of dispute. The truth seems to be that it is both. It has its
engagements to men, and its vows to God. A Christian state recognizes
marriage as a branch of public morality, and a source of civil peace and
strength. It is connected with the peace of society by assigning one
woman to one man, and the state protects him, therefore, in her
exclusive possession. Christianity, by allowing divorce in the event of
adultery, supposes, also, that the crime must be proved by proper
evidence before the civil magistrate; and lest divorce should be the
result of unfounded suspicion, or be made a cover for license, the
decision of the case could safely be lodged no where else. Marriage,
too, as placing one human being more completely under the power of
another than any other relation, requires laws for the protection of
those who are thus so exposed to injury. The distribution of society
into families, also, can only be an instrument for promoting the order
of the community, by the cognizance which the law takes of the head of a
family, and by making him responsible, to a certain extent, for the
conduct of those under his influence. Questions of property are also
involved in marriage and its issue. The law must, therefore, for these
and many other weighty reasons, be cognizant of marriage; must prescribe
various regulations respecting it; require publicity of the contract;
and guard some of the great injunctions of religion in the matter by
penalties. In every well ordered society marriage must be placed under
the cognizance and control of the state. But then those who would have
the whole matter to lie between the parties themselves, and the civil
magistrate, appear wholly to forget that marriage is also a solemn
religious act, in which vows are made to God by both persons, who, when
the rite is properly understood, engage to abide by all those laws with
which he has guarded the institution; to love and cherish each other;
and to remain faithful to each other until death. For if, at least, they
profess belief in Christianity, whatever duties are laid upon husbands
and wives in Holy Scripture, they engage to obey, by the very act of
their contracting marriage. The question, then, is whether such vows to
God as are necessarily involved in marriage, are to be left between the
parties and God privately, or whether they ought to be publicly made
before his ministers and the church. On this the Scriptures are silent;
but though Michaëlis has shown that the priests under the law were not
appointed to celebrate marriage; yet in the practice of the modern Jews
it is a religious ceremony, the chief rabbi of the synagogue being
present, and prayers being appointed for the occasion. This renders it
probable that the character of the ceremony under the law, from the most
ancient times, was a religious one. The more direct connection of
marriage with religion in Christian states, by assigning its celebration
to the ministers of religion, appears to be a very beneficial custom,
and one which the state has a right to enjoin. For since the welfare and
morals of society are so much interested in the performance of the
mutual duties of the married state; and since those duties have a
religious as well as a civil character, it is most proper that some
provision should be made for explaining those duties; and for this a
standing form of marriage is best adapted. By acts of religion, also,
they are more solemnly impressed upon the parties. When this is
prescribed in any state, it becomes a Christian cheerfully, and even
thankfully, to comply with a custom of so important a tendency, as
matter of conscientious subjection to lawful authority, although no
Scriptural precept can be pleaded for it. That the ceremony should be
confined to the clergy of an established church, is a different
consideration. We think that the religious effect would be greater, were
the ministers of each religious body to be authorized by the state to
celebrate marriages among their own people, due provision being
previously made by the civil magistrate for the regular and secure
registry of them, and to prevent the laws respecting marriage from being
evaded; which is indeed his business. The offices of religion would then
come in by way of sanction and moral enforcement.
When this important contract is once made, then certain rights are
acquired by the parties mutually, who are also bound by reciprocal
duties, in the fulfilment of which the practical virtue of each
consists. And here the superior character of the morals of the New
Testament, as well as their higher authority, is illustrated. It may,
indeed, be within the scope of mere moralists to show that fidelity,and
affection, and all the courtesies necessary to maintain affection, are
rationally obligatory upon those who are connected by the nuptial bond;
but in Christianity nuptial fidelity is guarded by the express law, Thou
shalt not commit adultery;” and by our Lord’s exposition of the spirit
of that law which forbids the indulgence of loose thoughts and desires,
and places the purity of the heart under the guardianship of that
hallowed fear which his authority tends to inspire. Affection, too, is
made a matter of diligent cultivation upon considerations, and by a
standard, peculiar to our religion. Husbands are placed in a relation to
their wives, similar to that which Christ bears to his church, and his
example is thus made their rule. As Christ loved the church, so husbands
are to love their wives; as Christ gave himself,” his life, for the
church,” Eph. v, 25, so are they to hazard life for their wives; as
Christ saves his church, so is it the bounden duty of husbands to
endeavour, by every possible means, to promote the religious edification
and salvation of their wives. The connection is thus exalted into a
religious one; and when love which knows no abatement, protection at the
hazard of life, and a tender and constant solicitude for the salvation
of a wife, are thus enjoined, the greatest possible security is
established for the exercise of kindness and fidelity. The oneness of
this union is also more forcibly stated in Scripture than any where
beside. They twain shall be one flesh.” So ought men to love their wives
as their own bodies; he that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man
ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as
the Lord the church.” Precept and illustration can go no higher than
this; and nothing evidently is wanting either of direction or authority
to raise the state of marriage into the highest, most endearing, and
sanctified relation in which two human beings can stand to each other.
