It is the boast of St. Bernard that those who had embraced the mo-nastic condition lived with greater purity than other men; that they fell less frequently and rose more quickly; that they walked with greater prudence; were more constantly refreshed with the spiritual dew of heaven; rested with less danger; died with greater hope. And far as the monastie practice has generally fallen below its profession, we doubt not, that in the earlier ages, and especially in the infancy of their several institutions, their inmates surpassed all other classes of society, not excepting the secular clergy, in the exercise of moral and religious offices. Devoted to the relief of the poor, and the service of the sick and the stranger, they were so placed, that even the imperfect discharge of their charitable duties conferred no scanty benefits on an uncivilized generation. Among the millions who have entered religious houses, under the most solemn vows of virtue and piety, there must have been multitudes whose mere innocence made at least some amends to society for their seclusion from its care and its temptations; there were certainly many, whose acquirements and indisputable excellence threw out a light and example to their contemporaries; and some there were, and not a few, whose eminent qualities were directed, as steadily as the spirit of their age allowed them, to the honour and improvement of their Church-to alleviate private affliction, and mitigate the general barbarism.

(3.) From the earliest period, in the Eastern as well as in the Roman Church, the duties of education were entrusted to the monks. In process of time they became, in the latter Church, nearly confined to them, and they continued so at least as late as the eleventh century. Monastic schools were established by St. Benedict; they were inseparably attached to his institutions, and spread, with the progress of his order, over the kingdoms of the West; and they were open to children of the earliest age *. It would seem that, in the eighth century, the cathedral or episcopal academies† were first established; and these afterwards became the most distinguished for the rank and eminence of their scholars. They were conducted, under the superintendence of the bishop, by the canons of the cathedral. And here we need only repeat a former observation, that, if the office of instruction was confined to the clergy, so also were its benefits, for many ages, to those intended for the ministry. So that the advantages which those establishments really conferred on the body of society were neither immediate nor certain; while the power of the clergy, being unduly exaggerated by the exclusive possession of learning, was thereby placed upon a principle absolutely at variance with the highest earthly interests of man.

(4.) This subject naturally leads us to our last consideration-the extent and character of the literature, whether sacred or profane, which was protected and nourished in the monastic establishments. On the first matter, Roman Catholic writers do not hesitate to ascribe the very

This was peculiar to the order of St. Benedict. Hist. Litt. de la France, Siècle xii. p. 11. See also Mabillon, Etudes Monastiques, p. 1. ch. xi. The same writer (ch. xv.) enumerates several among the early Christian heroes,-Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Jerome, &c.-who studied for a greater or less time in monasteries. St. Basil, in the first instance, established a school in his monastery for the reading of holy (as distinguished from profane) histories, and appointed rewards for superior merit. Nunquam de manu et oculis recedat liber,' says St. Jerome; and it is from the same monastic student that we have received that much contemned precept, 'ne ad scribendum cito prosilias. Multo tempore prius disce quod doceas.'

+ See Mosh. vol. ii. p. 55.

*

preservation of the pure doctrine of the Church to the refuge which it found within those fortresses-though it may seem doubtful, whether that doctrine might not have been preserved with equal purity, through ages too ignorant for controversy or cavil, by the fidelity of the secular clergy. At any rate, this praise can scarcely be granted to the monks without some qualification. For if it be true that, during the Arian controversy, they were the most zealous defenders of the Nicene faith, it is not less certain, that the principles of Origen, and the mystical interpretation of Scripture gained great footing among them, and that not merely in the East; nor should the support which they persevered in affording to the cause of the Images, during that long and angry controversy, be forgotten in any estimate which we may endeavour to form of their pretensions to doctrinal or ecclesiastical purity. It is indeed unquestionable, that the externals of religion, so valuable to the Latin church, its offices †, and ceremonies, were enriched and dignified by the monks and canons. They acquired an imposing splendour from the number engaged in their performance, and the resources of their several communities. But passing over these equivocal merits, we may mention one great and truly incalculable service which those establishments conferred on future ages, though they neglected to derive much advantage from it themselves. They preserved, through dangerous and turbulent periods, ancient copies of the inspired writings, and of the most valuable commentaries made on them in the earliest times. And those were among the most profitable moments of monastic leisure, which were employed in multiplying the sacred manuscripts.

Though religious houses were intended to be the depositaries of virtue and piety §, not of letters, yet letters were, to a certain extent, encouraged there, as subsidiary to the grand object of the institution. It is shown, indeed, by the learned author || of the Monastic Studies,' that the earliest monks entirely renounced profane literature, and confined their diligence to theological works and contemplations: the authority and example of St. Jerome confirmed that preference. But in later times, and especially when

* This is said to have been, in the first instance, occasioned by the substitution of mental prayer for manual labour. From the excesses of mysticism proceeded the errors of the Beghards and Beguines, and other enthusiasts of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries; they strove after absolute perfection, and they fell into fanaticism.

