It was also called _Dominica in albis_, [or rather, _post albas

depositas_, according to some ritualists, as Wheatly remarks,] because

it was the day on which those who had been baptized on Easter eve put

off their white garments.

LUCIFERIANS, in ecclesiastical antiquity, is the name of those

Christians who persisted in the schism of _Lucifer_, bishop of Cagliari,

the capital of Sardinia.

Lucifer lived in the fourth century, and was famous for his

extraordinary virtues and abilities. He was deputed by the pope to the

emperor Constantius, and procured the calling of a council at Milan in

the year 355, by which he himself, and the rest of the orthodox

prelates, who defended Athanasius, were condemned to banishment. He was

recalled from his exile by the emperor Julian, in 361, when, coming to

Antioch, where the church was extremely divided between the followers of

Euzoius the Arian, and of Meletius and Eustathius, orthodox bishops, he,

to put an end to the schism, ordained Paulinus bishop, whom neither of

the orthodox parties approved. Eusebius of Vercelli, whom the Council of

Alexandria had sent to heal the divisions, extremely disapproved this

ordination; whereupon Lucifer, who was of an inflexible spirit, broke

off communion with him and the other prelates, and retired to Sardinia,

where to his death he persisted in his separation, and, by this means,

gave birth to a schism, which caused a great deal of mischief to the

Church. It continued to the end of the reign of Theodosius the Great,

after which time authors make little or no mention of it.

LUKE, ST., THE EVANGELIST’S DAY. A festival of the Christian Church,

observed on the 18th of October.

St. Luke was born at Antioch, and professed physic. It is not agreed

whether he was, by birth, a Jew, or a heathen. Epiphanius, who makes him

to be one of the seventy disciples, and consequently a Jew, thinks he

was one of those who left JESUS CHRIST upon hearing these words, “He who

eateth not my flesh, and drinketh not my blood, is not worthy of me;”

but that he returned to the faith upon hearing St. Paul’s sermons at

Antioch. Some authors suppose he was Cleopas’s companion, and went with

him to Emmaus, when JESUS CHRIST joined them.

St. Luke accompanied St. Paul in his several journeys; but at what time

they first came together is uncertain. Some think he met St. Paul at

Antioch, and from that time never forsook him. Others believe they met

at Troas, because St. Luke himself says, “immediately we endeavoured to

go into Macedonia, from Troas.”

Some think he survived St. Paul many years, and that he died at

eighty-four years of age: but where, authors are not agreed. Achaia,

Thebes in Bœotia, Elea in the Peloponnesus, Ephesus, and Bithynia, are

severally named as the place of his death. Nor are authors better agreed

as to the manner of it. Some believe he suffered martyrdom; and the

modern Greeks affirm he was crucified on an olive-tree. Others, on the

contrary, and among them many of the moderns, think he died a natural

death.

LUKE’S, ST., GOSPEL. A canonical book of the New Testament. Some think

it was properly St. Paul’s Gospel, and that when St. Paul speaks of his

Gospel, he means what is called St. Luke’s Gospel. Irenæus says only,

that St. Luke digested into writing what St. Paul preached to the

Gentiles; and Gregory Nazianzen tells us, that St. Luke wrote with the

assistance of St. Paul.

This evangelist addresses his Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles, to

one Theophilus, of whom we have no knowledge; many of the ancients have

taken this name, in an appellative sense, for any one who loves GOD.

LUTHERANS. Those Christians who follow the opinions of Martin Luther.

This sect took its rise from the just offence which was taken at the

indulgences (see _Indulgences_) which, in 1517, were granted by Pope Leo

X., to those who contributed towards the finishing St. Peter’s church,

at Rome. It is said, the pope at first gave the princess Cibo, his

sister, that branch of the revenue of indulgences which were collected

in Saxony; that afterwards these indulgences were farmed out to those

who would give most for them; and that these purchasers, to make the

most of their bargain, pitched upon such preachers, receivers, and

collectors of indulgences, as they thought proper for their purpose, who

managed their business in a scandalous manner. The pope had sent these

indulgences to Prince Albert, archbishop of Mentz, and brother to the

Elector of Brandenburg, to publish them in Germany. This prelate put his

commission into the hands of John Tetzel, a Dominican, and an

inquisitor, who employed several of his own order to preach up and

recommend these indulgences to the people. These Dominicans managed the

matter so well, that the people eagerly bought up all the indulgences.

And the farmers, finding money come in very plentifully, spent it

publicly in a luxurious and libertine manner.

John Staupitz, vicar-general of the Augustines in Germany, was the first

who took occasion to declare against these abuses; for which purpose he

made use of Martin Luther, the most learned of all the Augustines. He

was a native of Eisleben, a town of the county of Mansfeld, in Saxony;

and he taught divinity at the university of Wittemberg. This learned

Augustine mounted the pulpit, and declaimed vehemently against the abuse

of indulgences. Nor did he stop here; he fixed ninety-five propositions

upon the church doors of Wittemberg, not as dogmatical points which he

himself held, but in order to be considered and examined in a public

conference. John Tetzel, the Dominican, immediately published 106

propositions against them, at Frankfort upon the Oder; and, by virtue of

the office of inquisitor, ordered those of Luther to be burnt; whose

adherents, to revenge the affront offered to Luther, publicly burnt

those of Tetzel at Wittemberg. Thus war was declared between the

Dominicans and Augustines, and soon after between the Roman Catholics

and the Lutheran party, which from that time began to appear openly

against the Western Church.

In the year 1518, Eckius, professor of divinity at Ingolstadt, and

Silvester Prierius, a Dominican, and master of the sacred palace, wrote

against Luther’s _Theses_, who answered them in a tract, which he sent

to the pope and the bishop of Brandenburg, his diocesan, offering to

submit to the Holy See in the points contested. But Prierius having

published a discourse full of extravagant amplifications of the pope’s

power, Luther took occasion from thence to make the papal authority

appear odious to the Germans. In the mean time, the process against

Luther going on at Rome, the pope summoned him to appear there within

sixty days: but, at the instance of the duke of Saxony, his Holiness

consented that the cause should be examined in Germany, and delegated

his legate, Cardinal Cajetan, to try it. This cardinal gave Luther a

peremptory order to recant, and not to appear any more before him unless

he complied; upon which Luther, in the night-time, posted up an appeal

to the pope, and retired to Wittemberg. Afterwards, fearing he should be

condemned at Rome, he published a protestation in form of law, and

appealed to a general council.

