MELCHITES. The name which is given to the Syriac, Egyptian, and other

Christians of the Levant; who, though not Greeks, follow the doctrines

and ceremonies of the Greek Church, and submit to the decisions of the

Council of Chalcedon. The term _Melchites_ is borrowed from the Hebrew

or Syriac word _Melec_, which signifies _king_. So that Melchites is as

much as to say Royalists, and is a term of reproach, given to the

orthodox by the Eutychians, or Jacobites, on account of their implicit

submission to the edicts of the emperors, for the publication and

reception of the above-mentioned council.

The Melchites, excepting some few points of little or no importance,

which relate only to their ceremonies and ecclesiastical discipline, are

in every respect professed Greeks. They have translations, in the

Arabian language, of the Greek rituals; but their versions are for the

most part very incorrect. In general, the Christians of the Levant are

so far from being just and correct in their translations of the Greek

authors, that they imagine they have a right to make them speak

according to their own sentiments. This is evident in the Arabic canons

of the Council of Nice, in which the Melchites find sufficient arguments

to justify their notions against those of the Jacobites; and the

Jacobites, on the other hand, by the very same canons, vindicate their

tenets against those of the Melchites.

The Melchites are governed by a particular patriarch, who resides at

Damascus, and assumes the title of Patriarch of Antioch. The great

difficulty they meet with in finding such ministers as can read Greek,

is said to be the true reason why they celebrate mass in the Arabian

language: and even those who are acquainted with the Greek tongue, yet

read the Epistle and Gospel in Arabic.

The monks among the Melchites follow the rule of St. Basil, the common

rule of all the Greek monks. They have four fine convents, distant about

a day’s journey from Damascus. They never go out of the cloister.

MELETIANS. There were in the fourth century two schisms called

_Meletian_.

1. The Meletians of Egypt had their name from Meletius, a bishop of

Lycopolis, the second of the Egyptian sees in dignity. It has been most

commonly supposed that Meletius sacrificed to the heathen gods in a

persecution about the year 301, or perhaps in the last general

persecution a few years later. But there seems to be reason for

supposing that the occasion of his schism was of an opposite kind—that

he objected to the lenity with which Peter, bishop of Alexandria,

treated those who had lapsed in the persecution; and this explanation

agrees better with the character of the sect, who rejected all from

their communion, who in time of persecution fell from CHRIST, though

they afterwards repented. Meletius proceeded to ordain bishops, and at

one time had nearly thirty of these in his communion. He was prohibited

for ever to ordain by the Council of Nice, but his followers were

admitted to communion without re-ordination. He submitted to this at

first, but afterwards resumed his practice of schismatical ordinations.

The Arians attempted to draw the Meletians into a connexion with them,

on the ground of their common enmity to the orthodox bishops of

Alexandria; and thus the schismatics whose original difference with the

Church had been limited to questions of discipline, became infected with

heresy.

2. The Meletians of Antioch were so called from Meletius, who in 360 was

appointed to the bishopric of that city. Although he owed his

appointment to the Arians, he soon showed that he was orthodox;

whereupon he was deposed and banished. He afterwards recovered his see,

but the adherents of Eustathius, who had been deposed by the Arians many

years before, refused to communicate with him; and Lucifer, bishop of

Cagliari, by ordaining Paulinus in opposition to him, contributed to

exasperate the differences of the orthodox. The schism of Antioch was

not finally healed until the year 415.

MENAION. The name which the Greeks give to the twelve volumes of their

Church Service. These volumes answer to the twelve months in the year,

each volume taking in a month. In this book is contained the offices for

the saints of every day, methodically digested.

From the Menaion is drawn the _Menologium_, (Menology,) or Greek

calendar, in which the lives of the saints in short, or their names

only, are cited. The Menaion, therefore, of the Greek answers to the

Breviary of the Latins, and the Menology to the Martyrology. (See

_Breviary_ and _Martyrology_.)

MENDICANTS, or BEGGING FRIARS. There are several orders of monks or

friars, in Popish countries, who, having no income or revenues, are

supported by the charitable contributions of others. These, from their

manner of life, are called Mendicants.

This sort of friars began in the thirteenth century, when Dominic de

Guzman, with nine more of his companions, founded the order of

_Preaching Friars_, called from their founder _Dominicans_. The other

three _Mendicant_ orders are, the _Franciscans_, _Augustines_, and

_Carmelites_.

These monks gave great disturbance to the secular clergy, by pretending

to a right of taking confessions and granting absolution, without asking

leave of the parochial priests, or even the bishops themselves. Pope

Innocent IV. restrained this licence, and prohibited the Mendicants to

confess the faithful without leave of the curé. Alexander IV. restored

this privilege to them. And Martin IV., to accommodate the dispute,

granted them a permission to receive confessions, upon condition that

the penitents, who applied to them, should confess once a year to their

proper pastor. However, this expedient falling short of full

satisfaction, Boniface VIII. ordered that the superiors of religious

houses should make application to the bishops, for their permission to

such friars as should be commissioned by their respective abbots to

administer the sacrament of penance. And upon the foot of this

constitution the matter now rests.

MENGRELIANS. Christians of the Greek religion, converted by Cyrillus and

Methodius. They baptize not their children till the eighth year, and

enter not into the Church (the men especially) till the sixtieth (others

say the fortieth) year, but hear Divine service standing without the

temple.

MENNONITES. A sect of Anabaptists in Holland, so denominated from one

Mennon Simonis of Frisia, who lived in the sixteenth century. The

Protestants, as well as the Romanists, confuted them. Mr. Stoupp

explains their doctrine thus: Mennon is not the first of the

Anabaptists; but having rejected the enthusiasms and revelations of the

first Anabaptists and their opinions, concerning the new kingdom of

JESUS CHRIST, he set up other tenets, which his followers hold to this

time. They believe that the New Testament is the only rule of our faith;

that the terms _Person_ and _Trinity_ are not to be used in speaking of

the FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST; that the first men were not created

just; that there is no original sin; that JESUS CHRIST had not his flesh

from the substance of his mother Mary, but from the essence of his

FATHER; that it is not lawful for Christians to swear, or exercise any

office of magistracy, nor use the sword to punish evil-doers, nor to

wage war upon any terms; that a Christian may attain to the height of

perfection in this life; that the ministers of the gospel ought not to

receive any salary; that children are not to be baptized; that the souls

of men after death rest in an unknown place.

In the mean time these Mennonites broke into several divisions, for very

inconsiderable reasons; many among them embraced the opinions of the

Socinians, or rather of the Arians, touching the Deity of CHRIST; and

they were all for moderation in religion, not thinking that they might

lawfully debar from their assemblies any man leading a pious life, and

that owned the Scriptures for the word of GOD. These were called

Galenites, and borrowed their name from a physician of Amsterdam, called

Galen. Some of them in Holland are called Collegiates, because they meet

privately, and every one in their assembly hath the liberty to speak, to

expound the Scriptures, to pray, and to sing: they that are truly

Collegiates are Trinitarians: they never receive the communion in their

college, but they meet twice a year, from all parts of Holland, at

Rhinsburg, a village about two leagues from Leyden; there they receive

the sacrament. The first that sits at table may distribute it to the

rest; and all sects are admitted, even the Roman Catholics, if they

would come.

MESSALIANS, or MASSALIANS. So called from a Chaldee word, which

signifies _to pray_, as does the Greek εὐχομαι, from which these

sectaries had also the name of _Euchites_, because they prayed

continually, and held nothing necessary to salvation but prayer: they

rejected preaching and the sacraments: they held that the supreme GOD

was visible; and that Satan was to be worshipped that he might do no

hurt: they pretended to cast out devils; and rejected almsgiving. This

heresy prevailed under Valentinian and Valens, about A. D. 370.

MESSIAH signifies the anointed. (See _Christ_, _Jesus_, and _Lord_.) It

is the title given by way of eminence to our blessed SAVIOUR, meaning in

Hebrew the same as CHRIST in Greek, and it alludes to the authority he

possesses to assume the characters of prophet, priest, and king, and so

of the SAVIOUR of the world.

CHRIST the Messiah (“anointed”) was promised by GOD, (Gen. iii. 15; xxi.

12,) and foretold by the prophets, (Gen. xlix. 10; 1 Sam. ii. 10 and 35;

Ps. ii. 2; xlv. 7; Micah v. 2, with John vii. 42; Mal. iii. 1,) as the

“redeemer” of Israel, (Job xix. 25; Isa. lix. 20; Luke xxiv. 21,) and

“the desire of all nations” (Haggai ii. 7). He who was born in the days

of Herod, of a pure virgin, and called “JESUS,” according to prophecy,

(Luke i. 31,) is that “Messiah,” “the CHRIST,” (John i. 41; Acts ii.

36,) as he declares himself to be, (John x. 24, 25,) whose coming was

then expected (Matt. ii. 1, 2; John iv. 25, 29, 42). Who was “anointed,”

not with any material and typifying “oil,” as were those who preceded

him—his types—but with “the Spirit of GOD,” (Matt. iii. 16; John i. 32,

33,) “the Spirit of the LORD,” as promised, (Isa. xi. 2; xlii. 1; Matt.

xii. 18,) a spiritual unction—“the oil of gladness, above his fellows”

(Ps. xlv. 7); and thus was he consecrated to the three offices, divided

in others, being the great Prophet predicted, (Deut. xviii. 15, 18,) and

acknowledged, (John vi. 14; vii. 40,) the eternal High Priest, (Ps. cx.

4; Heb. viii. 1; x. 12, 14,) and universal King (Gen. xlix. 10; Num.

xxiv. 17; Ps. ii. 6; Dan. vii. 14; Zech. xiv. 9; Matt. xxv. 34; Rev. xi.

15). And this Spirit he received as the head, (Heb. i. 9,) and conveys

to the members of his body (2 Cor. i. 21; 1 John ii. 20).

MESSIANIC. A term invented by modern critics, to signify those Psalms or

other portions of Scripture which specially relate to or personify the

Messiah.

METHODISTS, POPISH. Polemical doctors, who arose in France about the

middle of the seventeenth century, in opposition to the Huguenots, or

French Protestants.

METHODISTS. This is the distinctive appellation of the followers of the

late Mr. John Wesley, who was born in 1703, and died in 1791.

Under the general term of “Methodists” are comprehended two principal

and several subordinate sections, having totally distinct ecclesiastical

organizations. The two grand sections differ from each other upon points

of _doctrine_; one professing Arminian, and the other Calvinistic,

sentiments. The former are the followers of John Wesley, and from him

are called “Wesleyan Methodists;”—the latter were originated by the

labours of George Whitfield, but their founder’s name is not perpetuated

in their title, which is generally that of “Calvinistic Methodists.”

Each of the two grand sections is divided into several smaller sections,

differing from each other upon points of _Church government_ and

discipline: the _Wesleyan Methodists_ comprise the “Original Connexion,”

the “New Connexion,” the “Primitive Methodists,” and the “Wesleyan

Association”—the _Calvinistic Methodists_ comprise the body bearing that

specific name, and also the churches belonging to what is known as “The

Countess of Huntingdon’s Connexion.”

THE ORIGINAL CONNEXION.

As at present settled, the form of Church government somewhat resembles

that of the Scottish Presbyterian Churches in the order of the courts,

in the relation they bear to each other, and in their respective

constitutions and functions. The difference is in the greater degree of

authority in spiritual matters exercised by the Wesleyan ministers, who

preside in their courts not as mere chairmen or moderators, but as

pastors. This is said by them to secure an equitable balance of power

between the two parties, lay and clerical, in these courts, and thus to

provide against abuse on either side. How far this is the case will be

more clearly seen by a description of these various courts, tracing them

upwards from the lowest to the highest,—from the Class to the

Conference.

The CLASSES were the very first of the arrangements introduced by Mr.

