Origins of Monastic Life

ORIGIN AND PROGRESS OF THE MONASTIC LIFE. 

A brief outline of the origin and progress of monastic life may not be unacceptable. when speaking of a place, whose associations are entirely monastic, and which is scarcely adverted to in our annals, except in connexion with its cathedral, its abbey, or some of the members of the community attached to its ecclesiastical edifices. In entering upon this portion of our task we must state our entire concurrence with the opinions expressed by the Rev. Mr. Maitland, Librarian to His Grace the late Archbishop of Canterbury, in his preface to the "Dark Ages," p.p. iv. and v., where he says: " It is quite impossible to touch the subject of Monasticism, without rubbing off some portion of the dirt which has been heaped upon it. It is impossible to get even a superficial knowledge of the medieval history of Europe, without seeing how greatly the world of that period was indebted to the Monastic orders, and feeling that, whether they were good or bad in other matters, monasteries were beyond all price in those days of misrule and turbulence, as places where (it may be imperfectly, yet better than elsewhere) God was worshipped as a quiet and religious refuge for helpless infancy and old age, a shelter of respectful sympathy for the orphan maiden and the desolate widow as central points whence agriculture was to spread over bleak hills and barren downs, and marshy plains, and to deal its bread to millions perishing with hunger, and its pestilential train as repositories of the learning which then was, and well-springs for the learning which was to be as nurseries of art and science, giving the stimulus, the means, and the reward to invention, and aggregating around them every head that could devise, and every hand that could execute as the nucleus of the city which in after days of pride should crown its palaces and bulwarks with the towering cross of its cathedral." If then, in the course of this article, Monasticism is treated in a different manner, from that usually pursued, let it be remembered that :-

"Men's evil manners live in brass; their virtues
We write in water." 

and with regard to these institutions, their faults have been fully exposed while the benefits which society has derived from them, have been silently passed over.

In the primitive ages of Christianity, we find the most devout among the followers of the Gospel, distinguished by the name of Ascetes. They withdrew themselves from all distracting engagements, and employed their time in the practices of public and private devotion, endeavouring by the exercise of every virtue to attain that sublime perfection so highly spoken of in the holy scriptures. But with the conversion of Constantine and the recognition of Christianity by the state, a visible falling away from primitive fervour began to be perceptible, and many bearing the name of Christian continued to cherish the ideas and the vices of Paganism. This relaxation was observed by the more fervent with saddened hearts, and they resolved to leave a scene so repugnant to their zeal, and so dangerous to their virtue; and the vast and sterile deserts of the Thebais were peopled with crowds of anchorets, who, under the direction of Anthony and Pachomious, earned their scanty maintenance by the labour of their hands, and presented to their less fervent brethren models of innocence and sanctity. Such, according to the ancient authors, is the origin of the monastic life. There have not been wanting writers, who pretend to trace its origin to the time of the prophets in the old law, and who state that the Assideans and Essenians were monks, or persons living in community. With regard to such disquisitions, they are foreign to our purpose, and even were we inclined to enter upon their discussion, our limited space would not permit us. It is a remarkable fact that the first monks were laymen, who formed small communities, and obeyed the authority of a common superior. The only dispositions requisite for admission were a spirit of penance and a desire of perfection. So long as the aspirant continued in these sentiments he was carefully trained in the duties of his state of life, if he repented of his choice, be was at liberty to depart. But small indeed was the number of those who returned to the world they had once quitted, the spirit of perseverance being very strong in the great majority, and it was not until primitive fervour began to decline, that irrevocable vows were placed as a barrier to the return of those who had embraced the monastic state. 

From the Egyptian deserts the monastic institute spread rapidly over the neighbouring countries, and the west became anxious to follow the example of the east. At the commencement of the fifth century colonies of monks were planted in every corner of the Roman empire, and the conversion of the northern nations caused these colonies to be considerably increased. The converts admired the austere virtue of the institute, and looked up to its professors as to a class of superior beings, the peculiar friends and favourites of heaven. In proportion as the order increased, it was divided and sub-divided without end. Every superior thinking himself at liberty to make such rules and regulations for his monks, as his judgment preferred; the rule of the Egyptian monks serving as model to all, but varied to suit the circumstances of time and place in which the monks might be situated. Many learned writers have contended that all the primitive monks of this country were of the Benedictine order, "But," as Lingard justly observes," with the light afforded by the ancient writers, we may still pierce through the gloom of eleven intervening centuries, and discover three grand divisions of the monastic profession, in the followers of St. Gregory, St. Columba, and St. Benedict." 

Among the foremost patrons of the monastic life we find St. Gregory, or as he is more commonly called, Gregory the Great. He himself had laid aside the robe of the Roman Prefect, to assume the cowl of the monk, and possessing large revenues, he devoted them entirely to monastic purposes. From this circumstance, he might with great propriety assume the right of legislating for those who were indebted for their support to his liberality. In the rules which he composed for the guidance of the monks under his authority, we remark one distinctive feature, by means of which we are able to distinguish his order from most others of that period. The time which the other monks devoted to manual labour, he ordained for study, aspiring to the formation of a body of men, whose abilities and zeal might defend the doctrines of the church, and extend its conquests. Bergier tells us ''that the order of Gregory the Great seems to have been an attempt to unite as much as possible the clerical and monastic professions. Those of this order who were distinguished for their piety or learning, Gregory honoured with his friendship, and on his elevation to the pontificate they were admitted to his council, and from them he choose his missionaries for the Anglo-Saxon nations." Augustine on his arrival in this country followed the example of his superior; to the clergy of his cathedral he associated some of his former brethren as his advisers and companions, and erected for the remainder a spacious monastery after the Roman model. Our knowledge of the subsequent history of this order is very limited, though the general opinion is, that it existed till the time of Archbishop Dunstan, when its members adopted the habit and rule of the Benedictines.