In the beginning of the next year, 1519, the emperor Maximilian dying,

and the Elector of Saxony, who protected Luther, being vicar of the

empire during the interregnum, that reformer’s interest and character

were greatly raised, and he was generally looked upon as a man sent from

GOD to correct the abuses which had crept into the Roman Church. In

June, the same year, there was a famous conference between Luther,

Eckius, and Carolostadius, at Leipsic; in which they agreed to refer

themselves to the universities of Erfurt and Paris. The points debated

upon were, free-will, purgatory, indulgences, penance, and the pope’s

supremacy.

In 1520, Luther sent his book _De Libertate Christianâ_ to the pope; in

which he grounds justification upon faith alone, without the assistance

of good works; and asserts, that Christian liberty rescues us from the

bondage of human traditions, and particularly the slavery of papal

impositions. Afterwards, in a remonstrance written in High Dutch, he

proceeded to deny the authority of the Church of Rome.

In June the same year, the pope resolved to apply the last remedies

which the Church makes use of against her enemies, and began with

condemning in writing forty-one propositions extracted from Luther’s

writings, giving him sixty days to recant: but Luther refusing to

comply, the pope declared him excommunicated, and sent the bull by

Eckius to the Elector of Saxony and the university of Wittemberg, who

agreed to defer the publication of it. In the mean time Luther wrote

against the bull with great warmth and freedom, and appealed once more

from the pope to a general council. Besides which, he caused a large

bonfire to be made without the walls of Wittemberg, and threw into it

with his own hands the pope’s bull, together with the decretals,

extravagants, and Clementines. This example was followed by his

disciples in several other towns.

The emperor Charles V. declared against Luther, and ordered his books to

be burnt. Upon the opening of the Diet of Worms, in 1521, Luther, with

the emperor’s permission, appeared there, and made a speech in defence

of himself and his opinions. But, when the diet found that he would

neither stand to the decisions of councils nor the decrees of popes, the

emperor gave him twenty days to retire to a place of security, and, a

month after, published his imperial edict, by which Luther was put under

the ban of the empire, as an heretic and schismatic. But the duke of

Saxony gave private orders to convey Luther to the castle of Wartburg,

where he was concealed three quarters of a year. He worked hard in this

retirement, which he called his _Isle of Patmos_, and kept up the spirit

of his party by writing new books; among which were his “Tracts” against

auricular confession, private masses, monastic vows, and the celibacy of

the clergy. About this time the university of Paris, to which he had

appealed, condemned a hundred propositions extracted out of his books;

and King Henry VIII. of England wrote against him in defence of the

seven sacraments. Luther replied both to the _Sorbonne_ and to the king

of England, but in a very rude and unmannerly way.

Soon after he broke out of his retirement, and was so hardy as to

publish a bull against the pope’s bull _In cœna Domini_, calling it the

Bull and Reformation of Doctor Luther. About this time he published part

of his translation of the Bible, in which he departed from the

_Vulgate_, so long authorized and received by the Church.

The Elector of Saxony, who all along favoured and protected Luther, now

gave him leave to reform the churches of Wirtemberg as he thought fit.

The reformer proposed likewise a regulation concerning the patrimony of

the Church; which was, that the bishops, abbots, and monks should be

expelled, and all the lands and revenues of the bishoprics, abbeys, and

monasteries, should _escheat_ to the respective princes; and that all

the convents of Mendicant friars should be turned into public schools or

hospitals. This project pleased the princes and magistrates, who began

to relish Luther’s doctrine extremely; insomuch that, at the Diet of

Wirtemberg in 1523, when Pope Adrian VI. insisted upon the bull of Leo

X. and the Edict of Worms against Luther, he could not prevail with the

princes to put them in execution, but was answered, that a general

council ought to be called, and that there ought to be a reformation of

the ecclesiastics, and especially of the court of Rome. This year,

Luther had the satisfaction to see a league contracted between Gustavus,

king of Sweden, and Frederick, king of Denmark, who both agreed to

establish Lutheranism in their dominions. And now Luther’s persuasion,

which, from the Upper Saxony, had spread itself into the northern

provinces, began to be perfectly settled in the duchies of Lunenburg,

Brunswick, Mecklenburg, and Pomerania; and in the archbishoprics of

Magdeburg and Bremen; and in the towns of Hamburg, Wismar, Rostock; and

all along the Baltic, as far as Livonia and Prussia.

About this time Luther left off the habit of a monk, and dressed himself

like a doctor, refusing to be saluted with the title of _reverend

father_. Erasmus having written a book concerning free-will, (_De Libero

Arbitrio_,) Luther answered it in another, entitled _De Servo Arbitrio_.

In 1525, Thomas Münzer and Nicholas Storc, taking their leave of Luther,

put themselves at the head of the _Anabaptists_ and _Fanatics_. About

this time Luther married a nun, called Catharine Boren, exhorting all

the ecclesiastics and monks to follow his example. In 1526, Philip,

Landgrave of Hesse, turned Lutheran, who gave great life and spirit to

that party.

In March, 1529, the Diet of Spire decreed that the Catholics should not

have the liberty to change their religion; that the Lutherans should be

tolerated till the meeting of a council, but not allowed to molest the

Catholics; and that the preachers should deliver nothing in their

sermons contrary to the received doctrines of the Church. The Lutheran

princes entered a solemn _protestation_ against this decree, from whence

came the name of _Protestants_, taken up first by the Lutherans, and

afterwards received among the Calvinists.

The beginning of October, this year, was held at Marburg the conference

between Luther and Zwinglius, in relation to the eucharist; the latter

affirming that there is nothing more than bread and wine in the LORD’S

supper, which elements are the figure and representation of his body and

blood; and Luther asserting that his body and blood are really present,

but under the substance of bread and wine, and that only in the act of

receiving the sacrament; after which he did not acknowledge the

continuance of this presence. This conference broke up without coming to

any accommodation.

In 1530, the Lutherans or Protestants drew up a Confession of Faith,

which they presented to the Diet of Augsburg. (See _Augsburg, Confession

of_.)

The year after, the Protestant princes made the famous league of

_Smalcalde_, which obliged the emperor to grant the Lutherans a

toleration, till the differences in religion were settled by a council,

which he engaged himself to call in six months.

The Lutheran party gaining strength every day, and having refused the

bull for convening a council at Mantua, the emperor summoned a general

diet at Ratisbon, where a scheme of religion for reconciling the two

parties was examined: but, after they had examined and disputed for a

month together, the divines could agree upon no more than five or six

articles, concerning justification, free-will, original sin, baptism,

good works, and episcopacy; for, when they came to other points, and

especially the eucharist, the Lutherans would by no means yield to the

other party. The diet ended with a decree of the emperor, strictly

forbidding the Lutherans to tamper with any person to make them quit

their old religion, and at the same time suspending all the edicts

published against them.