Wesley. They consist, in general, of about 12 persons; each class having

its appointed “leader,” (an experienced Christian layman, nominated by

the superintendent of a circuit, and appointed by a leaders’ meeting,)

whose duty is to meet his class once every week—converse with each class

member, hear from him a statement of his spiritual condition, and give

appropriate counsel. Every member of a class, except in cases of extreme

poverty, is expected to contribute at least a penny per week towards the

funds of the society. Out of the proceeds of this contribution, assisted

by other funds, the stipends of the ministers are paid. The system of

class meetings is justly considered the very life of Methodism.

The public worship of these societies is conducted in each circuit by

two descriptions of preachers, one clerical, the other lay. The clerics

are separated entirely to the work of the ministry—are members of, or in

connexion with, or received as probationers by, the Conference—and are

supported by funds raised for that purpose in the classes and

congregations. From one to four of these, called “itinerant preachers,”

are appointed annually for not exceeding three years in immediate

succession to the same circuit. Their ministry is not confined to any

particular chapel in the circuit, but they act interchangeably from

place to place, seldom preaching in the same place more than one Sunday

without a change, which is effected according to a plan generally

re-made every quarter. Of itinerant preachers there are at present about

915 in Great Britain. The lay, or “local” preachers, as they are

denominated, follow secular callings, like other of their fellow

subjects, and preach on the sabbaths at the places appointed for them in

the above-mentioned plan; as great an interval being observed between

their appointments to the same place as can be conveniently arranged.

The public services of Methodists present a combination of the forms of

the Church of England with the usual practice of Dissenting Churches. In

the larger chapels, the Church Liturgy is used; and, in all, the

sacrament is administered according to the Church of England rubric.

Independently of sabbath worship, love feasts are occasionally

celebrated; and a midnight meeting, on the last day of each year, is

held as a solemn “watch night,” for the purpose of impressing on the

mind a sense of the brevity and rapid flight of time.

At present there are 428 circuits in Great Britain. Besides preaching in

the various chapels in their respective circuits, the itinerant

preachers administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper.

One or other of them, according to an arrangement amongst themselves,

meets every class in his circuit once in every quarter, personally

converses with every member, and distributes to all such as have

throughout the past three months walked orderly a _ticket_, which

authenticates their membership. One of the ministers in every circuit is

called the “superintendent,” whose duties, in addition to his ordinary

labours as a travelling preacher, are, to see that the Methodist

discipline is properly maintained,—to admit candidates into membership,

(subject to a veto by a leaders’ meeting,)—and to expel from the society

any member whom a leaders’ meeting shall pronounce guilty of any

particular offence. Appeal, however, lies from his decision to a

District meeting, and ultimately to the Conference. There is also a

“circuit steward,” whose duty is to receive from the society stewards

the contributions of class members, and to superintend their application

for the purposes of the circuit.

The CONFERENCE, the highest Wesleyan court, is composed exclusively of

ministers. It derives its authority from a deed of declaration, executed

by Mr. Wesley in 1784, by which it was provided that, after the decease

of himself and his brother Charles, 100 persons, named in the deed,

“being preachers and expounders of God’s holy word, under the care and

in connexion with the said John Wesley,” should exercise the authority

which Wesley himself possessed, to appoint preachers to the various

chapels. Vacancies in the “hundred” were to be filled up by the

remainder at an annual Conference. In pursuance of this deed, a

Conference of 100 ministers meets yearly in July, with the addition of

the representatives selected by the district meetings, and such other

ministers as are appointed or permitted to attend by the district

committees. The custom is, for all these ministers to share in the

proceedings and to vote; though all the decisions thus arrived at must

be sanctioned by the legal “hundred,” ere they can have binding force.

The Conference must sit for at least five days, but not beyond three

weeks. Its principal transactions are, to examine the moral and

ministerial character of every preacher—to receive candidates on

trial—to admit ministers into the connexion—and to appoint ministers to

particular circuits or stations. Independently of its functions under

this deed poll, the Conference exercises a general superintendence over

the various institutions of the body; including the appointment of

various committees, as, (1.) The Committee of Privileges for guarding

the interests of the Wesleyan Connexion; (2.) The Committee for the

management of Missions; (3.) The Committee for the management of Schools

for educating the children of Wesleyan ministers; (4.) The General Book

Committee (for superintending the publication and sale of Wesleyan

works); (5.) The Chapel Building Committee (without whose previous

consent in writing no chapel, whether large or small, is to be erected,

purchased, or enlarged); (6.) The Chapel Relief Committee; (7.) The

Contingent Fund Committee; (8.) The Committee of the Auxiliary Fund for

worn-out ministers and ministers’ widows; and the committees for the

various schools, theological institutions, &c.

The Conference has also assumed to itself the power of making new laws

for the government of the Connexion: provided that, if any circuit

meeting disapprove such law, it is not to be enforced in that circuit

for the space of one year. Any circuit has the power of memorializing

Conference on behalf of any change considered desirable, provided the

June quarterly meeting should so determine.

The doctrines held by the Wesleyans are substantially accordant with the

Articles of the Established Church, interpreted in their Arminian sense.

In this they follow Mr. Wesley rather than Arminius; for although the

writings of the latter are received with high respect, the first four

volumes of Wesley’s Sermons, and his Notes on the New Testament, (which

they hold to be “neither Calvinistic on the one hand nor Pelagian on the

other,”) are referred to as the standard of their orthodoxy. The

continued influence of their founder is manifested by the general

adherence of the body to his opinions on the subject of attainment to

Christian perfection in the present life—on the possibility of final

ruin after the reception of Divine grace—and on the experience by every

convert of a clear _assurance_ of his acceptance with God through faith

in Jesus Christ.

The Census Accounts show 6579 chapels in England and Wales, belonging to

this Connexion in March 1851; containing (allowance being made for

defective returns) accommodation for 1,447,580 persons. The number of

_attendants_ on the Census Sunday was: Morning, 492,714; Afternoon,

383,964; Evening, 667,850: including an estimate for 133 chapels, for

which the number of attendants was not stated.

The following table shows the principal societies and institutions for

religious objects supported by the Wesleyan Original Connexion. Others,

in part supported by Wesleyans, are mentioned in the General List at

page cxvii. of the Report.

────────────────────────────────────┬───────────┬───────

NAME OF SOCIETY OR INSTITUTION. │ DATE OF │ANNUAL

│FOUNDATION.│INCOME.

────────────────────────────────────┼───────────┼───────

│ A.D. │ £

Contingent Fund │ 1756 │ 10,065

Auxiliary Fund │ 1813 │ 7,163

The Children’s Fund │ 1818 │ 3,280

Wesleyan Theological Institution │ 1834 │ 4,688

General Chapel Fund │ 1818 │ 3,984

Wesleyan Seamen’s Mission │ 1843 │ 160

Wesleyan Missionary Society │ 1817 │105,370

────────────────────────────────────┼───────────┼───────

Kingswood and Woodhouse Grove School│ 1748 │ 8,048

│ 1811 │

────────────────────────────────────┼───────────┼───────

Education Fund │ 1837 │ 2,800

────────────────────────────────────┴───────────┴───────

In 1839 was celebrated the Centenary of the existence of Wesleyan

Methodism; and the gratitude of the people towards the system under

which they had derived so much advantage was displayed by contributions

to the large amount of £216,000, which sum was appropriated to the

establishment of theological institutions in Yorkshire and at

Richmond—the purchase of the “Centenary Hall and Mission House” in

Bishopsgate Street—the provision of a missionary ship—the discharge of

chapel debts—and the augmentation of the incomes of the Methodist

religious societies.

Of late years a considerable agitation (to be more particularly

mentioned when describing “Wesleyan Reformers”) has diminished to a

great extent the number of the members in connexion. It is stated that

by this division the Original Connexion has sustained a loss of 100,000

members.

THE METHODIST NEW CONNEXION.

For some time after Mr. Wesley’s death in 1791, considerable agitation

was observable throughout the numerous societies which, under his

control, had rapidly sprung up in every part of England. The more

immediate subjects of dispute had reference to, (1.) “the right of the

people to hold their public religious worship at such hours as were most

convenient, without being restricted to the mere intervals of the hours

appointed for service in the Established Church;” and, (2.) “the right

of the people to receive the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s supper

from the hands of their own ministers, and in their own places of

worship;” but the principal and fundamental question in dispute

concerned the right of the laity to participate in the spiritual and

secular government of the body. Wesley himself had, in his lifetime,

always exercised an absolute authority; and after his decease the

travelling preachers claimed the same extent of power. A vigorous

opposition was, however, soon originated, which continued during several

years; the Conference attempting various unsuccessful measures for

restoring harmony. A “Plan of Pacification” was adopted by the

Conference in 1795, and was received with general satisfaction so far as

the ordinances were concerned; but the question of lay influence

remained untouched till 1797, when the Conference conceded that the

leaders’ meetings should have the right to exercise an absolute _veto_

upon the _admission_ of new members to the Society, and that no member

should be _expelled_ for immorality, “until such immorality had been

proved at a leaders’ meeting.” Certain lesser rights were at the same

time conceded to the quarterly meetings, in which the laity were

represented by the presence of their stewards and class leaders. But

this was the extent of the concessions made by the preachers; and all

propositions for lay delegation to the Conference and the district

meetings were conclusively rejected.

Foremost amongst many who remained unsatisfied by these concessions was

the Rev. Alexander Kilham, who, singularly enough, was born at Epworth

in Lincolnshire, the birth-place of the Wesleys. Mr. Kilham, first

acquiring prominence as an assertor of the right of Methodists to meet

for worship in church hours, and to receive the sacraments from their

own ministers, was gradually led to take an active part in advocacy of

the principle of lay participation in the government of the Connexion.

Originated by a movement for a certain and specific alteration in the

_constitution_ of Wesleyan Methodism, the New Connexion differs from the

parent body only with respect to those ecclesiastical arrangements which

were then the subjects of dispute. In doctrines, and in all the

essential and distinctive features of Wesleyan Methodism, there is no

divergence: the Arminian tenets are as firmly held by the New as by the

Old Connexion; and the outline of ecclesiastical machinery—comprising

classes, circuits, districts, and the Conference—is in both the same.

The grand distinction rests upon the different degrees of power allowed

in each communion to the laity. It has been shown that, in the “Original

Connexion,” all authority is virtually vested in the preachers: they

alone compose the Conference—their influence is paramount in the

inferior courts—and even when, as in financial matters, laymen are

appointed to committees, such appointments are entirely in the hands of

Conference. The “New Connexion,” on the contrary, admits, in all its

courts, the principle of lay participation in Church government:

candidates for membership must be admitted by the voice of the existing

members, not by the minister alone; offending members cannot be expelled

but with the concurrence of a leaders’ meeting; officers of the body,

whether leaders, ministers, or stewards, are elected by the Church and

ministers conjointly; and in district meetings and the annual Conference

lay delegates (as many in number as the ministers) are present, freely

chosen by the members of the Churches.

The progress of the New Connexion since its origin has been as follows,

in the aggregate, comprising England, Ireland, and the colonies:

Year. Members.

1797 5,000

1803 5,280

1813 8,067

1823 10,794

1833 14,784

1840 21,836

1846 20,002

1853 21,384

At present (1853) the state of the Connexion, _In England and Wales_, is

reported to be as follows:

Chapels 301

Societies 298

Circuit preachers 95

Local preachers 814

Members 16,070

Sabbath schools 273

Sabbath-school teachers 7,335

Sabbath-school scholars 44,337

Returns have been received at the Census Office from 297 chapels and

stations (mostly in the northern counties) belonging to this Connexion,

containing accommodation, after an estimate for 16 defective returns,

for 96,964 persons. The number of _attendants_ on the Census Sunday was:

Morning, 36,801; Afternoon, 22,620; Evening, 39,624: including an

estimate for three chapels, the attendance in which was not stated.

In 1847 the Jubilee of the Connexion was celebrated, and it was resolved

to raise a fund of £20,000, to be appropriated to the relief of

distressed chapels, to the erection of a theological institution, the

extension of home and foreign missions, and the provision for aged and

retired ministers.

PRIMITIVE METHODISTS.

