MARCIONITES. Heretics of the second century, so called from Marcion. He was born at Sinope, in Paphlagonia or Helenopontus, on the coast of thePontus Euxinus, or Black Sea, and for that reason is sometimes calledPonticus. He studied the Stoic philosophy in his younger years, and was a lover of solitude and poverty; but being convicted of uncleanness with a virgin, he was, by his father, who was a bishop, expelledfrom the Church. After this he went to Rome, where being not admitted into Church communion, because his father had not consented to it, he in spite embraced Cerdon’s heresy, and became the author of new heresies, aboutA. D.134. He held with Cerdon two gods, the one good, the other bad: the latter, he said, was the author of the world, and of the law; but the good, he said, was the author of the gospel and redeemer of the world. He said that Christ was sent on purpose to abolish the law, as being bad. Origen affirms, that he supposed there was aGodof the Jews, aGodof the Christians, and aGodof the Gentiles. Tertullian wrote against him, and, more curiously than anybody else, observes the rest of his opinions, as that he denied the resurrection of the body, condemned marriage, excluding married people from salvation, whom he would not baptize, though he allowed of three sorts, and that the living were sometimes baptized for the dead. In his sect, the women commonly administered the sacraments. Rhodon, a Greek author, quoted by Eusebius, says, the disciples of this heresiarch added many other errors to his tenets; that the heresiarch meeting Polycarp in the streets of Rome, asked him whether he knew him. “Very well,” answered the good bishop, “I know you very well to be the first-born of Satan.” Constantine the Great published an edict against the Marcionites and the other heretics, in 366; and Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, converted 10,000 of them in 420.
MARIOLATRY. (SeeAngels,Idolatry,Popery,Virgin Mary,Mother of God.) The worship of the Virgin Mary: one of the sins of the Church of Rome, for defending which her theologians are guilty of heresy. The fact of the Romanists praying to the Virgin Mary is not denied. Their manner of doing so, not merely seeking her intercession, but actually addressing her in terms which sound very like blasphemy to those whose religion is catholic and Scriptural, may be seen from the following extracts made from the Psalter of Bonaventure.
Extract from the “Crown of the Blessed Virgin:”[8]
“O thou, our governor, and most benignant Lady, in right of being his mother, command your most belovedSon, ourLord Jesus Christ, that he deign to raise our minds from longing after earthly things to the contemplation of heavenly things.”
Extract from a serious parody on the To Deum, by the same writer:
“We praise thee, Mother ofGod; weacknowledge thee to be a virgin. All the earth doth worship thee, the spouse of the eternalFather. All the angels and archangels, all thrones and powers, do faithfully serve thee. To thee all angels cry aloud, with a never-ceasing voice. Holy, holy, holy, Mary, mother ofGod.... The whole court of heaven doth honour thee as queen. The holy Church throughout all the world doth invoke and praise thee, the mother of Divine majesty.... Thou sittest with thySonon the right hand of theFather.... In thee, sweet Mary, is our hope; defend us for evermore. Praise becometh thee; empire becometh thee; virtue and glory be unto thee for ever and ever.”
Extract from a parody on the Athanasian Creed, by the same writer:
“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the right faith concerning Mary; which faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.... He (Jesus Christ) sent theHoly Spiritupon his disciples, and upon his mother, and at last took her up into heaven, where she sitteth on the right hand of herSon, and never ceaseth to make intercession with him for us.
“This is the faith concerning the Virgin Mary, which, except every one do believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
Extract from a work by Alphonso Liguori, called “The Glories of Mary:”[9]
“During the pontificate of Gregory the Great, the people of Rome experienced in a most striking manner the protection of the Blessed Virgin. A frightful pestilence raged in the city to such an extent, that thousands were carried off, and so suddenly, that they had not time to make the least preparation. It could not be arrested by the vows and prayers which the holy pope caused to be offered in all quarters, until he resolved on having recourse to the Mother ofGod. Having commanded the clergy and people to go in procession to the church of our lady, called St. Mary Major, carrying the picture of the holy Virgin, painted by St. Luke, the miraculous effects of her intercession were soon experienced: in every street as they passed the plague ceased, and before the end of the procession an angel in human form was seen on the tower of Adrian, named ever since the castle of St. Angelo, sheathing a bloody sabre. At the same moment the angels were heard singing the anthem, ‘Regina Cœli,’ ‘Triumph, O Queen,’ Hallelujah. The holy pope added, ‘Ora pro nobis Deum,’ ‘Pray for us,’ &c. The Church has since used this anthem to salute the Blessed Virgin in Easter time.”—True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, p. 21.
Extract from the Encyclical Letter of Pope Gregory XVI.:
“Having at length taken possession of our see in the Lateran Basilica, according to the custom and institution of our predecessors, we turn to you without delay, venerable brethren; and in testimony of our feeling towards you, we select for the date of our letter this most joyful day, on which we celebrate the solemn festival of the most Blessed Virgin’s triumphant assumption into heaven; that she, who has been through every great calamity our patroness and protectress, may watch over us writing to you, and lead our mind by her heavenly influence to those counsels which may prove most salutary toChrist’sflock.... But that all may have a successful and happy issue, let us raise our eyes to the most Blessed Virgin Mary, who alone destroys heresies, who is our greatest hope, yea, the entire ground of our hope.”
For other quotations to the same purpose, see the very useful and learned volume “On Roman Fallacies and Catholic Truths,” by the Rev. H. T. Powell.
The adoration of the Virgin was first introduced in the fourth century, and was regarded as a heresy by the Catholic Church. It commenced in Arabia, about the year 373, and seems to have given rise to the opposite heresy, that of the Antidicomarians, who spoke irreverently of the Blessed Virgin. We learn that the simple and misguided persons who adopted this new worship, made offerings of cakes to the Virgin, from which they were called Collyridians (a word which signified the nature of the offering). There is no evidence that they separated from the Church or its worship, or refused to worshipGod, or regarded the Virgin as equal withGod. They, however, offered external worship to the Virgin, and were, therefore, regarded as heretics. In the following century, a reaction against the Nestorian refusal of the titleTheotokos(Mother of God) to the Blessed Virgin, tended greatly to pave the way for the Mariolatry of later times. (SeeNestorians,Mother of God.) Our great Bishop Bull observes, “We abominate the impious imposture of those who have translated the most humble and holy Virgininto an idol of pride and vanity, and represented her as a vain-glorious and aspiring creature; like Lucifer, (I tremble at the comparison,) thirsting after Divine worship and honour, and seeking out superstitious men and women, whom she may oblige to her more especial service, and make them her perpetual votaries. For what greater affront than this could they have offered to her humility and sanctity? How fulsome, yea, how perfectly loathsome to us, are the tales of those that have had the assurance to tell us of the amorous addresses of the Blessed Virgin to certain persons, her devout worshippers; choosing them for her husbands, bestowing her kisses liberally on them, giving them her breasts to suck, and presenting them with bracelets and rings of her hair as lovetokens! The fables of the Jewish Talmudists, yea, of Mahomet, may seem grave, serious, and sober histories, compared to these and other such like impudent fictions. Insomuch that wise men have thought that the authors of these romances in religion were no better than the tools and instruments of Satan, used by him to expose the Christian religion, and render it ridiculous, and thereby to introduce atheism. And indeed we are sure, that the wits of Italy, where these abominable deceits have been and are chiefly countenanced, were the first broachers and patrons of infidelity and atheism in Europe, since the time that Christianity obtained in it.”
