Magna Charta, Conditions Leading to.—In England, Innocent’s interference assumed a different aspect. He attempted to assert his control over the church in spite of the king, and put the nation under interdict because John would not permit Stephen Langton to be Archbishop of Canterbury. It was utterly impossible that affairs could go on with such an empire within an empire. For his contumacy, John was excommunicated; but, base as he was, he defied his punishment for four years. Hereupon his subjects were released from their allegiance, and his kingdom offered to any one who would conquer it. In his extremity, the king of England is said to have sent a messenger to Spain, offering to become a Mohammedan. The religious sentiment was then no higher in him than it was, under a like provocation, in the king of France, whose thoughts turned in the same direction. But, pressed irresistibly by Innocent, John was compelled to surrender his realm, agreeing to pay to the Pope, in addition to Peter’s pence, one thousand marks a year as a token of vassalage. When the prelates whom he had refused or exiled returned, he was compelled to receive them on his knees-humiliations which aroused the indignation of the stout English barons, and gave strength to those movements which ended in extorting Magna Charta.SBBS 290.10

Never, however, was Innocent more mistaken than in the character of Stephen Langton. John had, a second time, formally surrendered his realm to the Pope, and done homage to the legate for it; but Stephen Langton was the first-at a meeting of the chiefs of the revolt against the king, held in London, Aug. 25, 1213-to suggest that they should demand a renewal of the charter of Henry I. From this suggestion Magna Charta originated. Among the miracles of the age, he was the greatest miracle of all; his patriotism was stronger than his profession. The wrath of the pontiff knew no bounds when he learned that the Great Charter had been conceded. In his bull, he denounced it as base and ignominious; he anathematized the king if he observed it; he declared it null and void. It was not the policy of the Roman Court to permit so much as the beginnings of such freedom.—“History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,” John William Draper, M. D., LL. D., Vol. II, pp. 54, 55. New York: Harper & Brothers.SBBS 290.11

Magna Charta, Principal Provisions of.—The Great Charter, called by Hallam the “keystone of English liberty.” was granted by King John at Runnymede in the year 1215. In addition to the preamble, the charter contains sixty-three clauses, and is partly remedial and partly, as Coke says, “declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws of England.” Its principal provisions are: (1) A declaration that the Church of England is free. (2) Feudal obligations are defined and limited. (3) Law courts are to be held at fixed places, assize courts are established, and earls and barons are to be tried by their peers. (4) No extraordinary taxation without consent. (5) No banishment or imprisonment save by judgment of peers and the law of the land. (6) No denial, sale, or delay of justice. (7) One standard of weights and measures. The Magna Charta was confirmed many times by different kings, and the form which appears in the Revised Statutes is the confirmation by Edward I in 1297.—Nelson’s Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, art. “Magna Charta,” p. 521. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1907.SBBS 291.1

Magna Charta, Fundamental Principle of.—Now what was the fundamental principle and the great merit of the Magna Charta? It was this: that it established the reign of law instead of the arbitrary will of the monarch. It meant that henceforth the king should be under the law, that he should no longer be an absolute ruler; that the law and not the monarch should be supreme in the land. When Archbishop Langton read the articles to King John, he broke out in a rage and swore that he would never enslave himself to his barons. He was king and intended to remain king, and his word alone should be law. “Why did they not at once demand his throne?” he said. But at length he was compelled to submit. The barons and the people of England, with the primate at their head, had sworn to bring back the ancient laws of Edward the Confessor and Henry I, and so the tyrant surrender at discretion to his subjects.” And the spectacle of the charter. By that charter resistance to the royal power was made lawful, and in the struggle that followed, it was the king who was the rebel. “Christendom was amazed at the spectacle of a king obliged to surrender at discretion to his subjects.” And the spectacle of the king’s humiliation at Runnymede was to stand out in the minds of future generations in strong light.—From a sermon delivered in Epiphany Church, Washington, D. C., on Sunday, June 13, 1915, by the rector, the Rev. Randolph H. McKim, D. D., LL. D.SBBS 291.2

Magna Charta, Importance of.—The Great Charter did not create new rights and privileges, but in its main points simply reasserted and confirmed old usages and laws. It was immediately violated by John and afterwards was disregarded by many of his successors; but the people always clung to it as the warrant and safeguard of their liberties, and again and again forced tyrannical kings to renew and confirm its provisions, and swear solemnly to observe all its articles.SBBS 291.3

Considering the far-reaching consequences that resulted from the granting of Magna Charta,-the securing of constitutional liberty as an inheritance for the English-speaking race in all parts of the world, -it must always be considered the most important concession that a freedom-loving people ever wrung from a tyrannical sovereign.—“Mediaval and Modern History,” Philip Van Ness Myers, p. 203. Boston: Ginn and Company.SBBS 291.4

Magna Charta, Annulled by Innocent III.—When the English barons wrested from the stubborn king the great Magna Charta in 1215, Pope Innocent III championed the cause of the king, his vassal, against the barons. He called a council, annulled the Magna Charta, issued a manifesto against the barons, and ordered the bishops to excommunicate them. He suspended Archbishop Langton from office for siding with the barons against the king and directly appointed the Archbishop of York.—“The Rise of the Mediaval Church,” Alexander Clarence Flick, Ph. D., Litt. D., p. 554, 555. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.SBBS 292.1

Failing in his contest with his barons, John complained to Innocent of the extortion of Magna Charta, and astutely suggested that his troubles with his rebellious subjects prevented him from fulfilling the vow which he had taken to enter upon a crusade. Innocent hastened to his relief; pronounced the charter void, forbade his performing its promises, and threatened excommunication against all who should insist upon its execution. In the same spirit he wrote to the barons reproaching them for not having referred to his tribunal their differences with their sovereign, revoking the charter, and commanding them to abandon it. His mandate being unheeded, he proceeded without delay to fulminate an excommunication against them all, denouncing them as worse than Saracens, and offering remission of sins to all who should attack them.—“Studies in Church History,” Henry C. Lea, pp. 381, 382. Philadelphia: Henry C. Lea’s Sons & Co., 1883.SBBS 292.2

Let us remember that the noble mother of European constitutions, the English Magna Charta, was visited with the severest anger of Pope Innocent III, who understood its importance well enough. He saw therein a contempt for the apostolic see, a curtailing of royal prerogatives, and a disgrace to the English nation; he therefore pronounced it null and void, and excommunicated the English barons who obtained it.—“The Pope and the Council,” Janus (J. J. Ign. Döllinger), (R. C.), pp. 22, 23. London: Rivingtons, 1869.SBBS 292.3

Mahomet,—See Eastern Question; Seven Trumpets, Fifth, 508-510.SBBS 292.4

Man of Sin.—See Advent, 24; Antichrist, 29, 32; Little Horn; Rome, 440.SBBS 292.5

Marcomanni.—See Rome, Its Barbarian Invaders, 455.SBBS 292.6

Mariolatry.—See Idolatry, 217, 21S.SBBS 292.7

Marriage.—Marriage ... may be defined either (a) as the act, ceremony, or process by which the legal relationship of husband and wife is constituted; or (b) as a physical, legal, and moral union between man and woman in complete community of life for the establishment of a family.—The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition, Vol. XVII, art. “Marriage,” p. 753.SBBS 292.8

Marriage, Protestant View of.—Christ has restored marriage to its first perfection, by banishing polygamy, and forbidding divorce, except in the case of adultery (Matthew 5:32), nor leaving to the parties so separated, the liberty of marrying again (Luke 16:18). Our Saviour blessed and sanctified marriage by being present himself at the wedding at Cana (John 2:1, 2), and Paul declares the excellence of Christian marriage, when he says (Ephesians 5:33, 28-32), “Let every one of you so love his wife even as himself, and the wife see that she reverence her husband.” “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.... For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” The union of husband and wife represents the sacred and spiritual marriage of Christ with his church. The same apostle assures us (Hebrews 13:4) that “marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” The New Testament prescribes no particular ceremony for the solemnizing of matrimony; but in the church, a blessing has always been given to the married couple.—Calmet’s Dictionary of the Holy Bible. Edward Robinson, pp. 661, 662. New York: N. Tibbals & Sons, 1832.SBBS 292.9

Marriage, Roman Catholic Definition of.—That Christian marriage (i. e., marriage between baptized persons) is really a sacrament of the new law in the strict sense of the word is for all Catholics an indubitable truth. According to the Council of Trent this dogma has always been taught by the church, and is thus defined in Canon 1, Sess. XXIV: “If any one shall say that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the evangelical law, instituted by Christ our Lord, but was invented in the church by men, and does not confer grace; let him be anathema.”-The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IX, art. “Marriage, Sacrament of,” p. 707.SBBS 293.1

Marriage, A Part of the Ne Temere Decree Concerning.—I. Only those matrimonial engagements are considered to be valid and to beget canonical effects which have been made in writing, signed by both the parties, and by either the parish priest or the ordinary of the place, or at least by two witnesses.SBBS 293.2

III. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the parish priest, or the ordinary of the place, or a priest delegated by either of these, and at least two witnesses, in accordance with the rules laid down in the following articles, and with the exceptions mentioned under VII and VIII.SBBS 293.3

VII. When danger of death is imminent, and where the parish priest, or the ordinary of the place, or a priest delegated by either of these, cannot be had, in order to provide for the relief of conscience, and (should the case require it) for the legitimation of the offspring, a marriage may be contracted validly and licitly before any priest and two witnesses.SBBS 293.4

VIII. Should it happen that in any district the parish priest, or the ordinary of the place, or a priest delegated by either of them, before whom marriage can be celebrated, is not to be had, and that this condition of affairs has lasted for a month, marriage may be validly and licitly entered upon by the formal declaration of consent made by the contracting parties in the presence of two witnesses.SBBS 293.5

XI. (i) The above laws are binding on all persons baptized in the Catholic Church, and on those who have been converted to it from heresy or schism (even when either the latter or the former have fallen away afterwards from the church), in all cases of betrothal or marriage.SBBS 293.6

(ii) The same laws are binding, also, on such Catholics, if they contract betrothal or marriage with non-Catholics, baptized or unbaptized, even after a dispensation has been obtained from the impediment mixta religionis or disparitatis cultus; unless the Holy See have decreed otherwise for some particular place or region.SBBS 294.1

(iii) Non-Catholics, whether baptized or unbaptized, who contract among themselves, are nowhere bound to observe the Catholic form of betrothal or marriage.SBBS 294.2

Given at Rome on the second day of August, in the year 1907.SBBS 294.3

Vincent, Card. Bishop of Palestrina, Prefect. C. de Lai, Secretary.SBBS 294.4

-“The New Marriage Legislation,” on Engagements and Marriage, John T. McNicholas, O. P., S. T. Lr. (R. C.), pp. 9-14. Philadelphia: American Ecclesiastical Review.SBBS 294.5

Marriage, Roman Catholic View of Protestant or Civil.—7. Marriage of all Catholics (both parties Catholics) before a minister or civil magistrate will be no marriage at all.SBBS 294.6

8. Marriage of all fallen-away Catholics (who have become Protestants or infidels) before a minister or civil magistrate will be no marriage at all.SBBS 294.7

9. Marriage of a Catholic to a non-baptized person is never a real marriage unless the church grants a dispensation. Such a marriage before a minister or a justice of the peace is no marriage at all for two reasons.SBBS 294.8

10. Marriage of a Catholic to a Protestant (one never baptized in the Catholic Church) before a minister or civil magistrate will be no marriage at all, unless the Holy See makes a special law for the United States.—Id., p. 63.SBBS 294.9

Marriage, Roman Catholic View of Civil.—A civil marriage is only licensed cohabitation. There should be no such legal abomination, and the church should be supreme judge of the marriage relation.—The Western Watchman (R. C.), St. Louis, March 28, 1912.SBBS 294.10

Marriage, Application of Roman Catholic Law of.—Many Protestants may think the church presumptuous in decreeing their marriages valid or invalid accordingly as they have or have not complied with certain conditions. As the church cannot err, neither can she be presumptuous. She alone is judge of the extent of her power. Any one validly baptized either in the church or among heretics, becomes thereby a subject of the Roman Catholic Church. The present marriage law does not bind any one baptized in heresy or schism, provided they have never entered the Catholic Church.—“The New Marriage Legislation,” John T. McNicholas, O. P., S. T. Lr. (R. C.), p. 49. Philadelphia: American Ecclesiastical Review.SBBS 294.11

Marriage.—See Celibacy.SBBS 294.12

Martyrs.—See Jesuits; Massacre of St. Bartholomew; Papacy; Persecution.SBBS 294.13

Mass, Explanation of.—12. Does Christ continue in heaven the sacrifice of Calvary?SBBS 294.14

He continues it in this sense, that he realizes in his glory the effects of his sacrifice on earth, and that he applies these effects to those persons who are still in this world.SBBS 294.15

13. Ought the sacrifice of the cross to be continued on earth also?SBBS 295.1

Yes; for as man is composed of mind and matter, he needs an external and sensible religious sacrifice. But since God has rejected all the figurative sacrifices of the old law, and accepts no oblation but that of his Son, the sacrifice of the cross must be continued till the end of time.SBBS 295.2

14. What is the sacrifice that continues on earth the sacrifice of the cross?SBBS 295.3

It is the holy sacrifice of the mass.SBBS 295.4

15. What is the sacrifice of the mass?SBBS 295.5

It is the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood, offered to God, under the appearances of bread and wine, in order to represent and continue the sacrifice of the cross.SBBS 295.6

18. What relations exist between the sacrifice of the mass and that of the cross?SBBS 295.7

The sacrifice of the mass is: (1) A representation and a commemoration of the sacrifice of the cross; (2) its continuation and consummation.SBBS 295.8

19. Is then the mass the same sacrifice as that of the cross?SBBS 295.9

It is essentially the same; it differs only in the manner in which it is offered.SBBS 295.10

22. Of what value is the sacrifice of the mass?SBBS 295.11

The sacrifice of the mass is of infinite value, like that of the cross; but as a sacrifice of propitiation and of impetration, when applied to an individual, it is limited by his dispositions.—“Manual of Christian Doctrine,” by a seminary professor (R. C.), pp. 437-439. Philadelphia: John. Joseph McVey, 1914.SBBS 295.12

Mass, a Propitiatory Sacrifice.—We, therefore, confess that the sacrifice of the mass is and ought to be considered one and the same as that of the cross, as the victim is one and the same, namely, Christ our Lord, who immolated himself, once only, after a bloody manner, on the altar of the cross. For the bloody and unbloody victim are not two victims, but one only, whose sacrifice is daily renewed in the eucharist, in obedience to the command of the Lord: “Do this for a commemoration of me.”SBBS 295.13

But the priest also is one and the same, Christ the Lord; for the ministers who offer sacrifice, when they consecrate his body and blood, act not in their own, but in the person of Christ, as is shown by the words of consecration itself; for the priest does not say, “This is the body of Christ,” but, “This is my body;” and thus representing Christ the Lord, he changes the substance of the bread and wine into the true substance of his body and blood.SBBS 295.14

This being the case, it must be unhesitatingly taught that, as the holy Council [of Trent] has also explained, the holy sacrifice of the mass is not a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving only, or a mere commemoration of the sacrifice accomplished on the cross, but also a truly propitiatory sacrifice, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious to us.—“Catechism of the Council of Trent,” translated by Rev. J. Donovan, D. D. (R. C.), p. 226. Dublin: James Duffy, Sons & Co.SBBS 295.15

Mass, Available to the Dead.—Parish priests will next teach that such is the efficacy of this sacrifice, that it is profitable not only to the celebrant and communicant, but also to all the faithful, whether living with us on earth, or already numbered with those who are dead in the Lord, but whose sins have not yet been fully expiated.—Id., p. 227.SBBS 295.16

Mass, Some Canons on.—Canon I. If any one saith that in the mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.SBBS 296.1

Canon II. If any one saith that by those words, “Do this for the commemoration of me,” Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer his own body and blood; let him be anathema.SBBS 296.2

Canon III. If any one saith that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.—Published in the twenty-second session of the Council of Trent, Sept. 17, 1562; cited in “Dogmatic Canons and Decrees,” pp. 142, 143. New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1912.SBBS 296.3

Mass, Worship Paid to the Host.—33. What worship ought we to pay to Jesus in the tabernacle?SBBS 296.4

It is of faith, as defined by the Council of Trent, that Jesus in the tabernacle [that is, the host] should be adored with a worship of latria.SBBS 296.5

18. What is the worship of latria?SBBS 296.6

The worship of latria, or adoration, is that which is given to God alone on account of his infinite perfection and his supreme dominion over all things created.—“Manual of Christian Doctrine,” by a seminary professor (R. C.), pp. 422, 239. Philadelphia: John Joseph McVey, 1914.SBBS 296.7

Mass, Luther’s Experience at Rome.—Luther heard [at Rome], so Protestant legend tells us, a celebrant at the altar say at the awful moment, “Panis es, et panis manebis [Bread thou art, and bread shalt thou remain].”-“Lectures on the Council of Trent,” James Anthony Froude, pp. 32, 33. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1896.SBBS 296.8

Note.—In Roman Catholic countries this doctrine of the real presence in the wafer is presented to the people in its baldest form. We will cite one real instance: In connection with the celebration of the feast of Corpus Christi “to solemnly commemorate the institution of the holy eucharist,” held June, 1914, in Porto Rico, as reported in the Converted Catholic for July, 1914, an announcement was printed in the Roman Catholic paper of Ponce, El Ideal Catolico, a portion of which we quote: “Catholics of Ponce, to the procession of the most holy Corpus Christi! Tomorrow, at half past five in the afternoon, the most holy sacrament of the altar will leave the parish church, in order to pass through the customary places. Tomorrow Jesus Christ, true God and true man, hidden for love for us beneath the sacramental elements, will leave his habitual dwelling, the holy temple, in order to receive the homage which, as King of heaven and earth, is due him.... Let all the people come to prostrate themselves before Jesus in his triumphal march.”-Eds.SBBS 296.9