With regard to the order of monks which observed the rule of St. Columba,. we have the authority of Bede, who in different portions of his works, speaks in the warmest manner of their patience, their chastity, their frequent meditation on the sacred writings, and their indefatigable exertions to attain the summit of chriistian perfection. The memory of their founder, Columba, who was of the royal race of the O’Neills, in Ireland, was long cherished with particular affection by the people of the North. This order possessed one singular institution, of which we have no other example in ecclesiastical history, viz. : the submission of the provincial bishops, who were members of this order, to the commands of the Abbot,· in every point except what appertained to their episcopal functions.

Aidan, the Apostle of the North, was a member of this order, and during the course of :his missionary labours he kept steadily before his eyes the example of his patron, St. Columba. In order to follow his example more closely he retired to Lindisfarne, where a colony o£ Scottish monks had been settled~ and in their society spent the hours which were not devoted to the exercise of his episcopal duties. The rule of St. Calumba has not come down to our times, but from the notices of the lives of the monks, which we find in ancient writers, we learn that community of goods, celibacy, and the other practices of the monastic state, were observed by them. They chose for their habitations: the most dreary solitudes; charity alone could draw them from their cells; never appearing in public except to reconcile enemies, to instruct the ignorant, and to plead the cause of the unfortunate. 

While the followers of Gregory in the south, and those of Columba in the north, were endeavouring to extend their respective orders, another institute of monks destined to take the place of all their competitors, attracted the notice o£ Christendom. For their origin they were indebted to the zeal of St. Benedict, a native of Norcia, who, at the commencement of the sixth century, retired to a deep and lonely cavern, amid the mountains of Subiaco. For three years the young hermit enjoyed the sweets of retirement, but his retreat becoming known, his example drew around him numbers of monks, who revered him as their parent and law-giver. After some time he left Subiaco, and fixed his residence at Monte Cassino, in the ancient territory of the Volsci. The most distinguished personages visited his cell and solicited his blessing, even Totila, the "Scourge of God," as he was called, condescended to ask his advice, and trembled at the reproof of the dauntless abbot.

Much relaxation had crept into the monastic institute since the time of Anthony, and Benedict composed his rule, not so much to restore the pristine vigour, as to prevent the decay of the ancient discipline. ''The precepts of monastic perfection," says Benedict in the seventy-third chapter of his rule, ''are contained in the inspired writings; the examples abound in the works of the holy fathers; but mine is a more lowly attempt to teach the rudiments of a Christian life, that, when we are acquainted with them, we may aspire to the practice of the sublimer virtues.”

The rule which Benedict gave to his disciples, states distinctly how the various hours of the day were to be employed. Six hours were given to sleep, from which the monks were aroused immediately after midnight, to 13ing matins in the church, whither they were also called several times during the day, to sing the different portions of the divine office. Seven hours were devoted to manual labour, two to study, and the remainder to the necessary refection of the body. Their diet was simple, the flesh of quadrupeds being strictly forbidden; but the rigour of this law was mitigated in favour of the children, the aged and the infirm. No particular form or colour of dress was prescribed, the only recommendation being, that it should be adapted to the climate, and similar to that of the labouring poor. This regulation was after- wards altered, and the Benedictines wore a black habit reaching down to their heels, with a cowl or hood of the same, and a scapulary, and under that another white habit. Each monk had a separate bed, but all slept in their habits, ready to repair to the church at the first summons.

The Postulant was not admitted to the noviciate till after a severe probation. During his noviceship, which lasted for a year, the rule of the order was read over thrice in his presence, and each reading was accompanied by the admonition that he was at liberty to depart. At last, on the anniversary of his admission, be entered the church, and avowed before God and the community, his determination to spend his days in the monastic life, to reform his conduct, and to render obedience to his superiors. This solemn engagement he subscribed with his name, and deposited it on the altar.

The Benedictine order spread gradually from Monte Cassino, to the utmost boundaries of the Latin Church. Its introduction to this country is ascribed to St. Wilfrid, a monk of Lindisfarne, and bishop of York, who on his pilgrimage to Rome, associated with the Benedictines, and admired the superiority of their rule. On his return from Rome in 666, he introduced this rule among his monasteries, adding to it many customs of the previous discipline, which experience had proved to be useful.

Contemporary with Wilfrid, was the celebrated Bennet Biscop, Abbot of Wearmouth, who, having a great desire to embrace the monastic state, visited the most celebrated foreign monasteries, and observed their rule and manner of life. He received the religious habit at Lerins, in France, and after making several journeys to Rome, and various parts of the continent, he erected a spacious monastery upon land given him by Egfrid, king of Northumbria, at the mouth of the river Wear. Bennet's reputation soon drew around him numerous disciples, and by another gift from the same king. he was enabled to found a second monastery at Jarrow. At the death of their founder, these two monasteries contained no less than six hundred inmates. 