In a word, such is the worship given to the Blessed Virgin by many in the Church of Rome, that they deserve to be calledMariani, rather thanChristiani, &c.
MARK, ST., THE EVANGELIST’S DAY. A festival of the Christian Church, observed on the 25th of April.
St. Mark was, by birth, a Jew, and descended of the tribe of Levi. He was converted by some of the apostles, probably by St. Peter, to whom he was a constant companion in all his travels, supplying the place of an amanuensis and interpreter. He was by St. Peter sent into Egypt, fixing his chief residence at Alexandria, and the places thereabout: where he was so successful in his ministry, that he converted multitudes both of men and women. He afterwards removed westward, toward the parts of Libya, going through the countries of Marmorica, Pentapolis, and others thereabouts; where, notwithstanding the barbarity and idolatry of the inhabitants, he planted the gospel. Upon his return to Alexandria, he ordered the affairs of that Church, and there suffered martyrdom in the following manner. About Easter, at the time the solemnities of Serapis were celebrated, the idolatrous people, being excited to vindicate the honour of their deity, broke in upon St. Mark, while he was performing Divine service, and, binding him with cords, dragged him through the streets, and thrust him into prison, where in the night he had the comfort of a Divine vision. Next day, the enraged multitude used him in the same manner, till, his spirits failing, he expired under their hands. Some add, that they burnt his body, and that the Christians decently interred his bones and ashes near the place where he used to preach. This happened in the year of Christ 68.
MARK’S, ST., GOSPEL. A canonical book of the New Testament. (See the preceding article.)
This evangelist wrote his Gospel at Rome, whither he accompanied St. Peter in the year ofChrist44. Tertullian, and others, pretend, that St. Mark was no more than an amanuensis to St. Peter, who dictated this Gospel to him. Others affirm that he wrote it after St. Peter’s death.
MARONITES. Certain Eastern Christians, so called, who inhabit near Mount Lebanon, in Syria. The name is derived either from a town in the country calledMaronia, or fromSt. Maron, who built a monastery there in the fifth century.
TheMaroniteshold communion with the Romish Church. Pope Gregory XIII. founded a college at Rome, where their youth are educated by the Jesuits, and then sent to their own country. They formerly followed the errors of the Jacobites, Nestorians, and Monothelites; but these they renounced for the errors of the Roman Church in the time of Gregory XIII. and Clement VIII. The patriarch of theMaroniteswas present in the fourth Lateran Council, under Innocent III., in 1215.
TheMaroniteshave their patriarch, archbishops, bishops, and about 150 inferior clergy, who are so oppressed by the Turks, that they are reduced to work for their living. They keep Lent according to the ancient rigour, eating but one meal a day, and that after mass, which is said at four o’clock in the afternoon. Their priests are distinguished by a blue scarf, which they wear about their caps. Married men may become priests, but none may marry after he is in orders. They wear no surplices, observe particular fasts and feasts, and differ in many other things from the Church of Rome.
The patriarch of theMaronitesis a monk of St. Anthony, claims the title ofpatriarch of Antioch, and is always calledPeter. He has about nine bishops under him, and resides atEdem Canobin, a monastery built on a rock. They read their service both in the vulgar language and in Latin, and, while they perform it, turn their heads sometimes on one side, and sometimes on the other, pronouncing the wordNumorEynamsoftly, which signifiesyesoryes verily, by which they express their assent to what they read. They have so great a veneration for their bishops, that they often prostrate themselves before them.
As to the particular tenets of theMaronites, before their adhesion to the Church of Rome, it is said, they denied the procession of theHoly Ghost, observed Saturday as well as theLord’sday, condemned fourth marriages as unlawful; held that all souls were created together, and that those of good men do not enter into heaven till after the resurrection; that they administered the eucharist to children, and communicated in both kinds.
In 1180, theMaroniteswere above 40,000 in number, and very valiant. They did the kings of Jerusalem great service against the Saracens.
Besides several convents ofMaronitemonks, there is one of nuns, who are highly esteemed for their sanctity. This edifice is no more than a church, in which the nuns are shut up close, like pigeons in their holes, in little corners or cells, which are so low, that few of them can stand upright, or turn themselves round in them.
MARRIAGE. (SeeMatrimony.)
MARTINMAS. A festival formerly kept on the 11th of November, in honour of St. Martin, bishop of Tours, in France, who, after distinguishing himself by destroying the heathen altars and images remaining in his day, died in the year 400, having been bishop about twenty-six years.
MARTYR. One who lays down his life, or suffers death, for the sake of religion. The word is Greek, and properly signifies a “witness.” It is applied, by way of eminence, to those who suffer in witness of the truth of the gospel.
The Christian Church has abounded with martyrs, and history is filled with surprising accounts of their singular constancy and fortitude under the most cruel torments human nature was capable of suffering. The primitive Christians were falsely accused by their enemies of paying a sort of Divine worship to martyrs. Of this we have an instance in the answer of the Church of Smyrna to the suggestion of the Jews, who, at the martyrdom of Polycarp, desired the heathen judge not to suffer the Christians to carry off his body, lest they should leave their crucified master, and worship him in his stead. To which they answered, “We can neither forsakeChrist, nor worship any other: for we worship him as theSonofGod, but love the martyrs as the disciples and followers of theLord, for the great affection they have shown to their King and Master.” A like answer was given at the martyrdom of Fructuosus, in Spain; for when the judge asked Eulogius, his deacon, whether he would not worship Fructuosus, as thinking that, though he refused to worship heathen idols, he might yet be inclined to worship a Christian martyr, Eulogius replied, “I do not worship Fructuosus, but him whom Fructuosus worships.”
The first martyr in the Christian Church was St. Stephen. His memory is celebrated on the day which bears his name. In the collect for that day, he is expressly named the “first Martyr St. Stephen,” and we are there taught to prayGod, that we may “learn to love and bless our persecutors, by following this blessed martyr’s example.” The Church loves to dwell on the memory of those who have yielded up even their lives in a faithful attachment to their Redeemer, and who, from the midst of the fires, could rejoice inGod, and trust in his grace. In that beautiful hymn, theTe Deum, their memory is celebrated in the words,—“The noble army of martyrs praise thee.” And well may they be counted “anarmy,” whether we consider their numbers or their valour; and a “noblearmy,” because, as true soldiers ofChrist, these have fought against sin with their lives in their hands, and, in the apostolic phrase, “have resisted unto blood.”
The Church of England can boast of the only royal martyr. Our glorious martyr, King Charles I., having been dethroned by the Presbyterians, was murdered by the Independents.—Broughton.
MARTYRDOM. The death of a martyr.
The same name is sometimes given to a church erected over the spot where a martyr has suffered.