About the commencement of the present century, certain among the

“Wesleyans (and conspicuously Hugh Bourne and William Clowes) began to

put in practice a revival of those modes of operation, which had by that

time been abandoned by the then consolidated body. The Conference of

1807 affirmed a resolution adverse to such unprescribed expedients; and

the consequence of this disapprobation was the birth of the Primitive

Methodist Connexion,—the first class being formed at Standley in

Staffordshire in 1810. The following table, furnished by the Conference

itself, will show the progress made by the Connexion since that period.

───────┬──────────────┬───────────────┬─────┬───────┬───────────────────────

│ │ │Class│ Mem- │

Period.│ Chapels. │ Preachers. │Lead-│ bers. │ Sabbath Schools.

│ │ │ers. │ │

───────┼───────┬──────┼────────┬──────┼─────┼───────┼────────┬──────┬───────

│Connex-│Rented│ Tra-│ │ │ │ │Teach-│Schol-

„ │ional. │Rooms,│velling.│Local.│ „ │ „ │Schools.│ ers. │ ars.

│ │ &c. │ │ │ │ │ │ │

───────┼───────┼──────┼────────┼──────┼─────┼───────┼────────┼──────┼───────

1810│ │ │ │ │ │ 10│ │ │

1811│ │ │ 2│ │ │ 260│ │ │

1820│ │ │ 202│ 1,435│ │ 7,842│ │ │

1830│ 421│ │ 240│ 2,719│ │ 35,733│ │ │

1840│ 1,149│ │ 487│ 6,550│ │ 73,990│ │11,968│ 60,508

1850│ 1,555│ 3,515│ 519│ 8,524│6,162│104,762│ 1,278│20,114│103,310

1853│ 1,789│ 3,565│ 568│ 9,594│6,767│108,926│ 1,535│22,792│121,394

───────┴───────┴──────┴────────┴──────┴─────┴───────┴────────┴──────┴───────

These statistics refer as well to the foreign stations of the Connexion

as to England and Wales; but the deduction to be made upon this account

will not exceed two or three per cent. of the above figures. The number

of chapels, &c. returned by the Census officers was only 2871, so that

many of the above must probably be small rooms, which thus escaped the

notice of the enumerators. The number of connexional circuits and

missions is, altogether, 313, of which, 13 are in Canada, 2 in South

Australia, 1 in New South Wales, 1 in Victoria, and 3 in New Zealand.

The “Missions,” whether abroad or at home, are localities in which the

labours of the preachers are remunerated not from local sources, but

from the circuit contributions, or from the general funds of the

Connexion appropriated to missions.

The doctrines held by the Primitive Methodists are precisely similar to

those maintained by the Original Connexion, and the outline of their

ecclesiastical polity is also similar, the chief distinction being the

admission, by the former body, of lay representatives to the Conference,

and the generally greater influence allowed, in all the various courts,

to laymen.

Camp meetings, though occasionally held, are much less frequent now than

formerly: the people, it is thought, are more accessible than 50 years

ago to other agencies.

BIBLE CHRISTIANS.

The “Bible Christians” (sometimes called Bryanites) are included here

among the Methodist communities, more from a reference to their

sentiments and polity than to their origin. The body, indeed, was not

the result of a secession from the Methodist Connexion, but was rather

the origination of a new community, which, as it grew, adopted the

essential principles of Methodism.

The founder of the body was Mr. William O’Bryan, a Wesleyan local

preacher in Cornwall, who, in 1815, separated from the Wesleyans, and

began himself to form societies upon the Methodist plan. In a very few

years considerable advance was made, and throughout Devonshire and

Cornwall many societies were established; so that, in 1819, there were

nearly 30 itinerant preachers. In that year, the first Conference was

held, when the Connexion was divided into 12 circuits. Mr. O’Bryan

withdrew from the body in 1829.

In doctrinal profession there is no distinction between “Bible

Christians” and the various bodies of Arminian Methodists.

The forms of public worship, too, are of the same simple character; but,

in the administration of the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, “it is

usual to receive the elements in a sitting posture, as it is believed

that that practice is more conformable to the posture of body in which

it was at first received by Christ’s apostles, than kneeling; but

persons are at liberty to kneel, if it be more suitable to their views

and feelings to do so.”

According to the Census returns, the number of chapels belonging to the

body in England and Wales in 1851 was 482; by far the greater number

being situated in the south-western counties of England. The number of

sittings, (after adding an estimate for 42 imperfect returns,) was

66,834. The attendance on the Census Sunday was: _Morning_, 14,902;

_Afternoon_, 24,345; _Evening_, 34,612; an estimate being made for eight

chapels the number of attendants at which was not stated in the returns.

The Minutes of Conference for 1852 present the following view:—

─────────────────┬─────────────────┬─────────────────┬─────────────────

│ In Circuits. │ In Home │ Total.

│ │ Missionary │

│ │ Stations. │

─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────

Chapels │ 293│ 110│ 403

Itinerant │ 61│ 52│ 113

Ministers │ │ │

Local Preachers │ 741│ 345│ 1,059

Members │ 10,146│ 3,716│ 13,862

─────────────────┴─────────────────┴─────────────────┴─────────────────

THE WESLEYAN METHODIST ASSOCIATION.

In 1834 a controversy was originated as to the propriety of the proposed

establishment of a Wesleyan Theological Institution; and a minister who

disapproved of such a measure, and prepared and published some remarks

against it, was expelled from the Connexion. Sympathizers with him were

in similar manner expelled.

The “Association” differs from the “Old Connexion” only with regard to

the specific subjects of dispute which caused the rupture. The only

variations, therefore, are in constitutional arrangements, and the

principal of these are as follows:—

The Annual Assembly (answering to the Old Wesleyan Conference) is

distinguished by the introduction of the laity as representatives. It

consists of such of the itinerant and local preachers, and other

official or private members, as the circuits, societies, or churches in

union with the Association (and contributing £50 to the support of the

ministry) elect. The number of representatives is regulated by the

number of constituents. Circuits with less than 500 members send one;

those with more than 500 and less than 1,000 send two; and such as have

more than 1,000 send three. The Annual Assembly admits persons on trial

as preachers, examines them, receives them into full connexion, appoints

them to their circuits, and excludes or censures them when necessary. It

also directs the application of all General or Connexional Funds, and

appoints a committee to represent it till the next Assembly. But it does

not interfere with strictly local matters, for “each circuit has the

right and power to govern itself by its local courts, without any

interference as to the management of its internal affairs.”

As was to be expected from the reason of its origin, the Association

gives more influence to the laity in matters of Church discipline than

is permitted by the Old Connexion. Therefore it is provided, that “no

member shall be expelled from the Association except by the direction of

a majority of a leaders’ society or circuit quarterly meeting.”

According to the Minutes of the 17th Annual Assembly, the following was

the state of the Association in England and Wales in 1852, no allowance

having, however, been made for several incomplete returns:—

Itinerant preachers and missionaries 90

Local preachers 1,016

Class leaders 1,353

Members in society 19,411

Chapels 329

Preaching places, rooms, &c. 171

Sunday schools 322

Sunday-school teachers 6,842

Sunday-school scholars 43,389

The Census Returns make mention of 419 chapels and preaching rooms,

containing (after an estimate for the sittings in 34 cases of deficient

information) accommodation for 98,813 persons. The attendance on the

Census Sunday (making an allowance for five chapels, the returns from

which are silent on this point) was: _Morning_, 32,308; _Afternoon_,

21,140; _Evening_, 40,655.

WESLEYAN METHODIST REFORMERS.

In 1840, another of the constantly recurring agitations with respect to

ministerial authority in matters of Church discipline arose, and still

continues. Some parties having circulated through the Connexion certain

anonymous pamphlets called “Fly Sheets,” in which some points of

Methodist procedure were attacked in a manner offensive to the

Conference, that body, with a view to ascertain the secret authors,

(suspected to be ministers,) adopted the expedient of tendering to every

minister in the Connexion a “Declaration,” reprobating the obnoxious

circulars, and repudiating all connexion with the authorship. Several

ministers refused submission to this test, as being an unfair attempt to

make the offending parties criminate themselves, and partaking of the

nature of an Inquisition. The Conference, however, held that such a

method of examination was both Scripturally proper, and accordant with

the usages of Methodism; and the ministers persisting in their

opposition were expelled. This stringent measure caused a great

sensation through the various societies, and meetings were convened to

sympathize with the excluded ministers. The Conference, however,

steadily pursued its policy—considered all such meetings violations of

Wesleyan order—and, acting through the superintendent ministers in all

the circuits, punished by expulsion every member who attended them. In

consequence of this proceeding, the important question was again, and

with increased anxiety, debated,—whether the admission and excision of

Church members is exclusively the duty of the minister, or whether, in

the exercise of such momentous discipline, the other members of the

Church have not a right to share.

The agitation on these questions (and on some collateral ones suggested

naturally by these) is still prevailing, and has grown extremely

formidable. It is calculated that the loss of the Old Connexion, by

expulsions and withdrawals, now amounts to 100,000 members. The

Reformers have not yet ostensibly seceded, and can therefore not be said

to form a separate Connexion. They regard themselves as still Wesleyan

Methodists, illegally expelled, and they demand the restoration of all

preachers, officers, and members who have been excluded. In the mean

time, they have set in operation a distinct machinery of Methodism,

framed according to the plan which they consider ought to be adopted by

the parent body. In their own returns it is represented that they had in

1852, 2000 chapels or preaching places, and 2800 preachers.

At the time of the Census, in March 1852, the movement was but in its

infancy; so that the returns received, though possibly an accurate

account of the then condition of the body, will fail to give an adequate

idea of its present state. From these returns it seems there were at

that time 339 chapels in connexion with the movement; having

accommodation (after estimates for 51 defective schedules) for 67,814

persons. The attendance on the Census Sunday (making an allowance for

five cases where the numbers were not given) was as follows: _Morning_,

30,470; _Afternoon_, 16,080; _Evening_, 44,953.

CALVINISTIC METHODISTS.

George Whitfield, born in 1714, the son of an innkeeper at Gloucester,

where he acted as a common drawer, was admitted as a servitor in

Pembroke College, Oxford, in 1732. Being then the subject of religious

impressions, to which the evil character of his early youth lent force

and poignancy, he naturally was attracted to those meetings for

religious exercises which the brothers Wesley had a year or two before

originated. After a long period of mental anguish, and the practice, for

some time, of physical austerities, he ultimately found relief and

comfort; and, resolving to devote himself to the labours of the

ministry, was admitted into holy orders by the bishop of Gloucester.

Preaching in various churches previous to his embarkation for Georgia,

whither he had determined to follow Mr. Wesley, his uncommon force of

oratory was at once discerned, and scenes of extraordinary popular

commotion were displayed wherever he appeared. In 1737 he left for

Georgia, just as Wesley had returned. He ministered with much success

among the settlers for three months, and then came back to England, for

the purpose of procuring aid towards the foundation of an orphan house

for the colony. The same astonishing sensation was created by his

preaching as before; the churches overflowed with eager auditors, and

crowds would sometimes stand outside. Perceiving that no edifice was

large enough to hold the numbers who desired and pressed to hear him, he

began to entertain the thought of preaching in the open air; and when,

on visiting Bristol shortly after, all the pulpits were denied to him.

he carried his idea into practice, and commenced his great experiment by

preaching to the colliers at Kingswood. His first audience numbered

about 200; the second, 2000; the third, 4000; and so from ten to

fourteen and to twenty thousand. Such success encouraged similar

attempts in London; and accordingly, when the churchwardens of Islington

forbade his entrance into the pulpit, which the vicar had offered him,

he preached in the churchyard; and, deriving more and more encouragement

from his success, he made Moorfields and Kennington Common the scenes of

his impassioned eloquence, and there controlled, persuaded, and subdued

assemblages of thirty and forty thousand of the rudest auditors. He

again departed for Georgia in 1748, founded there the orphan house, and,

requiring funds for its support, again returned to England in 1751.

Up to this period, Wesley and Whitfield had harmoniously laboured in

conjunction; but there now arose a difference of sentiment between them

on the doctrine of election, which resulted in their separation.

