die for;-that the church of Christ will, when the present dispensation is ended, be spread over those yet unfinished mansions which Jesus himself tells us he has gone to prepare for it, and which, when the glorious dawn of the resurrection day shall burst forth, will appear in all the fresh beauty of a new and unimagined glory, like the bright green buddings of spring after a cold and dreary winter;-that the sound of hosannas shall echo from each bright world which we behold night after night, until they join together, and enter, as it were with linked hands, into the presence of the Eternal, pealing unceasingly throughout his consecrated courts, and declaring to wondering angels the harmony which dwells in every part of the vast creation. These are thoughts in which an Anti-pluralist can delight with the full energy of his soul; for he sees here no necessity for shrinking with disgust at the thoughts of mingling with the thousand discordant and clashing natures in which the Pluralist would wish him to believe; but, on the contrary, is able to look with an earnest expectation for a sinless communion with those of similar feelings and characters to himself, who will, like him, be able to realize the inexpressible love and mercy of a once afflicted and suffering Saviour, and of a now reconciled and pardoning God. H. D. L. Bistory. HAS MONACHISM BEEN BENEFICIAL TO EUROPEAN SOCIETY? NEGATIVE REPLY. No one of the changes which have affected the human race as a whole is so marked and of such universal importance as that which took place at and immediately after the Reformation. Previous to this, nations, like individuals, had risen to eminence, only to decline again to obscurity and comparative oblivion: rulers had for a time rendered famous their respective realms, but their deeds now appear merely as meteor flashes in midnight darkness. Since then, the march of intellect and civilization have been unchecked. At the time of which we speak, the mind of man aroused itself from its drowsiness, and the genius of the human race seems to have awakened as a giant refreshed with long sleep. The many facts and discoveries which crowd themselves into this epoch have rendered it a universally recognized point from which to date a new era-an era of light and truth, as the age before was one of error and superstition. It is to this latter period, commonly known as the "Middle Ages," we must look for the evidences of the good or evil effects of the monastic system, for it was in this time that it reached the maturity of its rank growth. The change wrought in the condition of mankind was more mental than political, and consisted in the fact that before the Reformation men were taught, not to think for themselves, but, on the contrary, to lean entirely for their information on their monkish leaders, to whom they were forced to confide their inmost thoughts, or suffer grievous penalties; but after that time the chains of error and superstition having been broken, and man having become emancipated, he took upon himself to form his own opinions, and to act upon them, so that henceforward it was found of no avail to attempt to persuade men, as Locke says, "to put out their eyes, that they might the better receive the remote light of an invisible star by a telescope." Men had felt their own power, and a spirit of inquiry was set on foot, which has never to this day flagged: the spell was broken, and the influence of Monachism was destroyed. This withholding of knowledge and keeping the people in ignorance, to go no further, was conclusive evidence of the evil of the system. "Instead of allowing any ray of that knowledge which illumined their own minds to reach the people, they formed a theory to justify their own conduct, and to prevent the darkness of that cloud which hung over the minds of their fellow men from ever being dispelled. The vulgar and unlearned, they contended, had no right to truth. Doomed by their condition to remain | to discover what was the real character of in ignorance, they were to be kept in order these blind leaders of the blind, and, in so by delusion, and allured to do right or doing, reply to the quibbles raised by "Gray." deterred from wrong by the hope of those The great front of the argument on the imaginary rewards which superstition pro- other side is, that Monachism advanced the mises, and the dread of those punishments cause of literature; and we are charged with which it threatens." This passage, from a incongruity, in that we stated in one place "Disquisition on India," and written in "that the secluded life extinguished all reference to the Brahmins, so completely rational reflection," and in another, that the describes the conduct of the monkish order, monasteries were the receptacles of litethat we could not forbear quoting it. rature," &c. At first sight, and taking the usual idea conveyed by the words " receptacles of literature," it would appear that the two statements do not agree. But mark that the monasteries were receptacles, and receptacles only, of the literature which had been transmitted from previous ages. Literature of their own they had none-they created none; they were reservoirs, not fountains. Dr. Robertson says, "Literature, science, and taste were words little in use during the ages we are contemplating, or if they occur at any time, eminence in them is ascribed to persons and productions so contemptible, that it appears their true import was little understood. Many of the clergy did not understand the breviary which they were obliged daily to recite. Some of