MARTYROLOGY, in the Church of Rome, is a catalogue or list of martyrs, including the history of their lives and sufferings for the sake of religion.
TheMartyrologiesdraw their materials from the calendars of particular churches, in which the several festivals, dedicated to them, are marked. They seem to be derived from the practice of the ancient Romans,who inserted the names of heroes and great men in theirFasti, or public registers.
TheMartyrologiesare very numerous. Those ascribed to Eusebius and St. Jerome are reckoned spurious. Bede is the first who, in the eighth century, composed two Martyrologies, one in prose, and the other in verse. Florus, the deacon of Lyons, in the ninth century, enlarged Bede’s “Martyrology,” and put it almost in the condition it is at present. Valdelbertus, a monk of the diocese of Treves, in the same century, wrote a martyrology in verse, extracted from Bede and Florus, and now extant in Ducherius’sSpicilegium. About the same time, Rabanus Maurus, archbishop of Mentz, drew up a martyrology, published by Canisius, in hisAntiquæ Lectiones. After these, Ado, archbishop of Vienne, compiled a new Martyrology, while he was travelling in Italy, where, in a journey from Rome to Ravenna,A. D.857, he saw a manuscript of an ancient martyrology, which had been brought thither from Aquileia.
In the year 870, Usuardus, a monk of St. Germain des Près, drew up a much larger and more correct martyrology than those above mentioned. This performance was well received, and began to be made use of in the offices of the Western Church. About the beginning of the next century, Notkerus, a monk of Switzerland, drew up another martyrology from Ado’s materials. This martyrology, published by Canisius, had not the same success with that of Usuardus. The churches and monasteries, which used this last, made a great many additions and alterations in it. This gave rise to a vast number of different martyrologies during the six following centuries.
The moderns, at last, desirous to rectify the errors and defects of the old martyrologies, compiled new ones. Augustinus Belinus, of Padua, began this reform in the fifteenth century. After him, Francis Maruli or Maurolycus, abbot of Messina, in Sicily, drew up a martyrology, in which he has entirely changed Usuardus’s text. John Vander Meulen, known by the name of Molanus, a doctor of Louvain, restored it, with alterations and very learned notes. About the same time, Galesinus, apostolic prothonotary, drew up a martyrology, and dedicated it to Gregory XIII.; but this was not approved at Rome. Baronius’s “Martyrology,” written some time after, with notes, was better received, being approved by Pope Sixtus Quintus, and has since passed for the modern martyrology of the Roman Church. It has been several times corrected, and was translated into French by the Abbot Chatlain, canon of Notre Dame at Paris, with notes, in the year 1709.
There are very ridiculous and even contradictory narratives, in these several martyrologies; which is easily accounted for, if we consider how many forged and spurious accounts of the lives of saints and martyrs, from whence the martyrologies were compiled, appeared in the first ages of the Church; and which the legendary writers of those times adopted without examining into the truth of them. Those of later ages, who have written the lives of saints and martyrs, either through prepossession, or want of courage to contradict received opinions, have made use of a great part of this fabulous stuff, and passed it off for genuine history. However, some good critics of late years have gone a great way towards clearing the lives of the saints and martyrs from the monstrous heap of fiction they laboured under. Of this number are M. de Launoy, of Paris, M. Baillot, in his “Lives of the Saints,” M. le Nain de Tillemont, and others.—Broughton.
MARY. (SeeVirgin MaryandMariolatry.)
MASORA. A term in Jewish theology, signifying tradition. It includes notes of all the variations of words, letters, and points which occur in the Hebrew Scriptures; an enumeration of all the letters, &c.; in short, the minutest points of verbal criticism, and pretends to an immaculate accuracy. The authors of it are unknown. Some attribute it to Moses; others to Ezra; others to the Masorites of Tiberias. The probability is, according to Bishop Walton, that the Masora was begun about the time of the Maccabees, and was continued for many ages.—SeeBishop Walton’s Prolegomena to his Polyglott Bible.
MASORITES. A society of learned Jews, who had a school or college at Tiberias. They paid great attention to the critical study of the Hebrew Scriptures; and to them by many able scholars, as Walton, Capellus, &c., is attributed the invention of the vowel points now used for the guidance of the pronunciation in reading Hebrew.
MASS. In Latin,Missa. This word at first imported nothing more than thedismissalof a Church assembly. By degrees it came to be used for anassemblyand for Church service; and from signifying Church service in general, it came at length to denote theCommunion Servicein particular, and so that most emphatically came to be called Mass. Since the Reformation, the word has been generally confined to express the form of celebrating the holy communion in the Romish Church. But in the First Book of King Edward VI., the Communion Service is thus headed: “The Supper of the Lord, and the Holy Communion, commonly called the Mass.”
Formerly there was themissa catechumenorumand themissa fidelium, not because they had two kinds of communion, but because the primitive Christians dismissed their congregations at different times, first sending away the heathens and heretics, then the catechumens and public penitents, after having prayed; the faithful alone being suffered to remain during the celebration of the holy communion. The practice of the modern Romish Church contrasts strikingly with this: they not only allow catechumens to be present at theirmissa fidelium, but also heretics and unbelievers, and make a profit by the exhibition: in this again the English Church more nearly resembles the primitive Church, retaining her sensitive seclusion during the solemn service.