Mass, a Commemorative Sacrifice.—Our Saviour, in leaving to us his body and blood, under two distinct species or kinds, instituted not only a sacrament, but also a sacrifice; a commemorative sacrifice, distinctly showing his passion and death until he come. For as the sacrifice of the cross was performed by a distinct effusion of his blood, so is that sacrifice commemorated in this of the altar by a distinction of the symbols. Jesus, therefore, is here given not only to us, but for us; and the church is thereby enriched with a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice usually termed the mass: propitiatory, we say, because representing, in a lively manner, the passion and death of our Lord it is peculiarly pleasing to our eternal Father, and thus more effectually applies to us the all-sufficient merits of the sacrifice of the cross.—“The Faith of Catholics on Certain Points of Controversy Confirmed by Scripture,” Berington and Kirk (R. C.), pp. 263, 264. London: Joseph Booker, 1830.SBBS 296.10

Mass, Compared with Calvary.—So far as the practical effects upon the soul are concerned, the holy mass has in some senses the advantage over Calvary. The reason is this: on the cross we are redeemed, but on the altar the work of our redemption is carried out.—“On the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass,” Herbert Cardinal Vaughan (R. C.), p. 42.SBBS 297.1

Mass, Protestant View of.—The offering of Christ once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual: and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of masses, in which it was commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.—The Thirty-first Article of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England; “Sermons, or Homilies, Appointed to be Read in Churches in the Time of Queen Elizabeth,” p. 580. London: Ellerton and Henderson, 1817.SBBS 297.2

Mass, Catholic View of.—The holy eucharist is the sublime source of this intimate union with Jesus Christ during man’s earthly pilgrimage, for in receiving holy communion, the Christian soul may truly exclaim: “And I live, now not I, but Christ liveth in me.” Galatians 2:20.—“The Catholic Church the True Church of the Bible,” Rev. C. J. O’Connell (R. C.), pp. 132, 133. St. Louis, Mo.: B. Herder, 1913.SBBS 297.3

Mass, Luther’s View of.—At the present day the whole body of priests and monks, with their bishops and all their superiors, are idolaters and living in a most perilous state.—“On the Babylonish Captivity of the Church,” Martin Luther; cited in “Luther’s Primary Works,” Wace and Buchheim, p. 324. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1896.SBBS 297.4

Mass, Liability to Idolatry in.—But suppose I am satisfied in the point of transubstantiation, it is not enough for me to know in general that there is such a change; but I must believe particularly that very bread to be changed so, which I am now to worship, and by what means can I be sure of that? For my church tells me that it is necessary that he be a priest that consecrates, and that he had an intention of consecrating that very bread which I am to adore. But what if it should come to pass after many consecrations, that such a person prove no priest, because not rightly baptized (which is no unheard-of thing); what became of all their actions who worshiped every host he pretended to consecrate? They must be guilty of idolatry every mass he celebrated. But how is it possible for me to be sure of his priesthood, unless I could be sure of the intention of the bishop that ordained him, and the priest that baptized him? which it is impossible for me to be. Yet suppose I were sure he was a priest, what assurance have I that he had an intention to consecrate that very wafer which I am to adore? If there were thirteen, and he had an intention to consecrate only twelve, if I worship the thirteenth, I give divine honor to a mere creature; for without the intention of the priest in consecration, it can be nothing else; and then I am guilty of downright idolatry. So that upon the principles of the Roman Church no man can be satisfied that he doth not worship a mere creature with divine honor, when he gives adoration to the host.—“A Discourse Concerning the Idolatry Practised in the Church of Rome,” Edward Stilingfleet, D. D., pp. 123-125. London: Henry Mortlock, 1671.SBBS 297.5

Mass, A Priest’s View of.—I never invite an angel down from heaven to hear mass here. This is not the place for angels. The only person in heaven I ever ask to come down here is Jesus Christ, and him I command to come down. He has to come when I bid him. I took bread in my fingers this morning and I said: “This is the body and blood of Jesus Christ,” and he had to come down. That is one of the things he must do. He must come down every time I say mass at my bidding, because he made me a priest and said: “Do you this in memory of me.” I do it in obedience. I do it in reverence. I do it in homage. I do it in adoration; but I do it, and when I do it, Christ must obey.—Extract from a Sermon by Rev. D. S. Phelan, LL. D. (R. C.), preached on Sunday, June 13, 1915, and printed in the Western Watchman of June 10, 1915.SBBS 298.1

Mass, Effect of Real Presence in.—The real presence of our divine Lord in the blessed eucharist makes every Catholic church a tabernacle of the Most High.—The True Voice (R. C.), Omaha, Nebr., April 18, 1913.SBBS 298.2

Mass, Christ Adored in.—Canon VI. If any one saith that, in the holy sacrament of the eucharist, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external, of latria [” which is due to the true God”]; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolaters; let him be anathema.—“Dogmatic Canons and Decrees,” p. 83. New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1912.SBBS 298.3

Mass, Historical Notes Concerning.—The mass is the complex of. prayers and ceremonies that make up the service of the eucharist in the Latin rites....SBBS 298.4

In the first period, while Greek was still the Christian language at Rome, we find the usual Greek names used there, as in the East....SBBS 298.5

The classical name Missa. The first certain use of it is by St. Ambrose (d. 397)....SBBS 298.6

We may consider St. Ambrose as the earliest certain authority for it....SBBS 298.7

The Origin of the Mass.-The Western mass, like all liturgies, begins, of course, with the Last Supper....SBBS 298.8

Justin Martyr ... gives us the fullest liturgical description of any Father of the first three centuries.... We have hardly any knowledge at all of what developments the Roman rite went through during the third and fourth centuries.... In these documents we see that the Roman liturgy is said in Latin and has already become in essence the rite we still use....SBBS 298.9

By about the fifth century we begin to see more clearly. Two documents of this time give us fairly large fragments of the Roman mass....SBBS 298.10

We come now to the end of a period at the reign of St. Gregory I (590-604). Gregory knew the mass practically as we still have it. There have been additions and changes since his time, but none to compare with the complete recasting of the canon that took place before him. At least as far as the canon is concerned, Gregory may be considered as having put the last touches to it....SBBS 298.11

Why and when was the Roman liturgy changed from what we see in Justin Martyr to that of Gregory I? The change is radical, especially as regards the most important element of the mass, the canon.... The Roman canon as it stands is recognized as a problem of great difficulty. It differs fundamentally from the Anaphora of any Eastern rite and from the Gallican canon....SBBS 299.1

We have then as the conclusion of this paragraph that at Rome the eucharistic prayer was fundamentally changed and recast at some uncertain period between the fourth and the sixth and seventh centuries....SBBS 299.2

After Gregory the Great (590-604) it is comparatively easy to follow the history of the mass in the Roman rite.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IX, art. “Mass,” pp. 790-796.SBBS 299.3

Mass, the Greatest Abomination.—Oh! what a tremendous, blasphemous, God-dishonoring lie is Rome’s sacrifice of the mass! The Creator of the world, the Redeemer of mankind, and its future Judge, contained in a few ears of wheat, manufactured into a wafer, flattened by an iron, and given existence to, divine and human, by a wretched, corruptible, and corrupting worm of the earth, called a priest of Rome! And not one Christ only, but millions; and not by one priest only, but by hundreds of thousands; and not on one day only, but every day and hour in the year; and not in one year only, but throughout centuries! If there could by any possibility be any spiritual existence in the wafer-lie, it would be that of Satan himself; for out of hell there is no greater abomination than this blasphemous pretense of lying popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, and friars, that they can create myriads of gods, yea, of the God of heaven and earth, the King of kings, the Lord of lords, by their wizard words and incantations in the spurious sacrifice of the mass.—“Rome, Antichrist, and the Papacy,” Edward Harper, pp. 76, 77. London: Protestant Printing and Publishing Company.SBBS 299.4

Mass, An Interpretation of.—The pretense is, that “the sacrifice of the altar is the same as the sacrince on the cross, the priest and victim being the same in both.” It is therefore that, in one of your Romish prayer books, “The Path to Paradise,” we read the following:SBBS 299.5

“When the priest goes to the altar,	Jesus enters the garden.
When the priest kisses the altar,	Jesus is betrayed with a kiss.
At the unveiling of the chalice,	Jesus is spoiled of his garments.
At the covering of the chalice,	Jesus is crowned with thorns.
When the priest washes his fingers,	Pilate washes his hands.
When the priest signs the oblation,	Jesus is nailed to the cross.
At the elevation of the Host,	The cross is raised up.
At the elevation of the chalice,	Jesu’s blood flows from his wounds.
At the breaking of the Host,	Jesus dies upon the cross.”

-Id., p. 99.

