ix, 20; Psa. lxxviii, 24; μάννα, John vi, 31, 49, 58; Heb. ix, 4; Rev.
ii, 17; the food which God gave the children of Israel during their
continuance in the deserts of Arabia, from the eighth encampment in the
wilderness of Sin. Moses describes it as white like hoar frost, round,
and of the bigness of coriander seed. It fell every morning upon the
dew; and when the dew was exhaled by the heat of the sun, the manna
appeared alone, lying upon the rocks or the sand. It fell every day
except on the Sabbath, and this only around the camp of the Israelites.
Every sixth day there fell a double quantity; and though it putrefied
and bred maggots when it was kept any other day, yet on the Sabbath
there was no such alteration. The same substance which was melted by the
heat of the sun when it was left abroad, was of so hard a consistence
when brought into the tent, that it was beaten in mortars, and would
even endure the fire, being made into cakes and baked in pans. It fell
in so great quantities during the whole forty years of their journey,
that it was sufficient to feed the whole multitude of above a million of
souls. Every man, that is, every male or head of a family, was to gather
each day the quantity of an omer, about three quarts English measure;
and it is observed that he that gathered much had nothing over, and he
that gathered little had no lack,” because his gathering was in
proportion to the number of persons for whom he had to provide. Or every
man gathered as much as he could; and then, when brought home and
measured by an omer, if he had a surplus, it went to supply the wants of
some other family that had not been able to collect a sufficiency, the
family being large, and the time in which the manna might be gathered,
before the heat of the day, not being sufficient to collect enough for
so numerous a household, several of whom might be so confined as not to
be able to collect for themselves. Thus there was an equality; and in
this light the words of St. Paul lead us to view the passage, 2 Cor.
viii, 15. To commemorate their living upon manna, the Israelites were
directed to put one omer of it into a golden vase; and it was preserved
for many generations by the side of the ark.
Our translators and others make a plain contradiction in the relation of
this account of the manna, by rendering it thus: And when the children
of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is manna; for they knew
not what it was;” whereas the Septuagint, and several authors, both
ancient and modern, have translated the text according to the original:
“The Israelites seeing this, said one to another, What is it? מן הוא;
for they knew not what it was,” and therefore they could not give it a
name. Moses immediately answers the question, and says, This is the
bread which the Lord hath given you to eat.” From Exod. xvi, 31, we
learn that this substance was afterward called מן, probably in
commemoration of the question they had asked on its first appearance.
What this substance was, we know not. It was nothing that was common in
the wilderness. It is evident that the Israelites never saw it before;
for Moses says, He fed thee with manna which thou knewest not, neither
did thy fathers know,” Deut. viii, 3, 16; and it is very likely that
nothing of the kind had ever been seen before; and by a pot of it being
laid up in the ark, it is as likely that nothing of the kind ever
appeared after the miraculous supply in the wilderness had ceased. The
author of the book of Wisdom, xvi, 20, 21, says, that the manna so
accommodated itself to every one’s taste that it proved palatable and
pleasing to all. It has been remarked that at this day, what is called
manna is found in several places; in Arabia, on Mount Libanus, Calabria,
and elsewhere. The most famous is that of Arabia, which is a kind of
condensed honey, which exudes from the leaves of trees, from whence it
is collected when it has become concreted. Salmasius thinks this of the
same kind which fed the children of Israel; and that the miracle lay,
not in creating any new substance, but in making it fall duly at a set
time every day throughout the whole year, and that in such plenty as to
suffice so great a multitude. But in order for this, the Israelites must
he supposed every day to have been in the neighbourhood of the trees on
which this substance is formed; which was not the case, neither do these
trees grow in those deserts. Beside, this kind of manna is purgative,
and the stomach could not endure it in such quantity as is implied by
its being eaten for food. The whole history of the giving the manna is
evidently miraculous; and the manna was truly bread from heaven,” as
sent by special interposition of God.
MANOAH, the father of Samson, was of the tribe of Dan, and a native of
the city of Zorah, Judges xiii, 6–23. See SAMSON.
MARAH, or MARA, a word which signifies _bitterness_. When the Israelites
came out of Egypt, and had arrived at the desert of Etham, they found
the water so bitter that neither themselves nor their cattle could drink
of it, Exod. xv, 23. On this account they gave the name of Marah to that
encampment. And here their murmurings began against Moses; for they
asked, What shall we drink?” Moses prayed to the Lord, who instructed
him to take a particular kind of wood, and cast it into the water, which
he did; and immediately the water became palatable. According to the
orientals, this wood was called Alnah.
MARANATHA. See ANATHEMA.
