Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 16.djvu/788

Rh 758 M O N M O N under the great seal for various purposes of extortion. One of the most notorious of these was Sir Giles Mompesson, who fled the country to avoid trial in 1621. After the introduction of several bills, and several attempts by James to compromise the matter by orders in council and promises, the Statute of Monopolies was passed in 1623. This made all monopolies illegal, except such as might be granted by parliament, or were in respect of new manu factures or inventions. Upon this excepting clause is built up the entire English system of letters patent for inven tions, the statute itself (amended by later Acts) being still in force. The Act was strictly enforced, and by its aid the evil system of monopolies was eventually abolished. This result was not indeed immediately achieved, for even during the Protectorate cases of monopoly patents were brought up, and the patents cancelled as grievances. Parliament has, of course, never exercised its power of granting to any individual exclusive privileges of dealing in any articles of trade, such as the privileges of the Elizabethan monopolists ; but the licences required to be taken out by dealers in wine, spirits, tobacco, &amp;lt;fec., are lineal descendants of the old monopoly grants, while the quasi-monopolies enjoyed by railways, canals, gas and water companies, &amp;lt;fec., under Acts of Parliament, are also representative of the ancient practice. MONOTHELITES (/xovo&A^rcu, monothelitas) was the name given to those who, in the 7th century, while other wise orthodox, fell into the heresy of maintaining that Christ had only one will. The monothelite controversy had its origin in the efforts of the emperor Heraclius to win back for the church and the empire the excommuni cated and persecuted Monophysites or Eutychians of Egypt and Syria. It seems to have been while in Armenia in 622 that, in an interview with Paul, the head of the Severians (Monophysites) there, he first broached the doc trine of the yum tvepyeia of Christ, i.e., the doctrine that the divine and human natures, while quite distinct in His one person, had but one activity and operation. 1 At a somewhat later date he wrote to Arcadius of Cyprus, com manding that &quot; two energies &quot; should not be spoken of ; and in 626, while in Lazistan (Colchis), he had a meeting with the metropolitan, Cyrus of Phasis, during which this command was discussed, and Cyrus was at last bidden seek further instruction on the subject from Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, a strong upholder of the juta evepyeia, and the emperor s counsellor with regard to it. So well did he profit by the teaching he received in this quarter that, in 630 or 631, Cyrus was appointed to the vacant patriarchate of Alexandria, and in 633 succeeded in recon ciling the Severians of his province on the basis of /xia OcavSpiKTj fvcpyfia (one divine-human energy). He was, however, opposed by Sophronius, a monk from Palestine, who, after vainly appealing to Cyrus, actually went to Con stantinople to remonstrate with Sergius himself. Shortly afterwards Sergius wrote to Pope Honorius, and received a friendly reply. Sophronius, however, who meanwhile had been made patriarch of Jerusalem (634), refused to be silenced, and in his Epistola Synodica strongly insisted on the &quot; two energies.&quot; So intense did the controversy now become that at last, towards the end of 638, Heraclius published his Ectkesis, or Exposition of the Faith, Avhich prohibited the use of the phrase &quot; one energy,&quot; because of its disquieting effects on some minds, as seeming to militate against the doctrine of the two natures ; while, on the other hand, the expression &quot; two energies&quot; was interdicted because 1 According to some church historians, it was Paul who introduced the doctrine ; but this statement seems to rest on a misinterpretation of the authorities. See Hefele, Conciliengcsch. , iii. p. 124 sq. (1877), who also traces the previous history of the expressions /u/a tvtpyeia, OeavdpiKT] fffpyeia, especially as found in the writings of the Pseudo- Dion ysi us Areopagita. it seemed to imply that Christ had two wills. That Christ had but one will was declared to be the only orthodox doctrine, and all the faithful were enjoined to hold and teach it without addition or deduction. The document was not acceptable, however, to Popes Severinus and John IV., the immediate successors of Honorius ; and Maximus, the confessor, succeeded in stirring up such violent opposi tion in North Africa and Italy that, in 648, Constans II. judged it expedient to withdraw his grandfather s offensive edict, and to substitute for it his own Typus (TI TTOS TTE/H Trto-rews), forbidding all discussion of the questions of the duality or singleness of either the energy or the will of Christ. The scheme of doctrine of the first four general councils, in all its vagueness as to these points, was to be maintained ; so far as the controversy had gone, the dis putants on either side were to be held free from censure, but to resume it would involve penal consequences. The reply of the Western Church was promptly given in the unambiguously dyothelite decrees of the Lateran synod held by Martin I. in 649 ; but the cruel persecutions to which both Martin and Maximus were exposed, and finally succumbed, secured for the imperial Typm the assent at least of silence. With the accession of Constantino Pogo- natus in 668 the controversy once more revived, and the new emperor resolved to summon a general council. It met at Constantinople in 680, having been preceded in 679 by a brilliant synod under Pope Agatho at Kome, where it had been agreed to depart in nothing from the decrees of the Lateran synod. At Constantinople the condemnation of the monothelite heresy was explicit and complete, Pope Honorius being anathematized by name along with the others who had supported it. Beyond the limits of the empire, monothelism survived for some centuries in Lebanon among the MARONITES (q.v.J, who did not abjure their heresies until 1182. See the church historians, and especially Hefele (op. cit. whose obvious partisanship can only slightly ail ect the reader s apprecia tion of his full and accurate learning. MONREALE, a contraction of &quot;monte-reale,&quot; was so called from a palace built there by the Norman Roger I., king of Sicily. It is now a town of about 16,300 inhabit ants, situated 5 miles inland from Palermo, on the slope of Mount Caputo overlooking the beautiful and very fer tile valley called &quot; La Concha d Oro &quot; (the Golden Shell), famed for its orange, olive, and almond trees, the produce of which is exported in large quantities. The town, which for long was a mere village, owed its origin to the found ing of a large Benedictine monastery, with its church, the seat of the metropolitan archbishop of Sicily. 1 This, the greatest of all the monuments of the wealth and artistic taste of the Norman kings in northern Sicily, who in 1072 expelled the Mohammedans and established themselves there with Palermo as their capital, was begun about 1170 by William II., and in 1182 the church, dedicated to the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, was, by a bull of Pope Lucius III., elevated to the rank of a metropolitan cathe dral. It was, and is even now, one of the most magni ficent buildings in the world, and Pope Lucius in no way exaggerated its splendour when he said in his bull, &quot;ut simile opus per aliquem regem factum non fuerit a diebus antiquis.&quot; The archiepiscopal palace and monastic buildings on the south side were of great size and magnificence, and Avere surrounded by a massive precinct wall, crowned at intervals by twelve towers. This has been mostly rebuilt, and but little now remains except ruins of some of the towers, a great part of the monks dormitory and f rater, and the very splendid cloister, completed about 1200. This latter is well 1 An earlier church appears to have existed at Moureale since tho 6th century, but no traces of it now remain.