The mass, almost universally adopted in the churches of the Roman obedience, is contained in the Roman Missal, and a description of this will be now presented to the reader. Unless in very particular circumstances, such as times of persecution, &c., mass is not said anywhere but in a church, or place set aside for public worship. It can be said only from morning dawn till mid-day, at least in ordinary cases, as at Christmas, &c. The priest who says it must be fasting from the midnight before, “out of respect for the victim of which he is to partake;” and, in general, no priest can say more than one mass on one day. When the priest officiates, he is attired in sacred vestments, which are understood “to represent those with whichChristwas clothed in the course of his bitter passion;” and also to be the emblems of those virtues with which the soul of a priest ought to be adorned. These garments are intended to hide the littleness of man; to make him forget himself while clothed in the robes of a superior character; to gain the respect of the people, who no longer consider on that occasion what he is, as a man, but lose sight of the individual, who is lost in the character ofJesus Christ, which he represents. Mass is never said except on an altar, fixed or portable, set aside for that particular purpose by the solemn prayer and benediction of a bishop. The altar is always covered with linen cloths, and generally contains relics of saints. As the mass is commemorative of ourSaviour’spassion and death upon the cross; to put the priest and people in mind of these, there is always an image ofChristcrucified upon the altar. There are also two or more lighted candles, as tokens of joy, “and to denote the light of faith.” In solemn masses incense is used, as an emblem of prayer ascending toGod, as the smoke ascends from the censer. Incense is also used as a token of honour to the thing incensed. Masses are divided into solemn or high mass, and plain or low mass; mass sung, or said; public mass, or private mass. Asolemnmass, is mass offered up with all the due solemnities, by the bishop or priest, attended by a deacon, subdeacon, and other ministers, each officiating in his part. Such a mass is always sung; and hence a choir of singers accompanies it, with an organ, if possible; and, at times, other instrumental music. Mass, when divested of all these solemnities, and in which only the priest officiates, is a plain orlow mass. The priest, however, may either sing the mass, attended by the choir, or say it. Hence the difference between masssungandsaid. Mass may be attended by a crowd of people, or it may be said with few or none present, except the clerk, to attend the officiating priest. When the mass is numerously attended, all, or many, of those present may partake of the sacrifice, by communion, or none may communicate with the priest. These differences make the masspublicorprivate, and it is admitted that private masses have become more common in latter ages. The priest who is to celebrate, after some time previously spent in prayer and meditation, by way of preparation for the solemn mystery, as well to recollect his thoughts, as to specify the intention with which he offers up the mass, whether it be for any individual, living or dead, for the whole Church, for himself, or for the necessities of the congregation present, proceeds, with the deacon, subdeacon, and other ministers, to put on the sacred vestment. He then goes in procession with them from the vestry to the altar, the acolytes carrying incense and lights, while the choir sing the anthem and psalm, which, for this reason, is called theintroit. The priest, being come before the altar, stops at the foot of it, bows, confesses generally to the AlmightyGod, and to all the saints, that he has sinned most grievously, and that in every way, both by thoughts, words, and deeds, and throughhis own most grievous fault. This being the case, he begs all the saints of heaven, whom he has called as the witnesses of his sins, to be also intercessors for his pardon, and to pray to theLordourGodfor him. The minister and assistants then, in like manner, on behalf of the people, repeat the same confession after the priest, acknowledging that they are altogether an assembly of sinners, who have come to implore the Divine mercy, because they stand in need of it. This confession is to beg ofGodpardon for daily and unknown faults, that the awful mystery may be celebrated with all imaginable purity. For the same reasonKyrie eleison, Christe eleison, are several times repeated; being addressed three times toGodtheFather, as our creator, as our protector, and as our parent: thrice toGodtheSon, as our high priest, as our victim of atonement, and as our brother; and, lastly, to theHoly Ghost, as the author of grace, the inspirer of prayer, and the sanctifier of our souls. This being finished, the priest, without moving from his place, begins theGloria in excelsis, which is called the Hymn of the Angels, because the first words of it were sung by the angels at ourSaviour’sbirth. As this is a canticle of joy and gladness, the Church, when in mourning, in Lent, in Advent, and in masses for the dead, forbids the use of this hymn, even in the time of mass, because the minds of the congregation should then be wholly occupied with affections of grief, melancholy, or sorrow, for our Saviour’s passion, for our own sins, or the sufferings of the souls for whom she is praying. TheGloriabeing ended, the priest, kissing the altar, and turning towards the people with extended arms, salutes them in these words: “Dominus vobiscum,” “TheLordbe with you.” The people answer, by applying the same earnest wish to him, saying, “And with thy spirit.” The arms are extended, and then closed, to express, by that gesture, the affection with which he embraces his flock. The priest then goes up to the altar; bows down in the posture of humiliation; kisses it with respect; makes mention of the saint whose relics are there; incenses it; and having saluted the people, immediately turns to the book, and reads the prayer of the day. On great festivals there is only one prayer, which has always reference to the solemnity then celebrating. Thus, at Easter, allusion is made to the resurrection of ourSaviour; at Christmas, to his nativity; in masses for the dead, mention is made of the souls prayed for; and on the feasts of saints, we commemorate the particular virtues for which they were each distinguished. In Lent, and penitentiary times, there are other prayers beside that of the day, still bearing some allusion to the circumstances of the times. The subdeacon then sings (or, in low masses, the priest himself reads) a lesson of the Old or New Testament, called the Epistle, because commonly taken from the Epistles of St. Paul, or of the other apostles. This is followed by the singing of Alleluias, or some verses of the Psalms, called theGradualorTract.
In Lent, and penitential times, instead of these expressions of joy, strains of the deepest compunction and regret only are used. These being concluded, the book is removed to the other side of the altar, when all the people rise up, to show, by their postures of standing, their eagerness to hear the gospel; the priest also, as he passes from one side of the altar to the other, bows down in the middle, and the deacon prays on his knees thatGodwould make him worthy to announce the gospel; and, after having received the priest’s blessing, proceeds to the place appointed for the solemn recitation of it accompanied by the acolytes, with lights and incense. As soon as the book of the Gospel appears, all rise up, and continue standing while it is read, to show their readiness to perform what is there taught. In naming the evangelist from which the Gospel is taken, the reader signs the cross upon his forehead, his mouth, and his breast. On his forehead, to show that he is not ashamed ofChrist’sdoctrine; on his mouth, to show his readiness to proclaim it to others; and on his breast, to show that he entertains a sincere affection for it in his heart. When the Gospel is finished, the book is conveyed to the priest, who kisses it as a token of respect. After the Gospel, follows the Nicene Creed, which is immediately recited at the altar, while it is sung by the choir; it is omitted on some days, particularly in masses for the dead. In low masses, the priest himself reads the Gospel. At this part of the mass, in parish churches, and sometimes in other places, a discourse, or exhortation, drawn from the Gospel, is delivered to the people. Here ends the first part of the mass.
