_________________________________________________________________ Title: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 10: Mass Music-Newman Creator(s): Herbermann, Charles George (1840-1916) Print Basis: 1907-1913 Rights: From online edition Copyright 2003 by K. Knight, used by permission CCEL Subjects: All; Reference LC Call no: BX841.C286 LC Subjects: Christian Denominations Roman Catholic Church Dictionaries. Encyclopedias _________________________________________________________________ THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA AN INTERNATIONAL WORK OF REFERENCE ON THE CONSTITUTION, DOCTRINE, DISCIPLINE, AND HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH EDITED BY CHARLES G. HERBERMANN, Ph.D., LL.D. EDWARD A. PACE, Ph.D., D.D. CONDE B PALLEN, Ph.D., LL.D. THOMAS J. SHAHAN, D.D. JOHN J. WYNNE, S.J. ASSISTED BY NUMEROUS COLLABORATORS IN FIFTEEN VOLUMES VOLUME 10 Mass Music to Newman New York: ROBERT APPLETON COMPANY Imprimatur JOHN M. FARLEY ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK _________________________________________________________________ Music of the Mass Music of the Mass Under this heading will be considered exclusively the texts of the Mass (and not, therefore, the Asperges, Vidi aquam, Litanies, Prophecies, etc., which in the Roman Missal are found more or less closely associated with the Mass in certain seasons of the Church Year), which receive a musical treatment. These texts comprise those which are sung (that is, recited in musical monotone with occasional cadences or inflections) by the celebrant and the sacred ministers (who will be referred to as priest, deacon, and sub-deacon) and which are styled "Accentus"; and those which are assigned to the choir and which are styled "Concentus". For the sake of convenience of reference the Concentus may be divided into the following classes: + first, those which are found in the section of the Roman Missal under the heading "Ordinarium Missae" (namely, the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Benedictus, Agnus Dei) and which will be briefly referred to as the Ordinary; + second, those texts which are found under the headings "Proprium de Tempore", "Proprium Sanctorum", "Commune Sanctorum" (namely, Introit, Gradual, Alleluia Verse, Sequence, Tract, Offertory, Communion) and which will be referred to briefly as the Proper, a serviceable but ambiguous term frequently used to describe these texts. The "Graduale Romanum" (together with the Missal) provides plainsong melodies for all the texts syled Accentus or Concentus. The Accentus must be plainsong, and must be that plainsong which is found in the present typical edition, styled the Vatican Edition, of the "Roman Gradual". The Concentus, if sung to plainsong melodies, must also be in the approved form found in the Vatican Edition of the "Gradual"; but these texts may employ "modern" (as opposed to "medieval") music, provided the musical treatment is in every way appropriate as indicated in the "Instruction on Sacred Music", commonly styled the "Motu Proprio", issued by Pius X on the Feast of St. Cecilia, Patron of Church Music (22 Nov., 1903). This "modern" or "figured" music is customarily styled in Church decrees simply musica, and the plain chant or plain song is styled cantus (chant). The serviceable distinction will be employed throughout this article: chant, chanting, chanted, will refer to plainsong melodies; music, musical, to figured music. I. ACCENTUS These chants should never be accompanied by the organ or any other instrument. The priest intones the Gloria (Gloria in excelsis Deo) and the Credo (Credo in unum Deum). The choir must not repeat these words of the intonation, but must begin with Et in terra pax, etc., and Patrem omnipotentem, etc., respectively. The priest also sings the Collects and post-Communions and the Dominus vobiscum and Oremus preceding them. Amen is sung by the choir at the end of these prayers, as also after the Per omnia saecula saeculorum preceding the Preface, the Pater noster and the Pax Domini . . . vobiscum. The choir responds with Et cum spiritu tuo to the Dominus vobiscum preceding the prayers, the Gospel, and the Preface. Both of these choir responses vary from the usual monotone when occurring before the Preface; and the Amen receives an upward inflection before the Pax Domini, etc. Indeed, the Dominus vobiscum and its response vary in melody for all the three forms of the Preface (the Tonus Solemnis, the Tonus Ferialis, the Tonus Solemnior found in the "Cantus Missalis Romani"), as do also the chants and responses of the Sursum corda, etc., preceding the Preface. It would be highly desirable that choirs be well practised in these special "tones" since exact correspondence with the form used by the priest is not only of aesthetic but of practical value; for any deviation from one of the "tones" into another may easily lead the priest astray and produce a lamentable confusion of forms which ought to be kept distinct. At the end of the priest's chant of the Pater noster the choir responds with Sed libera nos a malo. The sub-deacon chants the Epistle, the deacon the Gospel. The respective responses (Deo Gratias and Laus tibi Christe) are merely to be said by the ministers of the Mass, and are not to be sung or recited by the choir. This is clear from the fact that the "Roman Gradual" does not assign any notation to these responses. To the deacon's chant of the Ite missa est (or Benedicamus Domino) the choir responds with Deo gratias. A Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites permits the organ to supply for this response wherever this is customary, provided the response be "recited" in a clear voice. The chant melodies for all these choir-responses are given in the Vatican "Gradual" under the heading "Toni Communes Missae". It is customary in many churches to harmonize the chant-responses and even to depart in some details from the melodies officially assigned to the chant-responses. In summing up the legislation in this