MARBLE, שיש, 1 Chron. xxix, 2; Esther i, 6; Canticles v, 15; a valuable
kind of stone, of a texture so hard and compact, and of a grain so fine,
as readily to take a beautiful polish. It is dug out of quarries in
large masses, and is much used in buildings, ornamental pillars, &c.
Marble is of different colours, black, white, &c; and is sometimes
elegantly clouded and variegated. The stone mentioned in the places
cited above is called the stone of _sis_ or _sish_: the LXX and Vulgate
render it Parian stone,” which was remarkable for its bright white
colour. Probably the cliff Ziz, 2 Chron. xx, 16, was so called from
being a marble crag: the place was afterward called Petra. The variety
of stones, בהט, שיש, דר, סחרת, mentioned in the pavement of Ahasuerus,
might be marble of different colours. The ancients sometimes made
pavements wherein were set very valuable stones.
MARK was the nephew of Barnabas, being his sister’s son; and he is
supposed to have been converted to the Gospel by St. Peter, who calls
him his son, 1 Peter v, 13; but no circumstances of his conversion are
recorded. The first historical fact mentioned of him in the New
Testament is, that he went, in the year 44, from Jerusalem to Antioch,
with Paul and Barnabas. Not long after, he set out from Antioch with
those Apostles upon a journey, which they undertook by the direction of
the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of preaching the Gospel in different
countries: but he soon left them, probably without sufficient reason, at
Perga in Pamphylia, and went to Jerusalem, Acts xiii. Afterward, when
Paul and Barnabas had determined to visit the several churches which
they had established, Barnabas proposed that they should take Mark with
them; to which Paul objected, because Mark had left them in their former
journey. This produced a sharp contention between Paul and Barnabas,
which ended in their separation. Mark accompanied his uncle Barnabas to
Cyprus, but it is not mentioned whither they went when they left that
island. We may conclude that St. Paul was afterward reconciled to St.
Mark, from the manner in which he mentions him in his epistles written
subsequently to this dispute; and particularly from the direction which
he gives to Timothy: Take Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is
profitable to me for the ministry,” 2 Tim. iv, 11. No farther
circumstances are recorded of St. Mark in the New Testament; but it is
believed, upon the authority of ancient writers, that soon after his
journey with Barnabas he met Peter in Asia, and that he continued with
him for some time; perhaps till Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome.
Epiphanius, Eusebius, and Jerom, all assert that Mark preached the
Gospel in Egypt; and the two latter call him bishop of Alexandria.
Dr. Lardner thinks that St. Mark’s Gospel is alluded to by Clement of
Rome; but the earliest ecclesiastical writer upon record who expressly
mentions it is Papias. It is mentioned, also, by Irenæus, Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerom, Augustine,
Chrysostom, and many others. The works of these fathers contain numerous
quotations from this Gospel; and, as their testimony is not contradicted
by any ancient writer, we may safely conclude that the Gospel of St.
Mark is genuine. The authority of this Gospel is not affected by the
question concerning the identity of Mark the evangelist, and Mark the
nephew of Barnabas; since all agree that the writer of this Gospel was
the familiar companion of St. Peter, and that he was qualified for the
work which he undertook, by having heard, for many years, the public
discourses and private conversation of that Apostle.
Some writers have asserted that St. Peter revised and approved this
Gospel, and others have not scrupled to call it the Gospel according to
St. Peter; by which title they did not mean to question St. Mark’s right
to be considered as the author of this Gospel, but merely to give it the
sanction of St. Peter’s name. The following passage in Eusebius appears
to contain so probable an account of the occasion of writing this
Gospel, and comes supported by such high authority, that we think it
right to transcribe it: “The lustre of piety so enlightened the minds of
Peter’s hearers at Rome, that they were not contented with the bare
hearing and unwritten instruction of his divine preaching, but they
earnestly requested St. Mark, whose Gospel we have, being an attendant
upon St. Peter, to leave with them a written account of the instructions
which had been delivered to them by word of mouth; nor did they desist
till they had prevailed upon him; and thus they were the cause of the
writing of that Gospel, which is called according to St. Mark; and they
say, that the Apostle being informed of what was done, by the revelation
of the Holy Ghost, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and authorized
the writing to be introduced into the churches. Clement gives this
account in the sixth book of his Institutions; and Papias, bishop of
Hierapolis, bears testimony to it.” Jerom also says, that St. Mark wrote
a short Gospel from what he had heard from St. Peter, at the request of
the brethren at Rome, which, when St. Peter knew, he approved, and
published it in the church, commanding the reading of it by his own
authority.