Mass, Relation of, to “the Continual Sacrifice.”—What is this “taking away of the continual sacrifice”? It was taken away in type at the destruction of Jerusalem. The sacrifice of the temple, that is, of the lamb, morning and evening, in the temple of God, was entirely abolished with the destruction of the temple itself. Now the prophet Malachias says: “From the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles; and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation.”SBBS 299.6

This passage of the prophet has been interpreted by the Fathers of the church, beginning with St. Irenaus, St. Justin Martyr, and I know not how many besides, to be the sacrifice of the holy eucharist, the true paschal Lamb, which came in the place of the type, namely, the sacrifice of Jesus himself on Calvary, renewed perpetually and continued forever in the sacrifice on the altar.SBBS 300.1

Now has that continual sacrifice been taken away? That which was typical of it in old days has been already taken away. But has the reality been taken away? The holy Fathers who have written upon the subject of Antichrist, and have interpreted these prophecies of Daniel, say that about the end of the world, during the reign of Antichrist, the public offering of the holy sacrifice for a little time will cease. Has there ever come to pass anything which may be called an instalment or a forerunner of such an event as this? Look into the East. The Mahometan superstition, which arose in Arabia, and swept over Palestine and Asia Minor, the region of the seven churches, and Egypt, the north of Africa-the home of St. Augustine, St. Cyprian, St. Optatus-and finally penetrated into Constantinople, where soon it became dominant, has in every place persecuted and suppressed the worship and sacrifice of Jesus Christ....SBBS 300.2

Now let us look into the Western world: has the continual sacrifice been taken away in any other land?-for instance, in all those churches of Protestant Germany which were once Catholic, where the holy sacrifice of the mass was daily offered? throughout Norway, and Sweden, and Denmark, and one half of Switzerland, where there are a multitude of ancient Catholic churches? throughout England, in the cathedrals and the parish churches of this land, which were built simply as shrines of Jesus incarnate in the holy eucharist, as sanctuaries raised for the offering of the holy sacrifice? What is the characteristic mark of the Reformation, but the rejection of the mass, and all that belongs to it, as declared in the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England to be blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits? The suppression of the continual sacrifice is, above all, the mark and characteristic of the Protestant Reformation....SBBS 300.3

This prophecy of Daniel has already its fulfilment both in the East and West,-in the two wings, as it were; while in the heart of Christendom the holy sacrifice is offered still. What is the great flood of infidelity, revolution, and anarchy, which is now sapping the foundations of Christian society, not only in France, but in Italy, and encompassing Rome, the center and sanctuary of the Catholic Church, but the abomination which desolates the sanctuary, and takes away the continual sacrifice?-“The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ,” Henry Edward Manning, D. D. (R. C.), pp. 158-161. London: Burns and Lambert, 1862.SBBS 300.4

Massacre of St. Bartholomew.—The Protestants never occupied a more triumphant position, and their prospects were never brighter, than in the summer of 1572. For many years the progress of their religion had been incessant. The most valuable of the conquests it has retained were already made; and the period of its reverses had not begun. The great division which aided Catholicism afterwards to recover so much lost ground was not openly confessed; and the effectual unity of the Reformed Churches was not yet dissolved. In controversial theology the defense was weaker than the attack. The works to which the Reformation owed its popularity and system were in the hands of thousands, while the best authors of the Catholic restoration had not begun to write. The press continued to serve the new opinions better than the old; and in literature Protestantism was supreme. Persecuted in the South, and established by violence in the North, it had overcome the resistance of princes in Central Europe, and had won toleration without ceasing to be intolerant. In France and Poland, in the dominions of the emperor and under the German prelates, the attempt to arrest its advance by physical force had been abandoned. In Germany it covered twice the area that remained to it in the next generation, and, except in Bavaria, Catholicism was fast dying out. [102, 103] ...SBBS 300.5

By the peace of St. Germain the Huguenots had secured, within certain limits, freedom from persecution and the liberty of persecuting; so that Pius V declared that France had been made the slave of heretics. Coligny was now the most powerful man in the kingdom. His scheme for closing the civil wars by an expedition for the conquest of the Netherlands began to be put in motion. French auxiliaries followed Lewis of Nassau into Mons; an army of Huguenots had already gone to his assistance; another was being collected near the frontier, and Coligny was preparing to take the command in a war which might become a Protestant crusade, and which left the Catholics no hope of victory. Meanwhile many hundreds of his officers followed him to Paris, to attend the wedding which was to reconcile the factions, and cement the peace of religion.SBBS 301.1

In the midst of those lofty designs and hopes, Coligny was struck down. On the morning of the 22nd of August he was shot at and badly wounded. Two days later he was killed; and a general attack was made on the Huguenots of Paris. It lasted some weeks, and was imitated in about twenty places. The chief provincial towns of France were among them.SBBS 301.2

Judged by its immediate result, the Massacre of St. Bartholomew was a measure weakly planned and irresolutely executed, which deprived Protestantism of its political leaders, and left it for a time to the control of zealots. There is no evidence to make it probable that more than seven thousand victims perished. Judged by later events, it was the beginning of a vast change in the conflict of the churches. At first it was believed that a hundred thousand Huguenots had fallen. It was said that the survivors were abjuring by thousands, that the children of the slain were made Catholics, that those whom the priest had admitted to absolution and communion were nevertheless put to death. Men who were far beyond the reach of the French government lost their faith in a religion which Providence had visited with so tremendous a judgment; and foreign princes took heart to employ severities which could excite no horror after the scenes in France. [105, 106] ...SBBS 301.3

The opinion that the Massacre of St. Bartholomew was a sudden and unpremeditated act cannot be maintained; but it does not follow that the only alternative is to believe that it was the aim of every measure of the government for two years before....SBBS 301.4

By the month of February, 1572, the plan had assumed a practical shape....SBBS 301.5

The court had determined to enforce unity of faith in France. An edict of toleration was issued for the purpose of lulling the Huguenots; but it was well known that it was only a pretense. Strict injunctions were sent into the provinces that it should not be obeyed; and Catherine said openly to the English envoy, “My son will have exercise but of one religion in his realm.” On the 26th [of February] the king explained his plan to Mondoucet, his agent at Brussels:SBBS 301.6

“Since it has pleased God to bring matters to the point they have now reached, I mean to use the opportunity to secure a perpetual repose in my kingdom, and to do something for the good of all Christendom. It is probable that the conflagration will spread to every town in France, and that they will follow the example of Paris, and lay hands on all the Protestants.... I have written to the governors to assemble forces in order to cut to pieces those who may resist.”SBBS 301.7

The great object was to accomplish the extirpation of Protestantism in such a way as might leave intact the friendship with Protestant states. Every step was governed by this consideration; and the difficulty of the task caused the inconsistencies and the vacillation that ensued. [115-117] ...SBBS 302.1

The belief was common at the time, and is not yet extinct, that the massacre had been promoted and sanctioned by the court of Rome. No evidence of this complicity, prior to the event, has ever been produced; but it seemed consistent with what was supposed to have occurred in the affair of the dispensation. The marriage of Margaret of Valois with the king of Navarre was invalid and illicit in the eyes of the church; and it was known that Pius V had sworn that he would never permit it. When it had been celebrated by a cardinal, in the presence of a splendid court, and no more was heard of resistance on the part of Rome, the world concluded that the dispensation had been obtained. De Thou says, in a manuscript note, that it had been sent, and was afterwards suppressed by Salviati; and the French bishop, Spondanus, assigns the reasons which induced Gregory XIII to give way. Others affirmed that he had yielded when he learned that the marriage was a snare, so that the massacre was the price of the dispensation....SBBS 302.2

Camillo Capilupi, a nephew of the Mantuan bard, held office about the person of the Pope, and was employed on missions of consequence. As soon as the news from Paris reached Rome, he drew up the account which became so famous under the title of Lo Stratagemma di Carlo IX. [128, 129] ...SBBS 302.3

Charles IX and Salviati both wrote to Rome on St. Bartholomew’s Day; and the ambassador’s nephew, Beauville, set off with the tidings. They were known before he arrived. On the 27th, Mandelot’s secretary dispatched a secret messenger from Lyons with orders to inform the Pope that the Huguenot leaders were slain, and that their adherents were to be secured all over France. The messenger reached Rome on the 2nd of September, and was immediately carried to the Pope by the Cardinal of Lorraine. Gregory rewarded him for the welcome intelligence with a present of a hundred crowns, and desired that Rome should be at once illuminated. This was prevented by Ferralz, who tried the patience of the Romans by declining their congratulations as long as he was not officially informed. Beauville and the courier of the nuncio arrived on the 5th. The king’s letter, like all that he wrote on the first day, ascribed the outbreak to the old hatred between the rival houses, and to the late attempt on the admiral’s life. He expressed a hope that the dispensation would not now be withheld, but left all particulars to Beauville, whose own eyes had beheld the scene. Beauville told his story, and repeated the king’s request; but Gregory, though much gratified with what he heard, remained inflexible.SBBS 302.4

