the capitals oftheir pillars are sculptured and gilded, that our parchment is tintedpurple, that gold is melted to form the letters of our manuscripts, andthat their bindings are set with precious stones, if we have little orno care for the members of Christ, and if Christ himself lies naked anddying before our doors. " This spirit, so charmingly expressed, was neverquite absent from the monkish orders. The monasteries were asylums forthe hungry during famines, and the sick during plagues. They served ashotels where the traveler found a cordial welcome, comfortable shelterand plain food. If he needed medical aid, his wants were supplied. During the black plague, while many monks fled with the multitude, others stayed at their posts and were to be found daily in the homes ofthe stricken, ministering to their bodily and spiritual needs. Many ofthem perished in their heroic and self-sacrificing labors. 

Alms-giving was universally enjoined as a sure passport to heaven. Themost glittering rewards were held out to those who enriched the monkswith legacies to be used in relief of the poor. It was, no doubt, theunselfish activities of the monks that caused them to be held in suchhigh esteem; the result was their coffers were filled with more goldthan they could easily give away. Thus abuses grew up. Bernard said:"Piety gave birth to wealth, and the daughter devoured the mother. "Jacob of Vitry complained that money, "by various and deceptive tricks, "was exacted from the people by the monks, most of which adhered "totheir unfaithful fingers. " While Lecky eloquently praises the monks fortheir beautiful deeds of charity, "following all the windings of thepoor man's grief, " still he condones in the strongest terms the actionof Henry VIII. In transferring the monastic funds to his own treasury:"No misapplication of this property by private persons could produce asmuch evil as an unrestrained monasticism. "

It would be unjust, however, to censure the monks for not recognizingthe evil social effects of indiscriminate alms-giving. While theirsystem was imperfect, it was the only one possible in an age when thesocial sciences were unknown. It is difficult, even to-day, to restrainthat good-natured, but baneful, benevolence which takes no account ofcircumstances and consequences, and often fosters the growth ofpauperism. The monks kept alive that sweet spirit of philanthropy whichis so essential to all the higher forms of civilization. It is easier todiscover the proper methods for the exercise of generous sentiments, than to create those feelings or to arouse them when dormant. 

_Monasticism and Religion_

No doctrine in theology, or practice of religion, has been free frommonastic influences. An adequate treatment of this theme would requirevolumes instead of paragraphs. A few points, however, may be touchedupon by way of suggestion to those who may wish to pursue thesubject further. 

The effect of the monastic ideal was to emphasize the sinfulness of manand his need of redemption. To get rid of sin--that is the problem ofhumanity. A quaint formula of monastic confession reads: "I confess allthe sins of my body, of my flesh, of my bones and sinews, of my veinsand cartilages, of my tongue and lips, of my ears, teeth and hair, of mymarrow and any other part whatsoever, whether it be soft or hard, wet ordry. " This emphasis on man's sinfulness and the need of redemption wassadly needed in Rome and all down the ages. "It was a protest, " saysClarke, "against pleasure as the end of life ... It proved the realityof the religious sentiment to a skeptical age.... If this long period ofself-torture has left us no other gain, let us value it as a proof thatin man religious aspiration is innate, unconquerable, and able totriumph over all that the world hopes and over all that it fears. "

Thus the monks helped to keep alive the enthusiasm of religion. Therewas a fervor, a devotion, a spirit of sacrifice, in the system, whichacted as a corrective to the selfish materialism of the early and middleages. Christian history furnishes many sad spectacles of brutality andlicentiousness, of insolent pride and uncontrolled greed, masked in thegarb of religion. Monasticism, by its constant insistence upon povertyand obedience, fostered a spirit of loyalty to Christ and the cross, which served as a protest, not only against the general laxity ofmorals, but also against the faithlessness of corrupt monks. Harnacksays: "It was always monasticism that rescued the church when sinking, freed her when secularized, defended her when attacked. It warmed heartsthat were growing cold, restrained unruly spirits, won back the peoplewhen alienated from the church. " It may have been in harmony with divineplans, that religion was to have been kept alive and vigorous byexcessive austerities, even as in later days it needed the stern andunyielding Puritan spirit, now regarded as too grim and severe, to copesuccessfully with the forces of tyranny and sin. 

If it be true, as some are inclined to believe, that this age is losinga definite consciousness of sin, that in the reaction from theasceticism of the monks and the gloom of the Puritans we are in dangerof minimizing the doctrine of personal accountability to God, then wecannot afford to ignore the underlying ideal of monasticism. In so faras monasticism contributed to a normal consciousness of human freedomand personal guilt, and maintained a grip upon the conscience of thesinner, it has rendered the cause of true religion a genuine andpermanent service. 

But the mistake of the monks was twofold. They exaggerated sin, and theyemployed unhealthy methods to get rid of it. Excessive introspection, instead of exercising a purifying influence, tends to distort one'sreligious conceptions, and creates an unwholesome type of piety. Man isa sinner, but he also has potential and actual goodness. The monksfailed to define sin in accordance with facts. Many innocent pleasuresand legitimate satisfactions were erroneously thought to be sinful. Honorable and useful aspirations that, under wise control, minister toman's highest development were selected for eradication. "Every instinctof human nature, " says W. E. Channing, "has its destined purpose in life, and the perfect man is to be found in the proportionate cultivation ofeach element of his character, not in the exaggerated development ofthose faculties which are deemed primarily good, nor in the repressionof those which are evil only when their prominence destroys the balanceof the whole. "

But the methods employed by the monks to get rid of sin afford anotherillustration of the fact that noble sentiments and holy aspirations needto be wisely directed. It is not enough for a mother to love her child;she must know how to give that love proper expression. In her attempt toguide and train her loved one she may fatally mislead him. The modernemphasis upon method deserves wider recognition than it has received. 

The applause of the church that sounded so sweet in the ears of themonk, as he laid the stripes upon his body, proclaims the high esteem inwhich penance was held. But the monk cruelly deceived himself. Hisself-inflicted tortures developed within his soul an unnatural piety, "apiety, " says White, "that became visionary and introspective, a theologyof black clouds and lightning and thunder, a superstitious religionbased on dreams and saint's bones. " True penitence consists in high andholy purposes, in pure and unselfish living, and not in disfigurementsand in misery. Dreariness and fear are not the proper manifestations ofthat perfect love which casteth out fear. 

The influence of monasticism upon the doctrine of atonement for sinwas, in many respects, prejudicial to the best interests of religion. The monks are largely responsible for the theory that sin can be atonedfor by pecuniary gifts. It may be said that they did not ignore truefeelings of repentance, of which the gold was merely a tangibleexpression, but the notion widely prevailed that the prayers of themonks, purchased by temporal gifts, secured the forgiveness of thetransgressor. The worship of saints, pilgrimages to shrines, andreverence for bones and other relics, were assiduously encouraged. 

Thus the monkish conception of salvation and of the means by which it isto be obtained were at variance with any reasonable interpretation ofthe Scriptures and the dictates of human reason. "It measured virtue, "says Schaff, "by the quantity of outward exercises, instead of thequality of the inward disposition, and disseminated self-righteousnessand an anxious, legal, and mechanical religion[K]. "

[Footnote K: Appendix, Note K. ]

The doctrine of future punishment reached its most repulsive andabnormal developments in the hands of the monks. A vast literature wasproduced by them, portraying, with vivid minuteness, the pangs of hell. Volcanoes were said to be the portals of the lower world, that heavedand sighed as human souls were plunged into the awful depths. God washeld up as a fearful judge, and the saving mercy of Christ himself paledbefore the rescuing power of his mother. These fearful caricatures ofGod, these detailed, revolting descriptions of pain and anguish, couldnot but have a hardening effect upon the minds of men. "To those, " saysLecky, "who do not regard these teachings as true, it must appearwithout exception, the most odious in the religious history of theworld, subversive of the very foundations of Christianity. "

Finally, the greatest error of monastic teaching was in its false andbaneful distinction between the secular and the religious. Unquestionably the Christian ideal is founded on some form ofworld-renunciation. The teachings and example of Jesus, the lives of theApostles, and the characters of the early Christians, exhibit in varyingphases the ideal of self-crucifixion. The doctrine of the cross, withall that it signifies, is the most powerful force in the spread ofChristianity. The spiritual nature of man needs to be trained anddisciplined. But does this truth lead the Christian to the monasticmethod? Was the self-renunciation of Jesus like that of the ascetics, with their ecstasies and self-punishments? Is God more pleased with therecluse who turns from a needy world to shut himself up to prayer andmeditation, than He is with him who cultivates holy emotions andheavenly aspirations, while pursuing some honorable and useful calling?The answer to these questions discloses the chief fallacy in themonastic ideal, the effect of which was the creation of an artificialpiety. There is no special virtue in silence, celibacy, and abstinencefrom the enjoyment of God's gifts to mankind. 