matter, the "Motu Proprio" says (No. 12): With the exception of the melodies proper to the celebrant at the altar and to the ministers, which must be always sung only in Gregorian chant, and without the accompaniment of the organ, all the rest of the liturgical chant belongs to the choir of Levites, and, therefore, singers in church, even when they are laymen, are really taking the place of the ecclesiastical choir. Hence the music rendered by them must, at least for the greater part, retain the character of choral music. But while the choir is thus permitted to respond in music or in harmonized chant, good taste might suggest the desirability of responding in unharmonized chant according to the exact melodies provided in the "Toni Communes Missae". Inasmuch as the Vatican "Gradual" is meant merely for the use of the choir, the complete Accentus of the celebrant and ministers will not be found there. The Missal contains these chants in full (except, of course, the chants for the prayers, prophecies, etc., which are to be recited or sung according to certain general forms which are indicated in the "Toni Com. Mis.") However, a number of changes made in the Missal melodies by order of the Vatican Commission on Chant were comprised in a separate publication entitled "Cantus Missalis Romani" (Rome, Vatican Press, 1907), which was edited in various styles by competent publishers of liturgical books. After that no publisher was permitted to print or publish an edition of the Missal Containing the melodies in use prior to that, but were to insert the new melodies according to the scheme found in the "Cantus Missalis Romani". Some of the newer forms were to appear in the places occupied, in the typical edition of the Missal (1900), by the forms previously used, while some were to be placed in an Appendix. The Decree of 8 June, 1907, contains the following clauses: + Dating from this day, the proofs containing the new typical chant of the Missal are placed by the Holy See without special conditions, at the disposal of the publishers, who can no longer print or publish the chant of Missals in use at present. + The new typical chant must be inserted exactly in the same place as the old. + It may, however, be published separately or it may be placed at the end of the older Missals now in print, and in both of these cases may bear the general title, "Cantus missalis Romani iuxta editionem Vaticanam". + The Tract Sicut cervus of Holy Saturday must hereafter be printed with the words only, without chant notation. + The intonations or chants ad libitum, Asperges me, Gloria in excelsis, and the more solemn tones of the Prefaces must not be placed in the body of the Missal, but only at the end, in the forms of a supplement or appendix; to them (the ad libitum intonations or chants) may be added, either in the Missals or in separate publications of the chanted parts, the chants of the "Toni communes", already published in the "Gradual", which have reference to the sacred ministers. + No change is made in the words of the text or in the rubrics which, therefore, must be reproduced without modification, as in the last typical edition (1900). In the midst of the perplexities inevitably associated with such modifications of or additions to the former methods of rendering the Accentus, Dom Johner, O.S.B., of the Beuron Congregation, has come to the assistance of clerics, by collecting into one conveniently arranged manual ("Cantus Ecclesiastici iuxta editionem Vaticanam", Ratishon, 1909: 146 pages. 12 mo.) all of the Accentus (including the responses found in the "Toni Communes Missae" of the "Gradule Romanum" (1908) and in the "Cantus Missalis Romani" (1908). These he has illustrated with appropriate extracts from the "Rubriae Missalis Romani", and has added comments and explanations of his brackets in order to distinguish them from official matter (e.g. pp. 14, 15, when discussing the festal tone of the Oratio). While such a volume is appropriate for the study or the class-room, the intonatlons of the priest and deacon have been issued for use in the sanctuary, in various forms. At Tournai Belgium, is published "Intonationes celebrantis in Missa ad exemplar editionis Vaticanae" (containing the Asperges, Vidi aquam, Gloria and Credo, Ite Missa est, Benedicamus Domino, for all the masses contained in the "Kyriale") on seven cards of Bristolboard which are enclosed in a case and also in form of a pamphlet bound in cloth. At Düsseldorf is issued a collection of the intonations (under the title of "Tabula Intonationum") of the Gloria (15), Credo (4), Ite Missa est and Benedicamus (17), and Requiescant in pace, pasted on thin but strong cardboard (cloth-covered) of four pages. These are given here merely as illustrations of the practical means at hand for actually inaugurating the reform of the Accentus; other publishers of the official editions of the chant books may be consulted for other forms for use in the sanctuary. Some of these forms of chant-intonations are for use ad libitum. The various intonations of the Gloria and Credo bear a close relation to the succeeding chant of the choir, with those of these Missa est or Benedicamus are frequently in melody with the chant of the Kyrie eleison. Nominally, these chants and intonations are assigned to definite seasons of the Church Year or to peculiar kinds of rite (solemn double, semi-double, ferial, etc.), but in as much as permission has been given to use the chants of the "Kyriale" indifferently for any rite or season, the requirement to be met by the priest is the artistic one, of singing the intonation of the Mass which the choir will actually render in chant. Thus it will be seen that the many intonations furnished do not represent an obligatory burden but merely a large liberty of choice. The chant of the Ite missa est by the deacon would seem similarly to be a matter of artistic appropriateness rather than of liturgical law. II. THE CONCENTUS These texts may be sung in chant or music. If chant be used, it must be either that