Salviati had written on the afternoon of the 24th. He desired to fling himself at the Pope’s feet to wish him joy. His fondest hopes had been surpassed. Although he had known what was in store for Coligny, he had not expected that there would be energy and prudence to seize the occasion for the destruction of the rest. A new era had commenced; a new compass was required for French affairs. It was a fair sight to see the Catholics in the streets wearing white crosses, and cutting down heretics; and it was thought that, as fast as the news spread, the same thing would be done in all the towns of France. This letter was read before the assembled cardinals at the Venetian palace, and they thereupon attended the Pope to a Te Deum in the nearest church. The guns of St. Angelo were fired in the evening, and the city was illuminated for three nights. To disregard the Pope’s will in this respect would have savored of heresy. Gregory XIII exclaimed that the massacre was more agreeable to him than fifty victories of Lepanto.SBBS 302.5

For some weeks the news from the French provinces sustained the rapture and excitement of the court. It was hoped that other countries would follow the example of France; the emperor was informed that something of the same kind was expected of him. On the 8th of September the Pope went in procession to the French church of St. Lewis, where three-and-thirty cardinals attended at a mass of thanksgiving. On the 11th he proclaimed a jubilee. In the bull he said that forasmuch as God had armed the king of France to inflict vengeance on the heretics for the injuries done to religion, and to punish the leaders of the rebellion which had devastated his kingdom, Catholics should pray that he might have grace to pursue his auspicious enterprise to the end, and so complete what he had begun so well. Before a month had passed Vasari was summoned from Florence to decorate the hall of kings with paintings of the massacre. The work was pronounced his masterpiece; and the shameful scene may still be traced upon the wall, where, for three centuries, it has insulted every pontiff that entered the Sistine Chapel. [132-135] ...SBBS 303.1

The theory which was framed to justify these practices has done more than plots and massacres to cast discredit on the Catholics. This theory was as follows: Confirmed heretics must be rigorously punished whenever it can be done without the probability of greater evil to religion. Where that is feared, the penalty may be suspended or delayed for a season, provided it be inflicted whenever the danger is past. Treaties made with heretics and promises given to them must not be kept, because sinful promises do not bind, and no agreement is lawful which may injure religion or ecclesiastical authority. No civil power may enter into engagements which impede the free scope of the church’s law. It is part of the punishment of heretics that faith shall not be kept with them. It is even mercy to kill them that they may sin no more.SBBS 303.2

Such were the precepts and the examples by which the French Catholics learned to confound piety and ferocity, and were made ready to immolate their countrymen. [140, 141] ...SBBS 303.3

A time came when the Catholics, having long relied on force, were compelled to appeal to opinion. That which had been defiantly acknowledged and defended, required to be ingeniously explained away. The same motive which had justified the murder now prompted the lie. Men shrank from conviction that the rulers and restorers of their church had been murderers and abetters of murder, and that so much infamy had been coupled with so much zeal. They feared to say that the most monstrous of crimes had been solemnly approved at Rome, lest they should devote the Papacy to the execration of mankind. A swarm of facts were invented to meet the difficulty: The victims were insignificant in number; they were slain for no reason connected with religion; the Pope believed in the existence of the plot; the plot was a reality; the medal is fictitious; the massacre was a feint concerted with the Protestants themselves; the Pope rejoiced only when he heard that it was over. These things were repeated so often that they have been sometimes believed; and men have fallen into this way of speaking whose sincerity was unimpeachable, and who were not shaken in their religion by the errors or the vices of popes. Möhler was preëminently such a man. In his lectures on the history of the church, which were published only last year [1868], he said that the Catholics, as such, took no part in the massacre; that no cardinal, bishop, or priest shared in the councils that prepared it; that Charles informed the Pope that a conspiracy had been discovered; and that Gregory made his thanks-giving only because the king’s life was saved. Such things will cease to be written when men perceive that truth is the only merit that gives dignity and worth to history. [148, 149].—“The History of Freedom and Other Essays,” John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton (R. C.), pp. 102-149. London: Macmillan & Co., 1909.SBBS 303.4

Massacre of St. Bartholomew, Froude’s View of.—The history of Europe for a hundred years was the history of the efforts of the church, with open force or secret conspiracy, with all the energy, base or noble, which passion or passionate enthusiasm could inspire, to crush and annihilate its foes. No means came amiss to it, sword or stake, torture chamber or assassin’s dagger. The effects of the church’s working were seen in ruined nations and smoking cities, in human beings tearing one another to pieces like raging maniacs, and the honor of the Creator of the world befouled by the hideous crimes committed in his name. All this is forgotten now, forgotten or even audaciously denied. I will mention but one illustration connected with the subject of these lectures.SBBS 304.1

The decrees of the Council of Trent were not received in France, and when the gutters of Paris were running with Huguenot blood after the black day of St. Bartholomew, and the unhappy country was shuddering with horror, the guilty king tried to excuse what had been done by charging the Huguenots with political conspiracy. This is the explanation now commonly given by those who wish to defend the French government, and at the same time to defame its victims. Pope Gregory XIII rebuked the modesty of the son of St. Louis, and forbade him to explain away an action so pious and so glorious. He held processions and thanksgiving services at Rome in honor of the destruction of the infidels. He sent Cardinal Orsino to France with his congratulations, and the expressions of his hope that after such an evidence of the piety of the king and the nation, the decrees of Trent would now be introduced.SBBS 304.2

The cardinal on reaching Avignon found the Catholics excusing the massacre as an unfortunate accident. He invited them to an attitude more worthy of themselves and of the signal services which they had rendered to the truth. At Lyons there had been a massacre only second to that of Paris. The cardinal (I quote from De Thou, the greatest of the French historians, who was in the midst of the scenes which he described) sought out the leader of the Lyons butchery, and gave him his blessing and his absolution. At Paris afterwards he urged Charles to claim openly the credit of a deed achieved for the glory of God and the honor of the Holy See, so he said future ages would know that no personal fears or feelings had led him to consent to the slaughter of his subjects, but zeal for the catholic and apostolic Roman religion which the Council of Trent had purged from heresy, and which now required the extermination of the Protestant sect.—“Lectures on the Council of Trent,” James Anthony Froude, pp. 301, 302. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1896.SBBS 304.3

Maximilian.—See Holy Roman Empire, 212.SBBS 304.4

Medo-Persia, Beginnings of.—In remote times some Aryan tribes, separating from the other members of the Aryan family, sought new abodes on the plateau of Iran. The tribes that settled in the south became known as the Persians, while those that took possession of the mountain regions of the northwest were called Medes. The names of the two peoples were always very closely associated, as in the familiar legend, “The law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not.”SBBS 304.5

The Medes were at first the leading people. Cyaxares (625-585 b. c.) was their first prominent leader and king. It was this king who, aided by the Babylonians, overthrew the last king of Nineveh and destroyed that capital. The destruction of the Assyrian power resulted in the speedy extension of the frontiers of the new Median Empire to the river Halys in Asia Minor.—“General History,” Philip Van Ness Myers, p. 59. Boston: Ginn and Company.SBBS 305.1

Medo-Persia, First Median Ascendancy, Then Persian.—When Nineveh fell, it was not at the behest of Babylonia only. A new power, fresh from a long rest and not wasted by civilization’s insidious pressure, had contributed to that overthrow. This new people was the Medes, and in the years that followed the Medes had not been idle. To them had fallen in the partition of the Assyrian Empire the whole of the old land of Assyria, with northern Babylonia. The very ownership of such territory as this was itself a call to the making of an empire. To this the Medes had set themselves, and with extraordinary and rapid success. While Nebuchadnezzar lived, they maintained peace with him and offered no threats against Babylonia. To the north and west their forces spread. These movements we cannot trace in detail. From the Medes, who were men of action, and not writers of books, there have come to us no stories of conquest. From the events which follow, of which we have Babylonian accounts, we can trace with reasonable certainty, even though broadly, their progress. As early as 560 b. c. their border had been extended as far west as the river Halys, which served as the boundary between them and the kingdom of Lydia, over which Crosus, of proverbial memory, was now king (560-546 b. c.). If no violent end came to a victorious people such as the Medes now were, it could not be long before the rich plains, the wealthy cities, and the great waterways of Babylonia would tempt them southward, and the great clash would come.... Their king was now Astyages.... A man of war of extraordinary capacity he certainly was, but perhaps little else. However that may be, he was not to accomplish the ruin of Nabonidus. What he had gained was to be used to that end by another, and he was now preparing.SBBS 305.2