The crying need of Christianity to-day is a willingness on the part ofChrist's followers to live for others instead of self. Men and women areneeded who, like many of the monks and nuns, will identify themselveswith the toiling multitudes, and who will forego the pleasures of theworld and the prospects of material gain or social preferment, for thesake of ministering to a needy humanity. The essence of Christianity isa love to God and man that expresses itself in terms of social serviceand self-sacrifice. Monasticism helped to preserve that noble essenceof all true religion. But a revival of the apostolic spirit in thesetimes would not mean a triumph for monasticism. Stripped of its rigidvows of celibacy, poverty and obedience, monasticism is dead. 

The spirit of social service, the insistence upon soul-purity, and thecraving for participation in the divine nature, are the fruits ofChristianity, not of monasticism, which merely sought to carry out theChristian ideal. But it is not necessary, in order to realize thisideal, to wage war on human nature. True Christianity is perfectlycompatible with wealth, health and social joys. The realms of industry, politics and home-life are a part of God's world. A religious idealbased on a distorted view of social life, that involves a renunciationof human joy and the extinction of natural desires, and that prohibitsthe free exercise of beneficent faculties, as conditions of itsrealization, can never establish its right to permanent and universaldominion. The faithful discharge of unromantic, secular duties, thekeeping of one's heart pure in the midst of temptation, and theunheralded altruism of private life, must ever be as welcome in thesight of God as the prayers of the recluse, who scorns the world ofsecular affairs. 

True religion, the highest religion, is possible beyond the walls ofchurches and convents. The so-called secular employments of business andpolitics, of home and school, may be conducted in a spirit of loftyconsecration to the Eternal, and so carried on, may, in their way, minister to the highest welfare of humanity. The old distinction, therefore, between the secular and the sacred is pernicious and false. There are some other sacred things besides monasteries and prayers. Human life itself is holy; so are the commonplace duties of the untitledhousehold and factory saints. 

 "God is in all that liberates and lifts, In all that humbles, sweetens, and consoles. "

Modern monasticism has forsaken the column of St. Simeon Stylites andthe rags of St. Francis. It has given up the ancient and fantastic featsof asceticism, and the spiritual extravagances of the early monks. Theold monasticism never could have arisen under a religious systemcontrolled by natural and healthful spiritual ideas. It has noattractions for minds unclouded by superstition. It has lost its holdupon the modern man because the ancient ideas of God and his world, uponwhich it thrived, have passed away. 

Such are some of the effects of the monastic institution. Its history isat once a warning and an inspiration. Its dreamy asceticism, its gloomycells, are gone. Its unworldly motives, its stern allegiance to duty, its protest against self-indulgence, its courage and sincerity, willever constitute the potent energy of true religion. Its ministrations tothe broken-hearted, and its loving care of the poor, must ever remain asa shining example of practical Christianity. In the simplicity of themonk's life, in the idea of "brotherhood, " in the common life for commonends, a Christian democracy will always find food for reflection. As thesocial experiments of modern times reveal the hidden laws of social andreligious progress, it will be found that in spite of its glaringdeficiencies, monasticism was a magnificent attempt to realize the idealof Christ in individual and social life. As such it merits neitherridicule nor obloquy. It was a heroic struggle with inveterate ignoranceand sin, the history of which flashes many a welcome light upon theproblems of modern democracy and religion. 

Monastic forms and vows may pass away with other systems that will havetheir day, but its fervor of faith, and its warfare against humanpassion and human greed, its child-like love of the heavenly kingdomwill never die. The revolt against its superstitions and excesses isjustifiable only in a society that seeks to actualize its underlyingreligious ideal of personal purity and social service. 

APPENDIX

NOTE A

The derivation and meaning of a few monastic terms may be of interest tothe reader. 

Abbot, from [Greek: abba], literally, father. A title originally givento any monk, but afterwards restricted to the head or superior of amonastery. 

Anchoret, anchorite, from the Greek, [Greek: anachorêtês], a recluse, literally, one retired. In the classification of religious ascetics, theanchorets were those who were most excessive in their austerities, notonly choosing solitude but subjecting themselves to the greatestprivations. 

Ascetic, [Greek: askêtês], one who exercises, an athlete. The term wasfirst applied to those practicing self-denial for athletic purposes. Inits ecclesiastical sense, it denotes those who seek holiness throughself-mortification. 

Canon Regular. About A. D. 755, Chrodegangus, Bishop of Metz, gave acloister-life law to his clergy, who came to be called canons, from[Greek: kanôn], rule. The canons were originally priests living in acommunity like monks, and acting as assistants to the bishops. Theygradually formed separate and independent bodies. Benedict XII. (1399)tried to secure a general adoption of the rule of Augustine for thesecanons, which gave rise to the distinction between canons regular (i. E. , those who follow that rule), and canons secular (those who do not). 

Cenobite, from the Greek, [Greek: koinos], common, and [Greek: bios], life; applied to those living in monasteries. 

Clerks Regular. This is a title given to certain religious ordersfounded in the sixteenth century. The principal societies are: theTheatines, founded by Cajetan of Thiene, subsequently Pope Paul IV. ;and Priests of the Oratory, instituted by Philip Neri, of Florence. These two orders have been held in high repute, numbering among theirmembers many men of rank and intellect. 

Cloister, from the Latin, _Claustra_, that which closes or shuts, aninclosure; hence, a place of religious retirement, a monastery. 

Hermit, or eremite, from the Greek, [Greek: herêmos], desolate, solitary. One who dwells alone apart from society, or with but fewcompanions. Not used of those who dwell in cloisters. 

Monastery, comes from the same source as monk. Commonly applied to ahouse used exclusively by monks. The term, however, strictly includesthe abbey, the priory, the nunnery, the friary, and in this broad senseis synonymous with convent, which is from the Latin, _convenire_, tomeet together. 

Monk, from the Greek, [Greek: mhonos], alone, single. Originally, a manwho retired from the world for religious meditation. In later use, amember of a community. It is used indiscriminately to denote all personsin monastic orders, in or out of the monasteries. 

Nun, from _nouna_, i. E. , chaste, holy. "The word is probably of Copticorigin, and occurs as early as in Jerome. " (Schaff). 

Regulars. Until the tenth century it was not customary to regard themonks as a part of the clerical order. Before that time they were knownas _religiosi_ or _regulares_. Afterwards a distinction was made betweenparish priests, or secular clergy, and the monks, or regular clergy. 

For more detailed information on these and other monastic words, see TheCentury Dictionary and Cyclopedia, and McClintock and Strong'sEncyclopedia. 

NOTE B

The Pythagoreans are likened to the Jesuits probably on account of theirsubmission to Pythagoras as Master, their love of learning and theirausterities. Like the Jesuits, the Pythagorean league entangled itselfwith politics and became the object of hatred and violence. Itsmeeting-houses were everywhere sacked and burned. As a philosophicalschool Pythagoreanism became extinct about the middle of thefourth century. 

NOTE C

The Encyclopædia Brittanica divides the monastic institutions into fiveclasses:

1. Monks. 2. Canons Regular. 3. Military Orders. 4. Friars. 5. ClerksRegular. All of these have communities of women, either actuallyaffiliated to them, or formed on similar lines. 

Saint Benedict distinguishes four sorts of monks: 1. Coenobites, livingunder an abbot in a monastery. 2. Anchorites, who retire into thedesert. 3. Sarabaites, dwelling two or three in the same cell. 4. Gyrovagi, who wander from monastery to monastery. The last two kinds hecondemns. The Gyrovagi or wandering monks were the pest of convents andthe disgrace of monasticism. They evaded all responsibilities and spenttheir time tramping from place to place, living like parasites, andspreading vice and disorder wherever they went. 

There were really four distinct stages in the development of themonastic institution:

1. Asceticism. Clergy and laymen practiced various forms of self-denialwithout becoming actual monks. 

2. The hermit life, which was asceticism pushed to an externalseparation from the world. Here are to be found anchorites, and stylitesor pillar-saints. 

3. Coenobitism, or monastic life proper, consisting of associations ofmonks under one roof, and ruled by an abbot. 

4. Monastic orders, or unions of cloisters, the various abbots beingunder the authority of one supreme head, who was, at first, generallythe founder of the brotherhood. 

Under this last division are to be classed the Mendicant Friars, theMilitary Monks, the Jesuits and other modern organizations. The membersof these orders commenced their monastic life in monasteries, and weretherefore coenobites, but many of them passed out of the cloister tobecome teachers, preachers or missionary workers in various fields. 

NOTE D

Matins. One of the canonical hours appointed in the early church, andstill observed in the Roman Catholic Church, especially in monasticorders. It properly begins at midnight. The name is also applied to theservice itself, which includes the Lord's Prayer, the AngelicSalutation, the Creed and several psalms. 

Lauds, a religious service in connection with matins; so called from thereiterated ascriptions of praise to God in the psalms. 

Prime. The first hour or period of the day; follows after matins andlauds; originally intended to be said at the first hour after sunrise. 

Tierce, terce. The third hour; half-way between sunrise and noon. 

Sext. The sixth hour, originally and properly said at midday. 

None, noon. The ninth hour from sunrise, or the middle hour betweenmidday and sunset--that is, about 3 o'clock. 

