The history of philosophy, however, shows with un- mistakable clearness that there is a limit to this unify- ing process in philosophy. If Hegel were right, and the formula, "The rational alone is real", were true, then we should expect to be able to compass all reality with the mental powers which we possess. But, Christian philosophy holds, the real extends beyond the domain of the (finite) rational. Reality eludes our attempt to compress it within the cate- gories which we frame for it. Consequently, Dual- ism is often the final answer in piiilosophy ; and Mon- ism, which is not content with the partial synthesis of Duahsm, but aims at an ideal completeness, often results in failure. Dualism leaves room for faith, and hands over to faith many of the problems which philosophy cannot solve. Monism leaves no room for faith. The only mysticism that is compatible with it is rationalistic, and very different from that "vision" in which, for the Christian m3'stic, all the limitations, imperfections, and other shortcomings of our feeble efforts are removed by the light of faith.
See works referred to under Met.\physics: also, Veitch, Dual- ism am' Monism (London, 1895): Ward, Naturalism and Agnos- ticism (2 -.-lis.. London. 1899); RoYCE, The World and the Individual (New York, 1901); Bakewell, Pluralism and Mon- ism in Philos. Rev., VII (1898), 355 sqq.; Bowen, Dualism. Materialism or Idealism in Princeton Rev., I (1878). 423 sqq.; Gurnet. Monism in Mind. VI (1881), 153 sqq.: Articles in Monist (1891 — ): Adickeb, Kant contra Haeckel (Berlin, 1901); GuTBERLET, Der mcchanische Monismus (Paderborn, 1893); Engeht. Der naturalistiche Monismus Haeckels (Berlin, 1907); Dkews. Der Monismus (Leipzig, 1908) ; Articles bv Klinike in Jahrbuch fur Phil. u. Spek. Theol. (1905, 1906); Maltese, Mo- nismo e nichitismo (2 vols., Vittoria, 1887); Ab.ite, II mornsmo nelle diverse forme (Catania, 1893); Haeckel, Der Monismus als Band zwiscken Relit/inn und Wi^senschafl, tr. Cjilchrist (London, 1894): Idem, Die W.llr.ilh.l, tr. McCabe (London, 1900). On Carus's School of Mmiii^hi, i>,.^i,1,.3 The Monist (1891 — ) and The Open Court (pub. fortniRhtly, tirst number, Feb. 17, 1887), of. (^ARUS, Primer of Philosophy (Chicago. 1896) : Idem, Fundamen- tal Problems (Chicago, 1894); Idem. Monism. Its Scope and Im- port (Chicago, 1891).
Monita Secreta, a code of instructions alleged to be adLlressed by Acquaviva, the fifth general of the Society, to its various superiors, and laying down the methods to be adopted for the increase of its power and influence. According to them, every means is to be employed of acquiring wealth for the order, by enticing promising young men to enter it and endow it with their estates; rich widows are to be cajoled and dissuaded from remarriage; everj- means is to be used for the advancement of .Jesuits to bish- oprics or other ecclesiastical dignities, and to discredit the members of other orders, while the world is to be persuaded that the Society is animated by the purest and Ie.a.st interested motives: the reputation of those who quit it is to be assailed and traduced in every way.
That the "Monita" are in reality what they pre- tend, cannot possibly be maintained. They are known to be the work of one .Jerome Zahorowski, a I^ole, who, having been a member of the Society, had been dis- chargeil in 1611. They first appeared at Cracow in 1612 in MS., purporting to be a translation from the Spanish, and were printed in the same city in 1614. Various stories were told, however, as to the mode in which these secret instructions were originally discov- ered; the credit being most commonly assigned to r)uke Christian of Brunswick who, having been born in l.')l)9, wa-s a mere boy when they first saw the light. The place where they were found was variously set down as Paderborn, Prague, I,i<'ge, Antwerp, Glatz, and on board a cajjtun'd M;i.t Indiaman. Attempts were likewise made at various times, as late even as 1V'8.'3, to excite interest in lh(,' work as the result of a new discovery; to say nothing of an undated edition, in the early nineteenth century, which professes to issue from the I'ropaganda Press, and to be authenti- cated by the testimonies of various Jesuit authorities. These, however, are manifestly nothing but impudent
and malignant fabrications, the general, "Felix Aco- niti", being utterly unknown in the Aiinals of the Society, and the censor who approves the publication bearing the ominous name "Pasquinelli", wJule the titles which, it is alleged, should ensure the esteem of men in general for the Society, include all the crimes and abominations of every kind — immoralities, con- spiracies, murders, and regicides — which their bitterest enemies have ever attributed to the Society.