The second part commences by the priest, from the altar, again saluting the people, and then making an oblation toGod, of bread and wine, which are the matters of the sacrifice. The wine is first mixed with a little water, to represent the water which flowed, with blood, from the side ofChrist,—to signify the union of the Divine andhuman nature in him, and of the faithful withJesus Christ. Being now about to bless these offerings, the priest bows down his head, in a spirit of humility, then lifts up his hands to heaven, whence every blessing must come, and makes the sign of the cross upon the offerings, and says, “Come, thou Sanctifier, and bless this sacrifice, which is prepared for thy holy name.” The priest, in high masses, then incenses the oblation. After this he proceeds to receive the offerings of the people, where the custom of receiving offerings from them prevails: the priest then proceeds to wash his hands, begging ofGodthe necessary purity. In this ceremony, the priest only washes the tips of his fingers, not his whole hands, to signify, that the purity with which he ought to approach the altar should be not only from larger and mortal sins, but even from the most trivial offences or affections to sin, which are properly enough represented by the extremities of the fingers; then, turning about, the priest recommends himself to the prayers of the people. This is the last time that the priest turns to the people, till the sacrifice is accomplished, and the communion received. The reason of this is, that he is now entering upon the most solemn part of the mass, which requires his utmost attention, which must not, henceforward, be distracted by turning away from the object; nor does the priest turn his back towards the altar, during the presence of the sacrament upon it, lest he might appear to act irreverently. After this follows theSecret, being one or more prayers, always said in silence, corresponding to the collect of the day, and which immediately precedes the preface, by which the second part of the mass ends, and the third begins. At this time is also rung a little bell, to give notice to all the people, that the priest is now reciting the Holy Canticle. It is usual also for the people, at this part of the mass, to bow down their heads and their breasts. With hearts thus prepared, and minds raised above earthly things, the priest, the ministers, and people, proceed to attend to the most awful part of the mass, in theCanonor rule for consecrating the eucharist, which is never materially changed, whatever be the office. It is said by the priest in a low voice, to express the silence ofChristin his passion, and that all may be impressed with reverence and awe for the sacred mysteries. It consists of five prayers. In the first, the priest prays for all the Church; and by name, for the pope, and the bishop of the diocese; for those whom he desires particularly to recommend, for all the assistants, their families, &c. He makes mention of the Blessed Virgin, the apostles, and some martyrs, in order to express the union between the Church militant and triumphant, and to obtain the assistance of their prayers. Then he stretches his hands over the oblation, begging that it may become acceptable toGod, by becoming the body and blood ofJesus Christ. The third prayer contains the history of the institution and the consecration of the elements, by the priest’s pronouncing the words ofJesus Christhimself. We have already seen that the essence of the sacrifice is contained in the consecration. As soon as the words of the consecration are pronounced, the priest kneels down to adoreJesus Christpresent; and immediately elevates first the host, and then the chalice, in memory ofChrist’sbeing raised upon the cross, and that the people also may adore him. Having laid these down on the altar, the priest kneels again, and bows his head in a second act of adoration. During this ceremony, the server tinkles a little bell, to awaken the attention of the congregation. In the mean time, the people also bow down their heads, being already upon their knees, and strike their breasts. He then continues the third prayer, making a commemoration of the passion, resurrection, and ascension ofJesus Christ, and beseechingGodthat he would vouchsafe to receive the sacrifice favourably, as he did those of Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedech, which were figures of it; and that those who partake of it may be replenished with every heavenly blessing. The attitude of the priest is changed when he comes to this part. Hitherto he has recited the prayers of the canon in an erect posture, with his hands mostly lifted up to heaven; but now he joins his hands before his breast, and bows down his head to the lowest degree that the altar will admit. In this posture of prostrate humility, he recites the prayer, till, towards the conclusion, he kisses the altar, and resumes his former upright posture. In the fourth prayer, the priest recommends to God the faithful departed in general, and those in particular for whom he intends to pray. “Be mindful, OLord, of thy servants, men and women, who are gone before us in the sign of faith, and have rested in the sleep of peace.” Having said these words, the priest, joining his hands before his breast, prays a few moments for them, and mentions any names of persons for whom he particularly wishes to pray, or offer up the mass. Then, extendinghis hands again, he concludes his prayer in these words: “To these, OLord, and to all the rest inChrist, grant, we beseech thee, a place of refreshment, light, and peace.” In the fifth, he mentions several saints, and beating his breast, begs that we sinners may have some part of their glory, through the mercy ofGod. In fine, he lifts the host over the chalice, honouring the BlessedTrinity, acknowledging the Divine goodness to us throughJesus Christ, and, through him, offering it all honour and glory. During the elevation, all the ministers kneel in profound adoration, and either themselves hold tapers, or others are introduced bearing lighted torches. Thus finishes the third part of the mass.
The fourth part begins by the priest’s breaking the long silence he has observed since the preface, by chanting, or reciting aloud, theLord’sPrayer, which is followed up by a prayer for deliverance from evil, and for peace in our days. At the conclusion of this prayer, the priest kneels down to adore the Blessed Sacrament; he then breaks the host into three pieces, to imitate that done byJesus Christhimself, at the last supper, and in remembrance of his body being broken on the cross: one of the parts he drops into the chalice, to signify that the body and blood ofChristare but one sacrament: he then once more begs for peace, concord, and charity, in order to approach the spotless Lamb. For a token of this peace, in solemn masses, the clergy embrace each other. After this follow three prayers, by way of preparation for receivingJesus Christ. The priest, after striking his breast, and declaring himself unworthy, proceeds to communicate himself, in both kinds, in order to consume the sacrifice, and then administers the communion, in the species of bread, to such of the assistants as may be disposed to partake of the sacrifice. The prayer used by the priest is repeated three times, and at each repetition the little bell tinkles, to excite the attention of the congregation; and as a signal to the laity, who intend to communicate, to approach the sacred table. Having made the sign of the cross, the priest immediately receives the communion, and, with his hands joined before him, stands for a little while in deep but silent meditation upon what he has done. The priest then proceeds, by an ablution, first of wine, and then of water, to remove from the chalice and his own fingers all remains of the consecrated elements. The mass concludes with a versical thanksgiving out of the Scriptures, and some prayers for the same purpose, some of them bearing a reference to the office of the day, and analogous to the collect; after which the priest, or deacon in high masses, gives the people leave to depart. The priest gives them his blessing previous to their departure, and reads the first part of St. John’s Gospel, which bears such ample testimony to the Divinity and incarnation of theSonofGod, as well as his goodness in regard to man. This constitutes the chief part, if not the whole, of the morning service of the Church: and, in all this, the congregation in general appear to be little interested or concerned; for though they are “taught to assist at mass, with the same disposition that a good Christian would have cherished at the foot of the cross,” they are left at liberty to accompany the priest through the different parts, according to the directions contained in their manuals, or “to exercise their souls in other corresponding prayers;” and the consequence is, that many, it is too apparent, do neither the one nor the other. And though the mass is thus celebrated, at least everyLord’sday, the present discipline of the Church requires her members to communicate only once a year; and while comparatively few receive much oftener, many, it is feared, are not even annual communicants. They are, indeed, instructed, “when they do not communicate in reality, to do so in spirit, by fervent desires of being made worthy to partake of the sacred mysteries, acknowledging their own unworthiness, and begging ofGoda share of those graces, which the sacrifice and sacrament so plentifully contain.”
In Picart’s “Religious Ceremonies” we have the following explanation of the mass, and its attendant mystical ceremonies, which is offered to the reader as an example of the awful departure of the apostate Church from the spirituality and simplicity of the Christian faith and worship.
1. The priest goes to the altar in reference to ourLord’sretreat with his apostles to the garden of Olives. 2. Before he begins mass, he says a preparatory prayer; he is there to look upon himself as one abandoned ofGod, and driven out of paradise for the sin of Adam. 3. The priest makes confession for himself and for the people, in which it is required that he be free from mortal and venial sin. 4. The priest kisses the altar, as a token of our reconciliation withGod, and ourLord’sbeing betrayed with a kiss. 5. The priest goes to the opposite side of thealtar, and thurifies or perfumes it with incense.Jesus Christis now supposed to be taken and bound! 6. The introit is said or sung, applicable to the circumstances of ourLord’sbeing taken before Caiaphas. 7. The priest says the “Kyrie eleison,” (“Lord, have mercy upon us,”) in allusion to Peter’s denying ourLordthrice. 8. The priest, turning towards the altar, says, “Dominus vobiscum,” the people returning the salutation by “Et cum spiritu tuo,” and this means,Christlooking at Peter. 9. The priest reads the Epistle relative toJesusbeing accused before Pilate. 10. The priest, bowing before the altar, says “Munda cor,” and the devotion is directed to ourSaviour’sbeing brought before Pilate, and making no reply. 11. The priest reads the Gospel in whichJesus Christis sent from Herod to Pilate; the Gospel is carried from the right of the altar to the left, to denote the tender of the gospel to the Gentiles, after the refusal of the Jews. 12. The priest uncovers the chalice, and this means the stripping of ourLordin order to be scourged. 13. The oblation of the host; the priest then kisses the altar and offers up the host, to represent the scourging ofChrist. 14. The priest elevates the chalice and then covers; this means the crowning with thorns. 15. The priest washes his fingers, as Pilate washed his hands; declaresJesusinnocent, blesses the bread and wine, blesses the frankincense, and perfumes the bread and wine.