Whitfield held the Calvinistic tenets, Wesley the Arminian; and their

difference proving, after some discussion, to be quite irreconcilable,

they thenceforth each pursued a different path. Mr. Wesley steadily and

skilfully constructing the elaborate machinery of Wesleyan Methodism;

and Whitfield following his plan of field itinerancy, with a constant

and amazing popularity, but making no endeavour to originate a sect. He

died in New England in 1769, at the age of 55.

His followers, however, and those of other eminent evangelicals who

sympathized with his proceedings, gradually settled into separate

religious bodies, principally under two distinctive appellations; one,

the “Countess of Huntingdon’s Connexion,” and the other, the “Welsh

Calvinistic Methodists.” These, in fact, are now the only sections which

survive as individual communities; for most of Whitfield’s

congregations, not adopting any connexional bond, but existing as

independent churches, gradually became absorbed into the Congregational

body.

THE COUNTESS OF HUNTINGDON’S CONNEXION.

Selina, daughter of the Earl of Ferrers, and widow of the Earl of

Huntingdon, was one of those on whom the preaching of Whitfield made

considerable impression. In 1748 he became her chaplain; and by his

advice she assumed a kind of leadership over his followers, erected

chapels, engaged ministers or laymen to officiate in them, and founded a

college at Trevecca in South Wales, for the education of Calvinistic

preachers. After her death, this college was, in 1792, transferred to

Cheshunt, (Herts,) and there it still exists.

The doctrines of the Connexion are almost identical with those of the

Church of England, and the form of worship does not materially vary; for

the liturgy is generally employed, though extemporary prayer is

frequent.

Although the name “Connexion” is still used, there is no combined or

federal ecclesiastical government prevailing. The Congregational polity

is practically adopted; and of late years, several of the congregations

have become, in name as well as virtually, Congregational churches.

The number of chapels mentioned in the Census as belonging to this

Connexion, or described as “English Calvinistic Methodists,” was 109,

containing (after an allowance for the sittings in five chapels, the

returns for which are defective) accommodation for 38,727 persons. The

attendants on the Census Sunday (making an estimated addition for seven

chapels, the returns from which were silent on the point) were:

_Morning_, 21,103; _Afternoon_, 4380; _Evening_, 19,159.

WELSH CALVINISTIC METHODISTS.

The great revival of religion commenced in England by Wesley and

Whitfield had been preceded by a similar event in Wales. The principal

agent of its introduction there was Howel Harris, a gentleman of

Trevecca, in Brecknockshire, who, with a view to holy orders, had begun

to study at Oxford, but, offended at the immorality there prevalent, had

quitted college, and returned to Wales. He shortly afterwards began a

missionary labour in that country, going from house to house, and

preaching in the open air. A great excitement was produced; and

multitudes attended his discourses. To sustain the religious feeling

thus awakened, Mr. Harris, about the year 1736, instituted “Private

Societies,” similar to those which Wesley was, about the same time,

though without communication, forming in England. By 1739 he had

established about 300 such societies in South Wales. At first, he

encountered much hostility from magistrates and mobs; but after a time

his work was taken up by several ministers of the Church of England; one

of whom, the Reverend Daniel Rowlands, of Llangeitho, Cardigan, had such

a reputation, that “persons have been known to come 100 miles to hear

him preach on the sabbaths of his administering the Lord’s supper;” and

he had no less than 2000 communicants in his church. In 1742, 10

clergymen were assisting in the movement, and 40 or 50 lay preachers.

The first chapel was erected in 1747, at Builth in Brecknockshire.

In the mean time, North Wales began to be in similar manner roused; and,

in spite of considerable persecution, many members were enrolled, and

several chapels built. The Rev. Thomas Charles, of Bala, one of the

founders of the British and Foreign Bible Society, was, towards the

termination of the century, a prominent instrument in effecting this

result.

The growth of the movement, both in North and South Wales, was extremely

rapid; but the process of formation into a separate body was more

gradual and slow. At first, as several of the most conspicuous labourers

were clergymen of the Established Church, the sacraments were

administered exclusively by them; but, as converts multiplied, the

number of evangelical clergymen was found inadequate to the occasion:

many members were obliged to seek communion with the various dissenting

bodies; till, at last, in 1811, 12 among the Methodist preachers were

ordained, at a considerable Conference, and from that time forth the

sacraments were regularly administered by them in their own chapels, and

the body assumed distinctly the appearance of a separate Connexion.

A _county_ in Wales corresponds with a Wesleyan “Circuit,” or to a

Scottish Presbytery. All the Church officers within a county, whether

preachers or leaders of private societies, are members of the “Monthly

Meeting” of the county. The province of this meeting is to superintend

both the spiritual and secular condition of the societies within the

county.

The “Quarterly Association” performs all the functions of the Wesleyan

“Conference,” or of the “Synod” amongst Presbyterians. There are two

meetings held every quarter; one in North Wales, and the other in South

Wales. The Association consists of all the preachers and leaders of

private societies in the Connexion. “At every Association, the whole

Connexion is supposed to be present through its representatives, and the

decisions of this meeting are deemed sufficient authority on every

subject relating to the body through all its branches. It has the

prerogative to superintend the cause of Christ among the Welsh

Calvinistic Methodists through Wales and England, to inquire into the

affairs of all the private and monthly societies, and to direct any

changes or alterations which it may think requisite.” It is at this

meeting that the ministers are selected who are to administer the

sacraments.

The ministers, among the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists, are itinerant.

They are selected by the private societies, and reported to the monthly

meetings, which examine into their qualifications, and permit them to

commence on trial. A certain number only, who must previously have been

preachers for at least five years, are ordained to administer the

sacraments, and this ordination takes place at the Quarterly

Associations. The preachers are appointed each to a particular county;

but generally once in the course of a year they undertake a missionary

tour to distant parts of Wales, when they preach twice every day, on

each occasion at a different chapel. Their remuneration is derived from

the monthly pence contributed by the members of each congregation; out

of which fund a trifling sum is given to them after every sermon. In

1837, a college for the education of ministers was established at Bala,

and in 1842 another was established at Trevecca.

The doctrines of the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists may be inferred from

the appellation of the body, and be said to be substantially accordant

with the Articles of the Established Church, interpreted according to

their Calvinistic sense.

The number of chapels returned at the Census as pertaining to the body

was 828; containing (after an estimate for 53 chapels which made no

return of sittings) accommodation for 211,951 persons. The _attendance_

on the Census Sunday was: _Morning_, 79,728; _Afternoon_, 59,140;

_Evening_, 125,244. It is computed that the body have expended in the

erection and repairs of their chapels, between the year 1747 and the

present time, a sum amounting to nearly a million sterling. From the

“_Dyddiadwr Methodistaidd_” for 1853 we learn that the number of

ministers was 207, and of preachers 234. The number of communicants was

stated on the same authority at 58,577.

The principal societies supported by the Connexion are those connected

with Home and Foreign Missions; the contributions to which amount to

about £3000 a year. The operations of the Home Mission are carried on

among the English population inhabiting the borders between England and

Wales. The Foreign Mission has a station in Brittany (north-west of

France)—the language of that country being a sister dialect of the

Welsh—and stations at Cassay and Sylhet in India, the presidency of

Bengal.

METROPOLITAN. (See _Archbishop_, _Bishop_.) The bishop who presides over

the other bishops of a province. The writers of the Latin Church use

promiscuously the words archbishop and metropolitan, making either name

denote a bishop, who, by virtue of his see, presides over or governs

several other bishops. Thus in England the archbishops of Canterbury and

York, and in Ireland the archbishops of Armagh and Dublin, are

metropolitans. But the Greeks use the name only to denote him whose see

is really a civil metropolis. There are some bishops in our Church who

are metropolitans without the title of archbishop, viz. the bishops of

Calcutta and Sydney.

MICHAEL, ST., AND ALL ANGELS. A festival of the Christian Church

observed on the 29th of September.

The Scripture account of Michael is; that he was an archangel, who

presided over the Jewish nation, as other angels did over the Gentile

world, as is evident of the kingdoms of Persia and Greece; that he had

an army of angels under his command; that he fought with the dragon, or

Satan and his angels; and that, contending with the devil, he disputed

about the body of Moses.

As to the combat between Michael and the dragon, some authors understand

it literally, and think it means the expulsion of certain rebellious

angels, with their head or leader, from the presence of GOD. Others take

it in a figurative sense, and refer it, either to the contest that

happened at Rome between St. Peter and Simon Magus, in which the apostle

prevailed over the magician; or to those violent persecutions, under

which the Church laboured for three hundred years, and which happily

ceased when the powers of the world became Christian.

The contest about the body of Moses is, likewise, taken both literally

and figuratively. Those who understand it literally are of opinion, that

Michael, by the order of GOD, hid the body of Moses after his death, and

that the devil endeavoured to discover it, as a fit means to entice the

people to idolatry by a superstitious worship of his relics. But this

dispute is figuratively understood to be a controversy about rebuilding

the temple, and restoring the service of GOD among the Jews at

Jerusalem, the Jewish Church being fitly enough styled “the body of

Moses.” It is thought by some that this story of the contest between

Michael and the devil was taken by St. Jude out of an apocryphal book,

called “The Assumption of Moses.”—_Broughton._

MILITANT. (From _militans_, “fighting.”) A term applied to the Church on

earth, as engaged in a warfare with the world, sin, and the devil; in

distinction from the Church _triumphant_ in heaven. It is used in the

prefatory sentence of the prayer after the Offertory in our Communion

Service, and was first inserted in the Second Book of King Edward VI.

MILLENARIANS and MILLENNIUM. A name which is given to those who believe

that Christ will reign personally for a thousand years upon earth, their

designation being derived from the Latin words, _mille_, “a thousand,”

and _annus_, “a year.” In the words of Greswell, we may define their

doctrine and expectation, generally, as the belief of a second personal

advent or return of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, some time before the end of

the present state of things on the earth; a resurrection of a part of

the dead in the body, concurrently with that return; the establishment

of a kingdom, for a certain length of time, upon earth, of which JESUS

CHRIST will be the sovereign head, and good and holy men who lived under

the Mosaic dispensation before the gospel æra, or have lived under the

Christian, since, whether previously raised to life, or found alive in

the flesh at the time of the return, will be the subjects, and in some

manner or other admitted to a share of its privileges.

This is what is meant by the doctrine of the Millennium in general: the

fact of a return of JESUS CHRIST in person before the end of the world;

of a first or particular resurrection of the dead; of a reign of CHRIST,

with all saints, on the earth; and all this before the present state of

things is at an end, and before time and sense, whose proper period of

being is commensurate with the duration of the present state of things,

have given place to spirit and eternity in heaven.

The Millenarian, says the same learned writer, Mr. Greswell, expects the

following events, and as far as he can infer their connexion, in the

following order, though that is not, in every instance, a point of

paramount importance, or absolute certainty, on which room for the

possibility of a different succession of particulars may not be allowed

to exist.

First, a personal reappearance of the prophet Elijah, before any second

advent of JESUS CHRIST.

Secondly, a second advent of JESUS CHRIST in person, before his coming

to judgment at the end of the world.

Thirdly, a conversion of the Jews to Christianity, collectively, and as

a nation.

Fourthly, a resurrection of part of the dead, such as is called, by way

of distinction, “the resurrection of the just.”

Fifthly, the restitution of the kingdom to Israel, including the

appearance and manifestation of the Messiah to the Jews, in the

character of a temporal monarch.

Sixthly, a conformation of this kingdom to a state or condition of

society of which CHRIST will be the head, and faithful believers, both

Jews and Gentiles, will be the members.

A distribution of rewards and dignities in it, proportioned to the

respective merits or good deserts of the receivers.

A resulting state of things, which though transacted upon earth, and

adapted to the nature and conditions of a human society as such, leaves

nothing to be desired for its perfection and happiness.