contained in the "Vatican Gradual", or some other approved form of the "traditional melodies" (see "Motu Proprio" of 25 April, 1904, d; the Decree of the S.R.C., 11 August, 1905, VI; the decree prefixed to the "Kyriale", dated 14 August 1905, closing paragraph); if the setting be musical it must meet all the requirements summarily indicated in the "Motu Proprio" of 22 November, 1903 (see ECCLESIASTICAL MUSIC). Under the heading of Concentus must be considered (a) the Ordinary, (b) the Proper. (a) The Ordinary The texts are those of the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus, the Benedictus, the Agnus Dei. A collection of these, or a portion of them, is styled simply a "Mass". When several "Masses" are written by the same composer, they are differentiated numerically (e.g. Mozart's No. 1, No. 2, No. 17) or by dedication to some particular feast (e.g. Gounod's "Messe de Paques") or saint (e.g. Gounod's "St. Cecilia" Mass), or devotion (e.g. Gounod's "Messe du Sacré Coeur"), or musical association (e.g. Gounod's "Messe des Orphéonistes", Nos. I, II), or musical patron (e.g. Palestrina's "Missa Papae Marcelli"), or special occasion (e.g. Cherubini's "Third Mass in A" entitled the "Coronation Mass", as it was for the coronation of King Charles X). The title Missa Brevis is sometimes employed for a Mass requiring only a moderate time for its rendition (e.g. Palestrina's "Missa Brevis"; Andrea Gabrieli's printed in Vol. I of Proske's "Musica Divina") although the term scarcely applies, save in another sense, to J.S. Bach's "Missa Brevis" (in A) comprising in its forty-four closely printed pages only the music of the Kyrie and Gloria. In some Masses the place of the Benedictus is taken by an O Salutaris. A polyphonic Mass composed, not upon themes taken from chant melodies (as was the custom), was styled "sine nomine". Those founded upon chant subjects were thus styled (e.g. Palestrina's "Ecce Sacerdos Magnus", "Virtute magna", etc.) or when founded on secular song themes unblushingly bore the appropriate title (e.g. Palestrina's "L'homme arme"). Masses were sometimes styled by the name of the chant-mode in which they were composed (e.g. "Primi Toni") or, founded on the hexachordal system, were styled "Missa super voces musicales" (Missa Ut, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La); or bore as title the number of voices employed (e.g. "Missa Quatuor Vocum"). This is not the place to rehearse the story of the gradual development and corruption of ecclesiastical music, of the many attempts at reform, and of the latest pronouncements of the Holy See which oblige consciences with all the force of liturgical law. An excellent summary of this history is given by Dr. Rockstro in Grove's "Dictionary of music and musians" (s. v. Mass), which may be supplemented by the recent abundant literature of the reform-movement in Church Music. It is of more immediate and practical importance to indicate the various catalogues or lists of music compiled by those who are seeking to reform the music of the Mass. It is interesting to reflect that in his earlier legislation on this subject, Leo XIII recommended a diocesan commission to draw up a diocesan Index of Repertoires, or at least to sanction the performances of pieces therein indicated, whether published or unpublished. In the later Regolamento of 6 July, 1894, the S. C. of Rites does not refer any such index but merely requires bishops to exercise appropriate supervision over the pastors so that appropriate music may not be heard in their churches. The present pope has nowhere indicated the necessity, or even the advisability, of compiling such an index or catalogue, but has required the appointment, in every diocese, of a competent commission which shall supervise musical matters and see that the legislation of the "Motu Proprio" be properly carried out. Nevertheless, it was the stimulus of the Regolamento of 1894 which led to the compilation, in the Diocese of Cincinnati, of a highly informing "First Official Catalogue" of that commission, which was made obligatory by Archbishop Elder in a letter dated 26 July, 1899, and which was to go into operation on the First Sunday of Advent (3 Dec.) of that year. The commission requested pastors to submit the music used for inspection by the commission. The catalogue does not content itself with approving certain of these compositions but takes the trouble both to mark "rejected" after the various titles and to give, usually, the reason for the rejection. In the following year it issued its "Second Official Catalogue". Both catalogues are important as illustrating the exact musical conditions of one great diocese, and show forth more searchingly than many arguments the need of reform. These catalogues have been rendered obsolete by the more stringent recent legislation. But, although that legislation has not prescribed the compilation of lists of approved music, many such catalogues or lists have been compiled. They all pay great attention to the music of the Mass, and should prove of the greatest assistance to choir-masters. Correct and appropriate music for Mass, for all degrees of musical ability or choral attainment and of the greatest abundance and freshness and individuality of style, can now be easily obtained. In selecting a Mass it is always advisable to read the text in order to see that it is both complete and liturgically correct; that there should be no alteration or inversion of the words, no undue repetition, no breaking of syllables. In addition, the "Motu Proprio" specifies [No 11 (a)]: The Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, etc., of the Mass must preserve the unity of composition proper to their text. It is not lawful, therefore, to compose them in separate pieces, in such a way that each of those pieces may form a complete composition in itself, and be capable of being detached from the rest and substituted by another". It further remarks (No. 22): "It is not lawful to keep the priest at the altar waiting on amount