In Anshan, a province in the land of Elam, a great man had arisen. From Elam for centuries no impulse had been given in the world’s history. The people had rested. Kings had ruled over them, indeed, but their influence had been little beyond their own borders. When Cyrus was born, son of Cambyses, a place was ready for him, and greatness soon found it. Cyrus, king of Anshan-the title had no high sound, and to it were added no other titles of rule in other lands. But in Cyrus the primary power of conquest was strong. He began at once a career of almost unparalleled conquest, and later displayed in extraordinary degree the power so to organize the result of one victory as to make it contributory to the next. His first foe was naturally Astyages, king of the Medes, whose attention he had attracted. We do not know what deeds of Cyrus led Astyages to determine upon attacking him, whether he had made reprisals upon the borders of the empire of the Medes, or had shown elsewhere ability which might later prove dangerous to the aspirations of the Medes. In 553 b. c. Astyages led an army against this new Asiatic conqueror. All the advantages seemed to lie upon the side of Astyages. He had victories behind him, he had the levies of an empire already vast on which to draw. But these and all other advantages were overturned by treachery. His own troops rebelled against him and delivered him into the hands of Cyrus (Annals of Nabonidus, col. 2, lines 1, 2), and that bound as a prisoner. Cyrus then took Ecbatana, sacked it, and overwhelmed the state. In an hour he had leaped from the position of king of Anshan, a rank hardly greater than petty prince, to the proud position of king of the Medes. A whole empire already made was his. Well might he assume a new title and call himself king of the Parsu-out of which has come to us the word “Persians.” King of the Persians-in that new title of Cyrus was gathered all the impetus of a new and terrible force in the world. For his coming the day of judgment had waited. The day of great Semitic conquerors was waning, a new conqueror of the great unknown Indo-European races had arisen, and a new day had thus dawned. What did it mean for humanity-for civilization?-“History of Babylon and Assyria,” Robert W. Rogers, Ph. D., Vol. II, pp. 561-565, 6th edition. New York: The Abingdon Press.SBBS 305.3

Medo-Persia, Greek Poet Who Fought Against Xerxes, on Dual Character of.—SBBS 306.1

Asia’s brave host,
A Mede first led. The virtues of his son Fixed firm the
empire; for his temperate soul Breathed prudence. Cyrus third, by fortune graced, Adorned the throne,
and blessed his grateful friends With peace. He to his
mighty monarchy Joined Lydia and the Phrygians; to
his power, Ionia bent reluctant; but the gods With
victory his gentle virtues crowned.
-“The Persians,” aschylus, Potter’s translation.SBBS 306.2

Medo-Persia, Conquests of Cyrus.—The Babylonian rulers that followed Nebuchadrezzar set themselves with the other powers of the world in opposition to Cyrus. Of these the most important was the kingdom of Lydia. It owed its greatness to the dynasty of Gyges who at about 700 b. c. had set aside the old ruling family of Midas and put himself in its place. Gyges and his successors-in particular Crosus (560-546 b. c.)-conquered the entire coast of Asia Minor, making all the Greek cities, except Miletus, tributary. They also extended their sway to the Hellespont and in the interior to the Halys River, thus becoming by far the most powerful and opulent state in the peninsula.SBBS 306.3

The fame of Crosus for wealth was so great that his name has become a synonym for riches. Through his realm lay a main highway from Assyria and Babylon to the Agean sea, and a mixed culture developed in Lydia which was at once sympathetic to Greece and the Orient. The father of Crosus had fought with the Medes, but later had made a peace with them (585 b. c.). Now Crosus joined with Egypt, and even the leading Greek state, Sparta, in the endeavor to put a stop to the victorious career of Cyrus. It was all in vain. Cyrus defeated Crosus, king of Lydia, and captured him and his capital, Sardis (546 b. c.)....SBBS 306.4

Babylon was then attacked, and yielded to him in 539 b. c. Thus the last Semitic empire of the Mesopotamian valley passed away, and a new race took the reins of government over a wider world than had ever fallen within the bounds of an ancient state.—“A History of the Ancient World,” George S. Goodspeed, Ph. D., pp. 56, 57. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.SBBS 306.5

Medo-Persia, Power Such that “None Might Stand Before Him” (Daniel 8:4).—Cyrus was able so to penetrate that vast extent of country by the sheer terror of his personality that the inhabitants were prostrate before him: not one of them dared lift hand against him. And yet he was able, at the same time, to inspire them all with so deep a desire to please him and win his favor that all they asked was to be guided by his judgment and his alone. Thus he knit to himself a complex of nationalities so vast that it would have taxed a man’s endurance merely to traverse his empire in any one direction, east or west or south or north, from the palace which was its center.—“Cyropadia,” Xenophon, book 1, chap. 1, par. 5, translation by Henry Graham Dakyns. Everyman’s Library, E. P. Dutton & Co., New York.SBBS 306.6

Medo-Persia, Extent of Empire.—The geographical extent of the fifth monarchy [at its height, under Darius I] was far greater than that of any one of the four which had preceded it. While Persia proper is a comparatively narrow and poor tract, extending in its greatest length only some seven or eight degrees (less than 500 miles), the dominions of the Persian kings covered a space fifty-six degrees long, and in places more than twenty degrees wide. The boundaries of their empire were the desert of Thibet, the Sutlej, and the Indus, on the east; the Indian Sea, the Persian Gulf, the Arabian and Nubian deserts, on the south; on the west, the Greater Syrtis, the Mediterranean, the Agean, and the Strymon River; on the north, the Danube, the Black Sea, the Caucasus, the Caspian, and the Jaxartes. Within these limits lay a territory, the extent of which from east to west was little less than 3,000 miles, while its width varied between 500 and 1,500 miles. Its entire area was probably not less than two millions of square miles-or more than half that of modern Europe. It was thus at least eight times as large as the Babylonian Empire at its greatest extent, and was probably more than four times as large as the Assyrian.—“The Five Great Monarchies,” George Rawlinson, M. A., Vol. III, pp. 84, 85; “The Fifth Monarchy,” chap. 1. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co.SBBS 307.1

Medo-Persia, Cyrus’s Account of Return of Captives from Babylon.—I am Cyrus, king of the world, the great king, the mighty king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four quarters of the world, son of Cambyses, the great king, king of Anshan, grandson of Cyrus, the great king, king of Anshan, great-grandson of Teispes, the great king, king of Anshan; an everlasting seed of royalty, whose government Bel and Nabu love, whose reign in the goodness of their hearts they desire. When I entered in peace into Babylon, with joy and rejoicing I took up my lordly dwelling in the royal palace, Marduk, the great lord, moved the understanding heart of the people of Babylon to me, while I daily sought his worship. My numerous troops dwelt peacefully in Babylon; in all Sumer and Akkad no terrorizer did I permit. In Babylon and all its cities in peace I looked about. The people of Babylon [I released] from an unsuitable yoke. Their dwellings-their decay I repaired; their ruins I cleared away. Marduk, the great lord, rejoiced at these deeds and graciously blessed me, Cyrus, the king who worships him, and Cambyses, my son, and all my troops, while we in peace joyfully praised before him his exalted divinity. All the kings who dwell in palaces, from all quarters of the world, from the upper sea to the lower sea, who live [in palaces], all the kings of the Westland who live in tents, brought me their heavy tribute in Babylon and kissed my feet. From ... to Ashur and Susa, Agade, Eshnunak, Zamban, Meturnu, Deri, to the border of Gutium, the cities [beyond] the Tigris, whose sites had been founded of old,-the gods who dwelt in them I returned to their places, and caused them to settle in their eternal shrines. All their people I assembled and returned them to their dwellings.—Cyrus’s Cylinder recording Capture of Babylon, in “Archaology and the Bible,” George A. Barton, Ph. D., LL. D., pp. 385, 386. Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union.SBBS 307.2

Medo-Persia, Cyrus Fulfils Prophecy of Restoration of.—(1) In addition to the restoration and rehabilitation of captive and dethroned deities, he says (Cyl. 32): “All of their peoples I gathered together and restored to their own dwelling-places.” This definitely stated national policy gives us one reason for the royal proclamation (Ezra 1:2-4) issued in favor of the Jews. (2) It is altogether probable that Cyrus caught up from some one in Babylonia the mission which had been assigned him by the prophets: “Cyrus is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying of Jerusalem, She shall be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.” Isaiah 44:28. (3) Palestine had been a kind of buffer state from time immemorial between southwestern Asia and Egypt. To occupy and hold that strong fortress, Jerusalem, was the first step toward the conquest of the rival power. If Cyrus could conserve that advantage by aiding the Jews to build and hold it, he would be setting up one battlement in the face of Egypt’s army. For one of his next strokes would be at the rival power on the Nile.—“The Monuments and the Old Testament,” Ira M. Price, Ph. D., 5th edition, p. 234. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1907.SBBS 308.1

Medo-Persia, Josephus on the Return of the Jews from Captivity.—This [that he was to return the Jews to Jerusalem] was known to Cyrus by his reading the book which Isaiah left behind him of his prophecies; for this prophet said that God had spoken thus to him in a secret vision: “My will is, that Cyrus, whom I have appointed to be king over many and great nations, send back my people to their own land, and build my temple.” This was foretold by Isaiah one hundred and forty years before the temple was demolished. Accordingly, when Cyrus read this, and admirea the divine power, an earnest desire and ambition seized upon him to fulfil what was so written; so he called for the most eminent Jews that were in Babylon, and said to them, that he gave them leave to go back to their own country, and to rebuild their city Jerusalem, and the temple of God, for that he would be their assistant, and that he would write to the rulers and governors that were in the neighborhood of their country of Judea, that they should contribute to them gold and silver for the building of the temple, and besides that, beasts for their sacrifices.—“Antiquities of the Jews,” Josephus, book 11, chap. 1, par. 2, Whiston’s translation.SBBS 308.2