Can it be necessary to go further into this singular detail to say, “that the priest, spreading out his arms on the altar, is the representation of the cross; that he lifts the host, to express the lifting of ourLord; that he adores (for such is the word, and the inconceivable fact) the wafer that he holds in his fingers as the veryGod; that he then mingles another adoration with this, and prays to the Virgin Mary and the saints for their mediation; that he breaks the wafer, to representChrist’sgiving up the ghost; that a fragment of this wafer put into the chalice figures ourLord’sdescent into hell;” till the series of these representations, amounting in the whole to thirty-five, is closed by a benediction representing the blessings of the descent of theHoly Ghost.—O’Donoghue.
MASS, SACRIFICE OF THE. The following is the Romish doctrine on the subject: “I profess likewise, that in the mass there is offered toGoda true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead: and that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and Divinity, of ourLord Jesus Christ; and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood; which conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation. I also confess, that, under either kind alone,Christis received whole and entire, and a true sacrament.”—Pius’s Creed.“Whosoever shall say, that, in the holy sacrament of the eucharist, the substance of bread and wine remains together with the substance of the body and blood of ourLord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the species of bread and wine still remaining, which change the Catholic Church very fitly calls transubstantiation, let him be accursed.”—Con. Trid. Sess. XIII.Can. 2.
It is, moreover, decreed, “that, after the consecration of the bread and wine, the true God and man is truly, really, and substantially contained under the appearance of the sensible elements.”—Id.c. 1. So that “the bread and wine which are placed on the altar are, after consecration, not only the sacrament, but also the true body and blood of ourLord Jesus Christ; and are, sensually, not only in sacrament, but in truth, handled and broken by the hands of the priests, and bruised by the teeth of the faithful.”—Con. Rom. apud Pop. Nichol. I.And the Fathers of the second Nicene Council pronounced, “that the eucharist is not the mere image ofChrist’sbody and blood, but that it isChrist’sbody and blood, their own literal and proper physical selves.”—Labbe, Con.vol. vii. p. 448. “Nor in this is there any repugnance; that Christ, according to his natural manner of existence, should always remain in heaven, at the right hand of hisFather; and that, at the same time, he should be present with us, in many places, really but sacramentally.”—Con. Trid. XIII.c. 1. And “if any one says, that a true and proper sacrifice is not offered up toGodat the mass, or that to be offered is anything else thanJesus Christgiven to be eaten, let him be anathema.”—Id. Sess. XXII.Can. 1. “And if any one says, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare memorial of the sacrifice which was completed upon the cross, and that it isnot propitiatory, nor profitable to any but him that receives it, and that it ought not to be offered for the living and for the dead, for their sins, their punishments, their satisfactions, and their other necessities, let him be accursed.” “For the holy synod teaches that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory, and that by it the sins we commit, however enormous they be, are remitted.”—Id.Can. 3. It was decreed by the Council of Constance, “that, whereas in several parts of the world, some have presumed rashly to assert, that all Christians ought to receive the holy sacrament of the eucharist under both species of bread and wine, and that, also, after supper, or not fasting, contrary to the laudable custom of the Church, justly approved of, which they damnably endeavour to reprobate as sacrilegious. Hence it is, that this holy general Council of Constance, assembled by theHoly Ghostto provide for the salvation of the faithful against this error, declares, decrees, and defines, that althoughChristdid after supper institute this holy sacrament, and administered it to his disciples in both kinds of bread and wine; yet this, notwithstanding the laudable authority of the sacred canons, and the approved custom of the Church, has fixed, and doth fix, that this sacrament ought not to be consecrated after supper, nor received by the faithful, except fasting. And as this custom, for the purpose of avoiding certain dangers and scandals, has been rationally introduced, and that although this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds in the primitive Church, it was afterwards received under both kinds by the officiating priest only, and by the people under the species of bread only, it being believed most certainly, and nothing doubted, that the entire body and blood ofChristare really contained as well under the species of bread as of wine: this, therefore, being approved, is now made a law. Likewise this holy synod decrees and declares, as to this matter, to the reverend fathers inChrist, patriarchs, lords, &c., that they must effectually punish all such as shall transgress this decree, or shall exhort the people to communicate in both kinds.”—Conc. Gen. XII.100.
“The holy synod (of Trent) following the judgment of the Church, (as pronounced at Constance,) and its usage, declares and teaches, that neither laity nor unofficiating clergy are bound, by any Divine command, to receive the sacrament of the eucharist under both species; and that it cannot be doubted, without a breach of faith, that communion in either kind suffices for them. For thoughChrist, at his last supper, instituted this venerable sacrament under the forms of bread and wine, and then delivered it to his apostles, yet that institution, and that delivering, do not show that all the faithful, by the command ofChrist, are bound to receive both kinds.”—Sess. XXI.c. 1. “And though, in the earlier ages, the use of both kinds was not unfrequent, yet the practice, in process of time, being widely changed, the Church, for weighty and just reasons, approved the change, and pronounced it to be a law, which no one, without the authority of that Church, is allowed to reject or alter.”—Id.c. 2. “It must be acknowledged, that the whole and entireChrist, and the true sacrament, are taken under either kind; and therefore, as to the fruit, that they who thus receive are deprived of no necessary grace.”—Id.c. 3. “And if any one shall say, that all Christians ought, byGod’scommand, or for the sake of salvation, to receive the most holy sacrament of the eucharist in both kinds, let him be accursed.”—Id.
By the 5th Canon, c. 8, Sess. XXII., of the Council of Trent, it is expressly declared, that “we are to offer up to the honour of saints and angels the sacrifice of the mass, in order to obtain their patronage and intercession withGod.”
“If any one shall deny that the body and blood ofChristis really and substantially contained, together with his very soul and Divinity, in the sacrament of the eucharist, let him be accursed.”—Conc. Trid. Sess. XIII.Can. 1. Or, “If he shall say that there yet remains any substance of the bread and wine in conjunction with the body and blood of ourLord Jesus Christ, and that the conversion is not real and total, let him be accursed.”—Id.Can. 2. “If any man shall deny thatChristis entirely contained under either species, and in every individual portion of that species,” (Id.Can. 3,) or “thatChristis only spiritually eaten, and not really and substantially, let him be accursed.”—Id.Can. 9.
Bishop Hall’s remarks on this doctrine are as follows:—It sounds not more prodigiously that a priest should every day make hisGod, than that he should sacrifice him.
Antiquity would have as much abhorred the sense, as it hath allowed the word. Nothing is more ordinary with the Fathers than to callGod’stable an altar; the holy elements, an oblation; the act of celebration, an immolation; the actor, a priest.