Martin Luther lived to see the opening of the famous Council of Trent,

for accommodating the differences in religion; which put him upon acting

with more vigour and warmth against the Church of Rome, as foreseeing

that his opinions would be condemned there. In short, he left no stone

unturned to engage the Protestant princes to act against the council;

which measures he continued to pursue until his death, which happened in

February, 1546.

Maurice, the Elector of Saxony, having taken the field against the

emperor, and concluded a peace with him at Passaw, in 1552, it was

stipulated that the exercise of Lutheranism, as stated by the Confession

of Augsburg, should be tolerated all over the empire; which toleration

was to last for ever, in case the differences in religion could not be

accommodated within six months. And thus Lutheranism was perfectly

settled in Germany.

The Lutherans are generally divided into the _moderate_ and the _rigid_.

The _moderate Lutherans_ are those who submitted to the _Interim_,

published by the emperor Charles V. Melancthon was the head of this

party. (See _Interim_.)

The _rigid Lutherans_ are those who would not endure any alteration in

any of Luther’s opinions. The head of this party was Matthias Flacius,

famous for writing the _Centuries of Magdeburg_, in which he had three

other Lutheran ministers for his assistants.

To these are added another division, called _Luthero-Zwinglians_,

because they held some of Luther’s tenets and some of Zwinglius,

yielding something to each side, to prevent the ill consequence of

disunion in the _Reformation_.

The Lutherans retain the use of the altar for the celebration of the

holy communion, some of the ancient vestments, and the mitre and

pastoral staff for their bishops, at least in Sweden. They likewise make

use of lighted tapers in their churches, of incense, and a crucifix on

the altar, of the sign of the cross, and of images, &c. Several of their

doctors acknowledge that such materials add a lustre and majesty to

Divine worship, and fix at the same time the attention of the people.

The Lutherans retain the observance of several solemn festivals after

their reformation. They keep three solemn days of festivity at

Christmas. In some Lutheran countries, the people go to church on the

night of the nativity of our blessed SAVIOUR with lighted candles or wax

tapers in their hands; and the faithful, who meet in the church, spend

the whole night there in singing and saying their prayers by the light

of them. Sometimes they burn such a large quantity of incense, that the

smoke of it ascends like a whirlwind, and their devotees may properly

enough be said to be wrapped up in it. It is customary, likewise, in

Germany, to give entertainments at such times to friends and relations,

and to send presents to each other, especially to the young people, whom

they amuse with very idle and romantic stories, telling them that our

blessed SAVIOUR descends from heaven on the night of his nativity, and

brings with him all kinds of playthings.

They have three holidays at Easter, and three at Whitsuntide, as well as

those before mentioned at Christmas. These festivals have nothing

peculiar in them with respect to the ceremonies observed at those times;

but with regard to some particular superstitions, they are remarkable

enough; as, for instance, that of the paschal water, which is looked on

as a sovereign remedy for sore eyes, and very serviceable in uniting

broken limbs. This paschal water is nothing more than common river

water, taken up on Easter Day, before the rising of the sun. They have

another superstitious notion with respect to their horses: they imagine

that the swimming them in the river on Easter Day, before the sun rises,

preserves them from lameness.

The other festivals observed by the Lutherans are, New Year’s Day, or

the Circumcision, a festival not near so ancient as the four above

mentioned; the festival of the Three Kings, or, otherwise, the Epiphany;

the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, or Candlemas; and Lady Day, or

the Annunciation. There is no public work nor service devoted to the

Blessed Virgin, nor are there any processions, or other ceremonies,

which are observed by the Roman Catholics on the two latter festivals.

The festival of the Sacred Trinity is solemnized on the Sunday after

Whitsunday; that of St. John Baptist, on the 24th of June; and that of

the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin, on the 2nd of July, as it is by

the Roman Catholics. To conclude, the festival of St. Michael the

Archangel, or rather the ceremonies observed by the Lutherans on that

day, are the remains only of an ancient custom, which has been preserved

amongst them, although somewhat extraordinary, as the members of their

communion retain no manner of veneration for angels.

In 1523, Luther drew up a formulary of the mass and communion for the

particular service of the church of Wittemberg. Without attempting to

particularize the various parts of it, it may be observed that all the

churches where Lutheranism prevailed were obliged entirely to conform to

it. However, those orders were never punctually obeyed. Some Lutheran

countries have one ritual, and some another. There is a difference,

likewise, in their liturgies, though, as to the fundamental articles,

they all agree.—_Broughton._

LYCH-GATE, or CORPSE-GATE. From _leich_, “a dead body”—(hence

Leitchfield). A gate at the entrance of the churchyard, where the body

was placed before burial. These are of frequent occurrence in ancient

churchyards.

LYCHNOSCOPE. A narrow window near the ground, very frequently found at

the south-west end of a chancel, not infrequently at the north-west, and

sometimes, though seldom, in other parts of the church. The name was

given on the assumption, (which is now, perhaps, universally abandoned,)

that its use was to watch the pasch-light from without the church. The

theory now commonly adopted, and at least in part proved, is, that

lychnoscopes were confessionals. The last and fullest exposition and

examination of the various theories of the use of these windows may be

found in a paper by Mr. Lowe, in the first volume of the “Transactions

of the Northamptonshire, Lincolnshire, and other Architectural

Societies.” In this paper their use as ventilators is suggested.

MACCABEES. There are two books of this name in the Apocrypha, both of an

uncertain order. They are called Maccabees, because they relate the

patriotic and gallant exploits of Judas Maccabeus and his brethren. The

_first_ book, which is a most valuable and authentic history, contains

the history of the Jews from the beginning of the reign of Antiochus

Epiphanes to the death of Simon, a period of about thirty-four years.

The _second_ book, which is far less valuable, and less to be depended

upon, and which is in some places at variance with canonical Scripture,

contains the history of about fifteen years, A. M. 3828 to 3843, from

the commission of Heliodorus to pillage the temple, to the victory of

Judas Maccabeus over Nicanor. These two books are accounted canonical by

the Roman Catholics; but there are besides two other books, called the

_third_ and _fourth_ books of Maccabees, of very little authority, and

which were never admitted into the canon by any Church. The Books of

Maccabees are not read in the service of the Church of England.