There is no doubt but that the Benedictine was the general rule of these monks, but to this rule were added some improvements, the fruit of Bennet's observations during his travels. To Bennet, the honour of introducing the art of making glass is ascribed, as is also that of building with stone, and he is said to have been the first who formed libraries in this country. Bede tells us that Bennet contributed more to the civilisation of his countrymen, than any other person since the preaching of the Roman missionaries.

While the Benedictine order was thus partially established in the north, it was, through the exertions of Adhelm, of Sherbourn, and Egwin, of Worcester, spreading equally in the south. Adhelm introduced the rule into his three monasteries of Malmesbury, Frome, and Bradanford, while Egwin founded the splendid Abbey of Evesham, expressly for Benedictine monks. This order became so firmly rooted in England, that all our cathedral priories, except Carlisle, and most of the richest abbeys in this country were in the hands of the Benedictines.

The form in which the monastic institute is now conducted, was then scarcely known; but that which recommended the Benedictine rule to those who professed the monastic life, was, that it was essential that each monastery should choose its own superior. Such is the account we are able to glean from the writers of ancient times, concerning the different religious orders of our Saxon forefathers. In many things, these orders differed from each other, but we find in all the three engagements which are still considered requisite to the monastic state, viz.: obedience to a superior, perpetual celibacy, and community of goods. 

Subsequent to the Norman invasion, other orders were introduced, foremost among which was THE CLUNIAC ORDER, the first, and principal branch of the Benedictines. It was brought to this country by William, Earl Warren, son-in-law of the Conqueror, and their first house was founded at Lewes, in Suffolk, about 1077. This order was established by Bernon, Abbot of Gigni, about the year 912, and formerly possessed twenty-seven priories and cells in this country. 

THE ORDER OF GRANDMONT was next introduced into England. It was founded at Grandmont, in Limousin, in France, about 1076, by Stephen, a gentleman of Auvernge. This order followed the Benedictine rule, and was brought into this country in the reign of Henry I., and settled at Abberbury in Shropshire. It possessed but three houses in England. 

THE CARTHUSIANS were also a branch of the Benedictines, whose rule, with the addition of a great many austerities, they followed. Their founder was St. Bruno, of Cologne, who first instituted the order at Chartreux, in the diocese of Grenoble, in France, about 1080. Their rule, which was confirmed by Pope Alexander III, in 1174, was the strictest of any of the religious orders, for they never eat flesh, and were obliged to fast on bread, water, and salt, one day in every week. They always wore a hair shirt next their skin, and were only allowed to walk about their own grounds, once in a week, for none of them were ever permitted to go beyond the confines of the monastery, except the priors and procurators, and they only when necessity compelled. They were brought into England in 1180, and had their first house at Witham, in Somersetshire. Their habit was all white, with the exception of their outward cloak, which was black, and they possessed nine houses in this country.

THE CISTERCIANS were founded early in the year 1098, by Robert, Abbot of Molesme, in the diocese of Langres, in France. This abbot having observed with sorrow the many relaxations which bad crept into the Benedictine order, and desirous of restoring it to its primitive fervour, in company with the prior, sub-prior, and a small band of the most zealous of his monks, quitted his abbey at Molesme, and went forth to find some other place where they might observe the rule of St. Benedict in all its pristine integrity. This was the cause of the foundation of the order of Citeaux, or Cistercians, an order which in a short time became very numerous. Their abbeys were generally founded in solitary and uncultivated places, and their churches were all dedicated to the Blessed Virgin. The monks of this order came to England in 1128, and had their first monastery at Waverly, in Sussex, whence they soon spread over the length and breadth of the land, as the ruins of their once splendid abbeys of Byland, Kirkstall, Fountains, Furness, Whalley, Tintern, and Netley, plainly show. Previous to the dissolution of the monastic establishments, the order possessed no less than eighty-five abbeys and monasteries in this country. The Cistercian order is remarkable as being the only one of the ancient religious orders which has been revived in these countries in our own times. At Mount St. Bernard, near Lough- borough, in Leicestershire, and at Mount Melleray, in the county of Water- ford, in Ireland, we see the austere rule of the ancient Cistercians in full practice. There we have the abbey, with its abbot, prior, and sub-prior, as in days of yore; the "desert, uncultivated, and barren land," by which these establishments are surrounded, is being reclaimed by the persevering industry of the monks, and the generous monastic hospitality of the old Cistercians is exercised by their successors, as far as their limited means will allow. 

Passing from the monks we come next to the canons, who were divided into two classes, Regular and Secular. The Secular canons were clergymen who performed spiritual offices for the laity, and took upon themselves the cure of souls, which the Regular canons could not do without dispensation. They differed in nothing almost from ordinary priests, save that they were under the government of some local statutes. For though in some places they were obliged to live in common under the same roof as the monks and regular canons did, yet they generally lived apart, and were maintained by distinct prebends, almost in the same manner as the canons and prebendaries of our cathedral and collegiate churches at the present day. 

Regular canons were such as lived under some rule. They were a less strict sort of religious than the monks, but lived together in common, and were obliged to observe the statutes of their order. The chief rule observed by these canons, was that of St. Augustine; they were little known till the tenth or eleventh century, were not brought to England till after the Conquest, and seem not to have obtained the name of Austin Canons until some time afterwards. Their habit consisted of a long black cassock, with a white rochet over it, and over that a black cloak and hood. There were about 175 houses of regular canons in England and Wales. 