of the chant or the music for a length of time not allowed by the liturgy. According to the ecclesiastical prescriptions the Sanctus of the Mass should be the Elevation and therefore the priest must have regard to the singers. The Gloria and Credo ought, according to the Gregorian tradition, to be relatively short." Something remains to be said of the chant of the Ordinary which is found in the separate small volume entitled "Kyriale". It is issued by the various competent publishers in all styles of printing, paper, binding in large and small forms; in medieval and in modern notation; with and without certain "rhythmical signs". The eighteen "Masses" it contains are nominally assigned to various qualities of rite; but, in accordance with ancient tradition and with the unanimous agreement of the pontifical Commission on the Chant, liberty has been granted to select any "Mass" for any quality of rite (see the note "Quoslibet cantus" etc., p. 64 of the Vatican Edition of the "Kyriale": "Any chant assigned in this ordinarium to one mass may be used in any other; in the same way, according to the quality of the Mass or the degree of solemnity, any one of those which follow [that is, in the section styled "Cantus ad libitum"] may be taken"). The decrees relating to the publishing of editions based on this typical edition, and to its promulgation, are given in Latin and English translation in "Church Music", March, 1906, pp. 250-256. It is noteworthy that this typical edition gives no direction about singing the Benedictus after the Elevation, but prints both chants in such juxtapostion as to suggest that the Benedictus might be sung before the Elevation. In the "Revue du Chant Grégorien" (Aug.-Oct., 1905), its editor, Canon Grospellier, who was one of the Consultors of the Gregorian Commission, said that he was inclined to think that, where time allows, the Benedictus might be sung immediately at its meeting at Appuldurcombe, in 1904, unanimously accepted a resolution to this effect. The preface to the Vatican "Gradual", while giving minute directions for the ceremonial rendering of the chants merely says: "When the preface is finished, the choir goes on with the Sanctus, etc." At the elevation of the Blessed Sacrament, the choir is silent like every one else. Nevertheless, in as much as the "Gradual" does not declare that the Benedictus is to be chanted after the Elevation, the "etc." is understood to imply that it should be sung immediately after the Sanctus. The "Caeremoniale Episcoporum" however, directs that it be sung (after elevation of the chalice". The apprarent conflict of authorities may be harmonized by supposing that the "Caeremoniale" legislated for the case of musically developed (e.g. polyphonic) settings of the Sanctus and the Benedictus, whose length would necessitate their separation from each other, while the "Gradual" contemplates, of course, the much briefer settings of the plainsong (see "Church Music", Jan., l909, p. 87). (b) The Proper While the texts of the Ordinary do not (with the exception of the Agnus Dei, which is altered in Requiem Mass) change, those which commonly, but somewhat ambiguously, are called the "Proper", change in accordance with the character of the feast or Sunday or ferial day. These texts are the Introit, Gradual, Alleluia-Verse, Sequence, Tract, Offertory, Communion. Not all of these will be found in any one Mass. Thus, e.g. Holy Saturday has no Introit, Gradual, Offertory, Communion; from Low Sunday to Trinity Sunday, the Gradual is replaced by all Alleluia-Verse; from Septuagesima to Easter, as well as on certain penitential days, the Allehlia-Verse which ordinarily follows the Gradual, is replaced by a Tract; in only a few Masses is a Sequence used; there is no Introit on Whitsun Eve, while the customary Gloria Patri after the Introit is omitted during Passion-tide. In Requiem Masses the Gloria Patri is omitted after the Introit, a Tract and a Sequence follow the Gradual. Nor do the texts differ for every feast, as is illustrated by the division of the Sanctorale into the "Proprium de Sanctis" and the "Commune Sanctorum", this latter division grouping the feasts into classes, such as the feasts of confessors-Bishops, confessors-not-bishops, martyrs, virgins, etc., in which the texts of the "Proper" serve for many feasts of the "Propers" in many churches. They are, however, an integral part of the duty of the choir, and must be sung, or at least "recited", in a clear and intelligible voice, the organ meanwhile sustaining appropriate chords. In a Rescript dated 8 August, 1906, the S.R.C. answering questions proposed by the Abbot of Santa Maria Maggiore in Naples, declares that in solemn Mass, when the organ is used, the Gradual, Offertory Comunion, when not sung, must be recited in a high and intelligible voice, and that the Deo Gratias following the Ite missa est should receive the same treatment. Previous answers of the S.R.C. were of similar tenor. Thus (Coimbra 14 April, 1753): in a "Community Mass" it is always necessary to sing the Gloria, Credo, all of the Gradual, the Preface, Pater noster, so, too, a question from Chioggia in 1875, as to whether the custom introduced into that diocese of omitting the chant of the Gradual, the Tract, the Sequence, the Offertory, the Benedictus the Communion was contrary to the rubrics and decisions of the S.R.C., was answered affirmatively, and the questioner was remit ted to the Coimbra decision. A specific difficulty was offered for solution by a bishop who declared that in his diocese where a single chanter was used, and where the people had to hurry to their daily work, the custom had obtained (throughout almost the whole diocese) of omitting, in stipendiary Masses, the Gloria, Gradual, Tract, Sequenee, Credo. He was answered (29 Dec., 1884) that the custom was an abuse that must be absolutely eliminated. The spirit of the Church legislation is summed up in the "Motu Proprio" (22 Nov., 1903, No. 8): As the texts that may be rendered in music, and the order in