MACEDONIANS. So called from Macedonius, a bishop of Constantinople,

deposed from his see by a council of 360, and also _Pneumatomachians_,

from πνεῦμα, (_Spiritus_,) and μάχομαι, (_pugno_,) from their

distinctive error: a sect of heretics who arose in the fourth century,

who denied the separate personality of the HOLY GHOST. They were

condemned by the second general council, (of Constantinople,) anno 381,

and against their errors the expansion of the latter portion of the

Nicene Creed was directed: “I believe in the HOLY GHOST, the LORD and

giver of life, who proceedeth from the FATHER and the SON, who with the

FATHER and the SON together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by

the prophets.”

MAGDEBURG CENTURIES. (See _Centuries_.)

MAGISTRAL. An officer in cathedral and collegiate churches and royal

chapels in Spain, generally a canon, whose duty it was to preach a

certain course of sermons. He was so called, as it was necessary for him

to be a master (or, as we should call it, bachelor) in theology. This

was a _prebenda de oppositione_, that is, it was conferred upon the

successful candidate in a public disputation so called.

MAGNIFICAT. The song of the blessed Virgin Mary, which is appointed to

be said or sung in English after the first lesson at Evening Prayer,

unless the 90th Psalm, called _Cantate Domino_, is used.

MALACHI, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament.

The author of the Lives of the Prophets, and the Alexandrian Chronicle,

say, that Malachi was of the tribe of Zebulun, and a native of Sapha,

and that the name of Malachi was given him because of his _angelical_

mildness; which made Origen and Tertullian believe, that he was an

“angel incarnate.” He is called an “angel” by most of the Fathers, and

in the version of the Septuagint. Some think that Malachi is no other

than Ezra, or Esdras, and this is the opinion of the ancient Hebrews, of

the Chaldee Paraphrast, and of St. Jerome.

Malachi is the last of the twelve lesser prophets. He prophesied about

three hundred years before CHRIST, reproving the Jews for their

wickedness after their return from Babylon, charging them with

rebellion, sacrilege, adultery, profaneness, and infidelity, and

condemning the priests for being careless and scandalous in their

ministry. At the same time, he forgets not to encourage the “pious

remnant,” who, in that corrupt age, “feared the LORD, and thought upon

his name.”

This prophet distinctly points at the MESSIAH, who was “suddenly to come

to his temple,” and to be introduced by Elijah the prophet, that is, by

John the Baptist, who came “in the spirit and power of Elias,” or

Elijah.

The Jews pretend that, in the time of Darius, son of Hystaspis, there

was held a general assembly of the heads of their nation, to settle the

canon of their Scriptures; that Daniel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi

presided in this council, and that Esdras was their secretary. But it is

certain Daniel did not live at that time. They add, that in the last

year of Darius, died the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, and

with them ceased the spirit of prophecy among the Israelites; and that

this was the sealing up of vision and prophecy, spoken of by Daniel.

The death of the prophet Malachi is placed, in the Roman martyrology, on

the 14th of January.

MANASSES, PRAYER OF. One of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament,

which is rejected as spurious even by the Church of Rome; and though in

the list of the apocryphal books contained in the sixth Article, is not

read in the service of the Church of England. It cannot be traced to a

higher source than the Vulgate version; and is evidently not the prayer

of King Munasseh, mentioned in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 18, 19, as it never was

extant in the Hebrew.—_Horne’s Introd._

MANICHEANS. Christian heretics, who took their name from one Manes. The

ancients do not well agree as to the time of this heretic’s first

appearance. But Spanheim says, it was in the time of Probus, a little

before Diocletian, and that his heresy was a compound of the

Pythagorean, Gnostic, and Marcionite opinions. According to the accounts

given by the Greeks, (from whom, however, the Oriental writers differ

considerably,) one Terebinthus, disciple to Scythianus, a magician,

finding that in Persia, whither he was forced to retire out of

Palestine, the priests and learned men of the country did strongly

oppose his errors and designs, retired into a widow’s house, where (it

is said) he was killed, either by angels or by demons, as he was engaged

in incantations. This woman, being heiress to the money and books of

Terebinthus, bought a slave named Cubricus, whom she afterwards adopted,

and caused to be instructed in all the sciences of Persia. This man,

after the woman’s death, changed his name, to obliterate the memory of

his first condition, and assumed that of Manes. He pretended to be the

apostle of CHRIST, and that he was the Comforter our SAVIOUR promised to

send. He promised the king of Persia that he would cure his son;

whereupon the father sent away all the physicians, and the patient died

soon after: whereupon Manes was imprisoned, but made his escape; but

being soon apprehended again, was flayed alive, and his carcass thrown

to the wild beasts.

Manes held that there were two principles, the one good, from whence

proceeded the good soul of man, and the other bad, from whence proceeded

the evil soul, and likewise the body with all corporeal creatures. He

taught his disciples to profess a great severity of life,

notwithstanding which they were able to wallow in all impurity, and he

forbade to give alms to any that were not of his own sect. He attributed

the motions of concupiscence to the evil soul; he gave out that the

souls of his followers went through the elements to the moon, and

afterwards to the sun, to be purified, and then to GOD, in whom they did

rejoin; and those of other men, he alleged, went to hell, to be sent

into other bodies. He alleged, that CHRIST had his residence in the sun;

the HOLY GHOST in the air; wisdom in the moon; and the FATHER in the

abyss of light: he denied the resurrection, and condemned marriage; he

held Pythagoras’s transmigration of souls; that CHRIST had no real body;

that he was neither dead nor risen, and that he was the Serpent that

tempted Eve. He forbade the use of eggs, cheese, milk, and wine, as

creatures proceeding from a bad principle; he used a form of baptism

different from that of the Church. He taught that magistrates were not

to be obeyed, and condemned the most lawful wars. It were next to

impossible to recount all the impious and damnable tenets of this

heresiarch, insomuch that Leo the Great said of him, that the devil

reigned in all other heresies, but he had built a fortress and raised

his throne in that of the Manicheans, who embraced all the errors and

impieties that the spirit of man was capable of; for whatever

profanation was in Paganism, carnal blindness in Judaism, unlawful

curiosity in magic, or sacrilegious in other heresies, did all centre in

that of the Manicheans.

