fourth century, formed them into a regular body, engaged them to live in
society with each other, and prescribed to them fixed rules for the
direction of their conduct. These regulations, which Anthony had made in
Egypt, were soon introduced into Palestine and Syria by his disciple
Hilarion. Almost about the same time, Aones, or Eugenius, with their
companions, Gaddanus and Azyzas, instituted the monastic order in
Mesopotomia, and the adjacent countries; and their example was followed
with such rapid success, that in a short time the whole east was filled
with a lazy set of mortals, who, abandoning all human connections,
advantages, pleasures, and concerns, wore out a languishing and
miserable existence amidst hardships of want, and various kinds of
suffering, in order to arrive at a more close and rapturous
communication with God and angels. From the east this gloomy institution
passed into the west, and first into Italy and its neighbouring islands,
though it is uncertain who transplanted it thither. St. Martin, the
celebrated bishop of Tours, erected the first monasteries in Gaul, and
recommended this religious solitude with such power and efficacy, both
by his instruction and example, that his funeral is said to have been
attended by no less than two thousand monks. From hence the monastic
discipline extended its progress gradually through the other provinces
and countries of Europe. There were beside, the monks of St. Basil,
called in the east _calogeri_, from καλος γερων, _a good old man_, and
those of St. Jerom, the hermits of St. Augustine, and afterward those of
St. Benedict and St. Bernard: at length came those of St. Francis and
St. Dominic, with a legion of others.
Toward the close of the fifth century, the monks who had formerly lived
only for themselves in solitary retreats, and had never thought of
assuming any rank among the sacerdotal order, were gradually
distinguished from the populace, and endowed with such opulence and
honourable privileges that they found themselves in a condition to claim
an eminent station among the pillars and supporters of the Christian
community. The fame of their piety and sanctity was so great, that
bishops and presbyters were often chosen out of their order; and the
passion of erecting edifices and convents, in which the monks and holy
virgins might serve God in the most commodious manner, was at this time
carried beyond all bounds. However, their licentiousness, even in this
century, was become a proverb; and they are said to have excited the
most dreadful tumults and seditions in various places. The monastic
orders were at first under the immediate jurisdiction of the bishops,
from which they were exempted by the Roman pontiff about the end of the
seventh century; and the monks in return devoted themselves wholly to
advance the interest and to maintain the dignity of the bishop of Rome.
This immunity which they obtained was a fruitful source of
licentiousness and disorder, and occasioned the greatest part of the
vices with which they were afterward so justly charged.
In the eighth century the monastic discipline was extremely relaxed,
both in the eastern and western provinces, and all efforts to restore it
were ineffectual. Nevertheless, this kind of institution was in the
highest esteem; and nothing could equal the veneration that was paid
about the close of the ninth century to such as devoted themselves to
the sacred gloom and indolence of a convent. This veneration caused
several kings and emperors to call them to their courts, and to employ
them in civil affairs of the greatest moment. Their reformation was
attempted by Louis the meek, but the effect was of short duration. In
the eleventh century, they were exempted by the popes from the authority
of their sovereigns, and new orders of monks were continually
established, insomuch that in the council of Lateran, that was held A.
D. 1215, a decree was passed, by the advice of Innocent III., to prevent
any new monastic institutions; and several were entirely suppressed. In
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, it appears, from the testimony of
the best writers, that the monks were generally lazy, illiterate,
profligate, and licentious epicures, whose views in life were confined
to opulence, idleness, and pleasure. However, the reformation had a
manifest influence in restraining their excesses, and rendering them
more circumspect and cautious in their external conduct.