Different persons have assigned different dates to this Gospel; but
there being almost a unanimous concurrence of opinion, that it was
written while St. Mark was with St. Peter at Rome, and not finding any
ancient authority for supposing that St. Peter was in that city till A.
D. 64, we are inclined to place the publication of this Gospel about A.
D. 65. St. Mark having written this Gospel for the use of the Christians
at Rome, which was at that time the great metropolis and common centre
of all civilized nations, we accordingly find it free from all
peculiarities, and equally accommodated to every description of persons.
Quotations from the ancient prophets, and allusions to Jewish customs,
are, as much as possible, avoided; and such explanations are added as
might be necessary for Gentile readers at Rome; thus, when Jordan is
first mentioned in this Gospel, the word _river_ is prefixed, Mark i, 5;
the oriental word _corban_ is said to mean a gift, Mark vii, 11; _the
preparation_ is said to be the day before the Sabbath, Mark xv, 42; and
defiled hands are said to mean unwashed hands, Mark vii, 2; and the
superstition of the Jews upon that subject is stated more at large than
it would have been by a person writing at Jerusalem.
Some learned men, from a collation of St. Matthew’s and St. Mark’s
Gospels have pointed out the use of the same words and expressions in so
many instances that it has been supposed St. Mark wrote with St.
Matthew’s Gospel before him; but the similarity is not strong enough to
warrant such a conclusion; and seems no greater than might have arisen
from other causes. St. Peter would naturally recite in his preaching the
same events and discourses which St. Matthew recorded in his Gospel; and
the same circumstances might be mentioned in the same manner by men who
sought not after excellency of speech,” but whose minds retained the
remembrance of facts or conversations which strongly impressed them,
even without taking into consideration the idea of supernatural
guidance. We may farther observe that the idea of St. Mark’s writing
from St. Matthew’s Gospel does not correspond with the account given by
Eusebius and Jerom as stated above.
MARK ON THE FOREHEAD. See FOREHEAD.
MARONITES, a sect of eastern Christians who follow the Syrian rite, and
are subject to the pope; their principal habitation being on Mount
Libanus, or between the Ansarians to the north and the Druses to the
south. Mosheim informs us, that the Monothelites, condemned and exploded
by the council of Constantinople, found a place of refuge among the
Mardaites, signifying in Syriac _rebels_, a people who took possession
of Lebanon, A. D. 676, which became the asylum of vagabonds, slaves, and
all sorts of rabble; and about the conclusion of the seventh century
they were called Maronites, after Maro, their first bishop; a name which
they still retain. None, he says, of the ancient writers, give any
certain account of the first person who instructed these mountaineers in
the doctrine of the Monothelites; it is probable, however, from several
circumstances, that it was John Maro, whose name they have adopted; and
that this ecclesiastic received the name of Maro from his having lived
in the character of a monk, in the famous convent of St. Maro, upon the
borders of the Orontes, before his settlement among the Mardaites of
Mount Libanus. One thing is certain, from the testimony of Tyrius, and
other unexceptionable witnesses, as also from the most authentic
records, namely, that the Maronites retained the opinions of the
Monothelites until the twelfth century, when, abandoning and renouncing
the doctrine of one will in Christ, they were reädmitted into the
communion of the Roman church. The most learned of the modern Maronites
have left no method unemployed to defend their church against this
accusation; they have laboured to prove, by a variety of testimonies,
that their ancestors always persevered in the Catholic faith, and in
their attachment to the Roman pontiff, without ever adopting the
doctrine of the Monophysites or Monothelites. But all their efforts are
insufficient to prove the truth of these assertions, and the testimonies
they allege will appear absolutely fictitious and destitute of
authority.