Fleury, Discours. depuis 800..1100. Muratori, Dissertat. 56. The monks gained great advantages by the introduction of chaunts into the service; and this was imitated, in the ninth century, by the cathedral clergy. Some rivalry ensued between these ecclesiastics, and thus, cœpit frequentius agi et augustius procedere divina Res.' Some' modulation of prayers and praises,' they had indeed used from the earliest ages; but not with that plenitude and majesty, which the chorus of monks and canons afterwards introduced. The organ appears to have come into use about the year 826.

The great increase of MSS. during the eleventh century, is to be ascribed to this monastic leisure, and could scarcely be effected otherwise. And this was the first step, after the devastation of the four preceding ages, towards the revival of ancient, and the creation of modern, learning. In the twelfth age we find St. Bernard inculcating the duties of writing and copying as the best substitute for labour.

The words of St. Peter, We have left all to follow Thee,' are those, as St. Bernard observed, which have founded cloisters and peopled deserts.

Mabillon (Etudes Monastiques, p. 1.) proves the prevalence of literary industry, in the monastic life, by direct historical evidence; by the multitude of learned ecclesiastics who emerged from them; by their libraries; by direct reference to the rule of St. Benedict. To the neglect of study he attributes the decline of the several Orders, and observes, that reform was commonly attended by its restoration; that academies or colleges were invariably connected with the Benedictine establishments; and that both Popes and Coun cils perpetually inculcated the duty of study.

the practice of manual labour fell into disuse, the limits of their studious industry were enlarged, and they gradually embraced some department of profane science, as well as of classical lore. The compilation of Decretals led to the study of canon law; the discovery of the Digest directed attention to civil legislation. The art of medicine presented a spacious field, which was made attractive, first, perhaps, by its salutary and charitable uses, afterwards by the gain* which followed it. The monastic establishments furnished the leisure and the best existing instruments for all those pursuits; and, after the eighth or ninth age, they were distinguished by some efforts after knowledge, not fruitless of beneficial effects and even of useful discoveries.

Again, many of the most precious monuments of profane antiquity owe their preservation to the sanctity of the monasteries, or to the zeal of their defenders. All these might have perished, as many, notwithstanding, did perish, had there not existed, during the long and barbarous anarchy of the Western Empire, certain communities, associated in the name of religion for peaceful, if not pious, purposes; whose interests were opposed to the progress of disorder and rapine, and whose holy profession secured them some respect from a lawless, but superstitious, people. The dili gence which was employed in transcribing those valuable models, while it promoted their circulation, could scarcely fail to infuse some taste or energy into the dullest mind; and it certainly appears, that during the eighth and ninth, and especially the eleventh ages, most † of the characters, who acquired any ecclesiastical celebrity, proceeded from the discipline of the cloister.

Having thus intended to give a general view of the advantages which the monastic system has conferred on society, we cannot fail to observe, that they are for the most part confined to ages of ignorance or turbulence; that they were almost proportionate to the debasement of the people, and to the weakness or wickedness of the civil government. The former of those evils was somewhat alleviated, the latter was partially obviated, by the monastic institutions. Herein is comprehended the sum and substance of their utility. In a civilized nation, under a just and enlightened rule, it is their necessary effect to obstruct industry and retard improvement. But, on the other hand, if we consider them in reference to the times in which they rose and began to flourish,—if we compare the habits, the morals, the intelligence of the monks with those of their secular contemporaries, shall we not immediately admit, that in bad ages they were probably the best men; that they were the most useful members of a disjointed community; that their vicious principles were less vicious than the general principles of society; that they were in advance of the civilization of their day? If so-and to us it appears indisputable-let us be cautious how we cast unqualified censure upon a body of religious persons, who formed, for the space of five or six centuries, the most respectable portion of the Christian world.

* A council held at Rheims, under Innocent II. in 1131, published a canon, prohibiting monks and canons-regular to study civil law or medicine; and the injunction was repeated by the Lateran Council in 1139. These occupations were on this occasion expressly ascribed to avarice. And we may remark, that the prohibition was confined to the monks -the secular clergy, in the entire ignorance of the laity, were permitted to practise both law and physic.

† Bede, Alcuin, Willibrod, &c. were monks; and most of the Popes and Cardinals of the eleventh century rose from the ranks of the regular clergy. See Hist. Litt. de la France, xi. Siècle.

At the same time, we ought not to forget, that, even in those times to which their utility was confined, it was continu

ally obstructed both by the original defects of Superstitious tendency. their system, and its consequent corruptions.

Almost from their first establishment, in the East no less than in the West, we find them the faithful defenders, if not parents, of superstitious abuse. The adoration of saints, the miraculous qualities of relics, and the homage due to them, and, above all, the sanctity and worship of images, have been inculcated with peculiar zeal by the monks of every order, in every age of the church. Again, as they ever have been the patrons of religious abuse, so have they inflexibly opposed any general attempt at church reform. Reforms, indeed, in their particular establishments have been incessant. Such, again, as touched the discipline of the secular clergy have sometimes found support in the jealousy of the regular orders. But any exertion, tending to the restoration of pure Christianity, has ever found its fiercest opponents in the cloister; and through such opposition many unscriptural practices have been perpetuated both in the Eastern and Western Churches. Of course it is not intended to ascribe to them all the corruptions of religion; indeed, we have already traced the origin of many of these to a period preceding the creation of monachism. The 'vices of the clergy' are acknowledged in ecclesiastical records long before the prevalence of monastic influence; and it seems probable even that the traffic in indulgences finally so scandalous to the Mendicants, was begun by the bishops *. But all existing abuses were carefully nourished and fostered by the hands of monks; and the execution of miracles and other popular impostures was conducted with peculiar ingenuity and success by the inmates of the monastery †. And we may add, that the lucrative system of Purgatory was then most zealously supported, as indeed the wealth which flowed from it was distributed for the most part among those establishments.