Monks are distinguished by the colour of their habits, into black,
white, gray, &c. Among the monks, some are called monks of the choir,
others, professed monks, and others, lay monks; which last are destined
for the service of the convent, and have neither clericate nor
literature. Cloistered monks are those who actually reside in the house,
in opposition to extra monks, who have benefices depending on the
monastery. Monks are also distinguished into reformed, whom the civil
and ecclesiastical authority have made masters of ancient convents, and
empowered to retrieve the ancient discipline, which had been relaxed;
and ancient, who remain in the convent, to live in it according to its
establishment at the time when they made their vows, without obliging
themselves to any new reform. Anciently the monks were all laymen, and
were only distinguished from the rest of the people by a peculiar habit
and an extraordinary piety or devotion. Not only the monks were
prohibited the priesthood, but even priests were expressly prohibited
from becoming monks, as appears from the letters of St. Gregory. Pope
Syricius was the first who called them to the clericate, on account of
some great scarcity of priests that the church was supposed to labour
under; and since that time the priesthood has been usually united to the
monastical profession.
MONOPHYSITES. See HYPOSTATIC UNION.
MONOTHELITES, a denomination in the seventh century. See HYPOSTATIC
UNION.
MONTHS, ירחים, sometimes also called חדשים, _new moons_, from the
circumstance of their commencing with the new moon, anciently had no
separate names, with the exception of the first, which was called
_Abib_, that is, the month of the young ears of corn,” Exod. xiii, 4;
xxiii, 15; xxxiv, 18; Deut. xvi, 1. During the captivity, the Hebrews
adopted the Babylonian names for their months; which were as follows,
and they were reckoned thus:--
1. ניסן, _Nisan_, from the new of April, Neh. ii, 1.
moon
2. זיו, _Zif_ or _Ziv_, also of May, 1 Kings vi, 1.
called אייר,
3. סִיוָן, _Sivan_, of June, Esther viii, 9.
4. תמוז, _Tammuz_, of July.
5. אב, _Ab_, of August.
6. אלול, _Elul_, of September, Neh. vi, 15.
7. תשרי, _Tishri_, also ירח of October, 1 Kings viii, 2.
האתנים,
8. בול, _Bul_, also מרחשון, of November, 1 Kings vi, 38.
9. כסלו, _Kislev_, of December, Neh. i, 1.
10. טבת, _Tebeth_, of January, Esther ii, 16.
11. שבט, _Shebat_, of February, Zech. i, 7.
12. אדר, _Adar_, of March, Esther iii, 7.
The first month here mentioned, _Nisan_, was originally
called _Abib_. The intercalary month is denominated in Hebrew
אדר.
MOON. Particular sacrifices were enjoined by Moses at every new moon,
which day was also celebrated as a feast. It is promised in Psalm cxxi,
6, The sun shall not smite thee by day, nor the moon by night.” The
effect of a _coup de soleil_, or stroke of the sun, is well known; and
in some climates the beams of the moon are reputed hurtful. Anderson, in
his Description of the East,” says, One must here (in Batavia) take
great care not to sleep in the beams of the moon uncovered. I have seen
many people whose neck has become crooked, so that they look more to the
side than forward. I will not decide whether it is to be ascribed to the
moon, as people imagine here.” In some of the southern parts of Europe
the same opinions are entertained of the pernicious influence of the
moon beams. An English gentleman walking in the evening in the garden of
a Portuguese nobleman at Lisbon, was most seriously admonished by the
owner to put on his hat, to protect him from the moon beams. The
fishermen in Sicily are said to cover, during the night, the fish which
they expose to dry on the sea shore, alleging that the beams of the moon
cause them to putrefy.
MORAL OBLIGATION. Different opinions have been held as to the ground of
moral obligation. Grotius, Balguy, and Dr. Samuel Clarke, place it in
the eternal and necessary fitness of things. To this there are two
objections. The first is, that it leaves the distinction between virtue
and vice, in a great measure, arbitrary and indefinite, dependent upon
our perception of fitness and unfitness, which, in different individuals
will greatly differ. The second is, that when a fitness or unfitness is
proved, it is no more than the discovery of a natural essential
difference or congruity, which alone cannot constitute a moral
obligation to choose what is fit, and to reject what is unfit. When we
have proved a fitness in a certain course of action, we have not proved
that it is obligatory. A second step is necessary before we can reach
this conclusion. Cudworth, Butler, Price, and others, maintain, that
virtue carries its own obligation in itself; that the understanding at
once perceives a certain action to be right, and therefore it ought to
be performed. Several objections lie to this notion: 1. It supposes the
understandings of men to determine precisely in the same manner
concerning all virtuous and vicious actions; which is contrary to fact.
