Page:EB1911 - Volume 18.djvu/716

 Castleblayney (1576) and Ballybay (1208). The county includes five baronies. Assizes are held at Monaghan, and quarter sessions at Carrickmacross, Castleblayney, Clones and Monaghan. The two county members sit for the north and south divisions respectively. The county is in the Protestant and Roman Catholic dioceses of Clogher.

The district now called the county Monaghan was included in the district of Uriel or Orgial, and long known as Macmahon's country. It was made shire ground under its present name by Sir John Perrot in the reign of Elizabeth. At Clones there is a round tower in good preservation, but very rude in its masonry, another at Inishkeen is in ruins. Near Clones there are two large raths. Although there are several Danish forts there are no medieval castles of importance The only monastic structure of which any vestiges remain is the abbey of Clones, which was also the seat of a bishopric. The abbey dates from the 6th century, but was rebuilt in the 14th century after destruction by fire.

 MONAGHAN, a market town and the county town of county Monaghan, Ireland, on the Ulster Canal and the Belfast and Clones line of the Great Northern railway, by which it is 52 m. S.W. by W. of Dublin, Pop. (1901), 2932. There is a modern Roman Catholic cathedral (1862–1892) for the diocese of Clogher, a convent of the Sisters of St Louis, and a Protestant church (1836), and the public and county buildings include court-house, gaol, workhouse, asylum, hospital and barracks. Educational establishments include a national model school and the college of St Macartan, preparatory for the Roman Catholic priesthood. The town takes its name (Muinechan, the town of monks) from an early monastery. It was incorporated by James I., but was little more than a hamlet until the close of the 18th century. Rossmore Park, the fine demesne of Lord Rossmore, is the most noteworthy of several neighbouring residences, The town is governed by an urban district council.

 MONA MONKEY, a West African representative of the group of monkeys generally known as guenons, and scientifically as Cercopithecus. The mona (C. mona) typifies a sub-genus of the same name (Mona) characterized, among other features, by the presence of a black band running from the angle of each eye to the ear. In the mona itself the general colour of the upper parts is black, with a pair of oval white spots near the root of the tail, while a band across the forehead and the whole under surface are likewise white. (See )

 MONARCHIANISM, a theological term designating the view taken by those Christians who, within the Church, towards the end of the 2nd century and during the 3rd, opposed the doctrine of an independent personal subsistence of the Logos. During the middle of the 2nd century a number of varying christological views began to germinate, growing for a time side by side. They fall into two great classes: (a) Christ was a man in whom the Spirit of God had dwelt; (b) Christ was the Divine Spirit who had assumed flesh. Each class based its position on Scripture, but the latter (which prevailed) had the advantage of being able easily to combine with cosmological and theological propositions current in the religious philosophy of the time. The opposition to it arose out of a fear that it threatened monotheism. The representatives of the extreme monotheistic view, which while regarding Christ as Redeemer, clung tenaciously to the numerical unity of the Deity, were called Monarchians, a term brought into general use by Tertullian. It has to be remembered (1) that the movement originated within the pale of the Church, and had a. great deal in common with that which it opposed; (2) that it was ante-Catholic rather than anti-Catholic, e.g. the Canon of the New Testament had not yet been established. It is usual to speak of two kinds of monarchianism–the dynamistic and the modalistic, though the distinction cannot be carried through without some straining of the texts. By monarchians of the former class Christ was held to be a mere man, miraculously conceived indeed, but constituted the Son of God simply by the infinitely high degree in which he had been filled with Divine wisdom and power. This view was represented in Asia Minor about the year 170 by the anti-Montanistic Alogi, so called by Epiphanius on account of their rejection of the Fourth Gospel; it was also taught at Rome about the end of the 2nd century by Theodotus of Byzantium, a currier, who was excommunicated by Bishop Victor, and at a later date by Artemon, excommunicated by Zephyrinus About the year 260 it was again propounded within the Church by (q.v.), who held that, by his unique excellency, the man Jesus gradually rose to the Divine dignity, so as to be worthy of the name of God. Modalistic monarchianism, conceiving that the whole fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ, took exception to the “subordinatianism” of some Church writers, and maintained that the names Father and Son were only two different designations of the same subject, the one God, who “with reference to the relations in which He had previously stood to the world is called the Father, but in reference to His appearance in humanity is called the Son.” It was first taught, in the interests of the “monarchia” of God, by Praxeas, a confessor from Asia Minor, in Rome about 190, and was opposed by Tertullian in his well-known controversial tract. The same view—the “patripassian” as it was also called, because it implied that God the Father had suffered on the cross—obtained fresh support in Rome about 215 from certain disciples of Noetus of Smyrna, who received a modified support from Bishop Callistus. It was on this account that Hippolytus, the champion of hypostasian subordinatianism, along with his adherents, withdrew from the obedience of Callistus, and formed a separate community. In Carthage Praxeas for a time had some success, but was forced by Tertullian not only to desist but to retract. A new and conciliatory phase of patripassianism was expounded at a somewhat later date by Beryllus of Bostra, who, while holding the divinity of Christ not to be, or proper to Himself, but (belonging to the Father), yet recognized in His personality a new  or form of manifestation on the part of God. Beryllus, however, was convinced of the wrongness of this view by (q.v.), and recanted at the Synod which had been called together in 244 to discuss it. (For the subsequent history of modalistic monarchianism see .)

 MONARCHY (Fr. monarchie, from Lat. monarchia, Gr., rule of one, , alone, , rule), strictly, the undivided sovereignty or rule of a single person. Hence the term is applied to states in which the supreme authority is vested in a single person, the monarch, who in his own right is the permanent head of the state. The character of true monarchy is well defined in the well-known lines of Cowper (Verses supposed to be written by Alexander Selkirk):

The word “monarchy” has, however, outlived this original meaning, and is now used, when used at all, somewhat loosely of states ruled over by hereditary sovereigns, as distinct from republics with elected presidents; or for the “monarchical principle,” as opposed to the republican, involved in this distinction.

The old idea of monarchy, viz. that of the prince as representing within the limits of his dominions the monarchy of God over all things, culminated in the 17th century in the doctrine of the divine right of kings, and was defined in the famous dictum of Louis XIV.: L'état c'est moi! The conception of monarchy was derived through Christianity from the theocracies of the East; it was the underlying principle of the medieval empire and also of the medieval papacy, the rule of the popes during the period of its greatest development being sometimes called “the papal monarchy.” The monarchical principle was shaken to its foundations by the English revolution of 1688; it was shattered by the French revolution of 1789; and though it survives as a political force, more or less strongly, in most European countries, “monarchists,” in the strict sense of the word, are everywhere a small and dwindling minority. To express the change phrases were invented which have come into general use, though involving a certain contradiction in terms, viz. “limited” or