In early ages the monks were the subjects, and, as it were, the army of the bishops; they maintained their rights, they fought their battles, and profited by their protection. In the East this mutual relation long subsisted; and as the original monasteries were expressly subjected, by the Council of Chalcedon, to the bishop of the diocese, and as many were indebted for their foundation to episcopal munificence and piety, the claims were just, and the connexion natural. But in the Roman Church it was violated almost by the first movements of papal ambition. In the year 601, Gregory the Great ‡ (himself for some time the inmate of a monastery) held a Council, in which were passed many regulations favourable to what the monks considered their independence. They were permitted to choose their own abbot; and the Exemptions bishop was precluded not only from all interference in

*See Mosheim, vol. ii. p. 420. We may remark, that the same author sometimes distinguishes the regular canons as more exempt from the vices which he so indiscriminately objects to the other monastic orders.

The Carthusians are stigmatized by monastic writers for inferiority in that power, if not for the entire destitution of it. The consequence is, that, having performed few or no miracles, they boast very few names in the calendar of the saints. See Hospinian, lib. v. cap. vii.

Giannone, Stor. Nap., lib. iv., cap. xii. Mosheim, seemingly overlooking this circumstance, is disposed to attribute the growing alliance of the popes and monks in the eleventh century to the oppression and rapacity of princes and bishops. (Cent. xi. p. 2, chap. ii.) Doubtless there were instances of this; but the principle of the alliance was of much earlier origin.

their temporalities, and all exercise of jurisdiction over them, but even from the celebration of the divine offices in their churches. From this event (if from any single event) we may probably date the undue aggrandizement of the monastic order, and its increasing influence on civil as well as ecclesiastical politics. But in independence it only so far gained, as to exchange a near for a distant master-a petty tyrant, it might be, for an imperious but partial despot. One evil effect of this change was presently felt, the removal of the bishop's immediate superintendence facilitated the progress of abuse and licentiousness *. The eighth and ninth ages were, in truth, the most triumphant era of monasticism t. Whatsoever learning then existed was confined, or nearly so, to the convents; and not only did nobles and kings contest with each other the honour of endowing them, but there were many who took refuge there in their own persons from the miseries and dangers of a turbulent world. By such secession they conferred the security which they courted; and additional sanctity seemed to surround the buildings which were dignified by the retreat of great, perhaps even of good, men.

Absolute exemptions from episcopal authority were for some time rare. The first instance was probably that of Monte Cassino, which might be excused by its vicinity to Rome. But the example, though sparingly imitated, was by no means lost on following times; and after the pontificate of Gregory VII., the abbots began universally to claim the immediate protection of St. Peter; and his Vicar was seldom slow to accord it. In process of time, entire congregations of monasteries (the Clunian, for instance, and the Cistertian) were included in a single exemption; so afterwards were the Mendicant Orders; and finally the whole monastic body acknowledged no other dependence than on the Pope alone. The abuse was at length pushed so far, that even a private clerk might obtain-of course by purchase exemption from the control of his bishop. Undoubtedly, during the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, the Holy See derived great power from the sort of separate hierarchy thus established; and for the two following ages, when ambition became less its ruling spirit, and avarice more so, such exemptions became the means of abundantly gratifying the favourite passion. But in the excess to which they were then carried, they shook the foundation of papal power, by inflaming the jealousy and disunion of the regular and secular clergy; and thus they mainly tended to promote, in due season, the rise of the Reformation, and to facilitate its progress.

At the same time, if the Popes were long supported and aggrandized through their close connexion with the monastic Orders, so were they very sedulous to return the favour, and to enrich those Orders, sometimes at the

Monastic Wealth.

Purgatory,

Indulgences, &c.

*One of Charlemagne's Capitularies prohibited abbots and abbesses from keeping fools, buffoons, and jugglers, for their amusement. But this implied no particular censure on the monastic orders, since we observe the same prohibition to be extended to bishops.

Giannone, lib. v. cap. vi. The same have also been considered as the grand periods of episcopal authority. Both may be true. For the monasteries, though in some cases, and to a certain extent, independent of the bishops, were not yet placed in rivalry with them; but they probably made common cause, whenever the general interests of the Church were concerned.

The papal right to grant these exemptions does not seem to have been disputed. Yet it rested on no better foundation than a confused notion, confirmed and augmented by the Decretals, that there were no limits to that authority. We should observe, that even in the East there were also instances of the direct dependence of monasteries on the Patriarch; but they were rare, and probably in faint imitation of the practice of the West.