which they are to be rendered, are determined for every function, it is not lawful to confuse this order or to change the prescribed texts for others collected at will, or to omit them entirely or even in part, except when the rubrics allow that some versicles are simply recited in choir. It is permissible, however, according to the custom of the Roman Church, to sing a motet to the Blessed Sacrament after the Benedictus in a solemn Mass. It is also permitted after the Offertory prescribed for the Mass has been sung, to execute during the time that remains a brief motet to words approved by the Church. A practical difficulty is encountered in the fact that many choirs have met the limit of their capacity in preparing the chant or music of the Ordinary, whose texts are fixed and repeated frequently. How shall such choirs prepare for a constantly changing series of Proper texts whether in chant or in music? Several practical solutions of the difficulty have been offered. There is, first of all, the easy device of recitation. Then there is the solution offered in the excellent and laborious work of Dr. Edmund Tozer, who prepared simple psalm-like settings which could be easily mastered by a fairly equipped choir. The work "The Proper of the Mass for Sundays and Holidays" (New York, 1907-1908, Vol. II, No. 2926) is reviewed in "Church Music" Jan., 1907, 127-128; Mar., 1908, 171-178; see also June, 1906, "One Outcome of the Discussion", 409-415, including a specimen-four-page of Dr. Tozer's method of treatment of the Proper text. A third volume which will comprise various local texts is in course of preparation. Another method is that undertaken by Marcello Capra, of Turin, Italy, which provides musical settings for the Proper of the principal feasts for one or two voices, and with easy organ accompaniment. Still another method is that of Giulio Bas who has compiled a volume, "Gradualis Versus Alleluia et Tractus" (Dusseldorf, 1910), of plainsong settings from the Ambrosian, Aquileian, Greek, Mozarabic chant, for Sundays and Double Feasts in order to facilitate the rendering of the more difficult portions of the Proper. However rendered, these chants of the Proper must not be omitted or curtailed. But apart from this liturgical necessity they challlenge admiration because of their devotional, poetic, aesthetic perfection: "If we pass in review before our musical eye the wonderful thoughts expressed in the Introits, Graduals, Alleluia, Verses, Tracts, Offertories, and Communions of the whole ecclesiastical year, from the first Sunday in Advent to the last Sunday after Pentecost, as well as those of the numerous Masses of the saints, apostles,martyrs, confessors, virgins, we must feel that in the Roman Church we have an anthology worthy of our highest admiration" (Rev. H. Bewerunge, ("Address at London Eucharistic Congress"). It should be a part of a choirmaster's business to translate and explain these texts to his choir, that they may be recited or sung with the understanding as well as with the voice. To this end the "Missal for the Laity", with its Latin and parallel English version, might be used. The spirit of the liturgy might also be largely acquired from the volumes of Dom Gueranger's "Liturgical Year". As this is, however, such an extensive work, the much briefer and more direct treatments of the texts of the Proper with comment on the spirit, which ran serially through the issues of "Church Music", would prove highly serviceable. With respect to the plainsong setting, two typical chants should be studied carefully (see Dom Eudine's articles in "Church Music", March, 1906, 222-235, on "the Gradual for Easter", "the Haec dies", and June, l906, 360- 373, on "the Introit Gaudeamus", which give the plainsong notation with transcription into modern notation, rhythmical and dynamical analyses, etc.). Such a study will encourage the present day musician to acquire a greater familiarity with the plainsong of the Proper which present-day choirs should have: "First, there is the Gregorian Chant. The more one studies these ancient melodies the more one is impressed by their variety and rare beauty. Take the distinctiveness of their forms, the characteristic style which distinguishes an Introit from a Gradual, an Offertory from a Communion. Then within each class what variety of expression, what amazing interpretation of the words, and above all what sublime beauty and mystical spirit of prayer! Certainly, anyone who has tasted the sweetness of these chants must envy the few privileged places where there is high Mass every day and thus a chance is given of hearing all of these divine strains at least once a year" (Bewerunge). There is a large body of settings of the classical polyphonic schools, and of modern polyphony, as also much illustration of modern homophonic music, of the proper texts. Care should be taken to see that the texts thus treated are verbally correct. For in the return to the traditional melodies of the chants, the commission found it necessary to restore, in very many instances, omitted portions of text, and in various ways to restore to use the more ancient forms of the texts. In the "Proprium de Tempore", for instance, there are about 200 textual changes. A summary view of their general character is given in "Church Music" (July, 1908), pp. 232-235. Since these altered texts differ from those still retained in the Missal, choirs which "recite" the texts will do so from the Vatican "Gradual", and not from the Missal. When the "Gradual" was first issued, it was noticed that the Propers of some American feasts (as also, of course, the Propers of many foreign dioceses as well) were omitted (see "Church Music," March, 1908, 138-134). Some publishers have added these Propers for America, in an appendix bound in with the volume. Doubtless a similar process will be adopted in the case of many foreign dioceses. Many questions which touch the musical part of the services at Mass belong to the general subject of the reform movement in Church Music, and