Bishop Newton, in his “Dissertations on the Prophecies,” says, with

reference to the millennium, when these great events shall come to pass,

of which we collect from the prophecies, this is to be the proper order:

the Protestant witnesses shall be greatly exalted, and the 1260 years of

their prophesying in sackcloth, and of the tyranny of the beast, shall

end together; the conversion and restoration of the Jews succeed; then

follows the ruin of the Ottoman empire; and then the total destruction

of Rome and of antichrist. When these great events, I say, shall come to

pass, then shall the kingdom of CHRIST commence, or the reign of the

saints upon earth. So Daniel expressly informs us that the kingdom of

CHRIST and the saints will be raised upon the ruins of the kingdom of

antichrist (vii. 26, 27). “But the judgment shall sit, and they shall

take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end; and

the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the

whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most

High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall

serve and obey him.” So likewise St. John saith, that, upon the final

destruction of the beast and the false prophet, (Rev. xx.,) “Satan is

bound for a thousand years: and I saw thrones, and they sat upon them,

and judgment was given unto them; and I saw the souls of them that were

beheaded for the witness of JESUS CHRIST and for the word of GOD, which

had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received

his mark upon their foreheads or in their hands: and they lived and

reigned with CHRIST a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not

again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first

resurrection.” It is, I conceive, to these great events, the fall of

antichrist, the re-establishment of the Jews, and the beginning of the

glorious millennium, that the three different dates in Daniel of 1260

years, 1290 years, and 1335 years, are to be referred. And as Daniel

saith, (xii. 12,) “Blessed is he that waiteth and cometh to the 1335

years;” so St. John saith, (Rev. xx. 6,) “Blessed and holy is he that

hath part in the first resurrection.” Blessed and happy indeed will be

this period: and it is very observable that the martyrs and confessors

of JESUS, in Papist as well as Pagan times, will be raised to partake of

this felicity. Then shall all those gracious promises in the Old

Testament be fulfilled, of the amplitude and extent, of the peace and

prosperity, of the glory and happiness of the Church in the latter days.

“Then,” in the full sense of the words, (Rev. xi. 15,) “shall the

kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our LORD, and of his

CHRIST, and he shall reign for ever and ever.” According to tradition,

these thousand years of the reign of CHRIST and the saints will be the

seventh millenary of the world; for as GOD created the world in six

days, and rested on the seventh, so the world, it is argued, will

continue six thousand years, and the seventh thousand will be the great

Sabbatism, or holy rest of the people of GOD; “One day (2 Pet. iii. 8)

being with the LORD as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one

day.” According to tradition, too, these thousand years of the reign of

CHRIST and the saints are the great “day of judgment,” in the morning or

beginning whereof shall be the coming of CHRIST in flaming fire, and the

particular judgment of antichrist and the first resurrection; and in the

evening or conclusion whereof shall be the general resurrection of the

dead, “small and great; and they shall be judged, every man, according

to their works!”

MINIMS. A religious order, in the Church of Rome, whose founder was St.

Francis de Paulu, so called from the place in Calabria, where he was

born in 1416.

He composed his rule in 1493, and it was approved by Pope Alexander VI.,

at the recommendation of the king of France. This pontiff changed the

name of _Hermits of St. Francis_, which these monks bore, into that of

Minims, (the _Least_,) because they called themselves in humility

_Minimi Fratres Eremitæ_, and gave them all the privileges of the

religious mendicant or begging friars. In 1507, the holy founder of this

order died, at the age of ninety-one years, and was canonized by Pope

Leo X., in 1519. His body was preserved in the church of the convent of

Plessis, until the Huguenots, in 1562, dragged it out of its tomb, and

burnt it with the wood of a crucifix belonging to the church. His bones,

however, were saved out of the fire by some zealous Catholics who mixed

with the Calvinist soldiers, and were distributed afterwards among

several churches.

This order is divided into thirty-one provinces, of which twelve are in

Italy, eleven in France and Flanders, seven in Spain, and one in

Germany. It has, at present, about 450 convents. The Minims have passed

even into the Indies, where there are some convents which do not compose

provinces, but depend immediately on the general.

What more particularly distinguishes these monks from all others, is the

observation of what they call the _quadragesimal life_, that is, a total

abstinence from flesh, and everything which has its origin from flesh,

as eggs, butter, cheese, excepting in case of great sickness. By this

means they make the year one continued Lent fast. Their habit is coarse

black woollen stuff, with a woollen girdle of the same colour, tied in

five knots. They are not permitted to quit their habit and girdle night

nor day. Formerly they went barefooted, but for these last hundred years

they have been allowed the use of shoes.

MINOR CANONS. Priests in collegiate churches, next in rank to the canons

and prebendaries, but not of the chapter, who are responsible for the

performance of the daily service. In cathedrals of the old foundation,

they are not often found, their duties being generally performed there

by priest-vicars. There are minor canons at St. Patrick’s, Hereford, and

Chichester, and formerly were at Salisbury; and at all those places

there are priest-vicars also: twelve minor canons at St. Paul’s, and

seven at Windsor, where there are only lay-vicars besides. It appears

from the original statutes of St. Patrick’s and St. Paul’s, that the

minor canons held a middle place between the canons and vicars; and that

besides their attendance on the daily service, they were required to

take the place of the major canons when required. At Hereford, they are

responsible for the reading of the daily prayers, the vicars choral for

the Litany and lessons; which seems to mark this office as being more

presbyteral than that of the vicars.

As the number of minor canons is generally but four or five, (at St.

Patrick’s statutably six, though there never have been more than four,)

it would appear as if these offices were originally instituted to supply

the place of the four junior canons, whose proper duty it was to perform

the daily service of the choir. Thus, in the _Causes Celebres_, viii.

345, on remarking on the constitution of the cathedral of Verdun, it is

stated that, “par le service de chœur, on entend l’obligation des quatre

chanonies qui sont dans les ordres sacrés, de porter la chappe, et de

faire chœur tous les jours de l’année à leur tour. Cette fonction

pénible a déja été retranchée; elle a été exercée par des chapelains,

gagés par les nouveaux chanonies,” &c. _Chaplain_ and minor canon are

convertible terms in many churches abroad, as at St. Peter’s at Rome,

where there are fifty minor canons or chaplains. (_Eustace’s Classical

Tour._) At Rouen there were eight _Moindees Chanonies_. They were

elsewhere called semi (or demi) prebendaries.

The minor canons of St. Paul and of St. Patrick form corporate bodies,

and had their common hall and collegiate buildings in ancient times.

There is also a college of vicars-choral at St. Patrick’s. At Hereford

the minor canonries are held by priest-vicars; but they have separate

estates, as minor canons, with designation, like prebendaries, for their

individual stalls.

In the cathedrals of the new foundation there are no priest-vicars, but

all the inferior clerical members are minor canons. They ought to be all

priests, and skilled in church music, according to the statutes, a

qualification required by the laws of all cathedrals. Formerly the minor

canons were more numerous than now, being commensurate to the number of

the prebendaries: e. g. twelve at Canterbury, twelve at Durham, ten at

Worcester: a number by no means too great for the due and solemn

performance of the service. They were in fact, but not in name, the

vicars of the prebendaries.—_Jebb._

MINISTER. This is the Latin term to designate that officer who is styled

deacon in Greek. The term was applied generally to the clergy about the

time of the great rebellion, since which time it has been used to denote

the preacher of any religion. Joseph Mede protested against our calling

presbyters ministers of the Church, or of such or such a parish: we

should call them, he observes, ministers of GOD, or ministers of CHRIST,

not ministers of men, because they are only GOD’S ministers, who sends

them, but the people’s pastors, to teach, instruct, and oversee them.

Were it not absurd to call the shepherd the sheep’s minister? The word

has, however, obtained such general currency, that it would be pedantic

to refuse to use it. The word seems generally to imply an assistant,

whether presbyteral or diaconal, in Divine service. Thus in the statutes

of the cathedrals of the new foundation, the minor canons and other

members of the choir are called _minister_. These represent the deacons,

readers, chanters, &c. of the ancient Church.

Some trace of the division of the service between the superior and

inferior clergy, (the priest and the deacon,) is perhaps still visible

in our liturgy. The word _minister_ is prefixed, in the order both for

Morning and Evening Prayer, to those parts of the service only where

there is exhortation, or in which the people audibly join, or which are

said kneeling, such as the General Confession, LORD’S Prayer, Apostles’

Creed, and Lesser Litany. _Minister_ also occurs in one of the rubrics

respecting the reading of the lessons, which the custom of the Church,

both Eastern and Western, has always permitted to the inferior

ministers. The word _priest_ is prefixed to the absolution, and to all

those prayers which the clergyman performs standing; such as the

versicles before the psalms, beginning at the Gloria Patri, and those

before the collects. To the collects themselves no direction is

prefixed. There are a few exceptions which may be accounted for.

MINORESS. A nun under the rule of St. Clair.

MIRACLE. An effect that does not follow from any of the regular laws of

nature, or which is inconsistent with some law of it, or contrary to the

settled constitution and course of things: accordingly, all miracles

pre-suppose an established system of nature, within the limits of which

they operate, and with the order of which they disagree.

The following statement is true beyond controversy:—Man cannot, in the

present constitution of his mind, believe that religion has a Divine

origin, unless it be accompanied with miracles. The necessary inference

of the mind is, that if an Infinite Being act, his acts will be

superhuman in their character; because the effect, reason dictates, will

be characterized by the nature of its cause. Man has the same reason to

expect that GOD will perform acts above human power and knowledge, that

he has to suppose the inferior orders of animals will, in their actions,

sink below the power and wisdom which characterize human nature. For, as

it is natural for man to perform acts superior to the power and

knowledge of the animals beneath him, so reason affirms that it is

natural for GOD to develope his power by means and in ways above the

skill and ability of mortals. Hence, if GOD manifest himself at

all—unless, in accommodation to the capacities of men, he should

constrain his manifestations within the compass of human ability—every

act of GOD’S immediate power would, to human capacity, be a miracle.

But, if GOD were to constrain all his acts within the limits of human

means and agencies, it would be impossible for man to discriminate

between the acts of the GODHEAD and the acts of the manhood. And man, if

he considered acts to be of a Divine origin which were plainly within

the compass of human ability, would violate his own reason.

Suppose, for illustration, that GOD desired to reveal a religion to men,

and wished them to recognise his character and his benevolence in giving

that revelation. Suppose, further, that GOD should give such a

revelation, and that every appearance and every act connected with its

introduction were characterized by nothing superior to human power;

could any rational mind on earth believe that such a system of religion

came from GOD? Impossible! A man could as easily be made to believe that

his own child, who possessed his own lineaments, and his own nature,

belonged to some other world, and some other order of the creation. It

would not be possible for GOD to convince men that a religion was from

heaven, unless it was accompanied with the marks of Divine power.

Suppose, again, that some individual were to appear either in the

heathen or Christian world—that he claimed to be a teacher sent from

GOD, yet aspired to the performance of no miracles—that he assumed to do

nothing superior to the wisdom and ability of other men. Such an

individual, although he might succeed in gaining proselytes to some

particular view of a religion already believed, yet he could never make

men believe that he had a special commission from GOD to establish a new

religion, for the simple reason that he had no grounds more than his

fellows, to support his claims as an agent of the Almighty. But if he

could convince a single individual that he had wrought a miracle, or

that he had power to do so, that moment his claims would be established

in that mind as a commissioned agent from Heaven. So certainly and so

intuitively do the minds of men revere and expect miracles as the

credentials of the Divine presence.

This demand of the mind for miracles, as testimony of the Divine

presence and power, is intuitive with all men; and those very

individuals who have doubted the existence or necessity of miracles,

should they examine their own convictions on this subject, would see

that, by an absolute necessity, if they desired to give the world a

system of religion, whether truth or imposture, in order to make men

receive it as of Divine authority, they must work miracles to attest its

truth, or make men believe that they did so. Men can produce doubt of a

revelation in no way until they have destroyed the evidence of its

miracles; nor can faith be produced in the Divine origin of a religion

until the evidence of miracles is supplied.