The Manicheans were divided into hearers and the elect: of the elect,

twelve were called masters, in imitation of the twelve apostles; and

there was a thirteenth, who was a kind of pope amongst them. Authors

charge them with ascribing a body to GOD, and alleging that he was

substantially in everything, though never so base as mire, dirt, &c.,

but was separated from them by the coming of CHRIST, and by the

Manicheans eating the fruits of the earth. They likewise maintained,

that there had been a great combat between the princes of darkness and

light, wherein they who held for GOD were taken prisoners, and that he

laboured still for their redemption. Moreover, he held that the sun and

the moon were ships, that the soul of a man and of a tree were of the

same substance, and both of them a part of GOD; that sin was a

substance, and not a quality or affection, and therefore natural, and

that acquired by the fall; he likewise held a fatality, and denied

free-will. The emperors, in the fourth century, made laws against these

heretics, who renewed their opinions in Africa, Gaul, and Rome, where a

council was held against them.—But Manicheism continued to exist among

the heretics of the middle ages.—See _Burton_. _Augusti._

MANIPLE, or MANUPLE. Originally a narrow strip of linen suspended from

the left arm of the priest, and used to wipe away the perspiration from

the face: gradually it received embellishments, it was bordered by a

fringe, and decorated with needle-work. It is not improbable that its

use might be to clean the sacred vessels, as has been supposed by some,

for in the eleventh century it was given to the subdeacons as the badge

of their order. It is distinguished from the _epigonaton_ by being worn

on the left side. The maniple is not retained among the ecclesiastical

vestments of the Church of England.

MANSE. _Mansio._ The ancient name (as appears from old records) for an

ecclesiastical residence, whether parochial or collegiate. In Scotland

it was peculiarly appropriated to parsonage houses; and now designates

the residences of the ministers of the Presbyterian establishment. It

was anciently applied also to the prebendal houses there.—See _M’Ure’s

History of Glasgow_.

MANSIONARIES. The permanently resident canons in some Italian

cathedrals: in others of the same country the term was applied to

certain of the inferior clergy.

MANUDUCTOR, (_Lat._,) in the ancient Christian Church, was an officer,

who, from the middle of the choir, where he was placed, gave the signal

to the choristers to sing, marked the measure, beat the time, and

regulated the music. He was so called, because he led or guided the

choir by the motions and gesture of the hand.

The Greeks called the same kind of officer _Mesochoros_, because he was

seated in the middle of the choir.

MARANATHA. On this word, which is added by St. Paul to the word

_Anathema_, in 1 Cor. xvi. 22, Bingham, who has collected the

authorities of the Fathers, tells us that St. Chrysostom says it is a

Hebrew word, signifying _The_ LORD _is come_: and he particularly

applies it to the confusion of those who still abused the privileges of

the gospel, notwithstanding that the LORD was come among them. “This

word,” says he, “speaks terror to those who make their members the

members of an harlot, who offend their brethren by eating things offered

to idols, who name themselves by the names of men, who deny the

resurrection. The LORD of all is come down among us; and yet ye continue

the same men ye were before, and persevere in your sins.” St. Jerome

says, it was more a Syriac than a Hebrew word, though it had something

in it of both languages, signifying _Our_ LORD _is come_. But he applies

it against the perverseness of the Jews, and others who denied the

coming of CHRIST: making this the sense of the apostle, “If any man love

not the LORD JESUS CHRIST, let him be _Anathema, the_ LORD _is come_;

wherefore it is superfluous for any to contend with pertinacious hatred

against him, of the truth of whose coming there is such apparent

demonstration.” The same sense is given by Theodoret, by Hilary the

deacon, and Pelagius, whose writings have passed under the names of St.

Ambrose and St. Jerome respectively. And it is received by Estius and

Dr. Lightfoot as the truest interpretation. So that, according to this

sense, _Maranatha_ could not be any part of the form of excommunication,

but only a reason for pronouncing _Anathema_ against those who expressed

their hatred against CHRIST, by denying his coming; either in words, as

the Jews did, who blasphemed CHRIST, and called JESUS _Anathema_ or

accursed; or else by wicked works, as those who lived profanely under

the name of Christian. But Parkhurst is rather inclined to derive it

from the Hebrew, _miharem atha_, signifying _cursed art thou_; the _m_

being changed into _n_, as was frequent among Hellenizing Jews.

MARCIONITES. Heretics of the second century, so called from Marcion. He

was born at Sinope, in Paphlagonia or Helenopontus, on the coast of the

_Pontus Euxinus_, or Black Sea, and for that reason is sometimes called

_Ponticus_. 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, expelled from

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,

about A. 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 a GOD of the Jews,

a GOD of the Christians, and a GOD of 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. (See _Angels_, _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 beloved SON, our LORD 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 of GOD; we acknowledge thee to be a virgin. All

the earth doth worship thee, the spouse of the eternal FATHER. 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 of GOD.... 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 thy SON

on the right hand of the FATHER.... 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 the HOLY SPIRIT upon his disciples, and upon his

mother, and at last took her up into heaven, where she sitteth on the

right hand of her SON, 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 of GOD. 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 to CHRIST’S flock.... 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 worship GOD, or regarded the Virgin

as equal with GOD. 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 title

_Theotokos_ (Mother of God) to the Blessed Virgin, tended greatly to

pave the way for the Mariolatry of later times. (See _Nestorians_,

_Mother of God_.) Our great Bishop Bull observes, “We abominate the

impious imposture of those who have translated the most humble and holy

Virgin into 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 called _Mariani_, rather

than _Christiani_, &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 of CHRIST 44. 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

called _Maronia_, or from _St. Maron_, who built a monastery there in

the fifth century.

The _Maronites_ hold 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 the _Maronites_ was present in

the fourth Lateran Council, under Innocent III., in 1215.

The _Maronites_ have 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 the _Maronites_ is a monk of St. Anthony, claims the

title of patriarch of Antioch, and is always called _Peter_. He has

about nine bishops under him, and resides at _Edem 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 word _Num_ or _Eynam_

softly, which signifies _yes_ or _yes 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 the _Maronites_, before their adhesion to

the Church of Rome, it is said, they denied the procession of the HOLY

GHOST, observed Saturday as well as the LORD’S day, 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, the _Maronites_ were above 40,000 in number, and very valiant.

They did the kings of Jerusalem great service against the Saracens.

Besides several convents of _Maronite_ monks, 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. (See _Matrimony_.)

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 forsake CHRIST, nor worship any other: for we worship him as the

SON of GOD, but love the martyrs as the disciples and followers of the

LORD, 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 pray GOD, 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 in GOD, and trust in his grace. In

that beautiful hymn, the _Te Deum_, their memory is celebrated in the

words,—“The noble army of martyrs praise thee.” And well may they be

counted “an _army_,” whether we consider their numbers or their valour;

and a “_noble_ army,” because, as true soldiers of CHRIST, 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.

The _Martyrologies_ draw 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 their _Fasti_,

or public registers.

The _Martyrologies_ are 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’s _Spicilegium_. About the same time,

Rabanus Maurus, archbishop of Mentz, drew up a martyrology, published by

Canisius, in his _Antiquæ 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. (See _Virgin Mary_ and _Mariolatry_.)