will be more appropriately treated under the heading MUSIC, ECCLESIASTICAL. Such are, e.g. the long debated matter of the use of women's voices in our gallery choirs; the capabilities of chorister boys for the proper rendition of the Ordinary and the Proper, the use of chants with rhythmical signs added; the character of the rhythm to be used ("oratorical" or "measured") the character of accompaniment best suited to the chant; the use of musical instruments in chanted or musical Masses; the status of women as organists; the adoption of a sanctuary choir, whether in place of, or in conjunction with, the gallery choir. Historically the reform movement in the chant was signalized by the issuance, first of all, of the "Kyriale", which contains the Ordinary chants and then of the "Graduale", which comprises all the chants for Mass, but this matter also belongs to a more general treatment. H.T. HENRY Nuptial Mass Nuptial Mass "Missa pro sponso et sponsa", the last among the votive Masses in the Missal. It is composed of lessons and chants suitable to the Sacrament of Matrimony, contains prayers for persons just married and is interwoven with part of the marriage rite, of which in the complete form it is an element. As the Mass was looked upon as the natural accompaniment of any solemn function (ordination, consecration of churches, etc.), it was naturally celebrated as part of the marriage service. Tertullian (d. about 220; ad Uxor., II, 9) mentions the oblation that confirms marriage (matrimonium quod ecclesia conciliat et confirmat oblatio). All the Roman Sacramentaries contain the nuptial Mass (The Leonine, ed. Feltoc, 140-142; The Gelasian, ed. Wilson, 265-267; The Gregorian, P. L., LXXVIII, 261-264), with our present prayers and others (a special Hanc Igitur and Preface). The Gelasian Sacramentary (loc. cit.) contains, moreover, the blessing now said after the Ite missa est, then said after the Communion, a Gallican addition (Duchesne, "Origines du Culte", Paris, ed. 2, 1898 n. 417). Pope Nicholas I (858-867) in his instruction for the Bulgars, in 866, describes the whole rite of marriage, including the crowning of the man and wife that is still the prominent feature of the rite in the Byzantine Church; this rite contains a Mass at which the married persons make the offertory and receive communion (Rasp. ad cons, Bulgarorum, iii, quoted by Duchesne op. cit., 413- 414). The present rules for a nuptial Mass are; first, that it may not be celebrated in the closed time for marriages, that is from Advent Sunday till after the octave of the Epiphany and from Ash Wednesday till after Low Sunday. During these times no reference to a marriage may be made in Mass; if people wish to be married then they must be content with the little service in the Ritual, without music or other solemnities. This is what is meant by the rubric: " claudun tur nuptiarum solemnia "; it is spoken of usually as the closed season. During the rest of the year the nuptial Mass may be said at a wedding any day except Sundays and feasts of obligation, doubles of the first and second class and such privileged ferias and octaves as exclude a double. It may not displace the Rogation Mass at which the procession is made, nor may it displace at least one Requiem on All Souls day. On these occasions its place is taken by the Mass of the day to which commemorations of the nuptial Mass are added in the last place and at which the blessings are inserted in their place. The nuptial blessing is considered as part of the nuptial Mass. It may never be given except during this Mass or during a Mass that replaces it (and commemorates it) when it cannot be said, as above. The nuptial Mass and blessing may be celebrated after the closed time for people married during it. So nuptial Mass and blessing always go together; either involves the other. One Mass and blessing may be held for several pairs of married people, who must all be present. The forms, however, remain in the singular as they are in the Missal. The Mass and blessing may not be held if the woman has already received this blessing in a former marriage. This rule only affects the woman, for whom the blessing is more specially intended (see the prayer Deus qui potestate). It must be understood exactly as stated. A former marriage without this blessing, or the fact that children had been born before the marriage, is no hindrance. Nor may the nuptial Mass and blessing be held in cases of mixed marriages (mixta religio) inspite of any dispensation. According to the Con stitution "Etsi sanctissimus Dominus" of Pius IX (15 November, 1858), mixed marriages must be celebrated outside the church (in England and America this is understood as meaning outside the sanctuary and choir), without the blessing of the ring or of the spouses without any ecclesiastical rite or vestment, without proclamation of banns. The rite of the nuptial Mass and blessing is this: The Mass has neither Gloria nor Creed. It counts as a votive Mass not for a grave matter; therefore it has three collects, its own, the commemoration of the day, and the third which is the one chosen for semi-doubles at that time of the year unless there be two commemorations. At the end Benedicamus Domino and the Gospel of St. John are said. The colour is white. The bridegroom and bride assist near the altar (just outside the sanctuary), the man on the right. After the Pater noster the celebrant genuflects and goes to epistle side. Meanwhile the bridegroom and bride come up and kneel before him. Turning to them he says the two prayers Propitiare Domine and Deus qui potestate (as in the Missal) with folded hands. He then goes back to the middle and continues the Mass. They go back to their places. He gives them Communion at the usual time. This implies that they are fasting and explains the misused name "wedding breakfast" afterwards. But the Communion is strict law (S.R.C., no 5582, 21 March, 1874). Immediately after the Benedicamus Domino and its answer the celebrant again goes to the Epistle side