The conviction that miracles are the true attestation of immediate

Divine agency, is so constitutional (allow the expression) with the

reason, that so soon as men persuade themselves they are the special

agents of GOD in propagating some particular truth in the world, they

adopt likewise the belief that they have ability to work miracles. There

have been many sincere enthusiasts, who believed that they were special

agents of Heaven; and, in such cases, the conviction of their own

miraculous powers arises as a necessary concomitant of the other

opinion. Among such, in modern times, may be instanced Emanuel

Swedenborg, and Irving, the Scotch preacher. Impostors also, perceiving

that miracles were necessary in order that the human mind should receive

a religion as Divine, have invariably claimed miraculous powers. Such

instances recur constantly from the days of Elymas down to the Mormon,

Joseph Smith.

All the multitude of false religions that have been believed since the

world began, have been introduced by the power of this principle.

Miracles believed, lie at the foundation of all religions which men have

ever received as of Divine origin. No matter how degrading or repulsive

to reason in other respects, the fact of its establishment and

propagation grows out of the belief of men that miraculous agency lies

at the bottom. This belief will give currency to any system, however

absurd; and, without it, no system can be established in the minds of

men, however high and holy may be its origin and its design.

Such, then, is the constitution which the Maker has given to the mind.

Whether the conviction be an intuition or an induction of the reason,

GOD is the primary cause of its existence; and its existence puts it out

of the power of man to receive a revelation from GOD himself, unless

accompanied with miraculous manifestations. If, therefore, GOD ever gave

a revelation to man, it was necessarily accompanied with miracles, and

with miracles of such a nature, as would clearly distinguish the Divine

character and the Divine authority of the dispensation.—_Plan of the

Philosophy of Salvation._

MIRACLES, or MIRACLE-PLAYS. (See _Moralities_.)

MISCHNA, or MISNA. A part of the Jewish Talmud. From a word which

signifies _repetition_: i. e. a secondary law. It is believed by the

Jews to be the tradition delivered, unwritten, to Moses by GOD; and

preserved only by the doctors of the synagogue till the time of Rabbi

Judas the Holy, who committed it to writing about A. D. 180. It is in

fact the canon and civil law of the Jews; treating of tithes, festivals,

matrimonial laws, mercantile laws, idolatry, oaths, sacrifices, and

purifications. The heads of the synagogue who are said to have preserved

the Mischna, were thought to have had the privilege of hearing the

_Bath-Col_, or oracular voice of God. (See _Bath-Col_.) The Mischna

contains the text; and the Gemara, which is the second part of the

Talmud, contains the commentaries; so that the Gemara is, as it were, a

glossary to the Mischna.

MISERERE. The seat of a stall, so contrived as to turn up and down,

according as it is wanted as a support in long standing, or as a seat.

Misereres are almost always carved, and often very richly; more often,

too, than any other part of the wood-work, with grotesques.

MISSAL. (See _Mass_.) In the Romish Church, a book containing the

services of the mass for the various days of the year. In the ancient

Church, the several parts of Divine service were arranged in distinct

books. Thus the collects and the invariable portion of the Communion

Office formed the book called the _Sacramentary_. The lessons from the

Old and New Testaments constituted the _Lectionary_, and the Gospels

made another volume, with the title of _Evangelistarium_. The

_Antiphonary_ consisted of anthems, &c. designed for chanting.

About the eleventh or twelfth century it was found convenient,

generally, to unite these books, and the volume obtained the name of the

Complete or Plenary _Missal_, or Book of Missæ. Of this description were

almost all the liturgical books of the Western Churches, and the

arrangement is still preserved in our own.—_Palmer’s Origines

Liturgicæ._

MISSION. A power or commission to preach the gospel. Thus our blessed

LORD gave his disciples and their successors the bishops their mission,

when he said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every

creature.”

It certainly is essential that the true ministers of GOD should be able

to prove that they have not only the power, but the right, of performing

sacred offices. There is an evident difference between these things, as

may be seen by the following cases. If a regularly ordained priest

should celebrate the eucharist in the church of another, contrary to the

will of that person and of the bishop, he would have the _power_ of

consecrating the eucharist, it actually would be consecrated; but he

would not have the _right_ of consecrating; or, in other words, he would

not have _mission_ for that act. If a bishop should enter the diocese of

another bishop, and, contrary to his will, ordain one of his deacons to

the priesthood, the intruding bishop would have the power, but not the

right, of ordaining; he would have no mission for such an act.

In fact, mission fails in all schismatical, heretical, and uncanonical

acts, because GOD cannot have given any man a right to act in opposition

to those laws which he himself has enacted, or to those which the

apostles and their successors have instituted, for the orderly and

peaceable regulation of the Church: he “is not the author of confusion,

but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints” (1 Cor. xiv. 33);

and yet, were he to commission his ministers to exercise their offices

in whatever places and circumstances they pleased, confusion and

division without end must be the inevitable result.

Mission can only be given for acts in accordance with the Divine and

ecclesiastical laws, the latter of which derive their authority from the

former; and it is conferred by valid ordination. It would be easy to

prove this in several ways; but it is enough at present to say, that no

other method can be pointed out by which mission is given. Should the

ordination be valid, and yet uncanonical, mission does not take effect

until the suspension imposed by the canons on the person ordained is in

some lawful manner removed.

Mr. Palmer, from whom the above remarks are taken, shows, in his

_Origines Liturgicæ_, that the English bishops and clergy alone have

mission in England.

MISSIONARY. A clergyman, whether bishop, priest, or deacon, deputed or

sent out by ecclesiastical authority, to preach the gospel, and exercise

his other functions, in places where the Church has hitherto been

unknown, or is in the infancy of its establishment.

MITRE. The episcopal coronet. From Eusebius it seems that St. John wore

an ornament which many have considered to be a mitre (φέταλον).

The most ancient mitres were very low and simple, being not more than

from three to six inches in elevation, and they thus continued till the

end of the thirteenth century. In the fourteenth century they gradually

increased in height to a foot or more, and became more superbly

enriched; their contours also presented a degree of convexity by which

they were distinguished from the older mitres. The two horns of the

mitre are generally taken to be an allusion to the cloven tongues as of

fire, which rested on each of the apostles on the day of Pentecost.

Mitres, although worn in some of the Lutheran Churches, (as in Sweden,)

have fallen into utter desuetude in England, even at coronations. They

were worn however at the coronations of Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth.

See Hiereugia Anglicana, p. 81, et seq. In which work, however, at p.

89, there is an assertion of Dr. Milner’s, which is incorrect, viz. that

they were worn at the coronation of George III. In the detailed accounts

of that ceremony (see e. g. the Annual Register for 1761) the bishops

are described as carrying their square caps, and putting them on when

the lay peers assumed their coronets. The mitre is now merely an

heraldic decoration, and, as such, occasionally carried at funerals.

MODUS DECIMANDI. This is when lands, or a yearly pension, or some money

or other thing, is given to a parson in lieu of his tithes.

MONASTERIES. Convents or houses built for those who profess the monastic

life, whether abbeys, priories, or nunneries. (For the origin of

monasteries, see _Abbey_ and _Monk_.)

In their first institution, and in their subsequent uses, there can be

no doubt that monasteries were amongst the most remarkable instances of

Christian munificence, and they certainly were in the dark ages among

the beneficial adaptations of the talents of Christians to pious and

charitable ends. They were schools of education and learning, where the

children of the great received their education; and they were hospitals

for the poor: they afforded also a retirement for the worn-out servants

of the rich and noble; they protected the calmer spirits, who, in an age

of universal warfare, shrunk from conflict, and desired to lead a

contemplative life. But the evils which grew out of those societies seem

quite to have counterbalanced the good. Being often exempted from the

authority of the bishop, they became hotbeds of ecclesiastical

insubordination; and were little else but parties of privileged

sectaries within the Church. The temptations arising out of a state of

celibacy, too often in the first instance enforced by improper means,

and always bound upon the members of these societies by a religious vow,

were the occasion of great scandal. And the enormous wealth with which

some of them were endowed, brought with it a greater degree of pride,

and ostentation, and luxury, than was becoming in Christians; and still

more in those who had vowed a life of religion and asceticism.

The dissolution of houses of this kind began so early as the year 1312,

when the Templars were suppressed; and, in 1323, their lands, churches,

advowsons, and liberties, here in England, were given by 17 Edward II.

stat. iii. to the prior and brethren of the hospital of St. John of

Jerusalem. In the years 1390, 1437, 1441, 1459, 1497, 1505, 1508, and

1515, several other houses were dissolved, and their revenues settled on

different colleges in Oxford and Cambridge. Soon after the last period,

Cardinal Wolsey, by licence of the king and pope, obtained a dissolution

of above thirty religious houses for the founding and endowing his

colleges at Oxford and Ipswich. About the same time a bull was granted

by the same pope to Cardinal Wolsey to suppress monasteries, where there

were not above six monks, to the value of eight thousand ducats a year,

for endowing Windsor and King’s College in Cambridge; and two other

bulls were granted to Cardinals Wolsey and Campeius, where there were

less than twelve monks, to annex them to the greater monasteries; and

another bull to the same cardinals to inquire about abbeys to be

suppressed in order to be made cathedrals. Although nothing appears to

have been done in consequence of these bulls, the motive which induced

Wolsey and many others to suppress these houses, was the desire of

promoting learning; and Archbishop Cranmer engaged in such suppression

with a view of carrying on the reformation. There were other causes that

concurred to bring on their ruin: many of the monks were loose and

vicious; they were generally thought to be in their hearts attached to

the pope’s supremacy; their revenues were not employed according to the

intent of the donors; many cheats in images, feigned miracles, and

counterfeit relics, had been discovered, which brought the monks into

disgrace; the Observant friars had opposed the king’s divorce from Queen

Catharine; and these circumstances operated, in concurrence with the

king’s want of a supply, and the people’s desire to save their money, to

forward a motion in parliament, that, in order to support the king’s

state, and supply his wants, all the religious houses which were not

able to spend above £200 a year, might be conferred upon the Crown; and

an act was passed for that purpose, 27 Henry VIII. c. 28. By this act

about 380 houses were dissolved, and a revenue of £30,000 or £32,000 a

year came to the Crown; besides about £200,000 in plate and jewels. The

suppression of these houses occasioned discontent, and at length an open

rebellion: when this was appeased, the king resolved to suppress the

rest of the monasteries, and appointed a new visitation, which caused

the greater abbeys to be surrendered apace; and it was enacted by 31

Henry VIII. c. 13, that all monasteries which had been surrendered since

the 4th of February, in the twenty-seventh year of his Majesty’s reign,

and which thereafter should be surrendered, should be vested in the

king. The knights of St. John of Jerusalem were also suppressed by the

32nd Henry VIII. c. 24. The suppression of these greater houses by these

two acts produced a revenue to the king of above £100,000 a year,

besides a large sum in plate and jewels. The last act of dissolution in

this king’s reign was the act of 37 Henry VIII. c. 4, for dissolving

colleges, free chapels, chantries, &c., which act was further enforced

by 1 Edward VI. c. 14. By this act were suppressed 90 colleges, 110

hospitals, and 2374 chantries and free chapels.

Whatever were the offences of the race of men then inhabiting them, this

destruction of the monasteries was nothing less than sacrilege, and can

on no ground be justified. They were the property of the Church; and if,

while the Church cast off divers errors in doctrine which she had too

long endured, she had been permitted to purge these institutions of some

practical errors, and of certain flagrant vices, they might have been

exceedingly serviceable to the cause of religion. Cranmer felt this very

forcibly, and begged earnestly of Henry VIII. that he would save some of

the monasteries for holy and religious uses; but in vain. Ridley also

was equally anxious for their preservation. It is a mistake to suppose

that the monasteries were erected and endowed by Papists. Many of them

were endowed before most of the errors of the Papists were thought of:

and the founders of abbeys afterwards built and endowed them, not as

Papists, but as churchmen; and when the Church became pure, she did not

lose any portion of her right to such endowments as were always made in

supposition of her purity. (See Num. xviii. 32; Lev. xxv. 23, 24; Ezek.

xlviii. 14.)