Besides the common and general kind of canons, there were also the following particular orders, viz.: First, such as observed the rule of St. Augustine, according to the regulations of St. Nicholas, of Arroasia; this order possessed five houses in England. Second, those who adopted the rule of St. Augustine, according to the order of St. Victor; they had three houses in this country. Third, those of the order of St. Augustine, who adopted the institutions of St. Mary of Meretune; they had only one house in England. Fourth, the Premonstratensian canons who lived according to the rule of St. Augustine, as reformed by St. Norbert, Archbishop of Magdeburg, in 1120, at Premonstratum, in the diocese of Laon, in Picardy. It was called Premonstratum, because it was said to have been pointed out by the Blessed Virgin to the head of this reformed order. The members of this institute were also called White Canons from their habit, which was a white cassock, with a rochet over it, a long white cloak, and white cap. They were brought to England shortly after 1140, and first settled at Newhouse, in Lincolnshire. where were about thirty-five houses of this order in England previous to the Dissolution. Fifth, the Sempringham or Gilbertine canons, who were founded by St. Gilbert, at Sempringham, in Lincolnshire, in 1148, and confirmed Ly Pope Eugenius. Their rule was composed from that of St. Augustine and St. Benedict, with some special modifications of their own. The habit of these canons was a black cassock, with a white cloak over it, and a hood lined with lambskins. At the suppression of the religious establishments, there were twenty-five houses of this order in the kingdom. Sixth, the Canons Regular of the Holy Sepulchre were instituted at the commencement of the twelfth century, in imitation of the regulars established at the church of the Holy Sepulchre, at Jerusalem. They were sometimes called Canons of the Holy Cross, and wore the same habits as the other Augustinian canons, distinguished only by a double red cross upon their cloak or upper garment. Their first house in this country was at Warwick, where they settled in 1135, .and at the period of the Dissolution, they possessed only two houses in England.

Besides these orders of men, there were Benedictine, Gilbertine, Cluniac, Cistercian, Carthusian, Augustinian, and Premonstratensian nuns, who followed the same rules with their respective monks, omitting only what was proper for their sex, and wore habits of the same colour, having their heads always covered with a veil. To the orders of nuns just mentioned, we must add some others which deserve particular notice. First, nuns of the order of Fontevrault, which was founded at the latter part of the eleventh century, by Robert D’Abrissil, at Fontevrault, in Poictiers, where he erected an abbey for his followers, about 1100. Though this order, which was a reformation of the Benedictines, was chiefly for women, yet on the continent, they had also religious men belonging to the institute, who were under the government of the abbess; for the founder took as his model, the recommendation by our Blessed Saviour, of the Blessed Virgin, and St. John the Evangelist, to each other, and directed that the men should acknowledge the abbess, or prioress, of every convent, as their superior, and submit to her authority both in spirituals and temporals. The abbess of Fontevrault was the general superioress and head of the order. The nuns of this institute were brought into England by Robert Bossu, Earl of Leicester, before 1161, and placed at Nun Eaton, in the county of Warwick. There were only two other houses of this order in England, and we find no mention made of any monks in them, but only of a prior at Nun Eaton. They wore a kind of tunic or cassock, of undyed woo11 and over that a large black garment. Second, nuns of the order of St. Clare, who founded her order at Assissi, in Italy, about the year 1212. It was confirmed by Pope Innocent III., and again by Pope Honorius, in 1223. St. Clare being a native of the same town, and living at the same time as St. Francis, the founder of the order of Friars Minors, and her nuns observing the same rule, and wearing the same coloured habit as the Franciscan Friars, were often called Minoresses. They were likewise called the Poor Clares, from their scanty endowments. They were brought to England by Blanche, Queen of Navarre, wife of Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, about 1293, and had their first house without Aldgate, in London. At the Dissolution, they had four houses in England. Third, Briggitines, or nuns of our Holy Saviour, who were instituted by St. Bridget, princess of Nericia, in Sweden, about the middle of the fourteenth century, under the rule of St. Augustine. with some additions of her own. This order, though chiefly for women, had men in every convent, who lived in different apartments, and differed from all other orders, in requiring a particular number of men and women, in every house, viz. : Sixty nuns, thirteen priests, eight deacons, and four lay brothers. Their habit was a tunic of coarse grey woollen, and a cloak of the same. The nuns had five small pieces of red cloth on their veils, to represent the five wounds of our Redeemer. The priests had a red cross on their breasts, with a round piece of cloth of a white colour in the centre of it to. represent the host, the deacons had a white circle, with four pieces of 1·ed cloth to represent tongues, and the lay brothers had a white cross with five red pieces, to represent the five wounds. There was but one house of this order in England, that at Sion, in Middlesex, which was founded by Henry V., in 1414.

FRIARS. THE DOMINICANS were founded by St. Dominic, from whom they obtained their name. They were also called Black Friars, from the colour of the habit, and Friars Preachers, from preaching being the peculiar object of their institute. Their rule, which was chiefly that of St. Augustine, was approved of by Pope Innocent III., and confirmed by Pope Honorius, in 1216. At the foundation of their order, these friars wore the same habit as the Augustinian Canons, but in 1219, they took another, consisting of a white cassock and hood over it, and when they went abroad they wore over these a black cloak and hood. This order was introduced into this country in 1221, and had their first house at Oxford; at the Dissolution they possessed forty- three convents. There were also nuns of this order, though there does not appear to have been any in England.