and the bridegroom and kneel before him as before. The celebrant turning to them says the prayer Deus Abraham (without Oremus). He is then told to warn them "with grave words to be faithful to one another". The rest of the advice suggested in the rubric of the Missal is now generally left out. He sprinkles them with holy water; they retire, he goes back to the middle of the altar, says Placeat tibi, gives the blessing and finishes Mass as usual. In the cases in which the "Missa pro sponso et sponsa" may not be said but may be commemorated, the special prayers and blessing are inserted in the Mass in the same way. But the colour must be that of the day. During the closed time it is, of course, quite possible for the married people to have a Mass said for their intention, at which they receive Holy Communion. The nuptial Blessing in this Mass is quite different thing from the actual celebration of the marriage which must always precede it. The blessing is given to people already married, as the prayers imply. It need not be given (nor the Mass said) by the parish priest, who assisted at the marriage. But both these functions (assitance and blessing) are rights of the parish priests, which no one else may undertake without delegation from him. Generally they are so combined that the marrige takes place immediately before the Mass; in this case the priest at the marriage in Mass vestments, but without the maniple. In England and other countries where a civil declaration is required by law, this is usually made in the sacristy between the marriage and the Mass. Canon Law in England orders that marriages be made only in churches that have a district with the cure of souls (Conc. prov. Westm. I, decr. XXII, 4). This implies as a general rule, but does not command absolutely, that the nuptial Mass also be celebrated in such a church. ADRIAN FORTESCUE Sacrifice of the Mass Sacrifice of the Mass The word Mass (missa) first established itself as the general designation for the Eucharistic Sacrifice in the West after the time of Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604), the early Church having used the expression the "breaking of bread" (fractio panis) or "liturgy" (Acts 13:2, leitourgountes); the Greek Church has employed the latter name for almost sixteen centuries. There were current in the early days of Christianity other terms; + "The Lord's Supper" (coena dominica), + the "Sacrifice" (prosphora, oblatio), + "the gathering together" (synaxis, congregatio), + "the Mysteries", and + (since Augustine), "the Sacrament of the Altar". With the name "Love Feast" (agape) the idea of the sacrifice of the Mass was not necessarily connected. Etymologically, the word missa is neither (as Baronius states) from a Hebrew word, nor from the Greek mysis, but is simply derived from missio, just as oblata is derived from oblatio, collecta from collectio, and ulta from ultio. The reference was however not to a Divine "mission", but simply to a "dismissal" (dimissio) as was also customary in the Greek rite (cf. "Canon. Apost.", VIII, xv: apolyesthe en eirene), and as is still echoed in the phrase Ite missa est. This solemn form of leave-taking was not introduced by the Church as something new, but was adopted from the ordinary language of the day, as is shown by Bishop Avitus of Vienne as late as A.D. 500 (Ep. 1 in P.L., LIX, 199): In churches and in the emperor's or the prefect's courts, Missa est is said when the people are released from attendance. In the sense of "dismissal", or rather "close of prayer", missa is used in the celebrated "Peregrinatio Silvae" at least seventy times (Corpus scriptor. eccles. latinor., XXXVIII, 366 sq.) and Rule of St. Benedict places after Hours, Vespers, Compline, the regular formula: Et missae fiant (prayers are ended). Popular speech gradually applied the ritual of dismissal, as it was expressed in both the Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of the Faithful, by synecdoche to the entire Eucharistic Sacrifice, the whole being named after the part. The first certain trace of such an application is found in Ambrose (Ep. xx, 4, in P. L. XVI, 995). We will use the word in this sense in our consideration of the Mass in its existence, essence, and causality. I. THE EXISTENCE OF THE MASS Before dealing with the proofs of revelation afforded by the Bible and tradition, certain preliminary points must first be decided. Of these the most important is that the Church intends the Mass to be regarded as a "true and proper sacrifice", and will not tolerate the idea that the sacrifice is identical with Holy Communion. That is the sense of a clause from the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, can. 1): "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" (Denzinger, "Enchir.", 10th ed. 1908, n. 948). When Leo XIII in the dogmatic Bull "Apostolicae Curae" of 13 Sept., 1896, based the invalidity of the Anglican form of consecration on the fact among others, that in the consecrating formula of Edward VI (that is, since 1549) there is nowhere an unambiguous declaration regarding the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Anglican archbishops answered with some irritation: "First, we offer the Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; next, we plead and represent before the Father the Sacrifice of the Cross . . . and, lastly, we offer the Sacrifice of ourselves to the Creator of all things, which we have already signified by the oblation of His creatures. This whole action, in which the people has necessarily to take part with the priest, we are accustomed to call the communion the Eucharistic Sacrifice". In regard to this last contention, Bishop Hedley of Newport declared his belief that not one Anglican in a thousand is accustomed, to call the communion the "Eucharistic Sacrifice." But even if they were all so accustomed, they would have to interpret the terms in the sense of the thirty-nine Articles, which deny both the Real Presence and the sacrifical power of the priest, and thus