Medo-Persia, from Cyrus to Xerxes.—Cyrus, slain in battle in 529 b. c., was succeeded by his son Cambyses. This ambitious young man, to secure his crown, murdered his brother and sister. After eight years of apparent success, in a fit of despair, he took his life. For eight months a usurper, Gomates [the Magian, pretending to be Smerdis, son of Cyrus], held the throne, but was finally slain, and Darius Hystaspes (521-485 b. c.) seized the crown. It was under the early years of his administration that the Jews at Jerusalem completed and dedicated their temple (516 b. c.). During these years Darius suppressed revolts and uprisings in all parts of his realm. He then carried his conquests as far as Scythia in Europe (508 b. c.). He fully equipped two great expeditions for invading Greece, but both failed, the second at the famous battle of Marathon (490 b. c.). A third expedition was planned, but a revolt in Egypt (487 b. c.) and his own deatn (485) intervened.... He was the greatest king that ever sat on Persia’s throne, both as regards conquests and power of administration. He was succeeded by Xerxes I, supposed to be a remote kin of Cyrus the conqueror of Babylon.SBBS 308.3

Xerxes’ first great work was the subjugation of Egypt (485 b. c.). After chastising rebels in Babylonia, he next turned his attention to the still unconquered state of Greece. He called together his nobles and counselors from all parts of the empire, as a kind of council of war. The conclusion of their deliberations was that the most elaborate preparations be made, and Greece be brought to their feet. Careful and complete provisions were made covering a space of four years. The army was thoroughly organized, and the commissary department adequately equipped. In 480 b. c. the army started on its long campaign, aided by a large and well-equipped fleet. It crossed the Hellespont on a bridge of double boats and pushed through Macedonia down to Greece. Through Thermopyla it poured over the bodies of the brave 300 Spartans until Athens was captured and burnt. The Persian fleet, disabled by storms, was finally destroyed by the Greeks at the battle of Salamis (Sept. 23, 480). The land force retreated to Thessaly, where a picked army remained over winter. In the spring it resumed active offensive operations and recaptured Attica. The Spartans raised a large army, crossed the isthmus, and forced the Persians to retire into Bootia. On Sept. 25, 479 b. c., the Persian host was completely routed at Plataa, and returned to Asia, never again to invade European Greece.—“The Monuments and the Old Testament,” Ira M. Price, Ph. D., 5th edition, pp. 252-254. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1907.SBBS 309.1

Medo-Persia, Gomates (Smerdis the Impostor) Counted in List of Kings (Daniel 11:2).—The Babylonians called him Barzia. A number of contract tablets have been found which are dated in his reign. Media and Persia, besides Babylonia, temporarily acknowledge him king.—“Light on the Old Testament from Babel,” Albert T. Clay, Ph. D., p. 386. Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times Company, 1907.SBBS 309.2

Medo-Persia, Xerxes Evidently the Ahasuerus of Esther.—Xerxes (the Greek form of the Persian Khshayarsha; Old Testament Ahasverus, Akhashverosh, i. e., Ahasuerus).—Encyclopedia Britannica, art. “Xerxes,” 11th edition, Vol. XXVIII. p. 887.SBBS 309.3

In the English of the Old Testament this ruler is known as Ahasuerus. In the inscriptions, his name is written Ahshiwarshu, Akshiarshu, Hishiarshi, etc., which is quite similar to the Hebrew, Ahashwerosh.... Further, the excavations of Dieulafoy in the mounds of Susa, where he uncovered “Shushan the palace” (Esther 1:2), discovering also one of the dice with which the people at that time “cast Pur, that is, the lot” (Esther 3:7), make the story so realistic that we cannot but feel that it rests upon historical facts.—“Light on the Old Testament from Babel,” Albert T. Clay, Ph. D., p. 388. Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times Company, 1907.SBBS 309.4

Medo-Persia, Xerxes’ Aim to “Stir Up All Against the Realm of Grecia” (Daniel 11:2).—Xerxes thus levied his army, searching out every region of the continent. 20. For from the reduction of Egypt, he was employed four whole years in assembling his forces, and providing things necessary for the expedition. In the course of the fifth year he began his march with a vast multitude of men; for of the expeditions with which we are acquainted, this was by far the greatest.... 21.... For what nation did not Xerxes lead out of Asia against Greece? what stream, being drunk, did not fail him, except that of great rivers?SBBS 309.5

Some supplied ships; others were ordered to furnish men for the infantry, from others cavalry were required, from others transports for horses, together with men to serve in the army; others had to furnish long ships for the bridges, and other provisions and vessels.—Herodotus, book 7, pars. 19, 20, Gary’s translation.SBBS 310.1

And myriad-peopled Asia’s king, a battle-eager lord,
From utmost east to utmost west sped on his countless horde, In unnumbered quadrons marching, in fleets of keels untold,
Knowing none dared disobey,
For stern overseers were they
Of the godlike king begotten of the ancient race of Gold.
-“The Persians,” aschylus, Way’s translation.SBBS 310.2

Medo-Persia, Many Nations Gathered Against Grecia.—Forty-nine nations, according to Herodotus, served under his [Xerxes’] standard; and their contingents made up a grand total of eighteen hundred thousand men. Of these, eighty thousand were cavalry, while twenty thousand rode in chariots or on camels; the remainder served on foot. There are no sufficient means of testing these numbers. Figures in the mouth of an Oriental are vague and almost unmeaning; armies are never really counted.... Nevertheless there would be limits beyond which exaggeration could not go; and if Xerxes was made to believe that the land force which he took with him into Europe amounted to nearly two millions of men, it is scarcely doubtful but that it must have exceeded one million.—“The Five Great Monarchies,” George Rawlinson, M. A., Vol. III, pp. 452, 453; “The Fifth Monarchy,” chap. 7. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co.SBBS 310.3

Medo-Persia, Riches of Xerxes (Daniel 11:2).—When Pythius [of Asia Minor] offered money [to help defray cost of war], Xerxes asked the Persians near him who this Pythius was, and what riches he possessed, that he made such an offer. They answered, “O king, this is the person who presented your father Darius with the golden plane-tree and the vine; and he is now the richest man we know of in the world, next to yourself.”-Herodotus, book 7, par. 27, Gary’s translation.SBBS 310.4

Medo-Persia, Effect of Xerxes’ Defeat.—The wreck of Xerxes’ expedition is the turning-point in the history of the Persian Empire. The superiority of the Greeks’ was so pronounced that the Persians never found courage to repeat their attack.... The really decisive point was, rather, that the disasters of Salamis and Plataa definitely shattered the offensive power of the empire; that the center of gravity in the world’s history had shifted from Susa and Babylon to the Agean Sea; and that the Persians were conscious that in spite of all their courage they were henceforward in the presence of an enemy, superior in arms as well as in intellect, whom they could not hope to subdue by their own strength.—Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. XXI, art. “Persia,” p. 211, 11th edition.SBBS 310.5

Medo-Persia, from Artaxerxes I (successor of Xerxes) to Overthrow.—The reigns of Artaxerxes I (464-424), Xerxes II, and Darius II (423-405) witnessed the rapid decline of the Persian monarchy. The celebrated expedition of Cyrus the Younger (401) against his brother Artaxerxes II, ending in Cyrus’s victory and death at Cunaxa, showed the Greeks how open to attack was their formerly dreaded foe, and thus at a later period encouraged Alexander the Great to invade the dominions of Darius III.SBBS 310.6

Crossing the Hellespont in 334, Alexander defeated the Persians at Issus (333) and at Gaugamela [near Arbela] (Oct. 1, 331), thus overthrowing forever the empire of the Archamenians. Persia then became part of the Macedonian Empire.—Nelson’s Encyclopedia, Vol. IX, art. “Persia.” p. 338. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1907.SBBS 311.1

With sacred awe
The Persian law
No more shall Asia’s realms revere;
To their lord’s hand,
At his command,
No more the exacted tribute bear.SBBS 311.2

Before the Ionian squadrons Persia flies, Or sinks engulfed beneath the main; Fallen! fallen! is her imperial power, And conquest on her banners waits no more. -“The Persians,” aschylus, Potter’s translation.SBBS 311.3

Medo-Persia, Passing of Dominion to Greece.—Darius [III] did not long enjoy in peace the power which had been so much envied. Having ascended the throne the same year as Alexander, some days before the battle of the Chersonesus, he saw the dangers threatening him from the Macedonian’s ambition, and he was powerless to prevent them.SBBS 311.4

He was beaten at the Granicus, beaten at Issus, beaten at Arbela [b. c. 331], and then killed in flight by one of his satraps. Alexander then took possession of his empire, and henceforth the Greek race supplanted the Persians in the part they had played for two centuries as the ruling power of the world.—“The Historians’ History of the World,” Vol. II, p. 631, New York: The Outlook Company, 1904.SBBS 311.5