Vespers, the next to the last of the canonical hours--the even-song. 

Compline. The last of the seven canonical hours, originally said afterthe evening meal and before retiring to sleep, but in later medieval andmodern usage following immediately on vespers. 

B. V. M. --Blessed Virgin Mary. 

NOTE E

The literary and educational services of the monks are described in manyhistories, but the reader will find the best treatment of this subjectin the scholarly yet popular work of George Haven Putnam, "Books andTheir Makers During the Middle Ages, " to which we are largely indebtedfor the facts given in this volume. 

NOTE F

In many interesting particulars St. Francis may be compared with GeneralBooth of the Salvation Army. In their intense religious fervor, in theirinsistence upon obedience, humility, and self-denial, in their servicesfor the welfare of the poor, in their love of the "submerged tenth, "they are alike. True, there are no monkish vows in the Salvation Armyand its doctrines bear a general resemblance to those of otherProtestant communions, but like the old Franciscan order, it isdominated by a powerful missionary spirit, and its members are actuatedby an unsurpassed devotion to the common people. In the autocratic, military features of the Army, it more nearly approaches the ideal ofLoyola. It is quite possible that the differences between Francis andBooth are due more to the altered historical environment than to anyradical diversities in the characters of the two men. 

NOTE G

The quotations from Father Sherman are taken from an address deliveredby him in Central Music Hall, Chicago, Illinois, on Monday, February 5, 1894, in which he extolled the virtues of Loyola and defended the aimsand character of the Society of Jesus. 

NOTE H

Those who may wish to study the casuistry of the Jesuits, as it appearsin their own works, are referred to two of the most important andcomparatively late authorities: Liguori's "_Theologia Moralis_, " andGury's "_Compendium Theologioe Moralis_" and "_Casus Conscientiæ_. " Gurywas Professor of Moral Theology in the College Romain, the Jesuits'College in Rome. His works have passed through several editions. Theywere translated from the Latin into French by Paul Bert, member of theChamber of Deputies. An English translation of the French rendering waspublished by B. F. Bradbury, of Boston, Massachusetts. The reader is alsoreferred to Pascal's "Provincial Letters" and to Migne's "_Dictionnairede cas de Conscience_. "

NOTE I

The student may profitably study the life and teachings of Wyclif intheir bearing upon the destruction of the monasteries. Wyclif wasdesignated as the "Gospel Doctor" because he maintained that "the lawof Jesus Christ infinitely exceeds all other laws. " He held to the rightof private judgment in the interpretation of Scripture, and denied theinfallibility claimed by the pontiffs. He opposed pilgrimages, heldloosely to image-worship and rejected the system of tithing as it wasthen carried on. Wyclif was also a persistent and public foe of themendicant friars. The views of this eminent reformer were courageouslyadvocated by his followers, and for nearly two generations theycontinued to agitate the English people. It is easy to understand, therefore, how Wyclif's opinions assisted in preparing the nation forthe Reformation of the sixteenth century, although it seemed thatLollardy had been everywhere crushed by persecution. The Lollardscondemned, among other things, pilgrimages to the tombs of the saints, papal authority and the mass. Their revolt against Rome led in someinstances to grave excesses. 

NOTE J

In France, the religious houses suppressed by the laws of February 13, 1790, and August 18, 1792, amounted (without reckoning various minorestablishments) to 820 abbeys of men and 255 of women, with aggregaterevenues of 95, 000, 000 livres. 

The Thirty Years' War in Germany wrought much mischief to themonasteries. On the death of Maria Theresa, in 1780, Joseph II. , herson, dissolved the Mendicant Orders and suppressed the greater number ofmonasteries and convents in his dominions. 

Although Pope Alexander VII. Secured the suppression of many smallcloisters in Italy, he was in favor of a still wider abolition onaccount of the superfluity of religious institutes, and the generaldegeneration of the monks. Various minor suppressions had taken place inItaly, but it was not until the unification of the kingdom that thereligious houses were declared national property. The total number ofmonasteries suppressed in Italy, down to 1882, was 2, 255, involving anenormous displacement of property and dispersion of inmates. 

The fall of the religious houses in Spain dates from the law of June 21, 1835, which suppressed nine hundred monasteries at a blow. The remainderwere dissolved on October 11th, in the same year. 

No European country had so many religious houses in proportion to itspopulation and area as Portugal. In 1834 the number suppressedexceeded 500. 

NOTE K

The criticism of Schaff is just in its estimate of the general influenceof the monastic ideal, but there were individual monks whose views ofsin and salvation were singularly pure and elevating. Saint Hugh, ofLincoln, said to several men of the world who were praising the lives ofthe Carthusian monks: "Do not imagine that the kingdom of Heaven is onlyfor monks and hermits. When God will judge each one of us, he will notreproach the lost for not having been monks or solitaries, but for nothaving been true Christians. Now, to be a true Christian, three thingsare necessary; and if one of these three things is wanting to us, we areChristians only in name, and our sentence will be all the more severe, the more we have made profession of perfection. The three things are:_Charity in the heart, truth on the lips, and purity of life_; if we arewanting in these, we are unworthy of the name of Christian. "

THE END

INDEX

A

Abbey, _see_ Monastery. Abbot, meaning of word, 425; as father of family of monks, 143; election of, 144; description of installation of, 145; wealth and political influence of, 147; disorders among lay, 179; as a feudal lord, 373; in legislative assemblies, 400. Abelard opposed by Bernard, 196. Abraham, St. , the hermit, 50; quoted, 60. Abstinence, no virtue in false, 419. Accountability, personal, sense of maintained by monks, 414. Act of Succession, 298. Agriculture, monasteries centers of, 155; and the Cistercian monks, 192; fostered by monks, 403. _See_ Benedict, Order of St. Alaric the Goth sacks Rome, 103. Albans, St. , Abbey of, Morton on its vices, 338. Albertus Magnus, a Dominican, 242. Albigensians, Hallam on doctrines of, 232; Hardwick on same, 233; Dominic preaches against, 234; Dominic's part in crusade against, 235. Alcuin, on corruptions of monks, 173; education and, 167. Alexander IV. , Pope, on the stigmata of St. Francis, 221; and the University of Paris quarrel, 250. Alfred, King, the Great, complains of monks, 173; his reformatory measures, 181. Alien Priories, confiscated, 338; origin of, 340. Allen, on the fate of the Templars, 202; on Dominic and the Albigensian crusade, 238; on spiritual pride of the Mendicants, 257; on the genius of feudalism, 373; on the deficiencies of monastic characters, 394. Alms-giving, _see_ Charity. Alverno, Mount, and the stigmata of St. Francis, 219. Ambrose, embraces ascetic Christianity, 84; Theodosius on, 115; saying of Gibbon applied to, 116; describes Capraria, 126; his influence on Milanese women, 126. Ammonius, the hermit, visits Rome, 72. Anglicans, claims of, respecting the early British Church, 162. Anglo-Saxons and British Christianity, 164. Anglo-Saxon Church, effect of Danish invasion on, 181; effect of Dunstan's work on, 187. _See_ Britain. Anslem, of Canterbury, on flight from the world, 369. Anthony, St. , visits Paul of Thebes, 37; his strange experiences, 38; buries Paul, 41; birth and early life of, 43; his austerities, 44, 45; miracles of, 46; his fame and influence, 47; his death, 48; Taylor on biography of, 48. Ap Rice, a Royal Commissioner, 311. Aquinas, Thomas, a Dominican, 242. Ascetic, The, his morbid introspection, 392; meaning of word, 425. _See_ Monks and Hermits. Asceticism, in India, 18-20, 357; among Chaldeans, 20; in China, 20; among the Greeks, 21, 22; the Essenes, 23; in apostolic times, 27; the Gnostics, 27; and the Bible, 30, 366; in post-apostolic times, 31; modifications of, under Basil, 64; protests against, in early Rome, 124; various forms of, 385; effects of, 391, 401. _See_ Monasticism. Aske, Robert, heads revolt against Henry VIII. , 326. Athanasius, St. , visits hermits, 35; his life of Anthony, 42; influence of same on Rome, 80, 83; spreads Pachomian rule, 63; visits Rome, 71, and effect of, 80; visits Gaul, 119; his saying on fasting, 121. Atonement, for sin, the monk's influence on doctrine of, 417. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, his life, and services to monasticism, 117, 119; influenced by biography of Anthony, 43; on marriage and celibacy, 112; charges monks with fraud, 128. Augustine, Rule of, adopted by Dominic, 232, 241. Augustine, the monk, his mission to England, 161. Augustinians, 246. Aurelius, Emperor, Christianity during reign of, 124. Austerities, Robertson on, 94. _See_ Asceticism and Self-denialAustin Canons, 118. 