THE FRANCISCANS were founded by St. Francis of Assissi, in the year 1209, and their rule was confirmed by Pope Innocent Ill., in the following year. They were called Franciscans from their founder, Grey Friars from the colour of their habits, and were also known by the name of Friars Minors. They wore a loose habit of a grey colour, with a cloak and cowl of the same, they girded their loins with a cord, and went barefooted. They were brought to this country in 1224, and had their first convent at Canterbury. Relaxations having crept into this order, it was reformed and brought back to its primitive discipline. Afterwards those who followed the mitigated rule were called Conventuals, while those who accepted the reformation were styled Recollects, or Observants. This order is said to have been introduced into England by Edward IV., but there is no account of them prior to the reign of Henry VII., who built two or three houses for them. At the suppression of the monastic establishments the Conventual Franciscans had about fifty-five houses, which were divided into seven wardenships, viz. those of London, York, Cambridge, Bristol, Oxford, Newcastle, and Worcester. As to the Capuchins, and other distinctions of this order, they chiefly rose since the Reformation, consequently they possessed no houses in this country.

THE TRINITARIANS, MATURINES, OR FRIARS OF THE ORDER OF THE MOST HOLY TRINITY FOR THE REDEMPTION OF CAPTIVES, were instituted by St. John of Matha and Felix of Valois, about the year 1197, and observed the rule of St. Augustine, with some peculiar modifications adapted to the objects of their institute. This order was confirmed by Pope Innocent III., who gave them a white habit, with a red and blue cross upon their breasts, and appointed that their revenues should be divided into three parts, one of which was to be used for their own support, another was to be devoted to the poor, and the third was to be applied to the redemption of such Christians as were or should be taken prisoners by the infidels. The name of Trinitarians was given to them from all their churches being dedicated to the Holy Trinity, and Maturines from having their first house near the chapel of St. Maturin. They were brought into England, in 1224, had their first house in Kent, and at the Dissolution possessed ten or twelve convents. 

THE CARMELITES, OR WHITE FRIARS, came next into this kingdom. Their origin is unknown, but they were established upon Mount Carmel, in Syria, from time immemorial, whence they were driven by the Saracens about the year 1238. Their rule, which was founded upon that of St. Basil, is said to have been composed for them by Albert, Patriarch of Jerusalem, in 1224. Their garments are said to have been at first white, but being obliged by the infidels to make them party-coloured they continued the use of such for half a century after their introduction into Europe, and about the year 1290, made them white again. This order was first brought into England, in 1240, by the Lords John Vesci and Richard Grey, and had their first houses at Alnwick, in Northumberland, and Aylesford, in Kent, at the latter of which places their first European chapter was held, in 1245. There were about forty

houses of this order in England.

THE ORDER OF CROSSED OR CROUCHED FRIARS was instituted, or at least reformed, by Gerrard, prior of St. Mary of Morrello, at Bologna, and confirmed, in 1169, by Pope Alexander III, who brought them under. St. Augustine's rule, and made some other constitutions for their government. They obtained their name from their having, at first, carried a cross fixed to a staff in their bands, but afterwards they had a cross of red cloth upon the backs or breasts of their habits, which Pope Pius II. ordered to be of a blue colour. They came into England in 1244, and had their first convent in Colchester. At the Dissolution they possessed six or seven houses in this country. 

We possess no authentic information regarding the foundation of the Augustinian Friars, or Friars Eremites of the order of St. Augustine, who were introduced into this country about the year 1250, and wore a white garment and scapular, when in the convent, but in the choir and when they went abroad, they had over the former a black cloak and hood, which were girt with a black leather thong. They had about thirty-two houses here at the time of the suppression of the monastic institutions. 

THE FRIARS OF THE ORDER OF SAC, AND THE BETHLEMITE FRIARS appeared in England both in the same year, 1259. Of their origin we possess no information. The right style of the former was " Friars of the penance of Jesus Christ," but they were more commonly called Friars of the Sac, from their habits being shaped like a sack, or made of sackcloth. This order was suppressed by the council of Lyons, in 1307. The Bethlemite Friars followed a rule, and wore a habit almost the same as the Dominicans, but were distinguished from them by a red star of five rays, with a blue circle in the middle of it, worn upon their breasts in memory of the star which appeared to the Magi and conducted them to Bethlehem. There seems to have been only one house of the order in England, that at Cambridge. 

The order of St. Anthony of Vienna, was instituted in 1095, for the help and relief of such persons as were afflicted with the painful inflammation called St. Anthony's Fire. The members of this order followed the rule of St. Augustine, and wore a black habit with the letter T of a blue colour upon their breasts. They came to England early in the reign of Henry III., and had one house at London and another at Hereford. The last order of Friars which was brought to England, was that of BON-HOMMES or GOOD MEN, who were introduced by Edmund, Earl of Cornwall, in 1283, and placed at Ashering, in Bucks, besides which they only possessed another house in England, that of Edington, in Wiltshire. These friars observed the rule of St. Augustine, and wore a black habit. Their local superiors were called rectors, and one of them was styled president of the order. 