2. It supposes a previous rule, by which the action is determined to be
right; but if the revealed will of God is not to be taken into
consideration, what common rule exists among men? There is evidently no
such rule, and therefore no means of certainly determining what is
right. 3. If a common standard were known among men, and if the
understandings of men determined in the same manner as to the
conformity, or otherwise, of an action to that standard; what renders it
a matter of obligation that any one should perform it? The rule must be
proved to be binding, or no ground of obligation is established.
An action is obligatory, say others, because it is agreeable to the
moral sense. This is the theory of Lord Shaftesbury and Dr. Hutcheson.
By moral sense appears to be meant an instinctive approbation of right,
and abhorrence of wrong, prior to all reflection on their nature, or
their consequences. If any thing else were understood by it, then the
moral sense must be the same with conscience, which we know to vary with
the judgment, and cannot therefore be the basis of moral obligation. If
conscience be not meant, then the moral sense must be considered as
instinctive: a notion, certainly, which is disproved by the whole moral
history of man. It may, indeed, be conceded, that such is the
constitution of the human soul, that when those distinctions between
actions, which have been taught by religious tradition or direct
revelation, are known in their nature, relations, and consequences, the
calm and sober judgments of men will approve of them; and that
especially when they are considered abstractedly, that is, as not
affecting and controlling their own interests and passions immediately,
virtue may command complacency, and vice provoke abhorrence: but that,
independent of reflection on their nature or their consequences, there
is an instinctive principle in man which abhors evil, and loves good, is
contradicted by that variety of opinion and feeling on the vices and
virtues, which obtains among all uninstructed nations. We applaud the
forgiveness of an injury as magnanimous; a savage despises it as mean.
We think it a duty to support and cherish aged parents; many nations, on
the contrary, abandon them as useless, and throw them to the beasts of
the field. Innumerable instances of this contrariety might be adduced,
which are all contrary to the notion of instinctive sentiment. Instincts
operate uniformly, but this assumed moral sense does not. Beside, if it
be mere matter of feeling, independent of judgment, to love virtue, and
abhor vice, the morality of the exercise of this principle is
questionable; for it would be difficult to show, that there is any more
morality, properly speaking, in the affections and disgusts of instinct
than in those of the palate. If judgment, the knowledge and comparison
of things, be included, then this principle supposes a uniform and
universal individual revelation as to the nature of things to every man,
or an intuitive faculty of determining their moral quality; both of
which are too absurd to be maintained.
The only satisfactory conclusion on this subject, is that which refers
moral obligation to the will of God. Obligation,” says Warburton,
necessarily implies an obliger, and the obliger must be different from,
and not one and the same with, the obliged. Moral obligation, that is,
the obligation of a free agent, farther implies a law, which enjoins and
forbids; but a law is the imposition of an intelligent superior, who
hath power to exact conformity thereto.” This lawgiver is God; and
whatever may be the reasons which have led him to enjoin this, and to
prohibit that, it is plain that the obligation to obey lies not merely
in the fitness and propriety of a creature obeying an infinitely wise
and good Creator, (though such a fitness exists,) but in that obedience
being enjoined. For, since the question respects the duty of a created
being with reference to his Creator, nothing can be more conclusive than
that the Creator has an absolute right to the obedience of his
creatures; and that the creature is in duty obliged to obey him from
whom it not only has received being, but by whom that being is
constantly sustained. It has, indeed, been said, that even if it be
admitted, that I am obliged to obey the will of God, the question is
still open, Why am I obliged to obey his will?” and that this brings us
round to the former answer; because he can only will what is upon the
whole best for his creatures. But this is confounding that which may be,
and doubtless is, a rule to God in the commands which he issues, with
that which really obliges the creature. Now, that which in truth obliges
the creature is not the nature of the commands issued by God; but the
relation in which the creature itself stands to God. If a creature can
have no existence, nor any power or faculty independently of God, it can
have no right to employ its faculties independently of him; and if it
have no right to employ its faculties in an independent manner, the
right to rule its conduct must rest with the Creater alone; and from
this results the obligation of absolute and universal obedience.