B

Bacon, Roger, a Franciscan, 228; imprisonment of, 407. Bagot, Richard, on the English reformation, 345. Bale, John, on the fall of the monasteries, 333. Baluzii, on the prosperity of the Franciscans, 255. Bangor, Monastery of, founded, 123; slaughter of its monks, 165. Barbarians, the struggle of the monks with, 148, 149, 170; conversion of, 398. Basil the Great, 63; revolts against excessive austerities, 64; founder of Greek monasticism, 64, 65; his rules, 65; adopts irrevocable vows, 65; on marriage, 66; enforces strict obedience, 66. Bede, The Venerable, on the British Church, 123; on monks and animals, 156. Begging Friars, _see_ Mendicants, Franciscans and Dominicans. Benedict, Pope, XI. , 221; XII. , consecrates Monte Cassino, 135; on the stigmata of St. Francis, 221. Benedict of Aniane, his attempted reform, 176. Benedict, of Nursia, birth and early life, 131; his trials, 132; his fame attracts followers, 133; his strictness provokes opposition, 133; retires to Monte Cassino, 134; conquers Paganism, 135; his miracles and power over barbarians, 137; his last days, 13 8; his rules, 138; Schaff on same, 148; Cardinal Newman on mission of, 149; saying of, on manual labor, 403. Benedict, Order of St. , 131; rules of, 138; the novitiate, 140; daily life of monks, 140; meaning of term "order, " 143; abbots of, 144; manual labor, 147, 403; Schaff on rules of, 148; its dealings with barbarians, 148, 398; its literary and educational services, 151; its agricultural work, 155, 404; spread of, 158; its followers among the royalty, 159. Bernard, of Clairvaux, his birth and monastic services, 193; character of his monastery, 192; on drugs and doctors, 194; his reforms, 195; Vaughan on, 195; Storrs on, 197; the Crusades, 197; on the abuses of charity, 411. Bernardone, Peter, father of Francis, 208. _See_ Francis. Bethlehem, Jerome's monasteries at, 85, 88; Paula establishes monasteries at, 100. Bible, The, and monasticism, 30, 376. Bigotry, of monks, 394. Biography, monastic history centers in, 84. Björnstrom, on the stigmata, 223. Blæsilla, murmurs against monks at her funeral, 125. Blunt, on the: fall of the monasteries, 333. Boccaccio, comments on his visit to Monte Cassino, 136. Boleyn, Anne, and Henry VIII. , 294. Bollandists, Catholic, on Dominic and the Inquisition, 238. Bonaventura, on the stigmata of Francis, 220; a Franciscan, 228; on vices of the monks, 337. Boniface, the apostle to the Germans, 167. Bonner, Bishop, persuades Prior Houghton to sign oath of supremacy, 303. Brahminism, asceticism under, 19. Britain, Tertullian, Origen, and Bede, on Christianity in, 123;. Relation of early church in, to Rome, 162; monasticism in, 162, 168. Brotherhood of Penitence, 229. Bruno, the abbot of Cluny, 177. Bruno, founder of Carthusian order, 188; Ruskin on the order, 189; the monastery of the Chartreuse, 189; his eulogy of solitude, 396. Bryant, poem of, on fall of monasteries, 353. Buddha, on the ascetic life, 357. Buddhism, asceticism under, 19. Burke, Edmund, quoted by Gasquet on fall of monasteries, 312. Burnet, on report of Royal Commissioners, 316. Bury, Father, on Chinese monks, 20. 

C

Cambridge, University of, the friars at, 252, 405. Campeggio, Cardinal, the divorce proceedings of Henry VIII. And, 294. Capraria, Rutilius and Ambrose on island of, 126. Capuchins, 246. Carlyle, Thomas, on Mahomet, 33; quotes Jocelin on Abbot Samson's election, 145; on the twelfth century, 157; on the monastic ideal, 174; on Jesuitical obedience, 271; views of, criticised, 278. Carmelites, 246. Carthusians, The, establishment of, 188; famous monastery of, 189; rules of, 189; in England, 191, 334. _See_ Charterhouse. Cassiodorus, the literary labors of, 152. Casuistry, of the Jesuits, 272; 429. Catacombs, visited by Jerome, 87. Catharine, of Aragon, Henry's divorce from, 293. Catholic, Roman, _see_ Rome, Church of. Celibacy, praised by Jerome and Augustine, 112; views of Helvidius on, opposed by Jerome, 113; the struggle to establish sacerdotal, 183; Lingard on, 183; Lea on, 184; vow of, 380; and Scripture teaching, 381; early Fathers on, 381; a modern ecclesiastic's reasons for, 381; how vow of, came to be imposed, 382; no special virtue in, 419. Cellani, Peter, Dominic retires to house of, 238;Celtic Church, _see_ Britain. Cenobites, meaning of term, 425; origin of, in the East, 57; habits of early, 58; aims of, 60. Chalcis, desert of, 87. Chaldea, asceticism in, 20. Chalippe, Father Candide, on miracles of saints, 224. Channey, Maurice, on fall of the Charterhouse, 302. Channing, William E. , on various manifestations of the ascetic spirit, 385; on exaggerations of monasticism, 415. Chapter, The, defined, 144; of Mats, 228. Chapuys, despatches of, to Charles V. , 297. Charity, of monks, 348, 410; true and false, 348, 412; Bernard, Jacob of Vitry and Lecky on abuses of, 411; as a passport to Heaven, 411. Charlemagne, 118. Charles V. , Emperor, Pole writes to, 296; Chapuy's despatches to, 297. Charterhouse, of London, 191; execution of monks of, 301, 334; and the progress of England, 343. _See_ Carthusians. Chartreuse, Grand, monastery, 189. Chastity, vow of, in Pachomian rule, 61. _See_ Celibacy. China, asceticism in, 20. Chinese monks, Father Bury on, 20. Christ, _see_ Jesus Christ. Christian clergy, character of, in the fourth century, 77. Christian ideal, tending toward fanaticism, 129. Christian discipleship, nature of true, 390. Christianity, asceticism and apostolic, 27, 28, 31; conquers Roman empire, 71, 76; endangered by success, 77; in Rome in the fourth century, 79; Lord on same, 80; is opposed to fanaticism, 94; in ancient Britain, 123, 161, 162; Clarke on, 171; Mozoomdar on essential principle of, 359; requires some sort of self-denial, 390, 418, 419; monasticism and, compared, 420; monasticism furnishes example of, 422. _See_ Britain and Church. Chrysostom, becomes an ascetic, 84; brief account of life of, 116; monastic cause furthered by, 117. Church, Christian, the triumphant, compared with church in age of persecution, 109; ideal of, furthers monasticism, 129; and the barbarians, 149; of the thirteenth century, 206; its life-ideal, 369; its union with paganism, 370. _See_ Anglo-Saxon Church, Britain, and England, Church of. Cistercian Order, the monks and rule of, 192; decline of, 193. Citeaux, Monastery at, 192. Civic duties and monasticism, 399. _See_ Monasticism. Clairvaux, Bernard of, _see_ Bernard; Monastery of, 193. Clara, St. , Nuns of, founded, 228. Clarke, William Newton, on Christianity of first and second centuries, 171. Clarke, James Freeman, on Brahmin ascetics, 20. Classics, Jerome's fondness for the, 95; the monks and the, 405. Clement XIV. , Pope, dissolves the Society of Jesus, 279. Clergy of the Christian Church, 77. Clinton, Lord, on the work of suppression, 311. Cloister, 426. _See_ Monastery. Cluny, Monastery at, 177; the congregation of, 178. Coke, Sir Edward, quoted, 329. Columba, St. , his church relations, 162. Commissioners, The Royal, appointed to visit monasteries of England, their methods, 308, 333; character of, 311; begin their work, 313; their report, 316; Parliament acts on same, 319. Confession, among the Jesuits, 269. Conscience, liberty of, renounced by monks, 394. Constantine the Great, 71. Contemplation, John Tauler on, 395; Bruno on, 396. Convents. _See_ Monasteries. Copyright, first instance of quarrel for, 170. Council, of Saragossa, 122; of Trent, 382; Lateran, 242. Court of Augmentation, 319. Crocella, Santa, chapel of, 131; Romanus the monk, 131. Cromwell, Richard, on Sir John Russell, 326. Cromwell, Thomas, his life and aims, 308; Green and Froude on, 309; his religious views, 309; Foxe and Gasquet on character of, 310; becomes Vicegerent, 310; inspires terror and hatred, 324; his removal demanded, 326; overcomes the Pilgrims of Grace, 326; bribed for estates, 329. Cross, loyalty to the, fostered by monks, 414; power of the doctrine of, 418. Crusades, effect of, on monastic types, 373. _See_ Military Orders and Bernard. Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, 61; and murder of Hypatia, 68. 