Of the military orders of the religious there were but two in England, viz::- THE KNIGHTS HOSPITALLERS, and the KNIGHTS TEMPLARS. The first of these began and received its name from an hospital built at Jerusalem, for the use of pilgrims coming to the Holy Land, and dedicated to St. John the Baptist; for the duty of these knights was to provide for such pilgrims at that hospital, and to protect them from injuries and insults upon the road. They were founded about the year 1092, and were much favoured by Godfrey of Bouillon, and his successor, Baldwin, king of Jerusalem. They followed chiefly the rule of St. Augustine, and wore a black habit with a white cross upon it. This order rapidly rose to wealth and power, and their superior in this country was the first lay baron, and had a seat in parliament. The Hospitallers were brought into England in 1100, and established themselves in London. There were also sisters of this order, but they had only one house in this kingdom, that of Buckland, in Somersetshire. The Knights Templars were founded in 1118, by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and consisted at first of nine knights, who lived in community near the site of the temple, and whose duty it was to protect pilgrims and to guard the roads near Jerusalem. They observed the rules of St. Augustine, and wore a white habit with a red cross upon the left shoulder. They came into this country probably in the reign of Stephen, and had their first house in Holborn. They increased rapidly and in a short time attained considerable wealth and importance. Philip the Fair, repeatedly denounced this order to the Pope, Clement V., and at length arrested all the Templars in his dominions. Clement blamed his precipitancy, and reserved the inquiry to the Holy See. He informed all Christian kings of the proceedings, and appointed judges to examine the charges which had been preferred against the order. The process lasted three years. It is not in human nature, that all the members of a rich and powerful order should be immaculate, but against the bulk of the order no charge was substantiated. Such a storm, however, had been raised by the king of France, that Clement deemed it prudent as a matter, not of justice, but of expediency, to suppress the order, in 1312. In some places their property had already been confiscated by rapacious princes; in England the judges decided that it reverted to the lords of the fees as their escheats. As, however, these lands had been given for religious purposes, the parliament refused to appropriate them, but " for the health of their souls, and discharge of their consciences," assigned them to the Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem. The superior of this order was styled the master of the Temple, and was often summoned to parliament. 

THE ORDER OF ST. LAZARUS OF JERUSALEM, of which there were a few houses in England, seems to have been founded for the relief and support of lepers and impotent persons belonging to the military orders.

Such are the various orders which existed in England anterior to the Reformation, let us now take a short review of the motives which led to their suppression. Henry VIII., having given the rein to his licentious passions, and cast off the papal supremacy, which refused to sanction him in the indulgence of his unlawful appetites, found that one great obstacle to the changes he wished to make in the country, was the existence of numerous and powerful monasteries. In these were to be found men who could not easily be persuaded to exchange the supremacy of the Pope for that of the King, men who would not forswear themselves, and deny the articles of their faith at the bidding of a tyrant. This then was one motive which caused the religious houses of England to be obnoxious to Henry, whose whole heart was bent upon establishing his spiritual supremacy, and these were the bodies from which he was. sure to receive the most determined opposition. They must, therefore, be removed out of his way, they must be sacrificed to his ambition. Another, and not less powerful motive, was to be found in the great wealth of some of these religious houses. The example of Germany had shown that the church might be plundered with ease, and also with impunity, This lesson was not lost upon the English monarch, who was " strongly disposed,'' says Bishop Godwin, "to promote any reformation which might turn a penny, and furnish his exchequer." Indeed Cromwell, his prime minister in ecclesiastical matters, had long since promised that, if the king would only assume the spiritual supremacy, the wealth of the church should soon be placed at his disposal. Another party interested in the dissolution of the monasteries were the nobles, who anxiously looked for a considerable share of the spoils, and therefore lent a very willing aid. With such an opposing force, it was next to impossible for the religious houses to preserve their property. Yet so great was their hold on the hearts of the people, that it was no easy matter to dispossess them. It could not be done by fair means. Plain straightforward dealing they could meet, without any fear of the result, but this would not suit the purposes of their enemies, who therefore adopted another line of action. Acting upon the principle of the old proverb, "Give a dog a bad name and hang him," their enemies determined upon calumniating these institutions, taking away their good character as far as possible, and representing that in many of them the rules of the order were not properly observed, but that every sort of vice and wickedness prevailed, and it was suggested that they should be visited and inspected, with a view to their reformation. Another device also, by which it was sought to predispose the public mind in favour of any severe measures that might hereafter be taken against the monasteries, was to set a rumour in circulation that there was some prospect of a war with the Emperor of Germany, whose large fleet was then conveying the wealth of the Indies to his European dominions. It was said, that if the king wished to extend the commerce of the country proportionably to the opportunities that had been lately offered by the discovery of America, he must fortify his existing ports, and make new ones. This could not be done with- out a large outlay, a charge too great for the crown revenues, and for which the king would not willingly burden his subjects with a new tax. Should it be found, therefore, that any of these monasteries were so deeply immersed in vice that reformation was impossible, and should it be determined that they ought rather to be suppressed, their confiscated revenues would be found. most conveniently to supply the necessary funds, and lest any one should scruple about the propriety of devoting to secular purposes, monies that had been solemnly set apart for the service of God, another project was also talked .about, though, if we may judge from the result, without any serious intention of ever really carrying it into effect, it was said that the monarch wished to increase the number of bishoprics, and that the revenues of the suppressed monasteries would provide an ample endowment for the new sees.