MORAVIANS, or UNITED BRETHREN. The name of Moravians, or Moravian
Brethren, was in England given to the members of a foreign Protestant
church, calling itself the _Unitas Fratrum_, or United Brethren. This
church formerly consisted of three branches, the Bohemian, Moravian, and
Polish. After its renovation in the year 1722, some of its members came
to England in 1728, who being of the Moravian branch, became known by
that appellation; and all those who joined them, and adopted their
doctrines and discipline, have ever since been called Moravians.
Strictly speaking, however, that name is not applicable to them, nor
generally admitted, either by themselves, or in any public documents, in
which they are called by their proper names, the _Unitas Fratrum_, or
United Brethren.
The few remaining members of the ancient church of the United Brethren
in Bohemia, Moravia, and Poland, being much persecuted by the popish
clergy, many of them left all their possessions, and fled with their
families into Silesia and Saxony. In Saxony they found protection from a
Saxon nobleman, Nicholas Lewis, count of Zinzendorff, who gave them some
waste land on one of his estates, on which, in 1722, they built a
village at the foot of a hill, called the Hut-Berg, or Watch-Hill. This
occasioned them to call their settlement _Herrnhut_, the watch of the
Lord.” Hence their enemies designated them in derision by the name of
Herrnhuters, which is altogether improper, but by it they are known in
some countries abroad. By their own account, the community derive their
origin from the ancient Bohemian and Moravian Brethren, who existed as a
distinct people ever since the year 1457, when, separating from those
who took up arms in defence of their protestations against popish
errors, they formed a plan for church fellowship and discipline,
agreeable to their insight into the Scriptures, and called themselves at
first, _Fratres Legis Christi_, or Brethren after the Law of Christ; and
afterward, on being joined by others of the same persuasion in other
places, _Unitas Fratrum_, or _Fratres Unitatis_. By degrees, they
established congregations in various places, and spread themselves into
Moravia and other neighbouring states. Being anxious to preserve among
themselves regular episcopal ordination, and, at a synod held at Lhota
in 1467, taking into consideration the scarcity of ministers regularly
ordained among them, they chose three of their priests ordained by
Calixtine bishops, and sent them to Stephen, bishop of the Waldenses,
then residing in Austria, by whom they were consecrated bishops;
co-bishops and conseniores being appointed from the rest of their
presbyters. In 1468 a great persecution arose against them, and many
were put to death. In 1481 they were banished from Moravia, when many of
them fled as far as Mount Caucasus, and established themselves there,
till driven away by subsequent troubles.
In the mean time, disputes respecting points of doctrine, the enmity of
the papists, and other causes, raised continual disturbances and great
persecutions at various periods, till the Reformation by Luther, when
they opened a correspondence with that eminent reformer and his
associates, and entered into several negotiations, both with him and
Calvin, concerning the extension of the Protestant cause. But their
strict adherence to the discipline of their own church, founded, in
their view, on that of the primitive churches, and the acknowledged
impossibility of its application among the mixed multitude, of which the
Lutheran and Calvinist churches consisted, occasioned a cessation of
coöperation, and, in the sequel, the Brethren were again left to the
mercy of their persecutors, by whom their churches were destroyed, and
their ministers banished, till the year 1575, when they obtained an
edict from the emperor of Germany, for the public exercise of their
religion. This toleration was renewed in 1609, and liberty granted them
to erect new churches. But a civil war, which broke out in Bohemia in
1612, and a violent persecution which followed it in 1621, again
occasioned the dispersion of their ministers, and brought great distress
upon the Brethren in general. Some fled into England, others to Saxony
and Brandenburg; while many, overcome by the severity of the
persecution, conformed to the rites of the church of Rome.