D

Damian, Church of St. , repaired by Francis, 211, 214. Danish invasion of England, its consequences, 180. Dante, on Francis and poverty, 215. Democracy, Christian, and monasticism, 422. Desert, Jerome on attractions of, 89. De Tocqueville, on self-subjection, 143. Dhaquit, the Chaldean, quoted, 20. Dharmapala, on the ascetic ideal in India, 357. Dill, Samuel, on Rome's fall and the Christian Church, 74, 79, 108, 109. Domestic life, a field of forbidden fruit, 394, 398. _See_ Family-ideal and Jerome. Dominic, St. , Innocent III. Dreams of, 216; early life of, 230; his mother's dream, 231; visits Languedoc, 232; rebukes papal legates, 234; his crusade against Albigensians, 234; his relation to the Holy Inquisition, 235; establishes his order, 239; at Rome, 239; his self-denial and death, 240; canonized, 241. Dominic, St. , Nuns of, 242. Dominicans, The, the Inquisition and, 238; order of, founded, 239; constitution of the order of, 241; spread of, 241; eminent members, 242; three classes of, 242; the preaching of, 249; quarrel with the Franciscans, 249; enter England, 251; fatal success and decline of, 253, 256; on the stigmata of Francis, 221; liberal education and, 408. Ducis, on the Hermits, 32. Duns Scotus, a Franciscan, 228. Dunstan, reforms of, 182; his character and life-work, 186. 

E

East, monasticism in the, _see_ Monasticism and Monks. Echard, a Dominican, 242. Eckenstein, Lina, on Morton's letter, 339. Edersheim, on the Essenes, 24. Edgar, King, aids Dunstan in reform, 186. Education, The Mendicants and, 248; the monks further, in England, 253; the effect of monasticism on, 407. Edward I. And III. , confiscate alien priories, 338. Egypt, The hermits of, 33; Kingsley and Waddington on same, 34. Elijah, and asceticism, 30. Elizabeth, Princess, and the Act of Succession, 298. Endowments of monasteries, abolished by first Mendicants, 244; reason for some, 361. England, Church of, separates from Rome, 328; causes of, and by whom separation secured, 340, 342. _See_ Britain. Essenes, asceticism of, 23. Ethelwold, aids Dunstan, 186. Eudoxia, Empress, banishes Chrysostom, 117. Eustochium, _see_ Paula. 

F

Fabiola, St. , Lecky on her charities, 105; her care for sick, 105; her death, 105. Family-ideal, of monastery, Taunton on, 143. _See_ Domestic Life. Fanaticism, Christianity hostile to, 94; tendency toward, among early Christians, 129. Farrar, on the luxury of Rome, 75. Fasting, amusing instance of rebellion of monks against, 120; Athanasius on, 121. _See_ Self-denial, Ascetic and Asceticism. Ferdinand, of Austria, educated by Jesuits, 277. Feudalism, monasticism affected by, 373. Finnian, the monk, quarrels with Columba, 170. Fisher, G. P. , on the stigmata of Francis, 223. Fisher, execution of, by Henry VIII. , 301, 306. Filial love, strangulation of, by monks, 397. Forsyth, on St. Francis, 225. Foxe, on Thomas Cromwell, 310. France, New, and the Jesuits, 282. Francis, St. , his birth and early years, 208; his dreams and sickness, 209; visits Rome, 210; seeking light on his duty, 210, 211; sells his father's merchandise and keeps proceeds, 211; renounces his father, 212; assumes monkish habit, 213; repairs Church of St. Damian, 214; Dante on poverty and, 215; visits Innocent III. , 216; visits Mohammedans, 217; a lover of birds, 217; Longfellow's poem on a homily of, 218; his temptations, 218; the stigmata, 219; death of, 224; his character, 225; his rule, 226; on prayer and preaching, 249; method of, forsaken, 421. Franciscans, The, first year of, 215; order of, sanctioned, 216, 217; three classes of, 226; the rule of, 226; Sabatier on rule of, 227; the title "Friars Minor, " 227; number of, 228; St. Clara and, 228; The Third Order of, 229; quarrel over the vow of poverty, 246; prosperity of, 246; educational work of, 248; quarrel with Dominicans, 249; settle in England, 251; Baluzii on success of, 255; fatal success of, 253. Fratricelli, sketch of the, 247. Freedom, religious, want of, 402. Friars, Begging, _see_ Franciscans, Dominicans and Mendicants. Friars Minor, 227. Froude, on the Charterhouse monks, 302, 304; on Thomas Cromwell, 309; on the report of the Royal Commissioners, 317; on the Catholics and the Reformation, 346. Future punishment, the monks and the doctrine of, 417. 

G

Gairdner, on Henry's breach with Rome, 301. Galea, the Goth, awed by St. Benedict, 137. Gardiner, burns heretics, 311. Gasquet, on Thomas Cromwell, 310; quotes Burke on the suppression, 312. Gauls, monastic, complain to St. Martin, 120. Germany, monasticism enters, 122. Gervais, reason for his donations, 361. Gibbon, on bones of Simeon, 57; on Egyptian monks, 62; on Roman marriages, 110; saying of, applied to Ambrose, 116; on military orders, 199; quotes Zosimus, 348; on the monastic aim, 362; on the character of the monks, 388. Gindeley, on the Jesuits and the Thirty Years' War, 277. Giovanni di San Paolo, on gospel perfection, 226. Glastonbury, fall of Abbey of, 314. Gnostics, and asceticism, 27, 366. Godfrey de Bouillon, endows Hospital of St. John, 201. Godric, his unique austerities, 132. Goldsmith, on the English character, 166. Grand Chartreuse, monastery, 189. Greece, asceticism in, 20. Greeks, ancient, asceticism among the, 21. Greek Church, monasticism of the, 64, 67. Green, J. R. , on the preaching friars, 254; on Thomas Cromwell, 309; on the suppression, 323. Gregory of Nazianza, on ascetic moderation, 65. Gregory, Pope, I. , 138; II. , 135; VII. , 160, 178; IX. , 241; X. , 245. Gregory, St. , Monastery of, rules of, 141. Griffin, Henry, on the Royal Commissioners, 311. Grimke, on historic movements, 84. Guigo, rules of, 190; on vow of obedience, 383. Guizot, on state of early Europe, 149; on the Benedictines, 404; on monastic education, 407. Gustavus, contrasted to monks, 394. Guzman, _see_ Dominic. 

H

Hallam, on the Albigensians, 233, 235; on the suppression, 334; on charity of the monks, 349. Happiness, the key to, 392. Hardwick, on the Albigensian doctrines, 233. Harnack, on early ascetics, 28; on nominal Christianity of Rome, 77; on life-ideal in the early church, 129; on monasticism and the church, 414. Hell, the monks' teachings about, 417. Helvidius, on celibacy, 113. Henry, King, II. , and the British church, 165; III. , invites students to England, 252; IV. , confiscates alien priories, 338. Henry VIII. , and the independence of English church, 163; and the fall of the monasteries, 286; opinions respecting his character, 288, 290; inconsistencies of, 291; "Defender of the Faith, " 293; his divorce from Catharine, 293; breach with Rome, 294, 300; dangers to his throne, 295; monks enraged at, 296; as "Head of the Church, " 297, 298; Act of Succession, 298; Oath of Supremacy, 298, 301; excommunicated, 306; the struggle for power, 324; suppresses "Pilgrims of Grace, " 326; his use of monastic revenues, 328, 330; Coke on his promises to Parliament, 329; his motives for the suppression, 332; Hooper on reforms of, 339; an unconscious agent of new forces, 344; two epochs met in reign of, 346; Lecky on his use of monastic funds, 411. Heresy, growth of, in thirteenth century, 206; monks attempt extirpation of, 261, 402; Jesuits and, 276, 409. Heretical sects, attack vices of monks, 245. Hermit life, founder of, 35; unsuited to women, 107. Hermits, The, of India, 20; of Egypt, 33; their mode of life, 49; visit Rome, 71; effect of story of, in Rome, 71, 80, 84; of Augustine, 246. Hilarion, the hermit, 49. Hildebrand, _see_ Gregory VII. Hill, on manual labor, 142; on fall of monasticism, 345. History, monastic contributions to, 406. Hoensbroech, Count Paul von, on Jesuitical discipline, 268. Holiness, false views of, 421. _See_ Soul-purity and Salvation. Holy Land, motives for exodus to, 97. Holy Maid of Kent, 337. Home-life, not to be despised, 420. Honorius, III. , Pope, sanctions Franciscan Order, 217; confirms Dominican Order, 239. Hooper, Bishop, on Henry's reforms, 339. Hospital, Knights of, _see_ Knights. Hospitals, founded by Fabiola, 105; Lecky on, 105; result of woman's sympathy, 111. Houghton, Prior, _see_ Charterhouse. Household duties, Jerome on, 114. _See_ Domestic Life. House of Lords, majority in the, changed, 347. Houses, Religious, _see_ Monasteries. Hugh, St. , of Lincoln, and the swan, 157; Ruskin on, 189. Human affection, monks indifferent to, 394, 397. Hume, on the suppression, 333. Hypatia, Kingsley's, quoted, 61; death of, 48. 