The destruction of these institutions having been determined upon, no means were spared to prepare the popular mind for such a result, and various plausible pretexts were invented to divert the attention of the people from the manifest injustice of the transaction. It was proposed that the King should appoint some one to visit the monasteries, but as if to render the mockery patent to all, Cromwell was the person chosen to be visitor a man who had not only professed his determination to carry out the King's wishes, but had actually himself been the first to suggest the idea. He appointed commissioners to assist him in his visitation, and at first every effort was made both by bribes and intimidation, to extort from the authorities at the head of each monastery, a voluntary surrender of their property, but when these failed, all kinds of scandalous stories were invented and circulated, so as to form some sort of ground for their suppression. The Commissioners, on their return, gave in a most tragical account of the immorality which they had discovered. Yet, strange to say, in the preamble of the statute which was drawn up in obedience to the report of the Commission, for the dissolution of the lesser abbeys, while it was stated that in them there was much ungodliness of living, and that redress was required for the good of religion, it was also distinctly acknowledged, that in the larger monasteries " religion was right well kept," and therefore it was proposed that these smaller houses should be suppressed, but that such of their inmates as desired it should be allowed to go into the larger houses. Thus was completed the first movement towards the destruction of the religious institutions of our ancestors. The dissolution of the smaller houses only prepared the way, and made the dissolution of the larger ones more easy. The same process which had been so successful in effecting the overthrow of the smaller houses, was now repeated against the others. Large pensions were offered to those abbots and priors who would make what was called a voluntary resignation of their property ; but, where bribery failed, menaces were employed, and some were terrified into submission by the extraordinary rigour adopted against those who stood up manfully for their rights and possessions. The monks of the Charter House, London, were committed to Newgate for what the Commissioners were pleased to term "traitorous behaviour," which was, in fact, neither more nor less than the refusal to surrender. Five of these monks died of the hardships they endured, and five more with difficulty escaped the same fate. The Abbot of Glastonbury and two of his monks were treated in an inhuman manner. Dugdale tells us that this abbot "governed his monastery with great prudence and judgment, that his table, attendance, and officers, were an honour to the nation; that his apartment was a sort of well disciplined court, where the sons of noblemen and gentlemen were sent for virtuous education, and returned thence excellently accomplished; that he had bred up nearly three hundred after this manner, besides others of a meaner rank, whom he fitted for the Universities; and that every week, on Wednesdays and Fridays, all the poor of the neighbourhood were relieved by his particular charity," - this Abbot, continues our authority, "being unwilling to surrender his abbey to the King, or to lend an ear to any of the solicitations which were addressed to him, was seized at his manor house, upon the pretence of embezzling the plate belonging to the convent, and without much formal process as to law or equity, was drawn from Wells, where he had been condemned, to Glastonbury on a hurdle, and hanged, with two of his monks; being hurried out of the world without regard to his age, and not so much as suffered to take leave of his convent." Certainly such an example as this was calculated to persuade many a timid abbot or prior to make a voluntary surrender of his property. If, however, any were still refractory, and yet it was not deemed expedient to put them to death, the obnoxious individual was forcibly deposed by the King, and some more manageable monk put in his place. In other instances the seals of the convents were taken away, and by this means the inmates were deprived of all means of subsistence. They were no longer able to make leases, nor to sell their jewels; the means of paying their debts were denied them, and they could not even procure the very necessaries of life. Thus they were reduced at last, and starved into a surrender.

Having at length gained possession, an act of parliament was passed, conveying all the religious houses, colleges, hospitals already dissolved, or to be dissolved hereafter, to the king, his heirs, and successors for ever, and in the preamble it is stated that sundry abbots, priors, abbesses, etc., had given the king their manors, lands, etc., of their own free and voluntary minds, goodu:ill, and assent, without constraint or compulsion. In order that parliament might be well disposed to the passing of the bill, promises were made to the nobility of large shares in the spoils. As there are some who profess to credit the scandalous stories told by the commissioners, concerning immoralities practised in the monasteries, we may state, that whenever a cathedral church was newly founded, or remodelled, in a place where a monastery had been suppressed, we almost invariably find that several of the dismissed monks were promoted to honours and dignities in the new foundation. Thus on the dissolution of the monastery of Christ Church, Canterbury, for instance, Archbishop Cranmer himself admitted to the new collegiate church no less than thirty members of the dissolved priory, and others of them were preferred in other churches. "If lewdness and immorality had been scandalously practised in this house," observes Dugdale, " Cranmer could not have suffered them to have been admitted into this college: hereupon," he continues, "let us lay aside all such reports concerning immoralities practised in the convents, and let us build upon surer grounds, and more Christian principles, the reasons whereby we justify the dissolution of popish monasteries in this nation." " Are the monks charged with covetousness?" ask the same writer. "They did indeed abound in wealth, but they neither enriched their families nor consumed their wealth upon their lusts. All they had was spent either in alms or hospitality, or else in stately and magnificent buildings, of which the present fabric of the church (at Canterbury) is a fair monument; or else in decking and beautifying the church with the richest ornaments, wherein they abounded. Are they accused of idleness? Their life, indeed, was not much spent in bodily labour; but much of it in bodily exercises, in fastings, penances, devout meditations night and day, and in some other superstitious formalities wherein they placed too much merit, and which they mistook for godliness itself. Are they censured as illiterate ? In these times there was but little learning in the world; but most of the learning that there was, was to be found in the cloisters of the monks, where some did attain to such a proficiency of knowledge, as in those times was to be esteemed high and great. Are they condemned as guilty of intemperance and luxury? They had their daily allowance of food and wine in their common refectory, but I do not conceive that this daily allowance did administer to excess, even upon their extraordinary festival commemorations." To these queries and replies by Dugdale, it can scarcely be requisite to add anything.