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.—See _Bishop 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

the _dismissal_ of a Church assembly. By degrees it came to be used for

an _assembly_ and for Church service; and from signifying Church service

in general, it came at length to denote the _Communion Service_ in

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 the _missa catechumenorum_ and the _missa 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 their _missa 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 which CHRIST was 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 of JESUS 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 our SAVIOUR’S passion and death

upon the cross; to put the priest and people in mind of these, there is

always an image of CHRIST crucified 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 to GOD, 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. A _solemn_ mass, 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 or _low mass_. The priest, however, may either

sing the mass, attended by the choir, or say it. Hence the difference

between mass _sung_ and _said_. 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 mass _public_ or _private_, 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 the

_introit_. The priest, being come before the altar, stops at the foot of

it, bows, confesses generally to the Almighty GOD, and to all the

saints, that he has sinned most grievously, and that in every way, both

by thoughts, words, and deeds, and through his 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 the LORD our GOD for 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 of GOD

pardon for daily and unknown faults, that the awful mystery may be

celebrated with all imaginable purity. For the same reason _Kyrie

eleison, Christe eleison_, are several times repeated; being addressed

three times to GOD the FATHER, as our creator, as our protector, and as

our parent: thrice to GOD the SON, as our high priest, as our victim of

atonement, and as our brother; and, lastly, to the HOLY 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 the _Gloria in excelsis_, which is called the Hymn of the Angels,

because the first words of it were sung by the angels at our SAVIOUR’S

birth. 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. The _Gloria_ being

ended, the priest, kissing the altar, and turning towards the people

with extended arms, salutes them in these words: “_Dominus vobiscum_,”

“The LORD be 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 our SAVIOUR; 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 the _Gradual_ or _Tract_.

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 that GOD would 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 of CHRIST’S doctrine; 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 to GOD, 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 of

CHRIST,—to signify the union of the Divine and human nature in him, and

of the faithful with JESUS 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 of GOD the 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 the _Secret_, 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 the _Canon_ or 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 of CHRIST in 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 to GOD, by becoming the body and blood of

JESUS CHRIST. The third prayer contains the history of the institution

and the consecration of the elements, by the priest’s pronouncing the

words of JESUS CHRIST himself. 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 adore JESUS

CHRIST present; and immediately elevates first the host, and then the

chalice, in memory of CHRIST’S being 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 of JESUS CHRIST, and beseeching

GOD that 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, O LORD, 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, extending his hands again, he

concludes his prayer in these words: “To these, O LORD, and to all the

rest in CHRIST, 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 of GOD. In fine, he lifts the host over the chalice, honouring

the Blessed TRINITY, acknowledging the Divine goodness to us through

JESUS 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, the LORD’S

Prayer, 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 by JESUS CHRIST himself, 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

of CHRIST are 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 receiving

JESUS 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 the SON of GOD, 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 every LORD’S day, 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 of GOD a

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 our LORD’S retreat 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

of GOD, 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 with GOD, and our LORD’S being

betrayed with a kiss. 5. The priest goes to the opposite side of the

altar, and thurifies or perfumes it with incense. JESUS CHRIST is now

supposed to be taken and bound! 6. The introit is said or sung,

applicable to the circumstances of our LORD’S being taken before

Caiaphas. 7. The priest says the “_Kyrie eleison_,” (“LORD, have mercy

upon us,”) in allusion to Peter’s denying our LORD thrice. 8. The

priest, turning towards the altar, says, “_Dominus vobiscum_,” the

people returning the salutation by “_Et cum spiritu tuo_,” and this

means, CHRIST looking at Peter. 9. The priest reads the Epistle relative

to JESUS being accused before Pilate. 10. The priest, bowing before the

altar, says “_Munda cor_,” and the devotion is directed to our SAVIOUR’S

being brought before Pilate, and making no reply. 11. The priest reads

the Gospel in which JESUS CHRIST is 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 our

LORD in 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

of CHRIST. 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; declares JESUS innocent, 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 our LORD; that he adores (for such is the word, and the

inconceivable fact) the wafer that he holds in his fingers as the very

GOD; 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 represent CHRIST’S giving up the ghost; that a fragment of

this wafer put into the chalice figures our LORD’S descent 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 the HOLY 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 to GOD a

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 our LORD 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, CHRIST is 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 our LORD 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 our LORD 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 of CHRIST’S body and blood, but that

it is CHRIST’S body 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 his FATHER; 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 to GOD at the

mass, or that to be offered is anything else than JESUS CHRIST given

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 is not 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 the HOLY GHOST to provide

for the salvation of the faithful against this error, declares,

decrees, and defines, that although CHRIST did 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 of CHRIST are 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 in CHRIST,

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 though CHRIST, 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 of CHRIST,

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 entire CHRIST, 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, by GOD’S command, 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 with GOD.”

“If any one shall deny that the body and blood of CHRIST is 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 our LORD

JESUS CHRIST, and that the conversion is not real and total, let him be

accursed.”—_Id._ Can. 2. “If any man shall deny that CHRIST is entirely

contained under either species, and in every individual portion of that

species,” (_Id._ Can. 3,) or “that CHRIST is 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 his GOD, 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 call GOD’S table

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 to GOD in 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 of CHRIST’S offering 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. “In CHRIST, 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, that CHRIST offered 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 of JESUS

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 of GOD; 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. The HOLY GHOST

speaks 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 their SAVIOUR to 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 of CHRIST, GOD

and 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 makes

CHRIST’S body a sacrifice.

By this rule it shall be _hostia_, “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 as the 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 to GOD: if, then, eating be

sacrificing, the priest eats his GOD to his GOD: “Quorum Deus venter.”

While they, in vain, study to reconcile this new-made sacrifice of

CHRIST already 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. (See _Faculties_.)

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 the _Sentences_, 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 the _Custos_; 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 the LORD’S Prayer: 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, or rather 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 than GOD’S word doth allow, are not joined together by GOD,

neither is their matrimony lawful: it is not _lawful_, that is to say,

in the eyes of GOD,—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 a _civil contract_, the law of the land will

permit you to enter into the marriage state by a _civil ceremony_: but

the Church has not as yet been silenced, and _she_ affirms, that though

the State may permit this, the word of GOD instructs us _otherwise_, and

marriage is a _religious_ contract; therefore do not avail yourselves of

the permission given by the State.

That such is the doctrine of the Church _now_, must at once be

_admitted_; 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 of GOD, 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 the FATHER

ratifies!”