I

Ideal, monastie, 354. _See_ Monasticism. Ignatius, St. , _see_ Loyola. Independence, Jesuitism and personal, 270; of thought, renounced by monks, 394. _See_ Freedom, Liberty. India, asceticism in, 18, 357. India, monasticism in, 18, 357, 358; causes of same, 355. Individual, influence of the, 91; effect of self-sacrifice upon the, 390; effect of solitude upon the, 393. Industry, modern, not to be despised, 420. Innocent, Pope, III. , 216, 234, 239, 242; IV. , 250; VIII. , 339. Inquisition, The Holy, the Albigensian crusade and, 233; relation of Dominicans toward, 235; its establishment and management, 238. Intellectual progress, monasticism opposed to true, 407; in Europe, 409. Introspection, evil effects of morbid, 392. Iona, Monastery of, 168. Ireland, St. Patrick labors in, 123; monasteries of, as centers of culture, 169. Isidore, the hermit, visits Rome, 72. Itineracy, substituted for seclusion in cloister, 244. 

J

Jacob of Vitry, on abuses of charity, 411. James, the Apostle, quoted on rich men, 377. Jerome, St. , his life of Paul of Thebes, 35; on Pachomian monks, 59; his letter to Rusticus, 59; on solitude, 61;on number of Egyptian monks, 63; on clergy of the fourth and fifth centuries, 77; in his cell, 85; Schaff on, 86; his birth and early life, 86; his travels, and austerities, 87, 92; organizes monastic brotherhood, 88; his literary labors, 88; glorifies desert life, 89; influences Rome, 91; his temptations, 93; his fondness for the classics, 95; his biographies of Roman nuns, 96; his life of St. Paula, 97, and of Marcella, 102; on folly of Roman women, 108; on marriage and celibacy, 112; on household duties, 113; attacks the foes of monks, 127; on vices of monks, 128; on monastic aim, 360; on the natural, 366. Jesuits, _see_ Jesus, The Society of. Jesuits, The Pagan, 22, 426. Jesus Christ, the Essenes and, 26; quoted by early ascetics, 31, and by Jerome, 92; teachings of, used by monks, 366, 376; his doctrine of wealth, 377; his attitude toward rich men, 379; the doctrine of the cross and, 418. Jesus, The Society of, Sherman on nature of, 258; rejects seclusion, 258; Bishop Keane on, 259, 273; how differs from other monastic communities, 259; founded by Loyola, 264; constitution and polity of, 265; grades of members of, 265; vow of obedience in, 266; von Hoensbroech on, 268; confession in, 269; Carlyle on obedience in, 271; casuistry of, 272, 429; its doctrine of probabilism, 274; the Roman Church and, 275; Roman foes of, 276; mission of, 276; its attitude toward Reformation, 277; the Thirty Years' War and, 277; calumnies against, 279; Clement XIV. Dissolves, 279; expulsion of, from Europe, 279; missionary labors of, 280; Parkman contrasts, with Puritans, 281; failure of, 283; restoration of, 283; causes for rise of, 374; hostility of, to free government, 402; liberal education opposed by, 409. _See_ Loyola. Jewish asceticism, 23. Jocelin, quoted by Carlyle, 145. John, King, confiscates alien priories, 338. John, St. , Knights of, _see_ Knights. John, St. , of Calama, visits his sister in disguise, 397. John, the Apostle, on love of the world, 377. John the Baptist, and asceticism, 30. Johnson, on Monastery of Iona, 168. Joseph, St. , Church of, in England, 163. Josephus on the Essenes, 23. Jovinian, hostility of, toward monks, 127; compared by Neander to Luther, 127. Julian, Emperor, the exodus of monks and the, 127. Juvenal, satire of, on Roman women, 82. 

K

Keane, Bishop, on the Jesuits, 259, 273. Kennaquhair, installation of abbot of, 145. King, on Hildebrand, 178. Kingsley, on Egypt and the hermits, 34; on Roman women, 82, 106; on fall of Rome, 78, 367. Knights of St. John, their origin and mission, 200. Knights of the Hospital, sketch of the, 198. Knights Templars, rule of the, 197; rise and fall of, 202. 

L

Labor, manual, Jerome on, 59; in Pachomian rule, 60; Hill on benefits of, 142; among the Benedictines, 147, 404; Benedict on, 403; effect of Mendicants on, 404; not to be despised, 420. Lama, Grand, in India, 21. Lateran Council, 242. Latimer, Bishop, and the monastic funds, 323. Laumer, St. , and wild animals, 156. Laveleye on Christianity, 378. Lay abbots, disorders among the, 179. Layton, a Royal Commissioner, 311. 312. Lea, on celibacy, 184; on the Reformation, 342. Learning, influence of Alcuin and Wilfred on, 167; Irish monasteries as centers of, 169; monks further, in England, 252; the monks and secular, 406; effects of monasticism on the course of, 407. _See_ Literary services. Lecky, on Fabiola's hospitals, 105; on asceticism and civilization, 401; on industry and the monastic ideal, 405; on abuses of alms-giving, 411; on the monastic doctrines of hell, 418. Legh, a Royal Commissioner, 311. Leo X. , Pope, 293. Liberty, the Jesuits on, 375. _See_ Freedom and Independence. Libraries, monastic, 152. Lincoln, Abraham, quoted, 205. Lingard, on Bede and the conversion of King Lucius, 124; on the Anglo-Saxon Church, 181. Literary services of monks, 153, 406. _See_ Learning. Lollardism, way paved for destruction of cloisters by, 294. _See_ 429. Lombards destroy Monte Cassino, 135. London, John, a Royal Commissioner, 311. Longfellow, poem of, on Francis, 218; on Monte Cassino, 135-Lord, John, on needed religious reforms, 80. Loyola, St. Ignatius, his birth, 261; enters upon religious work, 262; his pilgrimage to the Holy Land, 263; his education, 263;imprisonments, 263; founds Society of Jesus, 264; his "Spiritual Exercises, " 265, 267; on obedience, 267; his mission, 276; Sherman on, 278; compared with Hamilcar, 409. _See_ Society of Jesus. Lucius, a British king, embraces Christianity, 124. Luther, influence of, in history, 92; an Augustinian monk, 118; Henry VIII. Attacks, 293. Lytton, his views of Jesuits denounced, 278. 