them could scarcely read it. Europe, during four centuries, produced few authors who merit to be read." But we need not quote historians to prove a patent fact. If the monks did reflect rationally, where is the result of their reflections? What little learning was to be found among the clergy was not in sacred literature, and that little was rather erudition than knowledge. The disputes of the schoolmen were mere wars of words in place of discussions bearing on principles. Some of the monks even asserted that "all heresies arose from Greek and Hebrew. The New Testament is a book full of serpents and thorns. Greek is a newly-invented language, and we must be on our guard against it. As for Hebrew, my dear brethren, it is certain that all who learn it immediately become Jews." Herisbach, a cotemporary of Erasmus, relates these expressions. We will now glance at the pleadings of our opponents, and find if there be anything therein that should induce us to alter or amend our verdict as before delivered. "Stanislaus " starts with false premises. He looks at the subject from a wrong point of view; he cannot avoid seeing the evil of the system he upholds, but would fain persuade us that that evil was the exception, and not the rule. Now we see that the results of the system, taken as a whole, were evil, but at the same time acknowledge its beneficial effects in individual cases. Again: with regard to its original principles, we may ask, What institution can you find which did not start with the intention of doing good to somebody, either its founders or some part of the community? Whether in societies for promoting certain objects, or in companies for trading purposes, all schemes must possess a certain amount of plausibility to enable them to obtain a chance But the actual results mostly differ widely from those estimated-either the prospects have been unfairly stated by the projectors, or some unforeseen influences have intervened to upset their expectations. And thus it was with Monachism. We glanced in a former article at the history of its rise and progress, and, were we to place ourselves in the position of its founders or early members, and regard the probable relations of such a system with society, we should be bound to admit that (however we may disagree with its principles in the abstract) we could hardly foresee that it would prove, as it actually did, so great a drawback to the general interests of mankind. We may, with these few remarks, take leave of "Stanislaus," conceiving that the remainder of his arguments have been fully answered by our powerful ally, "John Brown." of success. Let us now dip into history, and endeavour Great stress has been laid on the value of the monkish chronicles of events occurring in their times. Let us hear the opinion of an eminent, historian as to their worth. Hume says, chap. i., "The monks, who were the only annalists during those ages, lived remote from public affairs, considered the civil transactions as entirely subordinate to the ecclesiastical, and, besides partaking of the ignorance and barbarity which were then universal, were strongly infected with credulity, with the love of wonder, and with a propensity to imposture-vices almost inseparable from their mode of life. The history of the period abounds in names, but is exceedingly barren of events; or the events are related so much without circumstances and causes, that the most profound or most eloquent writer must despair of rendering them either instructive or entertaining to the reader." Our limited space forbids our quoting other and similar opinions on the value of the monks' histories. large garrisons. In fact, there is scarcely any tract of country in England bearing on its face so extensive evidence of having been comparatively thickly populated as the immediate neighbourhood of Tintern. "Gray," too, vaunts the proficiency of the monks as schoolmen. But of what avail was this proficiency? Did it tend to the advancement of science and literature? Let us turn to our historian again. "The scholastic theology, with its infinite train of bold disquisitions and subtile points, which are not the object of human reason, was the first production of the spirit of inquiry. Most of those who attempted to revive literature, instead of allowing their fancy to take its natural range, and to produce such works of invention as might have improved their taste and refined their sentiments;-instead of cultivating those arts which embellish human life, and render it comfortable,—were led astray by example, and wasted the whole force of their genius in speculations as unavailing as they were difficult." This opinion, from Robertson, was not written concerning the monks alone, but the teaching of the schoolmen generally. Of similar import is the following, from Sir James Mackintosh's Dissertation, prefixed to the "Another useful feature in monasteries," says J. F. L., "was their educational activities." If he had said "abilities," he might have been nearer the truth. We deny that the monks did communicate one ray of knowledge of the truth to those living under their withering shade. They did not enlighten the people; they were compelled, in self-defence, to retain them in darkness. "First, the great lights of revelation, kindled by God to keep piety and liberty alive on the earth, were extinguished. Next, classical learning was discouraged, and fell" Encyclopædia Britannica:"-" It has alinto disrepute. History, science, and every polite study shared the same fate. The arts perished. If painting, sculpture, and