In those days the members of the Church were in much the same situation

as that in which we are ourselves _now_ placed. 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 the _validity_ of the _act_ when

_done_, though it declared it to be done unlawfully, according to GOD’S

law, 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 or LORD’S supper. 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 longer _insisted_ that the parties married should receive the

communion, (a regulation which had in practice been much disregarded,)

but contented herself with remarking in the _rubric_ succeeding 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 of GOD which 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 blessed LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST himself.

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 on

_this_ account 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 Pharisees came 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 reason _thus_: 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 from _having_ them, 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 arguing _had_ permitted

polygamy; they _did_ possess 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 our LORD, and how did he meet them? By arguments against the

_expediency_ of polygamy, or frequent divorce? No; but by assuming at

once, that, according to Scripture, marriage is _not_ a mere civil, but

a _religious_ contract. “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, GOD hath joined

together let no man put asunder.” The permission of divorce is out of

the jurisdiction of man, because the ordinance is of GOD. If the

contract were merely a _civil_ contract, man might legislate with

respect to it; but man may _not_ legislate for it, because it is an

ordinance of GOD—a religious, and _not_ a mere civil, contract.

And all this is the more remarkable, because our LORD, in his reply to

the Herodians, carefully distinguishes between the things of Cæsar and

the things of GOD, 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 does _not_,

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 that GOD, 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 by GOD’S joining 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 by GOD exclusively to himself, and not to be modified, or in

any respect invaded, by human authority. _Man’s_ law indeed may couple

male and female together; but as the Church declares, on the authority

of our LORD, it is their being joined together by GOD, and as GOD’S law

doth allow, that in his sight makes their matrimony lawful.

Indeed, the Scriptures from first to last envelope this union with a

sacred and mysterious solemnity. The first marriage, that of Adam and

Eve, GOD himself solemnized, even GOD, who, by that very act, instituted

the ordinance, and stamped it as Divine, and not a mere human contract.

The whole proceeding, with respect to the marriage of Adam and Eve, is

related under circumstances calculated to awaken the most solemn

attention. As to the other creatures of his hand, they were produced by

a fiat of the ALMIGHTY will, (male and female of every species,) a

corporeal and instinctive adaptation to herd together being the bounds

of their perfection. But in the case of the human species, a very

different course was observed. Man is first formed, a splendidly gifted

creature, who soon is made to feel his social wants, (by a survey of all

GOD’S creatures _mated_ except himself,) and to express, by a plaintive

reference to his own comparative destitution, how desolate he was even

in Paradise, being alone in the garden of delights; and how hopeless was

the search for a helpmeet for him throughout the whole compass of

hitherto animated nature. Then it is that GOD puts his last finish to

the visible universe by his own wonderful counsel for supplying the

deficiency. He takes from man’s own substance the material from which

his second self is to be formed; as the term employed by Moses imports,

he works upon it with the skill of a profound artificer; and having

framed and modelled out of it, after man’s own image, softened and

refined, but still retaining its Divine similitude, the grace of social

life, he himself brings her to him to be his bosom counsellor and

partner of his joys, (for cares and sorrows he, as yet, had none,)

knitting them together, and pouring on them the most precious

benedictions. Thus was the marriage first solemnized by the great GOD

himself. And even so do his ambassadors now; _they_, as an ancient

writer observes, they, as the representatives of GOD, come forth to the

persons who are to be joined together, to confirm this their sacred

covenant by the offering up of holy prayers.

By Canon 62, it is enjoined that no minister shall join persons in

marriage in any private place, but either in the churches or chapels

where one of them dwelleth, and likewise in time of Divine service. (See

_Banns_.)

An uniformity of principle prevails throughout the sacred Scriptures,

and to the sacredness of the marriage contract frequent allusions are

made. Thus Israel is said to have been _married_ to the LORD; and

idolatry (that is, the following of the gods of the heathens) is

represented as adultery, a breach of the covenant between GOD and

Israel. GOD’S reproofs to them for their infidelity are sharpened by the

recollection of their marriage relation with him. The state of believers

in this world is compared by the apostle Paul to the time that used to

elapse between the betrothing and the actual marriage among the Jews;

nay, St. Paul goes further, he alludes to this sacred contract as a type

or representation of the mysterious love of JESUS to his Church. For our

LORD forsook his heavenly FATHER, and did cleave unto our nature,

becoming one flesh with us, giving to the Church his SPIRIT for a dowry,

and heaven for a jointure, feeding her at his table, adorning her by his

grace, and protecting her by his power; and from this love of CHRIST to

his spouse, the Church, are many converts begotten unto GOD through the

gospel, and (born again of water and the HOLY GHOST) they become heirs

of glory. Thus honoured is the marriage contract, by being made an

emblem of so Divine and mysterious a mercy. It was indeed to hallow the

rite by this application that St. Paul wrote, since in the passage

referred to he was arguing against certain seducers who would have

disfigured Christianity by imputing to it the forbidding of its

disciples to marry. He shows, on the contrary, that marriage, so far

from having any discredit cast upon it by the gospel, is advanced in

honour. He describes, indeed, the ministerial office to consist in

espousing the Church to CHRIST; and St. John, in the Apocalypse, depicts

the consummation of all things as the marriage of the LAMB and his wife,

the beatific union between CHRIST and his redeemed ones, between GOD and

the Church, when the Church has been cleansed and sanctified, and become

a glorious Church, without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing.

MATTHEW, ST., THE EVANGELIST’S DAY. A festival of the Christian Church,

observed on the 21st of September.

St. Matthew, the son of Alpheus, was also called Levi. He was of Jewish

original, as both his names discover, and probably a Galilean. Before

his call to the apostolate, he was a publican or tollgatherer to the

Romans; an office of bad repute among the Jews, on account of the

covetousness and exaction of those who managed it. St. Matthew’s office

particularly consisted in gathering the customs of all merchandise that

came by the sea of Galilee, and the tribute that passengers were to pay

who went by water. And here it was that Matthew sat at the “receipt of

custom,” when our Saviour called him to be a disciple. It is probable,

that, living at Capernaum, the place of Christ’s usual residence, he

might have some knowledge of him before he was called.

Matthew immediately expressed his satisfaction, in being called to this

high dignity, by entertaining our Saviour and his disciples at a great

dinner at his own house, whither he invited all his friends, especially

those of his own profession, hoping, probably, that they might be

influenced by the company and conversation of Christ.