M

Macarius, the hermit, 49. Macaulay, his views of Jesuits opposed, 278; on the aims of Jesuits, 283; on the Roman Church, 402. Mabie, H. W. , on the monks and the classics, 408. Mahomet, Carlyle on, 33. Maitland, on Benedictine monasteries, 155. Maitre, on desecration of cloisters, 350. Malmesbury, his charges against the monks, 173. Manicheism, relation of, to Albigensians, 233. Marcella, St. , Jerome on life of, 102; her austerities and charity, 103. Maria dei Angeli, Sta. , Francis hears call in church of, 214. Marriage, Basil on, 66; how esteemed in Rome, 110; Gibbon on, in Rome, 110; Jerome and Augustine on, 112; vow of celibacy and, 381. Married life in Rome, Jerome on, 114. Martensen, on ascetics, 391; on solitude and society, 395. Martin, St. , of Tours, credibility of biography of, 119; sketch of his life, 120; his death, 122; churches and shrines in honor of, 122. Martinmas, 122. Materialism, monasticism and, 350, 413; of the West, 371. Mathews, Shailer, on Christ and riches, 379. Matthew of Paris, on prosperity of friars, 246. Maur, St. , walks on water, 137. Maximilian, of Bavaria, educated by Jesuits, 277. Melrose Abbey, 289. Mendicant Friars, The, 205; success of, 242, 255; their value to Rome, 243; confined to four societies, 246; quarrels among, 246; their educational work, 248; in England, 251; decline of, 253; as preachers, 244; 254; effects of prosperity on, 256. Mendicity of monks, 245. Milan, church of, Emperor refused entrance to the, 115. Military-religious orders, their origin, labors and decline, 197. Militia of Jesus Christ, 242. Mill, John Stuart, on preaching friars, 244. Milman, on the early church leaders, 129; on dream of Dominic's mother, 231;on bigotry of monks, 395; on monks and natural affections, 398. Milton, contrasted to monks, 394. Miracles, 224. _See_ Anthony, Stylites, St. Martin, etc. Missionary labors, of monks, 148, 171, 398; of the Jesuits, 280, 281. Modern life and thought, monasticism rejected by, 421. Mohammedans, mission of Francis to, 217. Monastery, of Pachomius, 58; Monte Cassino, 134; St. Gregory's, rules of, 141; Kennaquhair, 145; Vivaria, 152; Bangor, 165; Iona, 168; Cluny, 177; Grand Chartreuse, 189; Charterhouse, 191, 301, 334, 343; Citeaux, 192; Clairvaux, 193; St. Nicholas, 240; Melrose, 289; Glastonbury, 314. Monasteries, in Egypt, 44; of Jerome, 88; of Paula, 100; in early Britain, 123; as literary centers, 151; decline of, in Middle Ages, 173; destruction of, by Danes, 180; corruptions of, in Dunstan's time, 185; abandonment of endowments, 244; fall of, in England, 286; fall of, in various countries, 288, 430; obstacles to progress, 343; new uses of, 350; life in, 392; charity of, 410. Monasteries, The Fall of, in England, 286; various views of, 288; necessity for dispassionate judgment, 289; events preceding, 293; progress and, 300; the Charterhouse, 302; the Royal Commissioners and their methods, 308, 313; Glastonbury, 314; report of commissioners, 313, 314; action of Parliament, 319; the lesser houses, 319; the larger houses, 320; total number and the revenues of, 321; effect of, upon the people, 322; Green on same, 323; uprisings and rebellions, 325; use of funds, 328; justification for, 331; Bale, Blunt and Hume on justification for, 333; Hallam on, 334; charges against monks true, 336; Bonaventura and Wyclif on vices of monks, 337; confiscation of alien priories, 338; compared with suppression in other countries, 339, 430; alienation of England from Rome, 342; superficial explanation of, 343; true view of, 344; monks and reform, 344; causes of, enumerated, 345; results of, 345, 347; general review of, 352; Bryant on, 353. Monasticism, Eastern, origin of, 17, 29; philosophy and, 18; Christian, 29; the Scriptures and, 30; in Egypt, 33; virtual founder of, 42; under Pachomius, 58, 63; under Basil, 63; character of, in Greek church, 67; perplexing character of, 69. _See_ Jerome, Basil and Athanasius. Monasticism, Western, 71; introduction in Rome, 71; effect upon Rome, 80;women and, 96, 106; Gregory the Great and, 160; in England, 162; spread of, 115; in Germany, 122; in Spain, 122; in early Britain, 123, 168; disorders and oppositions, 124; enemies of, 127; its eclipse, 130; code of, 139; reforms of, and military types, 173, 197; decline of, in the Middle Ages, 173, 179; Benedict of Aniane tries to reform, 176; in England, in Middle Ages, 180; failure of reforms, 196, 207; its moral dualism, 205; its recuperative power, 205; in the thirteenth century, 206; new features of, 244; popes demand reforms in, 286; attacked by governments, 287; Hill on fall of, in England, 345; a fetter on progress, 347; alms-giving and, 348; age of, compared to modern times, 351. Monasticism, Causes and Ideals of, 354; causative motives, 355; the desire for salvation, 356; quotations on the ideal, 129, 173, 174, 357, 358, 360; nothing gained by return to ideal, 352; motive for endowments, 361; the love of solitude, 362; various motives, 364; beliefs affecting the causative motives, 365; Gnostic teachings, 366; effect of the social condition of Roman Empire, 367; the flight from the world, 368; causes of variations in types, 371; East and West compared, 371; effect of political changes, 372; the Crusades, 373; effect of feudalism, 373; effect of the intellectual awakening, 374; the Modern Age and the Jesuits, 374; the fundamental vows, 375. Monasticism, Effects of, 386; the good and evil of, 387; variety of opinions respecting, 387; the diversity of facts, 389; elements of truth and worth, 390; effects of self-sacrifice, 390, of solitude, 393; the monks as missionaries, 398; civic duties, 399; upon civilization, 401; upon agriculture, 403; upon secular learning, 405; the charity of monks, 410; upon religion, 412, 413; the sense of sin, 414; the atonement for sin, 417; the distinction between the secular and the religious, 418; monasticism and Christianity, 420; old monastic methods forsaken, 421; summary of effects, 423. Monastic Orders, the usual history of, 174. _See_ Benedict, Order of St. , Franciscans, etc. Monks, not peculiar to Christianity, 17; Jerome on habits of, 36; in Egypt, 44; Pachomian, 58; number of Eastern, 63; under Basil, 63; character of Eastern, 67, 69; as theological fighters, 68; Hypatia and the, 68; in the desert of Chalcis, 87; in early Rome, 96; motives of early, 106, 128; of Augustine, 118; underMartin of Tours, 120; opposition to Roman, 125, 147; disorders among the early, 128, 150; literary services of, 151, 153, 167, 169, 248, 253, 405, 406; agricultural services of, 155, 192, 403; wild animals and the, 156; early British, 162, 168; influence of the, in England, 166; the barbarians and the, 148, 171, 398; military, 173, 197; corruptions of, 124, 173, 175, 179, 196, 206, 336; the celibacy of, 183; changes in the character of, 284; rebel against Henry VIII. , 296; as obstacles to progress, 300, 343; required to take the Oath of Supremacy, 301; pious frauds of, in England, 318; receive pensions, 320; oppose reforms in England, 344; privileges and powers of the, affected by the suppression, 347; charity of the, 348, 410, 411; objects of the, 360; once held in high esteem, 361; their flight from Rome, 368; diversity of opinions respecting the, 388; effect of austerities on the, 390; effect of solitude on the, 393; deficiencies in the best, 394; as missionaries, 398; civic duties and the, 399; military quarrels incited by the, 401; enthusiasm for religion kept alive by the, 413; their sense of sin, exaggeration in their views and methods, 413; their doctrine of hell, 417; the doctrine of the cross and the, 418. _See_ Mendicants, Benedict, Order of St. , etc. Montaigne, on the temptations of solitude, 393. Montalembert, on Eastern monachism, 67; on Benedict, 130; on the ruin of French cloisters, 351; on the attractions of solitude, 364; on the value of the monks, 388, 406. Montanists, The, and asceticism, 27. Monte Cassino, Monastery at, Montalembert on, 134; sketch of its history, 134. Montserrat, tablet on Ignatius in church at, 262. More, Sir Thomas, causes of his death, 298; his character, 299; influence of, in prison, 303, 305; on Henry's ambition, 322. Morton, Cardinal, on the vices of the monks, 338. Mosheim, on Francis, 225; on the quarrel of the Franciscans, 247. Mozoomdar, on the motives and spirit of Oriental asceticism, 358. Mutius, taught renunciation, 62. 

N

Neander, compares Jovinian to Luther, 127; on the dreams of Francis, 209. Newman, Cardinal, on Benedict's mission, 149. Nicholas, St. , Monastery of, 240. Normans, The, and the alien priories, 341. Novitiate, Benedictine, extended by Gregory, 160; of the Jesuits, 260, 269. _See_ various orders. Nun, _see_ Women. Nunneries, origin of, 106. 

O

Obedience, vow of, in Pachomian rule, 61; enforced by Basil, 66; among the Jesuits, 266; Loyola on, 267; Dom Guigo on, 383; its value and its abuses, 384. Observantines, 246. Oliphant, Mrs. , on the temptations of Francis, 218; on the stigmata, 222. Origen, on Christianity in Britain, 123. Oswald, aids Dunstan in reforms, 186. Oxford University, friars enter, 251; founded by monks, 406. 

P

Pachomius, St. , 32; birth and early life of, 58. Pachomian Monks, rules of, 58; vows, 61; their number and spread, 63. Pagan philosophy powerless to save Rome, 76. Palgrave on the miter, 400. Pamplona, Ignatius wounded at siege of, 262. Parkman, Francis, on the Puritans and the Jesuits, 281; on the Roman Church, 386. Parliament of Religions, World's Fair, views of asceticism at the, 357, 358. Paris, University of, 249, 406. Paschal II. , Pope, the gift of Cluny, 178. Patrick, St. , 122; labors in Ireland, 123; was he a Romanist? 162. Paul, The Apostle, on asceticism, 27. Paul III. , Pope, excommunicates Henry VIII. , 306. Paul of Thebes, Jerome's life of, 35; his early life, 36; visited by Anthony, 37; his death, 40; effect of his biography on the times, 42. Paula, St. , Jerome on death of, 98, 101; her austerities and charities, 98, 100; separates from her children, 98; her monasteries at Bethlehem, 100; inscription on her tombstone, 102; faints at her daughter's funeral, 125. Paulinus, embraces ascetic Christianity, 84. Peter, The Apostle, marriage of, 115. Peter the Venerable, 178. Petrarch, Mabie on, and the classics, 408. Peyto, Friar, denounces Henry VIII. , 296:Philanthropy, spirit of, kept alive by monks, 412. _See_ Charity. Philip IV. , King, of France, his charges against the Knights, 202. Phillips, Wendell, on the reading of history, 386. Philo, on the Essenes, 23; on the Therapeutæ, 27. Philosophy, ascetic influence of Greek, 21; Gnostic, 27; Pagan, and fall of Rome, 76. Pike, Luke Owen, on the character of Henry VIII. , 290; on the lawlessness of monks, 336. Pilgrims of Grace, 326; their demands and overthrowal, 327. Pillar Saints, 51. Plague, Black, and the monks, 410. Plato, ascetic teachings of, 22. Pliny, on the Essenes, 25. Pole, Reginald, on Henry VIII. And Rome, 295. Politics, not to be despised, 420. Portus, inn at, 105. Potitianus, affected by Anthony's biography, 83. Poverty, vow of, in Pachomian rule, 61; Franciscans quarrel over, 246; and the Scriptures, 376. Preaching Friars, _see_ Dominicans, Franciscans and Mendicants. Pride, spiritual, of monks, 395. Probabilism, doctrine of, 274. Protestantism, effect of, upon monasticism, 286; guilty of persecution, 332; and the Church of England, 340; its real value to England, 346; its religious ideal, 356. Putnam, on the rule of St. Benedict, 139; on Cassiodorus, 153; on the first quarrel over copyright, 170. Pythagoras, asceticism of, 21, 426. 