About the year 1640, by incessant persecution, and the most oppressive
measures, this ancient church was brought to so low an ebb, that it
appeared nearly extinct. The persecutions which took place at the
beginning of the eighteenth century, were the occasion that many of the
scattered descendants of the Bohemian and Moravian Brethren at length
resolved to quit their native land, and seek liberty of conscience in
foreign countries. Some emigrated into Silesia, and others into Upper
Lusatia, a province of Saxony, adjoining to Bohemia. The latter, as
before observed, found a protector in Nicholas Count Zinzendorff, a
pious, zealous man, and a Lutheran by education. He hoped that the
religious state of the Lutherans in his neighbourhood would be greatly
improved by the conversation and example of these devout emigrants; and
he therefore sought to prevail upon the latter to join the Lutheran
church altogether. To this the Brethren objected, being unwilling to
give up their ancient discipline, and would rather proceed to seek an
asylum in another place; when the count, struck with their steadfast
adherence to the tenets of their forefathers, began more maturely to
examine their pretensions; and being convinced of the justness of them,
he procured for the Brethren the renovation of their ancient
constitution, and ever after proved a most zealous promoter of their
cause. He is, therefore, very justly esteemed by them as the chief
instrument, in the hand of God, in restoring the sinking church, and, in
general, gratefully remembered for his disinterested and indefatigable
labours in promoting the interests of religion, both at home and abroad.
In 1735, having been examined and received into the clerical order, by
the theological faculty at Tuebingen, in the duchy of Wurtemburg, he was
consecrated a bishop of the Brethren’s church.
After the establishment of a regular congregation of the United Brethren
at Herrnhut, multitudes of pious persons from various parts flocked to
it, many of whom had private opinions in religious matters, to which
they were strongly attached. This occasioned great disputes, which even
threatened the destruction of the society; but, by the indefatigable
exertions of Count Zinzendorff, these disputes were allayed, and the
statutes being drawn up, and agreed to in 1727, for better regulation,
brotherly love and union were reëstablished, and no schism whatever, in
point of doctrine, has since that period disturbed the peace of the
church.
Though the Brethren acknowledge no other standard of truth than the
sacred Scriptures, they in general profess to adhere to the Augsburg
Confession of Faith. Their church is episcopal; but though they consider
episcopal ordination as necessary to qualify the servants of the church
for their respective functions, they allow to their bishops no elevation
of rank or preëminent authority. The Moravian church, from its first
establishment, has been governed by synods, consisting of deputies from
all the congregations, and by other subordinate bodies, which they call
conferences. According to their regulations, episcopal ordination, of
itself, does not confer any power to preside over one or more
congregations; and a bishop can discharge no office except by the
appointment of a synod, or of its delegate, the elders’ conference of
the unity. Presbyters among them can perform every function of the
bishop, except ordination. Deacons are assistants to presbyters, much in
the same way as in the church of England. Deaconesses are retained for
the purpose of privately admonishing their own sex, and visiting them in
their sickness; but they are not permitted to teach in public, and, far
less, to administer the sacraments. They have also _seniores civiles_,
or lay elders, in contradistinction to spiritual elders or bishops, who
are appointed to watch over the constitution and discipline of the unity
of the Brethren, &c. The synods are generally held once in seven years;
and beside all the bishops, and the deputies sent by each congregation,
those women who have appointments as above described, if on the spot,
are also admitted as hearers, and may be called upon to give their
advice in what relates to the ministerial labour among their own sex;
but they have no decisive vote in the synod. The votes of all the other
members are equal. In questions of importance, or of which the
consequence cannot be foreseen, neither the majority of votes, nor the
unanimous consent of all present, can decide: but recourse is had to the
lot, which, however, is never made use of except after mature
deliberation and prayer; nor is any thing submitted to its decision
which does not, after being thoroughly weighed, appear to the assembly
eligible in itself.