2. We find but few laws in the books of Moses concerning the institution
of marriage. Though the Mosaic law no where obliges men to marry, the
Jews have always looked upon it as an indispensable duty implied in the
words, Increase and multiply,” Gen. i, 28; so that a man who did not
marry his daughter before she was twenty years of age, was looked upon
as accessary to any irregularities the young woman might be guilty of
for want of being timely married. Moses restrained the Israelites from
marrying within certain degrees of consanguinity; which had till then
been permitted, to prevent their taking wives from among the idolatrous
nations among whom they lived. Abraham gave this as a reason for
choosing a wife for Isaac from among his own kindred, Gen. xxxiv, 3, &c.
But when his descendants became so exceedingly multiplied, this reason
ceased; and the great lawgiver prohibited, under pain of death, certain
degrees of kindred as incestuous. Polygamy, though not expressly
allowed, is however tacitly implied in the laws of Moses, Gen. xxxi;
Exod. xxi, 10. This practice likewise was authorized by the example of
the patriarchs. Thus Jacob married both the daughters of Laban. In
respect to which custom, Moses enjoins that, upon the marriage of a
second wife, a man shall be bound to continue to the first her food,
raiment, and the duty of marriage. The Jews did not always content
themselves with the allowance of two wives, as may be seen in the
examples of David, Solomon, and many others. However, they made a
distinction between the wives of the first rank, and those of the
second. The first they called _nashim_, and the other _pilgashim_; which
last, though most versions render it by the words concubines,” harlots,”
and prostitutes,” yet it has no where in Scripture any such bad sense.
There is a particular law called the Levirate, which obliged a man,
whose brother died without issue, to marry his widow, and raise up seed
to his brother, Deut. xxv, 5, &c. But Moses in some measure left it to a
man’s choice, whether he would comply with this law or not; for in case
of a refusal, the widow could only summon him before the judges of the
place, when, if he persisted, she untied his shoe, and spit in his face,
and said, “Thus shall it be done unto the man who refuses to build up
his brother’s house.” A man was at liberty to marry not only in the
twelve tribes, but even out of them, provided it was among such nations
as used circumcision; such were the Midianites, Ishmaelites, Edomites,
Moabites, and Egyptians. Accordingly, we find Moses himself married to a
Midianite, and Boaz to a Moabite. Amasa was the son of Jether, an
Ishmaelite, by Abigail, David’s sister; and Solomon, in the beginning of
his reign, married Pharaoh’s daughter. Whenever we find him and other
kings blamed for marrying strange women, we must understand it of those
nations which were idolatrous and uncircumcised.
It appears almost impossible to Europeans, says Mr. Hartley, that a
deception like that of Laban’s could be practised. But the following
extract, from a journal which I kept at Smyrna, presents a parallel
case: “The Armenian brides are veiled during the marriage ceremony; and
hence deceptions have occurred, in regard to the person chosen for wife.
I am informed that, on one occasion, a young Armenian at Smyrna
solicited in marriage a younger daughter, whom he admired. The parents
of the girl consented to the request, and every previous arrangement was
made. When the time for solemnizing the marriage arrived, the elder
daughter, who was not so beautiful, was conducted by the parents to the
altar, and the young man was unconsciously married to her. And ‘it came
to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was the elder daughter.’ The
deceit was not discovered, till it could not be rectified; and the
manner in which the parents justified themselves was precisely that of
Laban: ‘It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger
before the first-born.’ It is really the rule among the Armenians, that
neither a younger son nor daughter be married, till their elder brother
or sister have preceded them.” I was once present at the solemnization
of matrimony among the Armenians; and some recollections of it may tend
to throw light on this and other passages of Scripture. The various
festivities attendant on these occasions continue for three days; and
during the last night the marriage is celebrated. I was conducted to the
house of the bride, where I found a very large assemblage of persons.