R

Reade, Charles, on the monk's flight from the world, 368. Reading, the monks of, their pious frauds, 318. Recluses, _see_ Hermits. Reformed Orders, 173. Reform, monastic, 173, 205; fails to stop decline of monasteries, 196, 207, 286; demanded by popes, 286; failure of, 336. _See_ Monasticism. Reformation, The Protestant, furthered by certain Franciscans, 247; relation of Mendicants to, 248; the Jesuits and, 277; 278, 283; in England, its character, and results, 345, 346; and the monastic life, 374. Relics, fraudulent, 128, 318. Religion, monasticism and, 18, 412; influence of feelings and opinions, 354; enthusiasm for, fostered by monks, 413; the sense of sin, 414; salvation, 417; the distinction between the secular and the religious, 418, 420; the doctrine of the cross, 418; essence of, 419; true, possible outside of convents, 421. Religious houses, _see_ Monasteries. Renunciation of the world, 358, 369. _See_ Self-denial. Rice, Ap, a Royal Commissioner, 311. Riches, _see_ Wealth. Richard II. , confiscates alien priories, 338. Robertson, F. W. , on excessive austerities, 94. Rome, Church of, her claims respecting the early British Church, 162; writers of, on the stigmata, 223; her relation to the Jesuits, 275, and the English people, 294, 341; martyrs of, 332; writers of, on the fall of monasteries, 334, 335; England separates from, 342; her religious ideal, 356; Parkman on, 386; Macaulay on, 403. _See_ Henry VIII. Rome, Monasticism introduced in, 71; social and religious state of, in the fourth century, 72, 74; Dill on causes of the fall of, 74; classes of society in, 75; Farrar on luxury of, 75; epigram of Silvianus, 76; Kingsley on ruin of, 78; Jerome on sack of, by Alaric, 103. _See_ Jerome. Roman Empire, nominally Christian, 73;. Its impending doom, 73, 367. Romanus, a monk, 131. Royalty, affected by monasticism, 179. Rules, monastic, the first, 58; before Benedict, 107; of Augustine, 118; of St. Benedict, 138, 139, 147, 151, 158; of Dom Guigo, 189; of St. Francis, 226. _See_ Celibacy, Poverty, Obedience. Ruskin, on St. Hugh of Lincoln, 189. Rusticus, a monk, 59. Rutilius, on the monks, 126. 

S

Sabatier, on rule of St. Francis, 227. Saint, Paul of Thebes, 35; Anthony, 37; Athanasius, 42; Abraham, 50, 60; Macarius, 49; Hilarion, 49; Simeon Stylites, 51; Pachomius, 58; Basil, 63; Gregory of Nazianza, 65; Jerome, 85; Paula, 97; Marcella, 102; Fabiola, 105; Ambrose, 115; Chrysostom, 116; Augustine, 117; Martin of Tours, 119; Maur, 137; Patrick, 123, 162; Benedict of Nursia, 131; Hugh of Lincoln, 157, 189; Gregory the Great, 159; Columba, 162, 168, 170; Boniface, 167; Wilfred, 167; Benedict of Aniane, 176; Dunstan, 182; Bruno, 188; Bernard, 192; Francis, 208; Clara, 228; Dominic, 230; Loyola, 261. Salvation, the desire for, 70, 111, 355, 396; the struggle for, 95; monastic views of, 417. Samson, Abbot, election of, 145. Santa Crocella, chapel of, 131. Saracens burn Monte Cassino monastery, 135. Saragossa, Council of, forbids priests to assume monks' robes, 122. Savonarola, a Dominican, 242. Saxons invade England, 180. Schaff, Philip, on origin of monasticism, 18; on Montanists, 28; on the biography of thehermit Paul, 35; on St. Jerome, 86; on Augustine, 117; on Benedictine rule, 148; on monasteries as centers of learning, 153; on effects of monasticism, 387. Scholastica, story about, 138. Schools, monastic, 154, 167. _See _ Learning. Scott, Walter, on installation of an abbot, 145; on the crusaders, 199. Seclusion, 244, 259. _See_ Solitude. Secular life, duties of, 113; the monks and, 399; distinction between religion and the, 418; true view of, 420. Self-crucifixion, 418. Self-denial, its nature, 356; Mozoomdar on, 358. Selfishness, engendered by monasticism, 396. Self-forgetfulness, the key to happiness, 392. Self-mastery, the craving for, 70. Self-sacrifice, effect of, upon the individual, 390; meaning of true, 419. _See_ Asceticism. Serapion, monks of, 63. Severus, his life of St. Martin, 119. Sherman, Father Thomas E. , on the Society of Jesus, 258; on Loyola, 278. Sick, ministered to by women, 350. _See_ Charity. Silvianus, epigram of, on dying Rome, 76. Simon de Montfort, 237. Simeon Stylites, birth and early life of, 51; austerities of, 52; his fame, 52; lives on a pillar, 53; Tennyson on, 54; death of, 56; refuses to see his mother, 397; method of, forsaken, 421. Sin, monastic confessions of, 413; consciousness of, preserved by monks, 414; exaggerated views of, 415; false methods to get rid of, 416; monastic influence on doctrine of atonement for, 417. Sisterhoods, _see_ Women. Sixtus IV. And V. , Popes, on the stigmata, 221. Social service, spirit of, 419, 423. Solitude, of Egypt, 33; provided for in Pachomian rules, 60; Jerome on, 61; the love of, as a cause of monasticism, 362, 363; effects of, upon the individual, 393; Montaigne on temptations of, 393; society and, 395. Soul-purity, struggles for, 95. _See_ Salvation. Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius, 265. Spain, monasticism enters, 122. Starbuck, Charles C. , on the casuistry of the Jesuits, 274. Stigmata, of St. Francis, 219. Storrs, on Bernard, 197. Subiaco, desert of, 131. Superstitions, monastic, when revolt against is justifiable, 423. Suppression of monasteries, _see_ Monasteries, The Fall of. Supremacy, the monks required to take the oath of, 301. 

T

Tabenna, Monastery at, 32, 58. Tauler, John, a Dominican, 242; on service and contemplation, 395. 

Taunton, E. L. , on the family-idea of monasteries, 143; on Augustine and British monks, 165. Taylor, Isaac, on the biography of Anthony, 48. Templars, _see_ Knights. Tennyson, on Stylites, 54. Tertullian, on Christianity in Britain, 123. Thackeray, views of, on Jesuits opposed, 278. Theodoret, on Stylites, 51, 53. Theodosius, Abbot, 50. Theology, the monks and, 406; White on same, 416. Theophilus, joins Eudoxia against Chrysostom, 117. Therapeutæ, Philo on the, 27. Thieffroy, on charity of monks, 410. Third Order, _see_ Franciscans and Dominicans. Thirty Years' War, the Jesuits and the, 277. Trench, on monastic history, 175; on genius in creation, 207; on the stigmata, 223. Trent, Council of, restricts Mendicants, 246; on marriage, 382. 

U

Universities, foundations of, laid by monks, 405. Urban II. , Pope, the gift of Cluny monastery, 178. 

V

Valens, Emperor, fails to stop flight from Rome, 127. Vaughan, on Bernard's reforms, 195; on the need of reformation, 402. Virgins, _see_ Marriage. Virgil, Jerome's fondness for, 95; Mabie on reading of, 408. Vivaria, literary work in monastery at, 152. Voltaire, on the monks, 388. Vows, monastic, 61; irrevocable, 66, 112; usual history of, 174; of the military orders, 198; the fundamental, 375; the passing away of, 423. _See_ Poverty, Celibacy and Obedience. Vulgate, Jerome, 85. 

W

Waddington, on the hermits, 34; on conscience and method of monks, 390. War, monks incite to, 401. Watch-dogs of the Church, a term applied to the Dominicans, 249. Wealth, Christ's doctrine of, 377; not in itself an evil, 379; its true value, 405; compatible with Christianity, 420. White, on the theology of the monks, 416. Whiting, Richard, Abbot of Glastonbury, 315. Widows, _see_ Women and Marriage. Wilfred, St. , his monastic labors, 167. William of Aquitaine, 177. William of Amour, 250. William of Orange, 394. Wolsey, Cardinal, 294, 308. Women, welcome call of monks, 81; Kingsley on same, 82; Juvenal on Roman women, 82; Jerome's influence on, 86, 96; monasticism and, 106; hermit life unsuited to, 107; effect of corrupt society on, 107, no; distinguished by mercy, in, 350; compared with monks, 111; married life of, in Rome, 112; influence of Ambrose upon, 126; regulation of Guigo concerning monks and, 190. Wyclif, attacks the friars, 253, 337; spirit of, affects monasticism, 295, 429. 

X

Ximenes, Cardinal, a Franciscan, 228. 

Z

Zosimus, on charity of monks, 348. 

_Printed at_ THE BRANDT PRESS, _Trenton, N. J. , U. S. A_.