Medo-Persia, Passing of Dominion at Arbela.—It is needless to pursue further the dissolution of the empire. The fatal blow was struck at Arbela-all the rest was but the long death-agony. At Arbela the crown of Cyrus passed to the Macedonian; the fifth monarchy came to an end. The he goat, with the notable horn between his eyes, had come from the west to the ram which had two horns, and had run into him with the fury of his power. He had come close to him, and, moved with choler, had smitten the ram and broken his two horns-there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he had cast him down to the ground and stamped upon him-and there was none to deliver the ram out of his hand.—“The Five Great Monarchies.” George Rawlinson, M. A., Vol. III, pp. 538, 539; “The Fifth Monarchy,” chap. 7. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co.SBBS 311.6

Mehemet Ali.—See Eastern Question.SBBS 311.7

Memorial of Hanover.—See Religious Liberty, 414, 415.SBBS 311.8

Methodism, Rise of.—See Religious Liberty, 414.SBBS 311.9

Milan, Edict of.—See Edict of Milan.SBBS 311.10

Millennium, Temporal.—See Advent, Second, 10, 13.SBBS 311.11

Missions, Livingstone on Providential Preparation of the Way.—Who would not be a missionary? “They that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars forever and ever.” Is God not preparing the world for missions which will embrace the whole of Adam’s family? The gallant steamships circumnavigate the globe. Emigration is going on at a rate to which the most renowned crusades of antiquity bear no proportion. Many men go to and fro, and knowledge is increased....SBBS 311.12

There will yet be a glorious consummation of Christianity. The last fifty years have accomplished wonders.—Paper on Missionary Sacrifices in “The Personal Life of David Livingstone,” W. Garden Blaikie, D. D., LL. D., Appendix, p. 499. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company.SBBS 312.1

Missions, Opening of Closed Lands in This Generation.—Most countries shut out Christian missions by organized opposition, so that to attempt to bear the good tidings was simply to dare death for Christ’s sake; the only welcome awaiting God’s messengers was that of cannibal ovens, merciless prisons, or martyr graves. But, as the little band advanced, on every hand the walls of Jericho fell, and the iron gates opened of their own accord. India, Siam, Burma, China, Japan, Turkey, Africa, Mexico, South America, the Papal States, and Korea were successively and successfully entered. Within five years, from 1853 to 1858, new facilities were given to the entrance and occupation of seven different countries, together embracing half the world’s population.—“The Modern Mission Century,” Arthur T. Pierson, p. 25. New York: The Baker and Taylor Company.SBBS 312.2

Missions, Shrinkage of World in This Half-Century.—Since the seventies we have entered upon an entirely new era; we are conscious of having passed under the dominion of unfamiliar forces. Some of these, perhaps not all, it is possible to discern. The first is that of physical science. Science has affected politics in a hundred ways. I am concerned only with one. By the immense impetus it has given to the means of transport; by the utilization of electricity as a means of communication; by telegraphy, telephony, and by the invention of aircraft, it has led to a conspicuous shrinkage in the world. For all practical purposes the world is much smaller than it was half a century ago. Asia, America, Australia, and Africa have come within the ambit of European politics; the continental chanceries are as much concerned with the Pacific as they are with the Mediterranean.—J. A. R. Marriott, in the Nineteenth Century and After (London), April, 1918.SBBS 312.3

Missions, The Recent Opening of Africa.—Why does special interest attach to what is styled in colloquial speech “the opening up of Africa”?-Because only twenty-five years ago Europe and civilized America were very slightly acquainted with the greater part of the geography, peoples, and products of Africa; ... yet nevertheless since 1885 African discovery has proceeded at a rate so astonishing that there is nothing quite comparable to it in the history of human civilization.—“The Opening Up of Africa,” Sir H. H. Johnston, p. 9. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1911.SBBS 312.4

I hear people complain that Africa goes slow. When I look at what has been effected in my own lifetime, it appears to me that on the contrary it has been rushed. The maps that I learned from as a boy showed the whole interior as a blank. There are now no parts that are not more or less known. Railways are running over regions unknown forty years ago.—Rear-Admiral Wharton, of the British Navy, London Geographical Journal, October, 1905.SBBS 312.5

Missions, The Turning-Point in Human History.—The next ten years will in all probability constitute a turning-point in human history, and may be of more critical importance in determining the spiritual evolution of mankind than many centuries of ordinary experience.—From a Message to the Members of the Church in Christian Lands by the World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh, June 23, 1910; “The History and Records of the Conference,” Vol. IX, p. 108. Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson, and Ferrier.SBBS 313.1

Missions, A Century of Progress, Since 1810, When the First Foreign Mission Society was Projected in America.—SBBS 313.2

1810

1910

Nearly every country in Asia and Africa was closed to the gospel.
The church did not believe in foreign missions.
There were practically no Protestant Christians in heathen lands.
Only one hundred foreign missionaries had been sent out.
The Bible was translated into only sixty-five languages.
Only a few thousand dollars were given yearly for foreign missions.
There were no medical missionaries.
There were no mission hospitals or orphanages.
There was no native Christian ministry.
Missionary work was not recognized in American and British colleges.
There were no unmarried women missionaries, and no organized work for women.
There were no mission presses or means for preparing and distributing Christian literature in non-Christian lands.

Practically every nation in the world is open to missionaries.
All evangelical churches are interested in missions. To speak against missions is counted a disgrace.
More than two million Protestant Christians have been gathered in heathen lands, besides all who have died in the faith.
There are nearly twenty-two thousand foreign missionaries in the world.
The Bible has been translated into about five hundred languages and dialects.
Total foreign missionary contributions amount to nearly $25,000,000 annually.
Thousands of medical missionaries in the heathen lands treat three million patients a year.
There are four hundred mission hospitals and over five hundred orphanages and asylums in foreign lands, operated by missionaries.
There are over six thousand unmarried women missionaries to heathen women and children.

-The Missionary Review of the World, January, 1910. New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company.*SBBS 313.3

Missions, A Quick Work in.—It is not unreasonable to suppose that the last conquests of Christianity may be achieved with incomparably greater rapidity than has marked its earlier progress and signalized its first success; and that in the instance of India, “the plowman may overtake the reaper, the treader of grapes him that soweth the seed,” and the type of the prophet realized, that “a nation will be born in a day.”-“Christianity in Ceylon,” Sir J. E. Tennent, p. 327.SBBS 313.4

Missions, Rise of Modern.—See Increase of Knowledge, 232, 233.SBBS 313.5

Modernism, Definition of.—Modernism is a movement within the Roman Catholic Church which seeks and aims to force an adjustment between the church in her medieval garb and the results of physical science and literary criticism. Back of, and associated with, both science and criticism there lies a philosophical theory, speculative and rationalistic in type. Modernism received its name from the Jesuit Fathers in Rome, and [the name] was adopted by the Pope and the Vatican authorities, who have combated it at every turn in the tide, first by excommunicating its leaders, men like Tyrrell, Mivart, and Loisy, then by papal encyclical, and finally by exacting a reprofession of faith from every priest actively engaged in the ministry.—“Modernism and the Reformation,” John Benjamin Rust, Ph. D., D. D., p. 168. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company.SBBS 313.6

Mohammedanism.—See Seven Trumpets.SBBS 314.1

Monasticism, Historical Notes Concerning.—It was during the period between the third and the sixth century that there grew up in the church the institution known as Monasticism. This was so remarkable a system, and one that exerted so profound an influence upon medieval and even later history, that we must here acquaint ourselves with at least its spirit and aims.SBBS 314.2

The term “monasticism,” in its widest application, denotes a life of austere self-denial and of seclusion from the world, with the object of promoting the interests of the soul. As thus defined, the system embraced two prominent classes of ascetics: (1) Hermits, or anchorites,-persons who, retiring from the world, lived solitary lives in desolate places; (2) cenobites, or monks, who formed communities and lived usually under a common roof....SBBS 314.3

St. Anthony, an Egyptian ascetic (b. about a. d. 251), who by his example and influence gave a tremendous impulse to the movement, is called the “Father of the Hermits.” ...SBBS 314.4

Most renowned of all the anchorites of the East was St. Simeon Stylites, the Saint of the Pillar (d. a. d. 459), who spent thirty-six years on a column only three feet in diameter at the top, which he had gradually raised to a height of over fifty feet.SBBS 314.5

During the fourth century the anchorite type of asceticism, which was favored by the mild climate of the Eastern lands and especially by that of Egypt, assumed in some degree the monastic form; that is to say, the fame of this or that anchorite or hermit drew about him a number of disciples, whose rude huts or cells formed what was known as a laura, the nucleus of a monastery.SBBS 314.6

Soon after the cenobite system had been established in the East it was introduced into Europe, and in an astonishingly short space of time spread throughout all the Western countries where Christianity had gained a foothold. Here it prevailed to the almost total exclusion of the hermit mode of life. Monasteries arose on every side. The number that fled to these retreats was vastly augmented by the disorder and terror attending the invasion of the barbarians and the overthrow of the empire in the West.—“Medieval and Modern History,” Philip Van Ness Myers, pp. 22-24. Boston: Ginn and Company.SBBS 314.7

“L” Entries

“N” Entries