St. Chrysostom reckons ten kinds of sacrifice; and at last, as having forgotten it, adds the eleventh: all which we well allow. And, indeed, many sacrifices are offered toGodin this one: but “a true, proper, propitiatory sacrifice for quick and dead,” which the Tridentine Fathers would force upon our belief, would have seemed no less strange a solecism to the ears of the ancients, than it doth to ours.
St. Augustine calls it a designation ofChrist’soffering upon the cross; St. Chrysostom, and Theophylact after him, a remembrance of his sacrifice; Emissenus, a daily celebration in mystery of that which was once offered in payment; and Lombard himself, a memorial and representation of the true sacrifice upon the cross.
That which Cassander cites from St. Ambrose or Chrysostom may be instead of all. “InChrist, is the sacrifice once offered, able to give salvation. What do we, therefore? Do we not offer every day? Surely, if we offer daily, it is done for a recordation of his death.”
This is the language and meaning of antiquity; the very same which the Tridentine Synod condemneth in us: “If any man shall say that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered upon the cross, let him be accursed.”
How plain is the Scripture, while it tells us that our High Priest “needeth not daily, as those high priests” under the law, “to offer up sacrifice; first, for his own sins, then for the people: for this he did once, when he offered up himself!”—Heb.vii. 27.
The contradiction of the Trent Fathers is here very remarkable. “Christ,” say they, “who, on the altar of the cross, offered himself in a bloody sacrifice, is now this true propitiatory sacrifice in the mass, made by himself. He is one and the same sacrifice; and one and the same offerer of that sacrifice, by the ministry of his priests, who then offered himself on the cross.” So then they say, thatChristoffered up that sacrifice then, and this now; St. Paul says he offered up that sacrifice, and no more. St. Paul says our High Priest needs not to offer daily sacrifice; they say these daily sacrifices must be offered by him. St. Paul says, that he offered himself but once for the sins of the people; they say he offers himself daily for the sins of quick and dead. And if the apostle, in the spirit of prophecy, foresaw this error, and would purposely forestall it, he could not speak more directly than when he saith, “We are sanctified through the offering of the body ofJesus Christ, once for all. And every high priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand ofGod; from henceforth expecting till his enemies are made his footstool. For, by one offering, he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”—Heb.x. 10–14.
Now let the vain heads of men seek subtle evasions in the different manner of this offering; bloody then, unbloody now. TheHoly Ghostspeaks punctually of the very substance of the act, and tells us absolutely there is but one sacrifice once offered by him, in any kind; else the opposition that is there made betwixt the legal priesthood and his should not hold, if, as they, so he, had often properly and truly sacrificed.
That we may not say they build herein what they destroy, for an unbloody sacrifice, in this sense, can be no other than figurative and commemorative, is it really propitiatory? “Without shedding of blood there is no remission.” (Heb. ix. 22.) If, therefore, sins be remitted by this sacrifice, it must be in relation to that blood, which was shed in his true personal sacrifice upon the cross: and what relation can be betwixt this and that but of representation and remembrance? in which their moderate Cassander fully resteth.
In reason there must be in every sacrifice, as Cardinal Bellarmine grants, a destruction of the thing offered: and shall we say that they make theirSaviourto crucify him again? No; but to eat him: for, “consumptio seu manducatio, quæ fit à sacerdote,” &c.; “The consumption or manducation, which is done of the priest, is an essential part of this sacrifice,” saith the same author; “for, in the whole action of the mass, there is,” saith he, “no other real destruction but this.”
Suppose we, then, the true human flesh, blood, and bone ofChrist,Godand man, really and corporally made such by this transubstantiation, whether is more horrible, to crucify or to eat it?
By this rule, it is the priest’s teeth, and not his tongue, that makesChrist’sbody a sacrifice.
By this rule it shall behostia, “a host,” when it is not a sacrifice; and a reserved host is no sacrifice, howsoever consecrated. And what if a mouse, or other vermin, should eat the host, (it is a case put by themselves,) who then sacrificeth?
To stop all mouths, laics eat as well asthe priest: there is no difference in their manducation: but laics sacrifice not. And, as Salmeron urges, the Scripture distinguisheth betwixt the sacrifice and the participation of it: “Are not they, which eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar?” (1 Cor. x. 18.) And, in the very canon of the mass, “Ut quotquot,” &c., the prayer is, “That all we, which, in the participation of the altar, have taken the sacred body and blood of thy Son,” &c. “Wherein it is plain,” saith he, “that there is a distinction betwixt the host and the eating of the host.”
Lastly, sacrificing is an act done toGod: if, then, eating be sacrificing, the priest eats hisGodto hisGod: “Quorum Deus venter.”
While they, in vain, study to reconcile this new-made sacrifice ofChristalready in heaven, with “Jube hæc perferri,” &c. “Command these to be carried by the hands of thy holy angels to thy high altar in heaven, in the sight of thy Divine Majesty,” we conclude that this proper and propitiatory sacrifice of the mass, as a new, unholy, unreasonable sacrifice, is justly abhorred by us; and we, for abhorring it, unjustly ejected.—Bp. Hall.
MASTER. The designation of all the heads of colleges at Cambridge, with the exception of two, and of some at Oxford. The heads of some ancient hospitals, as Sherburn, are so called. It is recognised by the 42nd and 43rd Canons, &c., as one of the names of governors of cathedral and collegiate churches.
MASTER OF ARTS. The highest degree in arts, signifying one who is competent to teach, answering to that of Doctor in other faculties; conferred in all universities, though in a few modern instances superseded by that of Doctor of Philosophy. In England, the Masters of Arts form the privileged body of the ancient universities there; and there are many offices in the Church to which none are eligible but those who have at least taken that degree. By Canon 128, surrogates must be M. A. at least; and by Canon 74, M. A., being beneficed, are enjoined to wear hoods or tippets of silk or sarcenet, and square caps.
MASTER OF THE CEREMONIES. An officer in many foreign cathedrals, whose business it is to see that all the ceremonies, vestments, &c., peculiar to each season and festival, are observed in the choir.—Jebb.
MASTER OF THE FACULTIES. The principal officer of the Court of Faculties. (SeeFaculties.)
MASTERS OF THE SCHOOLS. Three Masters of Arts, in the university of Oxford, annually elected, who preside over certain exercises of under-graduates. Before the ancient disputations and determinations were abolished, their office was much more onerous than at present.
MASTER OF THE SENTENCES. The name commonly given to the celebrated Peter Lombard, bishop of Paris, one of the founders of scholastic divinity; so called from his great work of theSentences, divided into four books, illustrative of doctrines of the Churches, in sentences, or passages taken from the Fathers.—Dupin.
MASTER OF THE SONG. A name for the instructor of the choristers, or choir-master.
MASTER OF THE TEMPLE. The principal minister in the Temple Church, in London, styled also theCustos; who, since the time of Henry VIII., has been appointed by royal letters patent, without institution or induction. This is a post of great eminence, and has been held by many able divines, as Hooker, Bishop Sherlock, &c.
MATINS. The ancient name for early morning prayers, which usually began about day-break.
The hours of prayer in the Church of England, before the Reformation, were seven in number, viz. matins, the first or prime, the third, sixth, and ninth hours, vespers, and compline. The office of matins, or morning prayer, according to the Church of England, is a judicious abridgment of her ancient services for matins, lauds, and prime.