music survived, it was solely because they were needed as handmaids to superstition." And here we would comment on "Gray's" delusion, that Tintern Abbey was not "erected to serve the priests' crafty purpose, to excite the admiration, and impose upon the price-paying credulity of the populace, being too far from any popular resort." He could not have paid a visit to Chepstow at the time of the Antiquarian Society's meeting, or he would have been better informed on the history of that neighbourhood. Suffice it to say, that Tintern is in the immediate vicinity of Chepstow, which is a walled town, and therefore must have contained, in its prosperity, a goodly population; Caerwent, which, though now a mere village, has remains of a castle, and was a Roman station; Caldecott, with its castle; Raglan, Ross, &c., all at that period places of importance, and which, from the extent of the remains of the fortifications, must have been held by ready been stated that the scholastic system was a collection of dialectical subtleties, contrived for the support of the corrupted Christianity of that age by a succession of divines, whose extraordinary powers of distinction and reasoning were morbidly enlarged in the long meditation of the cloister, by the exclusion of every other pursuit and consequent palsy of every other faculty; who were cut off from all the materials on which the mind can operate, and doomed for ever to toil in defence of what they must never dare to examine." Their being "the most proficient schoolmen of the day" is then at best but a doubtful recommendation. Literature, we thus see, owes but little to Monachism, or to its exertions in her behalf. Let us now consider the system in its social relations. J. F. L. and " Gray" endeavour to show that we should not condemn the asceticism of the monks; and J. F. L. quotes several passages of scripture to prove that fasting is therein enjoined, and that the appearance of fasting was beneficial to mankind, inasmuch as it exhibited before all the trials which they were ready to undergo for the sake of religion. With this sentiment we cannot agree. Our idea of Christianity is that watchings, abstinence, labour, hunger, or other penances, are useless for gaining eternal salvation; that our only title to eternal glory consists in faith in the righteousness of Christ. This is the doctrine of the scriptures, but this was not the teaching of the monks. Had they, in place of their extravagances, shown to the world the true virtues of charity and benevolence, they would have done far better. Our opponents appear to have been misled by the notion that, because the monks doled out certain gifts to the poor, they possessed the spirit of charity. But we maintain that this "charity" was not real, inasmuch as it cost them nothing, and the pretence of it was, in fact, a source of gain. By the power of superstition they succeeded in extracting from the rich immense sums for the 'purposes of charity;" but a comparatively small proportion of these found their way into the hands of those intended to receive them, the balance remaining in the monks' hands, and enriching their foundations. We are at a loss to understand the reason of the monks' rapacity, or to explain their extreme "greediness of gold," unless it sprung from the motives referred to in a former article, viz., love of power. "Their wealth was far beyond the measure of their own enjoyment, and they had no families to whom to bequeath it. Such rapacity, then, does seem as unnatural as it was enormous." " The celibacy of the monks cannot have tended to the advance of civilization. Even the Romish church "cries up marriage as a sacrament, yet at the same time bars its sacred clergy from it, because it will defile them." We abstain from commentary on the almost open lewdness of the monks, but would caution our opponents against believing the world to be so particularly hard on the failings of the clergy as some suppose. We deem it unnecessary to attempt to prove that this vice did exist among them, as our opponents admit it, but merely question its extent. J. F. L.'s "ample and conclusive evidence" that the monks were good farmers and landlords has been already commented on by "John Brown," to whose excellent article we refer him. "Gray" says that "the church was the bulwark of freedom; the priests were the champions and leaders of the people in their risings and strugglings against the domination of their taskmasters;" and, as a proof of the “ admiration won from the masses," instances the number of pilgrimages made to the shrine of Thomas à Beckett. Did à Beckett, then, contend for the liberties of the people? No: his energies were directed only to the increase of the power and privileges of the clergy. This man's history affords a type of the struggle of the whole monastic body: what they sought was their own aggrandizement, and not the liberty of their fellow men, whom, on the contrary, they used every expedient to bring under their own power and influence. And, to descend to minor particulars, the multiplicity of holidays insisted on by the monks were so many fetters to liberty and industry: the time, instead of being profitably used for the benefit of the community, was consumed in spreading superstition and folly. It was by means of this superstition that the monks endeavoured to gain the mastery over mankind. - "Gray" and J. F. L. attempt apparently to show that a certain amount of superstition (image worship, for instance) was necessary to the establishment of the christian religion, and have each advocated