The company was dispersed through various rooms; reminding me of the
directions of our Saviour, in regard to the choice of the lowermost
rooms at feasts. On the ground floor I actually observed that the
persons convened were of an inferior order of the community, while in
the upper rooms were assembled those of higher rank. The large number of
young females who were present, naturally reminded me of the wise and
foolish virgins in our Saviour’s parable. These being friends of the
bride, the virgins, her companions, had come to meet the bridegroom,
Psalm xlv, 14. It is usual for the bridegroom to come at midnight; so
that, literally, at midnight the cry is made, Behold, the bridegroom
cometh! go ye out to meet him,” Matt. xxv, 6. But, on this occasion the
bridegroom tarried: it was two o’clock before he arrived. The whole
party then proceeded to the Armenian church, where the bishop was
waiting to receive them; and there the ceremony was completed. See
DIVORCE and BRIDE.
MARTHA was sister of Lazarus and Mary, and mistress of the house where
our Saviour was entertained, in the village of Bethany. Martha is always
named before Mary, probably because she was the elder sister.
MARY, the mother of Jesus, and wife of Joseph. She is called by the Jews
the daughter of Eli; and by the early Christian writers, the daughter of
Joakim and Anna: but Joakim and Eliakim are sometimes interchanged, 2
Chron. xxxvi, 4; and Eli, or Heli, is therefore the abridgment of
Eliakim, Luke iii, 23. She was of the royal race of David, as was also
Joseph her husband; and she was also cousin to Elizabeth, the wife of
Zacharias the priest, Luke i, 5, 36. Mary being espoused to Joseph, the
Angel Gabriel appeared to her, to announce to her that she should be the
mother of the Messiah, Luke i, 26, 27, &c. To confirm his message, and
to show that nothing is impossible to God, he added that her cousin
Elizabeth, who was old, and had been hitherto barren, was then in the
sixth month of her pregnancy. Mary answered, Behold the handmaid of the
Lord, be it unto me according to thy word;” and presently she conceived.
She set out for Hebron, a city in the mountains of Judah, to visit her
cousin Elizabeth. As soon as Elizabeth heard the voice of Mary, her
child, John the Baptist, leaped in her womb; and she was filled with the
Holy Ghost, and spake with a loud voice, saying, Blessed art thou among
women,” &c. Then Mary praised God, saying, My soul doth magnify the
Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour,” &c. Mary continued
with Elizabeth about three months, and then returned to her own house.
An edict of Cæsar Augustus having decreed, that all subjects of the
empire should go to their own cities, to register their names according
to their families, Joseph and Mary, who were both of the lineage of
David, went to Bethlehem, from whence sprung their family. But while
they were here, the time being fulfilled in which Mary was to be
delivered, she brought forth her first-born son. She wrapped him in
swaddling clothes, and laid him in the manger of the stable or cavern
whither they had retired, because there was no room in the inn. Angels
made this event known to shepherds, who were in the fields near
Bethlehem, and these came in the night to Joseph and Mary, and saw the
child lying in the manger, and paid him their adoration. The
presentation of Christ in the temple, the flight into Egypt, the
slaughter of the innocents, and other events connected with the birth
and infancy of our Lord, are plainly related in the Gospels.
Mary and Joseph went every year to Jerusalem to the passover; and when
Jesus was twelve years of age, they took him with them. When they were
returning, the youth continued at Jerusalem, without their perceiving
it. Three days after, they found him in the temple, sitting among the
doctors, hearing them and asking them questions. Afterward, he returned
with them to Nazareth, and lived in filial submission to them. But his
mother laid up all these things in her heart, Luke ii, 51, &c. The
Gospel speaks nothing more of the Virgin Mary till the marriage at Cana
of Galilee, at which she was present with her son Jesus. She was at
Jerusalem at the last passover our Saviour celebrated there. There she
saw all that was transacted; followed him to Calvary; and stood at the
foot of his cross with an admirable constancy and courage. Jesus seeing
his mother, and his beloved disciple near, he said to his mother, Woman,
behold thy son; and to the disciple, Behold thy mother. And from that
hour the disciple took her home to his own house.” No farther
particulars of this favoured woman are mentioned, except that she was a
witness of Christ’s resurrection. A veil is drawn over her character and
history; as though with the design to reprove that wretched idolatry of
which she was made the subject when Christianity became corrupt and
paganized.
