SEVERE morality has in all ages of the world been held a virtue. The Hebrew law and the wisdom of Heathen philosophy, alike pointed to it as excellent. Let that false philosophy which croaks over humanity, and like the raven, scents only corruption, while nature in ten thousand beautiful forms is smiling around, raise its dismal cry never so loudly, the truth remains unaltered; and the history of the race shows clearly a bias on the side of goodness. It is true, nevertheless, that the human intellect will place too much importance on things of comparatively trifling value; will adopt false criterions of judgment; but this is an error of the head, not of the heart. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to find a solitary instance where vice, as such, has been applauded by the popular voice, whether it is sought among the records of ancient or modern history; far back in the twilight of universal heathenism, or in the illumination of Christian and Mosaic views. On the contrary we find virtue exalted and honored, and those names which have been enshrined in the hearts of nations are so because illustrious for something which their country has deemed virtuous. What demagogue ever rose to popular esteem by any other means than pretensions to virtue? Or

what good man was ever doomed to exile or death by the popular will, except for some imputed crime? The Athenians loved Socrates until the tongue of the defamer had shaken their belief in his uprightness, and Cæsar fell only because he was deemed an enemy of virtue in the state. Even the lowest rabble of our own country must be worked upon through the love of right, before they will cast their votes for the candidate of their favor.

Whatever may be our speculative views, we instinctively pay deference to the desire of doing right; even if he who possesses it goes widely astray from what we deem the correct path; and he has our sympathy even in his error. But this is only when we have opportunity to judge of intention, aside from outward action. Where we have no such ingress to the heart, we judge of a man simply by his deeds; marking him down as good or bad as his actions have in them a preponderance of good or evil. The majority of mankind, whether civilized or barbarous, are incapable of looking beneath the surface of things, and judge of course only by the outside. Impelled by the constitution of their natures to respect and love goodness, they love and respect whatever seems to evince it. It is this universal trait in the human character which in all ages and countries has been taken advantage of by discerning men, to gain for themselves stations of influence and power, that lies at the foundation of all religious orders, from the remotest periods to the present day. Indeed it lies at the foundation of all systems of government, both religious and secular, and gives permanence to all the institutions of the world.

As far back as history reaches, a distinct class of men appear in all nations, to whom were ascribed peculiar goodness or sanctity, who were looked upon by the populace as superior to themselves; and in the view which we take of the constitution of human nature, it is easy to account for the vast influence which apparent lives of austerity and self-denial have had upon the popular mind. Knowing by experience how hard it is to control the animal passions, the multitude look with admiration on the man who has this self-control; and when to this feeling we superadd a belief in spiritual beings who govern the universe, rewarding the good and punishing the vicious, we arrive by no circuitous process at the true reason why all nations have regarded morality with such veneration.

Among the Hindoos we find an order of men called Fakirs, who, practising all kinds of self-denial, are especially reverenced by their countrymen. The Essenes among the Jews had the same honor; and the 'Medicine Men' of our own native tribes are esteemed above the most renowned warriors. These last, however, can hardly be classed with the former two, as they partake more of the priest than the mere ascetic. Side by side with these we place the MONK OF EUROPE; and refer the origin of his distinctive order to the same admiration for austere morality, which we consider so universal. It was not until the Latin church had become corrupted by the constant accretion of Pagan superstition, that the active and social principles of the true faith were so far forgotten as to allow the principles of seclusion from the world to be inculcated as a means of procuring the favor of Deity. Nor was it until a lust

for power had polluted the Christian altar, that eclesiastics began to impose austerities upon themselves in order to excite the wonder and veneration of the common people; the very doctrine which the Founder of their religion so unsparingly rebuked. Yet we cannot be too careful in imputing wrong motives even to those who appear the most ambitious. We cannot know at this age how much of sincerity there might have been in thus departing so widely from the right way. That they did err, we know; but that they did so wittingly, we may not too readily assert. Here in this Protestant land, where the very name of Papal Rome is abhorrent; where in the nursery and in the house of prayer we hear only anathemas against the Catholic church, and not one word of charitable excuse; it is very hard to divest ourselves of prejudice, and calmly and considerately view the causes which very probably led to the accumulation of so much error. It is however, with the establishment of the monkish orders that we are engaged at present, and not with Catholicism in general.

The persecution which the early Christians suffered was undoubtedly one cause which originated the idea of seclusion from the world. Driven out from the cities, and forced to live in wild solitudes and caves, the early converts became attached to this mode of life; and when in later times persecutions had ceased, and their religion became that of the Roman empire, it is not wonderful that many should have withdrawn themselves into desolate places to worship, as did their ancestors. Indeed many supposed that the Deity made new revelations to them here, to reward them for the privations which they voluntarily suffered; and thus we perceive another reason why this mode of life was chosen. In the East, and more especially in Egypt, this mode of life was so prevalent, that at the close of the fourth century in that country, it is said that there. were more than seventy thousand monks. St. Ambrose appears to be the first who established the monks as a distinct order in Italy; but soon after, their numbers increased to an almost incredible extent. The funeral of St. Martin, Bishop of Tours, who first introduced the order into France, was attended by no less than two thousand of this singular brotherhood, who here took the name of Friars, from the French word frere, a brother. This term however designated those who lived in large societies, and did not include the Eremites, or hermits, who lived in complete solitude. But these latter were comparatively few. These also bore the name of Anchorites. This mode of life was not confined wholly to the men; women became ambitious of the distinction which every where was conceded to so holy and religious a life.