the lately promulgated doctrine of "development." "Gray" says: "The spirit of modern Christianity could not have existed amid such general darkness." And why? we ask. We find the pure christian spirit to exist and increase among the savages of the present day, who are infinitely more uncivilized and uncouth than were the men of the Middle Ages, and therefore, according to our friend's ideas, much more incapable of receiving and holding the truth. How does "Gray" explain this? We grant that it is not undesirable that there should be somewhat connected with religion likely to touch the emotions-the allegiance of the heart to God, the turning of the affections to him, the softening of the rugged nature, the kindling of those emotions, in whose warm exercise lie genuine prayer and devoted service-all this is needful for the Christian. And therefore no system of religion does justice to the material on which it is brought to bear which appeals not heartily, touch ingly, persuasively, to man's affections and sensibilities, and in which emblems are not allowed to speak to the emotions, while, at the same time, doctrines speak to the understanding." But by the doctrine taught by the monks the symbols came to be worshipped, and, as Gray" says, "the pure apostolic religion became infused with much idolatry and superstition." Superstition arises, not so much from a natural weakness of mind, as from a wrong direction being given to its powers. Now, that this wrong direction was given by the exertions of the monks, is an admitted fact; and that superstition was inculcated to serve their own purposes is equally plain, for without this agent they would have been nearly powerless. We disagree with our opponents in respect to the necessity of time for the perfecting of the christian religion, for the reason that religion is not a science-such as astronomy, for instance, which is daily progressing towards perfection-but divine truth, conveyed to us by direct revelation, and therefore, the nearer we get to the original fountain, so much purer will such doctrines be. What mischief would have resulted had pure religion been taught by the monks? None that we can discover. "Gray" says that it "would have relapsed into the superstitions of idolatry;" but this, by his own acknowledgment, in a sentence or two before, was the fact, as the pure apostolic religion became infused with much idolatry and superstition." Where, then, was the advantage? We maintain there was none, and that error and falsehood were wilfully inculcated by the monks to serve their own base ends. 66 J. F. L.'s elaborate argument to show that Monachism would not have been permitted to exist so long had it not been beneficial to man, though ingenious, is of small value, and for this reason, that the same thing may be said of Buddhism, Mahometanism, and especially paganism. The existence of such errors in the world may be accounted for thus-that "all moral government has its foundation in the suitability of its laws and motives to regulate and influence a creature endowed with reason, understanding, and volition." All that is necessary is that the law should be just, and that man should originally be possessed of faculties which rendered him capable of obedience; but we are not to make the Governor accountable for the fulfilment of the law, as then the accountability of the creature would be removed. And man, having once fallen and incurred any measure of punishment which God may think fit to inflict either here or hereafter, must receive the evils which we find in the world as part of such punishment; and when we find that which, by comparison with the standard shown in the scriptures, we may declare to be good, we are to be thankful for it as grace from on high," as a favour shown us by God. J. F. L. contends that we must not look at Monachism in its final state of decay judging of its effects. According to our ideas, this is the very period to examine it, when it had reached its perfection, when its dominion was widest, when its influence was highest, and when it had, in fact, men in its grasp, and had enveloped them in its folds. But if we go back a few centuries, we shall find their objects the same, although they had not then obtained so great power. Egidius, a bishop in the seventh century, thus sums up what, in his opinion, constitutes a good Christian:-" He is a good Christian who comes frequently to church; who presents the oblation which is offered to God upon the altar; who doth not taste of the fruits of his industry until he hath consecrated a part of them to God; *** and who, in the last place, can repeat the creed and the Lord's prayer. Redeem, then, your souls from destruction while you have the means in your power; offer presents and tithes to churchmen," &c., &c. Here we have the same spirit exhibited as was to be found "in the period of its utmost corruption, and the objects in view identical— riches and power. And is it to be wondered at that such a scheme lasted so long in a world of "vanity and wickedness?" It was certain to be well supplied with members, when such were the easy means dictated of gaining favour with God. Monachism at first could offer its votaries only the hope of a closer communion with God, but later, the lust of riches, the desire of power, and the ease of mind, which was relieved from any anxiety for the future by peuance inflicted on the body, were all incentives to join the order. With the knowledge of the disputes which took place between the several orders of monks, and of the extremes to which they |