2. MARY, the mother of John Mark, a disciple of the Apostles. She had a
house in Jerusalem, whither, it is thought, the Apostles retired after
the ascension of our Lord, and where they received the Holy Ghost. After
the imprisonment of St. Peter, the faithful assembled in this house, and
were praying there when Peter, delivered by the ministry of an angel,
knocked at the door of the house, Acts xii, 12.
3. MARY, of Cleophas. St. Jerom says, she bore the name of Cleophas,
either because of her father, or for some other reason which cannot now
be known. Others believe, with greater probability, that she was wife of
Cleophas, as our version of the New Testament makes her, by supplying
the word _wife_, John xix, 25, and mother of James the less, and of
Simon, brethren of our Lord. These last mentioned authors take Mary
mother of James, and Mary wife of Cleophas, to be the same person,
Matthew xxvii, 56; Mark xv, 40, 41; Luke xxiv, 10; John xix, 25. St.
John gives her the name of Mary of Cleophas; and the other evangelists,
the name of Mary, mother of James. Cleophas and Alpheus are the same
person; as James, son of Mary, wife of Cleophas, is the same as James,
son of Alpheus. It is thought she was the sister of the Virgin Mary, and
that she was the mother of James the less, of Joses, of Simon, and of
Judas, who in the Gospel are named the brethren of Jesus Christ, Matt.
xiii, 55; xxvii, 56; Mark vi, 3; that is, his cousin-germans. She was an
early believer in Jesus Christ, and attended him on his journeys, to
minister to him. She was present at the last passover, and at the death
of our Saviour she followed him to Calvary; and during his passion she
was with the mother of Jesus at the foot of the cross. She was also
present at his burial; and on the Friday before had, in union with
others, prepared the perfumes to embalm him, Luke xxiii, 56. But going
to his tomb very early on the Sunday morning, with other women, they
there learned from the mouth of an angel, that he was risen; of which
they carried the news to the Apostles, Luke xxiv, 1–5; Matt. xxviii, 9.
By the way, Jesus appeared to them; and they embraced his feet,
worshipping him. This is all we know with certainty concerning Mary, the
wife of Cleophas.
4. MARY, sister of Lazarus, who has been preposterously confounded with
that female sinner spoken of, Luke vii, 37–39. She lived with her
brother and her sister Martha at Bethany; and Jesus Christ, having a
particular affection for this family, often retired to their house with
his disciples. Six days before the passover, after having raised Lazarus
from the dead, he came to Bethany with his disciples, and was invited to
sup with Simon the leper, John xii, 1, &c; Matthew xxvi, 6, &c; Mark
xiv, 3, &c. Martha attended at the table, and Lazarus was one of the
guests. Upon this occasion, Mary, taking a pound of spikenard, which is
the most precious perfume of its kind, poured it upon the head and feet
of Jesus. She wiped his feet with her hair, and the whole house was
filled with the odour of the perfume. Judas Iscariot murmured at this;
but Jesus justified Mary in what she had done, saying, that by this
action she had prevented his embalmment, and in a manner had declared
his death and burial, which were at hand. From this period the
Scriptures make no mention of either Mary or Martha.
5. MARY MAGDALENE, so called, it is probable, from Magdala, a town of
Galilee, of which she was a native, or where she had resided during the
early part of her life. Out of her, St. Luke tells us, Jesus had cast
seven devils, Luke viii, 2. He informs us, also, in the same place, that
Jesus, in company with his Apostles, preached the Gospel from city to
city; and that there were several women with them, whom he had delivered
from evil spirits, and healed of their infirmities; among whom was this
Mary, whom some, without a shadow of proof, have supposed to be the
sinful woman spoken of, Luke vii, 37–39; as others have as erroneously
imagined her to be Mary, the sister of Lazarus. Mary Magdalene is
mentioned by the evangelists as being one of those women that followed
our Saviour, to minister to him, according to the custom of the Jews.
