Montyon. See IMonthyox,
Monument is the incorrect rendering in Isa. Ixv, 4 for "^lUi, vafsiir', a fjnarded place ("hidden thing," as in Isa. xlviii, 6 ; elsewhere " besieged," etc.), such as caves (so the Sept. airr]\niov), or the adyta or shrines of heathen temples (so the Vulg. deluhra'), as jilaces of idolatrous or illicit devotion. It was anciently a prac- tice in most nations for persons to resort to the sepul- chres for the purpose of magic or necromancy, and this still holds its ground in India and other Oriental coun- tries. See SurKKSTiTiox.
In the Apocrypha, " monument" is the correct render- ing in Wisd. x, 7 for ^vij^ulov, but inexactly in 1 JIacc. xiii, 27 for (^koS6^7](ti, and in 2 Mace, xv, 6 for rponai- op. See Tomb.
For the monuments of Egypt and Assyria, sec those countries respectively.
Monumental Theology, a term of late em- ployt'd to (l<sii;unti' i\\v siicntitic presentation of the notions and (loitrhus of theology as they are found in and tauglit by moiunnents. It aims to interpret tlic life and thought of the Christian Church as these are nnconsciously recorded in monumental remains. It goes out of the ordinary course of historic investigation, and searches for the isolated and fragmentary. Indeed, wherever Christian peoples have left a moinmiental trace of their life this discipline directs its inipiiries.
Relation to other Departments. — Since fliesc monu- mental remains are mostly of the nature of art-works, monumental theology is verj' intimately connected with Art Criticism, Art History, Archeology, Epigraidiics, and Numismatics. What have usually been regarded as only auxiliaries to Historical Theology have been re- cently elevated to an independent science. Art and written language differ entirely, both in their scojie and
] in their modes of expression. Art ap))eals to tlie irhole race; not, indeed, through the faculty of the under- standing, but through the higher faculty of the intui- tion, to which physical sight is only a medium or in-
i strument. The difference is this: while in thought
MONUMENTAL THEOLOGY 555 MONUMENTAL THEOLOGY
the subject under consideration is resolved into its con- stituent elements by the discursive faculty, and, there- fore, such knowledge is connected with a series of ele- ments that are apprehended successively, an art-work, as an object m space, may be understood at once in the totality of its elements, without division and without succession. In this respect the theology of art differs from dogmatics, for example, since the former would have to do chiefly with intuitive truth, the latter with results of the exercise of the discursive faculty.
But since the Christian Church was founded in the midst of two great opposing systems of religion and philosophy — viz. Heathenism and Judaism — these so- called Christian monuments will often appear of a mixed character. Likewise, in the course of the history of the Church she has been subjected to various attacks of error from within and without. Heresies within the Church, the hostile spirit of philosophy, and the perse- cuting spirit of the temporal powers, have been potent moulding influences. Hence the complete discussion of " JMonumental Theology" would demand a careful es- timate of the reciprocal influence of these opposing ele- ments. It would therefore include the examination of those heathen monuments that testify, by their mono- theistic character, either of lingering traces of an orig- inal divine revelation, or of an expectation of an ap- proaching deliverance, as well as that class of monu- ments that clearly show the presence and influence of heretical systems in the Church itself.
Chronological Limits. — The principles of Christianity, from its institution to the present time, have evidently exerted a most powerful influence on human thought and life. Art has likewise been affected. While at different periods (e. g. in the Western Church during the invasion of the Northern tribes, and in the icono- clastic struggle of the East) art has suffered terrible ca- tastrophes, it has, nevertheless, ever had a more or less intimate connection with the Christian Church. Hence it is with no sufficient reason that a class of writers (Bingham, Rheinwald, Bohmer, Guericke, and Neander) have limited ecclesiastical monuments and Christian archaeology to the chronological bounds of Patristics, i. e. to the first six centuries. More scientific is the view of another class of writers (Baumgarten, Augusti, etc.), who regard the Eeformation of the 16th ccuturv as a modern boundary ; since by the revival of classical studies, and the introduction of new elements of life, Art was liberated from its servitude to the Church, and found its subjects and inspiration more in nature and the affairs of common life. Nevertheless the highest art must ever find its truest inspiration in the Christian religion, and therefore art monuments must continue to embody much of the Christian thought and spirit of an age. Hence the more recent writers on Theological EncyclopjBdia (Hagenbach, Roseukranz, etc.) extend the study of Christian monuments to the present time.
Synoptical Vieto of the Science.— Fiper, the chief de- fender of monumental theology as an independent dis- cipline, presents the following scheme in his Einleitun;) in die Monumentale Theologie: Since inscriptions and art monuments are the chief subjects examined by mon- umental theology, these demand a twofold treatment : (a.) .4 n oniological ; (6.) a historical. In other words, the subject must be discussed partly according to its essence, as it is a product of intellectual activity exerted on a given material ; and partly according to its histor- ical development. And since Christianity is recognised as the chief inspiring motive of these Christian art monuments, another closely related division is necessary, viz. the systematic arrangement and representation of the ideas that have found expression in Christian mon- uments. Expanded, there would result the following outline :