About the time of St. Jerome, nunneries were established at Rome, although it was customary for a long time after for the women to remain in their own houses, and even to make visits to their neighbors; having on, as they passed through the streets, a long veil, which hid them from public gaze. They were forbidden to marry, and the penalty of seducing them was death. Thus was revived, under a different name, the order of the Vestal Virgins; who in the same city for so many centuries had performed the sacred rites in the temples of the heathen deities. The first nunnery known in France was founded by Queen Radigonda, in the year A. D. 567; and her intention was confirmed soon after by

an eclesiastical council held at Tours. The common people at Rome however considered it disreputable for women thus to seclude themselves; probably because before the introduction of Christianity marriage had been held in great esteem; and even at times commanded by imperial edict; except in the case of the order just alluded to.

The monks were also forbidden to marry, and Syricius, Bishop of Rome, ordained that if any monk or nun should marry after they had taken the monastic vow, that they should be banished from their monastery and confined in a solitary cell; there to remain and expiate their sin, that they might before death become worthy to partake of the sacrament, which alone would ensure them happiness in the after life. It may appear very singular to us that such superstition was so general; yet we must reflect that ignorance prevailed to a lamentable extent even among the dignitaries of the Church, who had gained their stations more by their address and apparent sanctity than by any superior intelligence or learning. The Church at that early date had already become an engine of power, with the garb of religion thrown over it to hide it from the scrutiny of the uninitiated; yet then, and during its darkest corruptions, a large majority of those who managed its affairs appear to have been actuated by the desire of doing good; and really thought, in their ignorance, that they were pursuing the best methods of attaining their end. Doubtless there were many who on the contrary knew what they were doing; but these, having more sagacity, directed the rest; as is the case in every government or institution, whether religious or magisterial. We must not too hastily condemn the many for the vices of the few and even with the latter, let us palliate, so far as is practicable, even the vices for which we condemn them. Ambition misleads the loftiest intellects and the purest hearts. We should not judge too harshly even of the worst of men.

At first the monks were so wholly secluded from the world that they obtained the name of Regulars; since then their mode of life gave them better opportunity to perform all the numerous ceremonies of the Church; such as frequent fasting and prayer, and penances, which those engaged in worldly affairs could not so readily find time to perform. This gave them great influence with the people, who esteemed them superior to the priests, or secular clergy; and whenever a monk appeared in the villages, he was surrounded with the sick and the lame for blessings, and was furnished in abundance with every thing necessary for his subsistence. Some of the monasteries, even at a very early day, became immensely rich by the contributions of the villagers, who esteemed it a great privilege to part with their substance for the support of these holy men. To correctly estimate the great burthen which these institutions were on the community, we must reflect that there was hardly a mountain or hill, in all the south of Europe, which had not one of those religious houses. And beside these, there were thousands of mendicant friars who journeyed about, selling sacred relics, and were connected with no particular society: still there were many belonging to the monasteries who pursued the same calling, and constantly enriched their respective houses.

During the first centuries of the monastic institutions, the monks

were subject to the bishops, and could not elect their own officers without their consent; but in process of time, as their numbers and influence increased, the Popes granted them exemption from Episcopal authority, in all matters pertaining to their own private government. Near the close of the sixth century they first obtained permission to have priests of their own order, it being very inconvenient for the secular clergy always to be in attendance at the monasteries to perform religious service. In A. D. 606, Boniface IV., placed them upon an equality with the other clergy, independent however of the bishops, and gave them the same power with the seculars to hear confessions, preach, and grant absolution. Nor is it at all surprising that they obtained these privileges. Their habits of seclusion, and exemption from labor and care concerning their subsistence, gave them leisure to cultivate the sciences; so that as a body they soon outstripped the secular clergy in learning and intelligence. At first they studied only Theology; but they afterward, from necessity and a charitable spirit, became proficients in medicine. When their power and ambition enlarged, they found it for their interest to make themselves acquainted with the canonical and civil law; till at last all the learning was found in the monasteries. Large libraries were accumulated, where were stored the literature of Greece and ancient Rome: and but for the monks, perhaps the present day would be entirely ignorant of the whole of ancient literature. It is to their labors in copying and preserving old manuscripts, that we are indebted for the Holy Scriptures. When the Goths invaded Italy and burnt the imperial city, the monasteries, scattered over the country, escaped the general destruction, and were happily the safe repositories of much that we now so highly prize.

In A. D. 529, Benedict of Nursia established the order of monks who bore his name, and in the ninth century all the monastic societies of Europe were included under the general title of Benedictines. So sensible was Benedict of the mischief resulting from idleness, that it was one of his rules that seven hours in each day should be devoted to labor: but the introduction of lay brethren into the monasteries, on whom the whole burden of manual labor was imposed, finally relaxed his politic discipline, and opened the way for the abuses which after the Reformation overthrew the monastic institutions. The independence of Episcopal authority was no doubt another reason of the relaxation of discipline among the monasteries; and the invasion of the Normans, whose thirst for plunder was gratified in seizing upon the treasures of the monasteries, was perhaps another and great one; as the monks were dispersed, and the observance of many of their rules rendered impossible.

During the seventh and eighth centuries the monkish life was in such high esteem that we find many of the nobility of Europe, and some kings even, who sacrificed their honors and retired to this secluded state for the remainder of their lives. It is probable that from a feeling of the same kind the German Emperor Charles X., abandoned his throne and retired into Spain, leaving the whole of his vast dominions to his son Ferdinand. Many who did not adopt this mode of life caused themselves to be attired in the monkish habit when about to die,