She attended him in the last journey he made from Galilee to Jerusalem,
and was at the foot of the cross with the holy virgin, John xix, 25;
Mark xv, 47; after which she returned to Jerusalem, to buy and prepare
with others certain perfumes, that she might embalm him after the
Sabbath was over, which was then about to begin. All the Sabbath day she
remained in the city; and the next day, early in the morning, went to
the sepulchre along with Mary, the mother of James, and Salome, Mark
xvi, 1, 2; Luke xxiv, 1, 2. For other particulars respecting her, see
also Matt. xxviii, 1–5; John xx, 11–17. In Dr. Townley’s Essays, there
is one of considerable research on Mary Magdalene; and his conclusion
is, that it is probable that the woman mentioned by St. Luke, and called
in the English translation a sinner,” had formerly been a Heathen; but
whether subsequently a proselyte to Judaism or not, is uncertain; and
that, having been brought to the knowledge of Christian truth, and
having found mercy from the Redeemer, she pressed into Simon’s house,
and gave the strongest proofs of her gratitude and veneration by
anointing the Saviour’s feet, bedewing them with her tears, and wiping
them with the hairs of her head:--that by a wilful and malicious
misrepresentation, the Jews confounded Mary Magdalene with Mary the
mother of Jesus, and represented her as an infamous character:--and
that, from the blasphemous calumny of the Jews, a stigma of infamy has
been affixed to the name of Mary Magdalene, and caused her to be
regarded in the false light of a penitent prostitute. There is no doubt
but that Mary Magdalene, both in character and circumstances, was a
woman of good reputation.
MASCHIL, a title, or inscription, at the head of several psalms of David
and others, in the book of Psalms. Thus Psalm xxxii is inscribed, A
Psalm of David, Maschil;” and Psalm xlii, To the chief musician,
Maschil, for the sons of Korah.” The word _Maschil_, in the Hebrew,
signifies, he that instructs;” though some interpreters take it for the
name of a musical instrument. Some of the rabbins believe that, in
repeating the psalms which have this inscription, it was usual to add an
interpretation or explication to them. Others, on the contrary, think it
shows the clearness and perspicuity of such psalms, and that they needed
no particular explication. The most probable opinion is, that Maschil
means an instructive song.
MASS, MISSA, in the church of Rome, the office of prayers used at the
celebration of the eucharist; or, in other words, the consecrating the
bread and wine so that it is transubstantiated into the body and blood
of Christ, and offer them as an expiatory sacrifice for the quick and
the dead. Nicod, after Baronius, observes that the word comes from the
Hebrew _missach_, (_oblatum_,) or from the Latin _missa missorum_;
because in former times the catechumens and excommunicated were sent out
of the church, when the deacons said, _Ite, missa est_,” after sermon
and reading of the epistle and Gospel; they not being allowed to assist
at the consecration. Menage derives the word from _missio_, dismissing;”
others, from _missa_, sending;” because in the mass the prayers of men
on earth are sent up to heaven.
As the mass is in general believed to be a representation of the passion
of our blessed Saviour, so every action of the priest, and every
particular part of the service, are supposed to allude to the particular
circumstances of his passion and death. The general division of masses
is into high and low mass. The first is that sung by the choristers, and
celebrated with the assistance of a deacon and sub-deacon: low masses
are those in which the prayers are barely rehearsed without singing.
There are a great number of different or occasional masses in the Romish
church, many of which have nothing peculiar but the name. Such are the
masses of the saints: that of St. Mary of the Snow, celebrated on the
fifth of August; that of St. Margaret, patroness of lying-in women; that
at the feast of St. John the Baptist, at which are said three masses;
that of the Innocents, at which the _Gloria in excelsis_ and Hallelujah
are omitted; and, it being a day of mourning, the altar is of a violet
colour. As to ordinary masses, some are said for the dead, and, as is
supposed, contribute to extricate the soul out of purgatory. At these
masses the altar is put in mourning, and the only decorations are a
cross in the middle of six yellow wax lights; the dress of the
celebrant, and the very mass book, are black; many parts of the office
are omitted, and the people are dismissed without the benediction. If
the mass be said for a person distinguished by his rank or virtues, it
is followed with a funeral oration; they erect a _chapelle ardente_,
that is, a representation of the deceased, with branches and tapers of
yellow wax, either in the middle of the church, or near the deceased’s
tomb, where the priest pronounces a solemn absolution of the deceased.
There are likewise private masses said for stolen or strayed goods or
cattle, for health, for travellers, &c, which go under the name of
votive masses. There is still a farther distinction of masses,
denominated from the countries in which they were used: thus the Gothic
mass, or _missa mosarabum_, is that used among the Goths when they were
masters of Spain, and which is still observed at Toledo and Salamanca;
the Ambrosian mass is that composed by St. Ambrose, and used only at
Milan, of which city he was bishop; the Gallic mass, used by the ancient
Gauls; and the Roman mass, used by almost all the churches in the Roman
communion.