St. Matthew continued with the rest of the apostles till after our

LORD’S ascension. For the first eight years afterwards he preached in

Judea. Then he betook himself to propagating the gospel among the

Gentiles, and chose Ethiopia as the scene of his apostolical ministry;

where it is said he suffered martyrdom, but by what kind of death is

altogether uncertain. It is pretended, but without any foundation, that

Hyrtacus, king of Ethiopia, desiring to marry Iphigenia, the daughter of

his brother and predecessor Æglippus, and the apostle having represented

to him that he could not lawfully do it, the enraged prince ordered his

head immediately to be cut off.

MATTHEW’S, ST., GOSPEL. A canonical book of the New Testament. (See the

preceding article.)

St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Judea, at the request of those he had

converted. It is thought he began this work about the year 41, eight

years after our SAVIOUR’S resurrection. Irenæus thinks he wrote it

whilst St. Peter and St. Paul were preaching at Rome. It was written

(according to the testimony of all the ancients) in the Hebrew or Syriac

language, which was then common in Judea.

The true Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew is no longer in being anywhere, as

far as can be discovered. Those printed by Sebastian Munster, and du

Tillet, are modern, and translated into Hebrew from the Latin or Greek.

The Greek version of St. Matthew’s Gospel, and which at this day passes

for the original, is as old as the apostolical times. The author is

unknown. Some ascribe it to St. Matthew himself; others, to St. James

the less, bishop of Jerusalem; others, to St. John the evangelist, or to

St. Paul, or to St. Luke, or to St. Barnabas.

MATTHIAS’S, ST., DAY. A festival of the Christian Church, observed on

the 24th of February.

St. Matthias was an apostle of JESUS CHRIST, but not of the number of

the twelve, chosen by CHRIST himself. He obtained this high honour upon

a vacancy, made in the college of the apostles by the treason and death

of Judas Iscariot. The choice fell on Matthias by lot; his competitor

being Joseph called Barsabas, and surnamed Justus.

Matthias was qualified for the apostleship, by having been a constant

attendant upon our SAVIOUR all the time of his ministry. He was,

probably, one of the seventy disciples. After our LORD’S resurrection,

he preached the gospel first in Judea. Afterwards it is probable he

travelled eastward, his residence being principally near the irruption

of the river Apsarus and the haven Hyssus. The barbarous people treated

him with great rudeness and inhumanity; and, after many labours and

sufferings in converting great numbers to Christianity, he obtained the

crown of martyrdom; but by what kind of death is uncertain.

The observance of this festival among us has been attended with some

confusion. The Common Prayer Book of Queen Elizabeth directs, that, in

Leap-years, an intercalary or additional day shall be added between the

23rd and 24th days of February. Hence St. Matthias’s day, which, in

common years, was observed on the 24th of February, was, in Leap-years,

observed on the 25th. But, in the review of our liturgy, it was thought

more proper to add a 29th day to February. So that now, there being no

variation of the days, this festival must always keep to the 24th day.

But, notwithstanding the case is so clear, some almanack-makers

continued to follow the old custom, which occasioned the day to be

variously observed. Archbishop Sancroft decided the matter by an

injunction, Feb. 5, 1683, requiring “all vicars and curates to take

notice, that the feast of St. Matthias is to be celebrated, not upon the

25th of February, (as the common almanack-makers boldly and erroneously

set it,) but upon the 24th of February for ever, whether it be Leap-year

or not, as the calendar in the liturgy, confirmed by act of uniformity,

appoints and enjoins.”

MAUNDY THURSDAY. The Thursday before Easter, being the day on which our

Lord instituted the holy sacrament of his body and blood. The name of

Maundy, Maunday, or Mandate, (_Dies Mandati_,) is said to have allusion

to the _mandate_ or new commandment which, on this day, CHRIST gave to

his disciples, that they should love one another, as he had loved them.

It has also been supposed by others, that the name arose from the

_maunds_, or baskets of gifts, which, at this time, it was an ancient

custom for Christians to present one to another, in token of that mutual

affection which our LORD so tenderly urged, at this period of his

sufferings, and as a remembrancer of that “inestimable gift” of CHRIST,

to be our spiritual food in the sacrament of his body and blood. Says a

writer of the age of Wickliff, “CHRIST made his _maundy_ and said, Take,

eat,” &c.

On this day it was customary for bishops, sovereigns, and nobles, to

wash the feet of the poor, a ceremony still observed in many places

abroad. In the Hierurgice Anglicana (p. 282, 283) is given an account of

the ceremonial observed by Queen Elizabeth. King James II. is said to

have been the last of our sovereigns who performed it. It is still the

custom on Maundy Thursday for the Lord Almoner to distribute certain

royal donations to the poor in the Royal Chapel at Whitehall. This

service consists of appropriate psalms, lessons, anthems, and special

prayers. It is performed with great solemnity. For the full particulars

see Stephens’s edition of the Common Prayer Book.

MAY, TWENTY-NINTH OF. (See _Forms of Prayer_.)

MEANS OF GRACE. (See _Ordinances_ and _Sacraments_.) The sacraments and

other ordinances of the Church, through which grace is conveyed to souls

prepared by faith and penitence to receive it.

MEDIATOR. (See _Jesus_, _Lord_, _Christ_, _Messiah_.) A person who

intervenes between two parties at variance. Thus our blessed LORD and

SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST is the Mediator between GOD and man.

This appears from 1 Tim. ii. 5, “For there is one GOD, and one Mediator

between GOD and men, the man CHRIST JESUS.” When we call him a Mediator,

we call him so, not only as he is our Redeemer, but also as he is our

Intercessor. “For, if any man sin, we have an advocate with the FATHER,

JESUS CHRIST the righteous.” (1 John ii. 1.)—_Archdeacon Welchman._ It

is to be remembered, however, that by a mediator here the Church means,

not barely an intercessor or transactor of business between two parties,

in which sense Moses was a mediator between GOD and the Israelites with

respect to the ceremonial law; but such a mediator, intercessor, and

transactor, as can plead the merit of his own blood, offered up in man’s

stead, to reconcile an offended GOD to sinful man. In this sense CHRIST

is the only mediator between GOD and man, being both GOD and man.—_Dr.

Bennet._

It has been already proved that CHRIST partook both of the Divine and

human nature: and St. Paul expressly says, “There is one mediator,” &c.

CHRIST is represented, both in the Old and New Testament, as the only

redeemer of mankind, as the only sacrifice for the sins of the whole

world. His merits will extend to all who lived before and after the

promulgation of the gospel. “As in Adam all die, so in CHRIST shall all

be made alive.” (1 Cor. xv. 22.) “He is the LAMB which was slain from

the foundation of the world.” (Rev. xiii. 8.)—_Bp. Tomline._