Although much of the confiscated property was profligately squandered

and consumed by the Russells, the Cavendishes, &c., still, out of the

receipts, Henry VIII. founded six new bishoprics, viz. those of

Westminster, (which was changed by Queen Elizabeth into a deanery, with

twelve prebends and a school,) Peterborough, Chester, Gloucester,

Bristol, and Oxford. And in eight other sees he founded deaneries and

chapters, by converting the priors and monks into deans and

prebendaries, viz. Canterbury, Winchester, Durham, Worcester, Rochester,

Norwich, Ely, and Carlisle. He founded also the colleges of Christ

Church in Oxford, and Trinity in Cambridge, and finished King’s College

there. He likewise founded professorships of divinity, law, physic, and

of the Hebrew and Greek tongues in both the said universities. He gave

the house of Greyfriars and St. Bartholomew’s Hospital to the city of

London, and a perpetual pension to the poor knights of Windsor, and laid

out great sums in building and fortifying many ports in the Channel. It

is observable that the dissolution of these houses was an act, not of

the Church, but of the State, in the period preceding the Reformation,

by a king and parliament of the Roman Catholic communion in all points

except the king’s supremacy; to which the pope himself, by his bulls and

licences, had led the way.

Of the monasteries which had been attached to cathedrals before the

Reformation, the heads were called Priors, (which answered to dean,)

never Abbots; as the bishop was considered as virtually the abbot. The

bishop of Ely actually occupied, as he still does, the abbot’s place in

the choir, (i. e. the stall usually assigned by the dean,) as he did

since the Reformation at Carlisle, though in the latter place he had a

throne also. Christ Church monastery in Dublin, which had always been a

cathedral chapter, was also secularized at the Reformation.

MONASTERY. In architectural arrangement, monastic establishments,

whether abbeys, priories, or other convents, followed nearly the same

plan.

The great enclosure, (varying, of course, in extent with the wealth and

importance of the monastery,) and generally with a stream running beside

it, was surrounded by a wall, the principal entrance being through a

_gateway_ to the west or north-west. This gateway was a considerable

building, and often contained a chapel, with its altar, besides the

necessary accommodation for the porter. The _almery_, or place where

alms were distributed, stood not far within the great gate, and

generally a little to the right hand: there, too, was often a chapel

with its altar. Proceeding onwards the west entrance of the church

appeared. The church itself was always, where it received its due

development, in the form of a Latin cross; a cross, i.e. of which the

transepts are short in proportion to the nave. Moreover, in Norman

churches, the eastern limb never approached the nave or western limb in

length. Whether or no the reason of this preference of the Latin cross

is found in the domestic arrangements of the monastic buildings, it was

certainly best adapted to it; for the nave of the church with one of the

transepts formed the whole of one side and part of another side of a

quadrangle; and any other than a long nave would have involved a small

quadrangle, while a long transept would leave too little of another

side, or none at all, for other buildings. How the internal arrangements

were affected by this adaptation of the nave to external requirements,

we have seen under the head _Cathedral_, to which also we refer for the

general description of the conventual church.

Southward of the church, and parallel with the south transept, was

carried the western range of the monastic offices; but it will be more

convenient to examine their arrangement within the court. We enter then

by a door near the west end of the church, and passing through a vaulted

passage, find ourselves in the _cloister court_, of which the nave of

the church forms the northern side, the transept part of the eastern

side and other buildings, in the order to be presently described,

complete the quadrangle. The _cloisters_ themselves extended around the

whole of the quadrangle, serving, among other purposes, as a covered way

from every part of the convent to every other part. They were furnished,

perhaps always, with _lavatories_, on the decoration and construction of

which much cost was expended; and sometimes also with desks and closets

of wainscot, which served the purpose of a _scriptorium_.

Commencing the circuit of the cloisters at the north-west corner, and

turning southward, we have first the _dormitory_, or _dorter_, the use

of which is sufficiently indicated by its name. This occupied the whole

of the western side of the quadrangle, and had sometimes a groined

passage beneath its whole length, called the _ambulatory_, a noble

example of which, in perfect preservation, remains at Fountains. The

south side of the quadrangle contained the _refectory_, with its

correlative, the _coquina_ or _kitchen_, which was sometimes at its

side, and sometimes behind it. The refectory was furnished with a

pulpit, for the reading of some portion of Scripture during meals. On

this side of the quadrangle may also be found, in general, the

_locutorium_, or _parlour_, the latter word being, at least in

etymology, the full equivalent of the former. The _abbot’s lodge_

commonly commenced at the south-east corner of the quadrangle; but,

instead of conforming itself to its general direction, rather extended

eastward, with its own chapel, hall, parlour, kitchen, and other

offices, in a line parallel with the choir or eastern limb of the

church. Turning northwards, still continuing within the cloisters, we

come first to an open passage leading outwards, then to the

_chapter-house_, or its vestibule; then, after another open passage, to

the south transept of the church. Immediately before us is an entrance

into the church, and another occurs at the end of the west cloister.

The parts of the establishment especially connected with _sewerage_,

were built over or close to the stream; and we may remark that, both in

drainage, and in the supply of water, great and laudable care was always

taken.

The stream also turned the _abbey mill_, at a small distance from the

monastery. Other offices, such as _stables_, _brew-houses_,

_bake-houses_, and the like, in the larger establishments, usually

occupied another court; and, in the smaller, were connected with the

chief buildings in the only quadrangle. It is needless to say that, in

so general an account, we cannot enumerate exceptional cases. It may,

however, be necessary to say, that the greatest difference of all, that

of placing the quadrangle at the north instead of the south side of the

church, is not unknown; it is so at Canterbury and at Lincoln, for

instance.

The subject may be followed out in the several plans of monasteries

scattered among our topographical works, and in a paper read by Mr.

Bloxam before the Bedfordshire Architectural Society, and published in

their Report for 1850.

MONKS. The word monk, being derived from the Greek μόνος, _solus_,

signifies the same as a solitary, or one who lives sequestered from the

company and conversation of the rest of the world, and is usually

applied to those who dedicate themselves wholly to the service of

religion, in some monastery (as it is called) or religious house, and

under the direction of some particular statutes, or rule. Those of the

female sex who devote themselves in like manner to a religious life, are

called nuns. (See _Nuns_.)

There is some difference in the sentiments of learned men concerning the

original and rise of the monastic life. But the most probable account of

this matter seems to be as follows:

Till the year 250, there were no monks, but only ascetics, in the

Church. (See _Ascetics_.)

In the Decian persecution, which was about the middle of the third

century, many persons in Egypt, to avoid the fury of the storm, fled to

the neighbouring deserts and mountains, where they not only found a safe

retreat, but also more time and liberty to exercise themselves in acts

of piety and Divine contemplations; which sort of life became so

agreeable to them, that when the persecution was over, they refused to

return to their habitations again, choosing rather to continue in those

cottages and cells which they had made for themselves in the wilderness.

The first and most noted of these solitaries were Paul and Anthony, two

famous Egyptians, whom therefore St. Jerome calls the fathers of the

Christian hermits. Some indeed carry up the original of the monastic

life as high as John Baptist and Elias. But learned men generally reckon

Paul the Thebæan, and Anthony, as the first promoters of this way of

living among the Christians.

As yet there were no bodies or communities of men embracing this life,

nor any monasteries built, but only a few single persons scattered here

and there in the deserts of Egypt, till Pachomius, in the peaceable

reign of Constantine, procured some monasteries to be built in Thebais

in Egypt, from whence the custom of living in societies was followed by

degrees in other parts of the world, and in succeeding ages.

Macarius peopled the Egyptian desert of Scetis with monks. Hilarion, a

disciple of Anthony’s, was the first monk in Palestine or Syria. Not

long after, Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste, brought monachism into

Armenia, Paphlagonia, and Pontus. But St. Basil is generally considered

as the great father and patriarch of the Eastern monks. It was he who

reduced the monastic life to a fixed state of uniformity, who united the

Anchorets and Cœnobites, and obliged them to engage themselves by solemn

vows. It was St. Basil who prescribed rules for the government and

direction of the monasteries, to which rules most of the disciples of

Anthony, Pachomius, and Macarius, and the other ancient fathers of the

deserts, submitted. And to this day, all the Greeks, Nestorians,

Melchites, Georgians, Mingrelians, and Armenians, follow the rule of St.

Basil.

The monastic profession made no less progress in the West. Athanasius,

bishop of Alexandria, retiring to Rome, about the year 339, with several

priests, and two Egyptian monks, made known to several pious persons the

life of Anthony, who then lived in the desert of Thebais; upon which

many were desirous to embrace so holy a profession. To this effect

several monasteries were built at Rome, and this example was soon

followed all over Italy. Benedict of Nursia appeared in that country in

the early part of the sixth century, and published his rule, which was

universally received throughout the West; for which reason that saint

was styled the patriarch of the Western monks, as St. Basil was of the

Eastern.

France owes the institution of the monastic life to St. Martin, bishop

of Tours, in the fourth century; who built the monasteries of Lugugé and

Marmontier. The Council of Saragossa, in Spain, anno 380, which condemns

the practice of clergymen, who affected to wear the monastical habits,

is a proof that there were monks in that kingdom in the fourth century,

before St. Donatus went thither out of Africa, with seventy disciples,

and founded the monastery of Sirbita.

Augustine, being sent into England by Gregory the Great, in the year

596, to preach the faith, at the same time introduced the monastic state

into this kingdom. It made so great a progress here, that, within the

space of 200 years, there were thirty kings and queens who preferred the

religious habit to their crowns, and founded stately monasteries, where

they ended their days in retirement and solitude.

The monastic profession was also carried into Ireland by St. Patrick,

who is looked upon as the apostle of that kingdom, and multiplied there

in so prodigious a manner, that it was called the Island of

Saints.—_Broughton._

The monastic life soon made a very great progress all over the Christian

world. Rufinus, who travelled through the East in 373, assures us there

were almost as many monks in the deserts, as inhabitants in the cities.

From the wilderness (contrary to its original institution) it made its

way into the towns and cities, where it multiplied greatly: for the same

author informs us, that, in the single city of Oxirinca, there were more

monasteries than private houses, and above 30,000 monks.

The ancient monks were not, like the modern, distinguished into orders,

and denominated from the founders of them; but they had their names from

the places where they inhabited, as the monks of _Scetis_, _Tabennesus_,

_Nitria_, _Canopus_ in Egypt, &c. or else were distinguished by their

different ways of living. Of these the most remarkable were,

1. The anchorets, so called from their retiring from society, and living

in private cells in the wilderness. (See _Anchorets_.)

2. The Cœnobites, so denominated from their living together in common.

(See _Cœnobites_.)

All monks were, originally, no more than laymen: nor could they well be

otherwise, being confined by their own rules to some desert or

wilderness where there could be no room for the exercise of the clerical

functions. Accordingly St. Jerome tells us, the office of a monk is, not

to teach, but to mourn. The Council of Chalcedon expressly distinguishes

the monks from the clergy, and reckons them with the laymen. Gratian

himself, who is most interested for the moderns, owns it to be plain

from ecclesiastical history, that to the time of Pope Sircius and

Zosimus, the monks were only mere monks, and not of the clergy.

In some cases, however, the clerical and monastic life were capable of

being conjoined; as, first, when a monastery happened to be at so great

a distance from its proper church, that the monks could not ordinarily

resort thither for Divine service, which was the case of the monasteries

in Egypt and other parts of the East. In this case, some one or more of

the monks were ordained for the performance of divine offices among

them. Another case, in which the clerical and monastic life were united,

was, when monks were taken out of monasteries by the bishops, and

ordained for the service of the Church. This was allowed, and

encouraged, when once monasteries were become schools of learning and

pious education. In this case they usually continued their ancient

austerities; and upon this account the Greeks styled them ἱερομοναχοι,

clergy-monks. Thirdly, it happened sometimes that a bishop and all his

clergy embraced the monastic life by a voluntary renunciation of

property, and enjoyed all things in common. Eusebius Vercellensis was

the first who brought in this way of living, and St. Augustine lived

thus among the clergy of Hippo. And so far as this was an imitation of

cœnobitic life, and having all things in common, it might be called a

monastic as well as a clerical life.