We will rather devote our remaining space to some account of the consequences that followed the dissolution of the monasteries. No less than 376 such establishments fell, and a yearly revenue of £32,000 was brought into the royal exchequer, besides goods and chattels to the value of £100,000. But on the other hand, more than 10,000 persons were cast into the world, without any adequate provision, ruined and undone. A piteous and unusual sight presented itself throughout the country. Monks and nuns wandering about asking for bread; they who had so continually ministered to the wants of the poor, now themselves in need of the commonest necessaries of life. And even this resource was soon denied them, for in the following reign, parliament made a statute against vagabonds, which was in reality levelled against the monks. Whilst the monks and nuns were thus reduced to beggary, the churches and monasteries which they had built were rifled, profaned, pulled down, or turned into dwelling houses, barns, or pigeon-houses; the church plate was swept away, the sacred furniture converted to common use, and the choir ornaments removed, in order to decorate the drawing-room, and bed chamber. 

Something had been said in the beginning about a prospect of war, and the necessity of making provision for it, something had also been rumoured about the creation of new bishoprics. But out of the eighteen bishoprics which had been talked of, no more than six were established; and as for the war, it was a mere pretence to deceive the people. The means which had been so fraudulently obtained, on the pretext of providing for the war, were no 

longer at the king's disposal, for large promises had been made beforehand to the nobles and to others, and these were kept. The property was not applied to pious uses. The abbeys were not turned into public schools, and seminaries of learning, nor into hospitals, nor into asylums for the poor, but were made over to the royal favourites, and were often bestowed in acknowledgment of the most trivial services. Fuller tells us, for instance, that the king "granted a religious house to a gentlewoman, because she presented him with a dish of pudding which happened to please his palate." He even made church property his stake at play, and thus played away many thousands a year that had once belonged to the monasteries. To one nobleman no less than thirty monasteries were allotted, to another thirteen, and by these means the property was soon dissipated past all recovery. And how did these nobles use the possessions which they had thus obtained? '' Who can call to mind without grief and indignation," says Southey, “how many magnificent edifices were overthrown in this undistinguishing havoc! Malmesbury, Battle, Waltham, Malvern, Tintern, Nievaulx, Fountains, Whalley, Kirkstall, and so many others; the noblest works of architecture, and the most venerable monuments of antiquity; each the blessing of the surrounding country, and 

collectively the glory of the land. Glastonbury, which was the most venerable of all, even less for its undoubted age, than for the circumstances connected with its history, and which in beauty and sublimity of structure, was equalled by few, surpassed by none, was converted by Somerset, after it had been stript arid dilapidated, into a manufactory, where refugee weavers, chiefly French and Walloons, were set up in their trade. The persons into whose hands the abbey lands had passed, used their new property as ill as they had acquired it. The tenants were compelled to surrender the writings, by which they held estates for two or three lives at an easy rent, payable chiefly in produce; the rents were trebled, and quadrupled, and the fines raised in even more enormous proportions, sometimes even twenty-fold. Nothing of the considerate superintendence which the monks had exercised, nothing of their liberal hospitality, was experienced from these ‘step-lords', as Latimer, in his honest indignation, denominated them. The same spirit which converted Glastonbury into a woollen manufactory, depopulated whole domains, for the purpose of converting them into sheep-walks; the tenants being turned out to beg, or rob, or starve. To such an extent was their inhuman system carried, that a manifest decrease of population appeared." The contemporary historians tell us, that the whole face of the country was changed, it was over-run with pauperism. As long as the monasteries stood unmolested, there had been no necessity for acts of parliament for the relief of the poor, no assessment upon the parish for that purpose, no union workhouse, no poor-law guardians and relieving officers, by whom poverty is very often treated as a crime. The rule of the abbeys was a Christian rule. They exercised hospitality towards the rich, and charity towards the poor; and when they were suppressed, it was acknowledged, even by those who had been instrumental in their destruction, that there was a general decay of charity. They said that "in more than a hundred places where, in former times, twenty pounds a year were regularly given to the poor, now not one meal of meat was given;" and the misery which was the consequence of this may easily be imagined. "In truth," says the Rev. Peter Newcome, Rector of Shenley, Herts, "the monks did more to civilise mankind, and to bring them within the comforts of society, than any set of men of any denomination have ever done. And yet the ungrateful world, that was enjoying the fruit of their labours, and their riches, now that it beheld the edifice completed, cast down the builders and the scaffolding as if no longer useful  In spite of all the calumny thrown out against these monastic institutions, nothing so well proclaims their utility as this that they maintained themselves in credit and repute, some of them a thousand years, and many of them during the space of three hundred, four hundred, and five hundred years, and that, when they were dissolved, Edward VI., and his counsellors, found it necessary to endow new hospitals, to build new schools, and to provide new relief for the poor and helpless.''. 

Such is a brief outline of the rise and progress of the monastic state, of the introduction of the various religious orders into this country, and of the dissolution of the monasteries, at the time of the Reformation. Such were the motives which led to their suppression, the manner in which that suppression was effected; and from whatever point of view we contemplate it. we see the mark of evil set upon it in the most plain and unmistakeable manner. It had its origin in the worst passions of the human heart: it was carried out by a mixture of fraud and most cruel violence, and without conferring any real benefit on any part of the nation, it produced ruin and misery for the poor. They, above all other classes of society, have reason to lament the day that saw:

"That violent commotion, which o'erthrew,
In town and city, and sequester'd glen,
Altar and cross, and church of solemn roof,
And old religious house, pile after pile;
And shook the tenants out into the fields,
Like wild beasts without a home!"
WORDSWORTH