The office of matins, or morning prayer, according to the English ritual, may be divided into three principal parts. First, the introduction, which extends from the beginning of the office to the end of theLord’sPrayer: secondly, the psalmody and reading, which extends to the end of the Apostles’ Creed: and, thirdly, the prayers and collects, which occupy the remainder of the service.—Palmer.
MATRIMONY. The nuptial state.
The State in England has declared that marriage may be henceforth regarded merely as a civil contract; and, so far as the effects of the law are concerned, they who contract marriage by a merely civil ceremony, will undergo no disabilities, their children will not be illegitimate, and they will themselves be regarded, to all intents and purposes, as man and wife. Yet, although this be the case, the Church, (in this respect opposed to the State, orrather the State having placed itself in opposition to the Church,) at the very commencement of the Marriage Service, declares that so many as are coupled together otherwise thanGod’sword doth allow, are not joined together byGod, neither is their matrimony lawful: it is notlawful, that is to say, in the eyes ofGod,—for its legality in the eyes of the State cannot be questioned. The case is actually this: the State says, if you choose to consider matrimony to be acivil contract, the law of the land will permit you to enter into the marriage state by acivil ceremony: but the Church has not as yet been silenced, andsheaffirms, that though the State may permit this, the word ofGodinstructs usotherwise, and marriage is areligiouscontract; therefore do not avail yourselves of the permission given by the State.
That such is the doctrine of the Churchnow, must at once beadmitted; and equally admitted it will be, that it was so at the Reformation of the Church of England, and before the Reformation. But the question is, was it one of those dogmas introduced in the Middle Ages, such as transubstantiation, praying to the saints, worshipping images, and certain other superstitions which distinguish the Church of Rome from the Church of England? And we may answer at once in the negative, because we find allusion to the sacred nature of the marriage contract in the writings of the very earliest Christian authors. For instance, St. Ignatius, the disciple of St. John, (who was afterwards bishop of Ephesus, and died a blessed martyr,) waiting to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, says expressly: “It becomes those who marry, and those that are given in marriage, to take this yoke upon them with the consent or direction of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to the will ofGod, and not their own lusts.” Another early Father (Tertullian) exclaims, “How shall I sufficiently set forth the happiness of the marriage which the Church brings about by her procurement, which the eucharist confirms, which angels report when done, and theFatherratifies!”
In those days the members of the Church were in much the same situation as that in which we are ourselvesnowplaced. The law of the land regarded marriage as a civil contract, and the Church did not annul or disallow the legality of such marriages, or solemnize them again, on the parties becoming converts: it admitted thevalidityof theactwhendone, though it declared it to be done unlawfully, according toGod’slaw, and severely censured the members of the Church whenever they were married without the sacerdotal benediction. The practice for Christians to be married in the Church appears at first to have been universal, except when a Christian was unequally yoked with an unbeliever; he was then obliged to have recourse to the civil authorities, because the Church, censuring the alliance, absolutely refused to solemnize the marriage.
When the Church, in the time of Constantine, became allied with the State, and religion began to cool, (the laws of the empire still remaining the same,) some Christians began to fall off from the primitive practice, some for one reason and some for another, and to contract marriages according to the civil form. To correct which abuse Charles the Great enacted in the eighth century for the Western empire, and Leo Sapiens in the tenth century for the Eastern empire, that marriages should be celebrated in no other way, except with the sacerdotal blessing and prayers, to be succeeded by the reception of the eucharist orLord’ssupper. And this continued to be the practice in our own country until the usurpation of Cromwell, when marriage was declared to be a merely civil contract. At the Restoration of Charles II. marriage was again regarded as a religious ordinance, though the Church no longerinsistedthat the parties married should receive the communion, (a regulation which had in practice been much disregarded,) but contented herself with remarking in therubricsucceeding the ordinance, that “it is expedient that the new-married couple should receive the holy communion at the time of their marriage, or at the first opportunity after their marriage,” declaring the duty, but not absolutely compelling its observance; and thus things continued till the present time. Of course, all churchmen must now adhere to their principle, that marriage is a religious contract, and that those marriages only are lawful in the sight ofGodwhich are contracted in his name and by his ordinance.
And for thus acting we have the highest authority which earth and heaven can afford, that of our blessedLordandSaviour Jesus Christhimself. When he was in the flesh, marriage was regarded by Jews and Gentiles as a mere civil contract, and that of no very binding nature. He did not onthisaccount declare the offspring of such marriages to be illegitimate; and yet, when appealed to, he assumed the fact as one which the Scriptures plainly declared, that marriage was of Divine institution. (Matt. xix. 4–9.) The Phariseescame unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” Now, this was a very natural question for those to ask who considered marriage as a mere civil contract. Wherever such is the case, one of two things in process of time is found to follow—polygamy, or the allowance of frequent divorce. Men soon came to reasonthus: If marriage be merely a bargain between two parties for mutual convenience, why should not the bargain be dissolved when the convenience no longer exists? and why, if a man wishes for more wives than one, should he be prevented fromhavingthem, provided the parties making the contract agree that the first wife shall have the pre-eminence, and her children be the heirs of the family property? It is all a matter of mere civil convenience and expediency. The Jews thus arguinghadpermitted polygamy; theydidpossess many wives, and now they entertained the question, whether these wives might not be dismissed for almost any cause whatever. The subject being much under discussion, they appealed to ourLord, and how did he meet them? By arguments against theexpediencyof polygamy, or frequent divorce? No; but by assuming at once, that, according to Scripture, marriage isnota mere civil, but areligiouscontract. “Have ye not read,” he says, thus referring to Scripture, “that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What, therefore,Godhath joined together let no man put asunder.” The permission of divorce is out of the jurisdiction of man, because the ordinance is ofGod. If the contract were merely acivilcontract, man might legislate with respect to it; but man maynotlegislate for it, because it is an ordinance ofGod—a religious, andnota mere civil, contract.
And all this is the more remarkable, because ourLord, in his reply to the Herodians, carefully distinguishes between the things of Cæsar and the things ofGod, and on several occasions disclaims all intention to interfere with those things which had reference merely to the civil authority; yet, observe, when the Pharisees appeal to him on a doubtful disputation, growing out of their allowance of divorce, he doesnot, as on another occasion, put the question aside by asking who made him a judge in such matters, but he instantly exercises his judicial authority without reservation; thereby, in that very fact, declaring thatGod, not Cæsar, or the State, is the supreme authority, to whose tribunal the decision with respect to matrimony belongs. He pronounces the vital principle of marriage to be the making twain one flesh, and expressly declares that it is byGod’sjoining them together that this blending of their nature takes effect, and that the contract, once made, is on this account inviolable; nay, he declares it to be an exempt jurisdiction reserved byGodexclusively to himself, and not to be modified, or in any respect invaded, by human authority.Man’slaw indeed may couple male and female together; but as the Church declares, on the authority of ourLord, it is their being joined together byGod, and asGod’slaw doth allow, that in his sight makes their matrimony lawful.