The nation may be considered as divided into two classes, the common
people and the _shaiks_, by whom must be understood the most eminent of
the inhabitants, who, from the antiquity of their families, and the
opulence of their fortunes are superior to the ordinary class. They all
live dispersed in the mountains, in villages, hamlets, and even detached
houses; which is never the case in the plains. The whole nation consists
of cultivators. Every man improves the little domain he possesses, or
farms, with his own hands. Even the _shaiks_ live in the same manner,
and are only distinguished from the rest by a bad peliss, a horse, and a
few slight advantages in food and lodging; they all live frugally,
without many enjoyments, but also with few wants, as they are little
acquainted with the inventions of luxury. In general, the nation is
poor, but no one wants necessaries; and if beggars are sometimes seen,
they come rather from the sea coast than the country itself. Property is
as sacred among them as in Europe; nor do we see there those robberies
and extortions so frequent with the Turks. Travellers may journey there,
either by night or by day, with a security unknown in any other part of
the empire, and the stranger is received with hospitality, as among the
Arabs: it must be owned, however, that the Maronites are less generous,
and rather inclined to the vice of parsimony. Conformably to the
doctrines of Christianity, they have only one wife, whom they frequently
espouse without having seen, and always without having been much in her
company. Contrary to the precepts of that same religion, however, they
have admitted, or retained, the Arab custom of retaliation, and the
nearest relation of a murdered person is bound to avenge him. From a
habit founded on distrust, and the political state of the country, every
one, whether _shaik_ or peasant, walks continually armed with a musket
and poinards. This is, perhaps, an inconvenience; but this advantage
results from it, that they have no novices in the use of arms among
them, when it is necessary to employ them against the Turks. As the
country maintains no regular troops, every man is obliged to join the
army in time of war; and if this militia were well conducted, it would
be superior to many European armies. From accounts taken in late years,
the number of men fit to bear arms, amounts to thirty-five thousand.
In religious matters the Maronites are dependent on Rome. Though they
acknowledge the supremacy of the pope, their clergy continue, as
heretofore, to elect a head, with the title of _batrak_, or patriarch of
Antioch. Their priests marry, as in the first ages of the church; but
their wives must be maidens, and not widows; nor can they marry a second
time. They celebrate mass in Syriac, of which the greatest part of them
comprehend not a word. The Gospel, alone, is read aloud in Arabic, that
it may be understood by the people. The communion is administered in
both kinds. In the small country of the Maronites there are reckoned
upward of two hundred convents for men and women. These religious are of
the order of St. Anthony, whose rules they observe with an exactness
which reminds us of earlier times. The court of Rome, in affiliating the
Maronites, has granted them a _hospitium_ at Rome, to which they may
send several of their youth to receive a gratuitous education. It should
seem that this institution might introduce among them the ideas and arts
of Europe; but the pupils of this school, limited to an education purely
monastic, bring home nothing but the Italian language, which is of no
use, and a stock of theological learning, from which as little advantage
can be derived; they accordingly soon assimilate with the rest. Nor has
a greater change been operated by the three or four missionaries
maintained by the French capuchins at Gazir, Tripoli, and Bairout. Their
labours consist in preaching in their church, in instructing children in
the catechism, Thomas a Kempis, and the Psalms, and in teaching them to
read and write. Formerly, the Jesuits had two missionaries at their
house at Antoura, and the Lazarites have now succeeded them in their
mission. The most valuable advantage that has resulted from these
labours is, that the art of writing has become more common among the
Maronites, and rendered them, in this country, what the Copts are in
Egypt, that is, they are in possession of all the posts of writers,
intendants, and _kaiyas_ among the Turks, and especially of those among
their allies and neighbours, the Druses.
Mosheim observes, that the subjection of the Maronites to the spiritual
jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff was agreed to with this express
condition, that neither the popes nor their emissaries should pretend to
change or abolish any thing that related to the ancient rites, moral
precepts, or religious opinions of this people; so that, in reality,
there is nothing to be found among the Maronites that savours of popery,
if we except their attachment to the Roman pontiff. It is also certain
that there are Maronites in Syria, who still behold the church of Rome
with the greatest aversion and abhorrence; nay, what is still more
remarkable, great numbers of that nation residing in Italy, even under
the eye of the pontiff, opposed his authority during the seventeenth
century, and threw the court of Rome into great perplexity. One body of
these non-conforming Maronites retired into the valleys of Piedmont,
where they joined the Waldenses; another, above six hundred in number,
with a bishop, and several ecclesiastics at their head, flew into
Corsica, and implored the protection of the republic of Genoa, against
the violence of the inquisitors.
MARRIAGE, a civil and religious contract, by which a man is joined and
united to a woman, for the ends of procreation. The essence of marriage
consists in the mutual consent of the parties. Marriage is a part of the
law of nations, and is in use among all people. The public use of
marriage institutions consists, according to Archdeacon Paley, in their
promoting the following beneficial effects: 1. The private comfort of
individuals. 2. The production of the greatest number of healthy
children, their better education, and the making of due provision for
their settlement in life. 3. The peace of human society, in cutting off
a principal source of contention, by assigning one or more women to one
man, and protecting his exclusive right by sanctions of morality and
law. 4. The better government of society, by distributing the community
into separate families, and appointing over each the authority of a
master of a family, which has more actual influence than all civil
authority put together. 5. The additional security which the state
receives for the good behaviour of its citizens, from the solicitude
they feel for the welfare of their children, and from their being
confined to permanent habitations. 6. The encouragement of industry.