The Cœnobites, or such monks as lived in communities, were chiefly

regarded by the Church, and were therefore under the direction of

certain laws and rules of government, of which we shall here give a

short account. And,

First, All men were not allowed to turn monks at pleasure, because such

an indiscriminate permission would have been detrimental both to the

Church and State. Upon this account the civil law forbids any of those

officers called _curiales_ to become monks, unless they parted with

their estates to others, who might serve their country in their stead.

For the same reason servants were not to be admitted into any monastery

without their masters’ leave. Indeed, Justinian afterwards abrogated

this law by an edict of his own, which first set servants at liberty

from their masters, under pretence of betaking themselves to a monastic

life. The same precautions were observed in regard to married persons

and children. The former were not to embrace the monastic life, unless

with the mutual consent of both parties. This precaution was afterwards

broke through by Justinian; but the Church never approved of this

innovation. As to children, the Council of Gangra decreed that if any

such, under pretence of religion, forsook their parents, they should be

anathematized. But Justinian enervated the force of this law likewise,

forbidding parents to hinder their children from becoming monks or

clerks. And as children were not to turn monks without consent of their

parents, so neither could parents oblige their children to embrace a

monastic life against their own consent. But the fourth Council of

Toledo, A. D. 633, set aside this precaution, and decreed that, whether

the devotion of their parents, or their own profession, made them monks,

both should be equally binding, and there should be no permission to

return to a secular life again, as was before allowable, when a parent

offered a child before he was capable of giving his own consent.

The manner of admission to the monastic life was usually by some change

of habit or dress, not to signify any religious mystery, but only to

express their gravity and contempt of the world. Long hair was always

thought an indecency in men, and savouring of secular vanity; and

therefore they polled every monk at his admission, to distinguish him

from seculars; but they never shaved any, for fear they should look too

like the priests of Isis. This, therefore, was the ancient tonsure, in

opposition to both these extremes. As to their habit and clothing, the

rule was the same: they were to be decent and grave, as became their

profession. The monks of Tabennesus, in Thebais, seem to have been the

only monks, in those early days, who were confined to any particular

habit. St. Jerome, who often speaks of the habit of the monks, intimates

that it differed from others only in this, that it was a cheaper,

coarser, and meaner raiment, expressing their humility and contempt of

the world, without any singularity or affectation. The father is very

severe against the practice of some who appeared in chains or sackcloth.

And Cassian blames others who carried wooden crosses continually about

their necks, which was only proper to excite the laughter of the

spectators. In short, the Western monks used only a common habit, the

philosophic pallium, as many other Christians did. And Salvian seems to

give an exact description of the habit and tonsure of the monks, when,

reflecting on the Africans for their treatment of them, he says, “they

could scarce ever see a man with short hair, a pale face, and habited in

a pallium, without reviling, and bestowing some reproachful language on

him.”

We read of no solemn vow, or profession, required at their admission:

but they underwent a triennial probation, during which time they were

inured to the exercises of the monastic life. If, after that time was

expired, they chose to continue the same exercises, they were then

admitted without any further ceremony into the community. This was the

method prescribed by Pachomius, the father of the monks of Tabennesus,

from which all others took their model.

Nor was there, as yet, any solemn vow of poverty required; though it was

customary for men voluntarily to renounce the world by disposing of

their estates to charitable uses, before they entered into a community,

where they were to enjoy all things in common. Nor did they, after

renouncing their own estates, seek to enrich themselves, or their

monasteries, by begging, or accepting, the estates of others. The

Western monks did not always adhere to this rule, as appears from some

Imperial laws made to restrain their avarice. But the monks of Egypt

were generally just in their pretensions, and would accept of no

donations but for the use of the poor. Some, indeed, did not wholly

renounce all property, but kept their estates in their own hands, the

whole yearly revenue of which they distributed in charitable uses.

As the monasteries had no standing revenues, all the monks were obliged

to exercise themselves in bodily labour to maintain themselves, without

being burdensome to others. They had no idle mendicants among them; they

looked upon a monk that did not work as no better than a covetous

defrauder. Sozomen tells us, that Serapion presided over a monastery of

ten thousand monks, near Arsinoë in Egypt, who all laboured with their

own hands, by which means they not only maintained themselves, but had

enough to relieve the poor.

The monasteries were commonly divided into several parts, and proper

officers appointed over each of them. Every ten monks were subject to

one, who was called the _decanus_, or _dean_, from his presiding over

ten; and every hundred had another officer called _centenarius_, from

his presiding over a hundred. Above these were the _patres_, or fathers

of the monasteries, called likewise _abbates_, _abbots_, from the Greek

ἄββας, which signifies _father_; and _hegumeni_ (ἡγούμενοι)

_presidents_; and _archimandrites_, from _mandru_, a sheep-fold. The

business of the deans was to exact every man’s daily task, and bring it

to the _œconomus_, or steward, who gave a monthly account thereof to the

father, or abbot. (See _Abbot_.)

To their bodily exercises they joined others that were spiritual. The

first of these was a perpetual repentance. Upon which account the life

of a monk is often styled the _life of a mourner_. And in allusion to

this, the isle of Canopus, near Alexandria, formerly a place of great

lewdness, was, upon the translation and settlement of the monks of

Tabennesus there, called _Insulæ Metanœæ_, the _Isle of Repentance_.

The next spiritual exercise was extraordinary fasting. The Egyptian

monks kept every day a fast till three in the afternoon, excepting

Saturdays, Sundays, and the fifty days of Pentecost. Some exercised

themselves with very great austerities, fasting two, three, four, or

five days together; but this practice was not generally approved. They

did not think such excessive abstinence of any use, but rather a

disservice to religion. Pachomius’s rule, which was said to be given him

by an angel, permitted every man to eat, drink, and labour, according to

his bodily strength. So that fasting was a discretionary thing, and

matter of choice, not of compulsion.

Their fastings were accompanied with extraordinary and frequent returns

of devotion. The monks of Palestine, Mesopotamia, and other parts of the

East, had six or seven canonical hours of prayer. Besides which they had

their constant vigils, or nocturnal meetings. The monks of Egypt met

only twice a day for public devotion; but, in their private cells,

whilst they were at work, they were always repeating psalms, and other

parts of Scripture, and intermixing prayers with their bodily labour.

St. Jerome’s description of their devotion is very lively: “When they

are assembled together, (says that father,) psalms are sung, and the

Scriptures read: then, prayers being ended, they all sit down, and the

father begins a discourse to them, which they hear with the profoundest

silence and veneration. His words make a deep impression on them; their

eyes overflow with tears, and the speaker’s commendation is the weeping

of his hearers. Yet no one’s grief expresses itself in an indecent

strain. But when he comes to speak of the kingdom of heaven, of future

happiness, and the glory of the world to come, then one may observe each

of them, with a gentle sigh, and eyes lifted up to heaven, say within

himself, ‘Oh that I had the wings of a dove, for then would I flee away,

and be at rest!’” In some places, they had the Scriptures read during

their meals at table. This custom was first resorted to in the

monasteries of Cappadocia, to prevent idle discourses and contentions.

But in Egypt they had no occasion for this remedy; for they were taught

to eat their meat in silence. Palladius mentions one instance more of

their devotion, which was only occasional; namely, their psalmody at the

reception of any brethren, or the conducting them with singing of psalms

to their habitation.

The laws did not allow monks to interest themselves in any public

affairs, either ecclesiastical or civil; and those who were called to

any employment in the Church, were obliged to quit their monastery

thereupon. Nor were they permitted to encroach upon the duties, or

rights and privileges, of the secular clergy.

By the laws of their first institution, in all parts of the East, their

habitation was not to be in cities, or places of public concourse, but

in deserts, and private retirements, as their very name implied. The

famous monk Anthony used to say, “That the wilderness was as natural to

a monk, as water to a fish; and therefore a monk in a city was quite out

of his element, like a fish upon dry land.” Theodosius enacted, that all

who made profession of the monastic life should be obliged by the civil

magistrate to betake themselves to the wilderness, as their proper

habitation. Baronius, by mistake, reckons this law a punishment, and

next to a persecution of the monks. Justinian made laws to the same

purpose, forbidding the Eastern monks to appear in cities; but, if they

had any business of concern to be transacted there, they might do it by

their _Apocrisarii_ or _Responsales_, that is, their proctors or

syndics, which every monastery was allowed for that purpose.

But this rule admitted of some exceptions. As, first, in times of common

danger to the faith. Thus Anthony came to Alexandria, at the request of

Athanasius, to confute the Arian heresy. Sometimes they thought it

necessary to come and intercede with the emperors and judges for

condemned criminals. Thus the monks in the neighbourhood of Antioch

forsook their cells, to intercede with the emperor Theodosius, who was

highly displeased with that city for demolishing the imperial statues.

Afterwards, indeed, this practice grew into an abuse, and the monks were

not contented to petition, but would sometimes come in great bodies or

troops, and deliver criminals by force. To repress which tumultuous way

of proceeding, Arcadius published a law, forbidding any such attempts

under very severe penalties.

As the monks of the ancient Church were under no solemn vow or

profession, they were at liberty to betake themselves to a secular life

again. Julian himself was once in the monastic habit. The same is

observed of Constans, the son of that Constantine, who, in the reign of

Honorius, usurped the empire in Britain. The rule of Pachomius, by which

the Egyptian monks were governed, has no mention of any vow at their

entrance, nor any punishment for such as deserted their station

afterwards.

In process of time, it was thought proper to inflict some punishment on

such as returned to a secular life. The civil law excludes deserters

from the privilege of ordination. Justinian added another punishment;

which was, that if they were possessed of any substance, it should be

all forfeited to the monastery which they had deserted. The censures of

the Church were likewise inflicted on deserting monks in the fifth

century.

MONOPHYSITES. (From μόνος, _only_, and φύσις, _nature_.) A general name

given to all those sectaries in the Levant who only own one nature in

our blessed SAVIOUR and who maintain that the Divine and human nature of

JESUS CHRIST were so united as to form only one nature, yet without any

change, confusion, or mixture of the two natures. (See _Eutychians_.)

MONOTHELITES. Christian heretics in the seventh century, so called from

the Greek words μόνος (_only_) and θέλημα (_will_), because they

maintained, that, though there were two natures in JESUS CHRIST, the

human and the Divine, there was but one will, which was the Divine.

The author of this sect was Theodore, bishop of Pharan in Arabia, in

626, who first started the question, and maintained that the manhood in

CHRIST was so united to the WORD, that, though it had its faculties, it

did not act by itself, but the whole act was to be ascribed to the WORD,

which gave it the motion. Thus, he said, it was the manhood of CHRIST

that suffered hunger, thirst, and pain; but the hunger, thirst, and pain

were to be ascribed to the WORD. In short, the WORD was the sole author

and mover of all the operations and wills in CHRIST.

Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, was of the same sentiment; and the

emperor Heraclius embraced the party so much the more willingly, as he

thought it a means of reconciling some other heretics to the Church.

Pope Martin I. called a council at Rome in 649, upon the question about

the two operations and two wills. In this council, at which were present

105 Italian bishops, the doctrine of the Monothelites was generally

condemned. The emperor Constans, who looked upon this condemnation as a

kind of rebellion, caused Pope Martin to be violently carried away from

Rome, and, after most cruel usage, banished him to Chersona.

However, this heresy was finally condemned in the sixth general council,

held at Constantinople, under Constantine Pogonatus, in the year 680.

MONTANISTS. Christian heretics, who sprung up about the year 171, in the

reign of the emperor Marcus Aurelius. They were so called from their

leader, the heresiarch Montanus, a Phrygian by birth, whence they are

sometimes styled Phrygians and Cataphrygians.

Montanus, it is said, embraced Christianity in hopes of rising to the

dignities of the Church. He pretended to inspiration, and gave out that

the HOLY GHOST had instructed him in several points which had not been

revealed to the apostles. Priscilla and Maximilla, two enthusiastic

women of Phrygia, presently became his disciples, and in a short time he

had a great number of followers. The bishops of Asia, being assembled

together, condemned his prophecies, and excommunicated those who

dispersed them. Afterwards, they wrote an account of what had passed to

the Western Churches, where the pretended prophecies of Montanus and his

followers were likewise condemned.