In looking for more authentic evidence as to the true character of the "Monita", it is unnecessary to cite any to whose testimony a suspicion of partiality might attach — from Bishop Lipski of Cracow (1616), through the long list of Jesuit writers who have from the first denounced the fabrication, and who are quoted by Father Bernard Duhr in his "Jesuiten Fabeln". Witnesses beyond any such exception are for example, the famous Fra Paolo Sarpi, the historian of the Council of Trent, the Jansenist Henri de Saint- Ignace, as well as Amauld and the "Nouvelles EccM- siastiques", to whom may be added Pascal himself, whose negative testimony is sufficient to show what he thought on the subject.
To these witnesses may be added such pronounced anti-Jesuits as von Lang, Dollinger, Friedrich (the author of Janus), Huber, and Reusch, as well as the Protestant historian Gieseler. In the British House of Commons, during the debates on Catholic Emancipation, the fraudulent character of the "Mo- nita" was fully acknowledged by more than one speaker, while the authorises of the British Museum, and likewise the French bibliographer M. Barbier, agree in describing the work as "apocryphal".
The only defence seriouslj' attempted on the other side is that offered by the late Dr. Littledale in his notorious article ".Jesuits", in the "Encyclopaedia Britannica". He acknowledges, indeed, that the work is in reality "both caricature and libel", but pleads neverthele.ss that it is substantially true, since its author, "a shrewd and keen observer", having noticed how Jesuits actually worked, deduced from his obser- vations the iniles by which they were guided. As to this remarkable example of "Jesuitical" argumenta- tion, it is sufficient to inquire upon what solid founda- tion Dr. Littledale's basal assumption rests. Where is the evidence that the principles of the "Monita" animate Jesuit practice? The official rules and con- stitutions of the order plainly contradict in every respect these supposed instructions, for they expressly prohibit the acceptance of ecclesiastical dignities by its subjects, unless compelled by papal authority, and from the days of the founder, St. Ignatius himself, it is known that every obstacle has been thrown by the Society in the way of such promotion. Moreover, in many cases, genuine private instructions from the general to subordinate superiors have fallen into hos- tile hands, but while in many cases they are found to give instructions directly contrary to those we have heard, ii is not even alleged that in any instance they (■(irrnlii.r:;! I- them.
I I !. /' M >nita Secreta oder die geheimen Verordnungen der (<• .' / /. i^Kia'V-Ylki.iv.Vi, Les Monita Secreta dea Jiauites,
>/•:':': ; ii , , HuBEB, Der Jesuitcnorden. p. 106; Reusch,
Ut, hul.i o.-r Verbotener BUcher. p. 281; Pahkinson in The Month (.luly-August, 1873: March. 1902): Gerard, The Secret Instructions of the Jesuits (Catholic Truth Society pamphlet).
Monk. — .\ monk may be conveniently defined as a member of a community of men, leading a more or less contemplative life apart from the world, under the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, according to a rule characteristic of the piirticular order to which he belongs. Tiic word monk is not itself a ti-rm com- monly used in the official language of the Church. It is a popular rather than a scientific designation, but it is at the same time ven," ancient, so much so that its origin cannot be precisely detennined. So far as re- gards the English form-of the word, that undoubtedly