admit a sacrifice in an unreal or figurative sense only. Leo XIII, on the other hand, in union with the whole Christian past, had in mind in the above-mentioned Bull nothing else than the Eucharistic "Sacrifice of the true Body and Blood of Christ" on the altar. This Sacrifice is certainly not identical with the Anglican form of celebration. The simple fact that numerous heretics, such as Wyclif and Luther, repudiated the Mass as "idolatry", while retaining the Sacrament of the true Body and Blood of Christ, proves that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is something essentially different from the Sacrifice of the Mass. In truth, the Eucharist performs at once two functions: that of a sacrament and that of a sacrifice. Though the inseparableness of the two is most clearly seen in the fact that the consecrating sacrificial powers of the priest coincide, and consequently that the sacrament is produced only in and through the Mass, the real difference between them is shown in that the sacrament is intended privately for the sanctification of the soul, whereas the sacrifice serves primarily to glorify God by adoration, thanksgiving, prayer, and expiation. The recipient of the one is God, who receives the sacrifice of His only-begotten Son; of the other, man, who receives the sacrament for his own good. Furthermore, the unbloody Sacrifice of the Eucharistic Christ is in its nature a transient action, while the Sacrament of the Altar continues as something permanent after the sacrifice, and can even be preserved in monstrance and ciborium. Finally, this difference also deserves mention: communion under one form only is the reception of the whole sacrament, whereas, without the use of the two forms of bread and wine (the symbolic separation of the Body and Blood), the mystical slaying of the victim, and therefore the Sacrifice of the Mass, does not take place. The definition of the Council of Trent supposes as self-evident the proposition that, along with the "true and real Sacrifice of the Mass", there can be and are in Christendom figurative and unreal sacrifices of various kinds, such as prayers of praise and thanksgiving, alms, mortification, obedience, and works of penance. Such offerings are often referred to in Holy Scripture, e.g. in Ecclus., xxxv, 4: "All he that doth mercy offereth sacrifice"; and in Ps. cxl, 2: "Let my prayer be directed as incense in thy sight, the lifting up of my hands as evening sacrifice." These figurative offerings, however, necessarily presuppose the real and true offering, just as a picture presupposes its subject and a portrait its original. The Biblical metaphors -- a "sacrifice of jubilation" (Ps. xxvi, 6), the "calves of our lips (Osee, xiv, 3), the "sacrifice of praise" (Heb., xiii, 15) -- expressions which apply sacrificial terms to sacrifice (hostia, thysia). That there was such a sacrifice, the whole sacrificial system of the Old Law bears witness. It is true that we may and must recognize with St. Thomas (II-II:85:3), as the principale sacrificium the sacrificial intent which, embodied in the spirit of prayer, inspires and animates the external offerings as the body animates the soul, and without which even the most perfect offering has neither worth nor effect before God. Hence, the holy psalmist says: "For if thou hadst desired sacrifice, I would indeed have given it: with burnt-offerings thou wilt not be delighted. A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit" (Ps. I, 18 sq.). This indispensable requirement of an internal sacrifice, however, by no means makes the external sacrifice superfluous in Christianity; indeed, without a perpetual oblation deriving its value from the sacrifice once offered on the Cross, Christianity, the perfect religion, would be inferior not only to the Old Testament, but even to the poorest form of natural religion. Since sacrifice is thus essential to religion, it is all the more necessary for Christianity, which cannot otherwise fulfil its duty of showing outward honour to God in the most perfect way. Thus, the Church, as the mystical Christ, desires and must have her own permanent sacrifice, which surely cannot be either an independent addition to that of Golgotha or its intrinsic complement; it can only be the one self-same sacrifice of the Cross, whose fruits, by an unbloody offering, are daily made available for believers and unbelievers and sacrificially applied to them. If the Mass is to be a true sacrifice in the literal sense, it must realize the philosophical conception of sacrifice. Thus the last preliminary question arises: What is a sacrifice in the proper sense of the term? Without attempting to state and establish a comprehensive theory of sacrifice, it will suffice to show that, according to the comparative history of religions, four things are necessary to a sacrifice: + a sacrificial gift (res oblata), + a sacrificing minister (minister legitimus), + a sacrificial action (actio sacrificica), and + a sacrificial end or object (finis sacrificii). In contrast with sacrifices in the figurative or less proper sense, the sacrificial gift must exist in physical substance, and must be really or virtually destroyed (animals slain, libations poured out, other things rendered unfit for ordinary uses), or at least really transformed, at a fixed place of sacrifice (ara, altare), and offered up to God. As regards the person offering, it is not permitted that any and every individual should offer sacrifice on his own account. In the revealed religion, as in nearly all heathen religions, only a qualified person (usually called priest, sacerdos, lereus), who has been given the power by commission or vocation, may offer up sacrifice in the name of the community. After Moses, the priests authorized by law in the Old Testament belonged to the tribe of Levi, and more especially to the house of Aaron (Heb., v, 4). But, since Christ Himself received and exercised His high priesthood, not by the arrogation of authority but in virtue of a Divine call, there is still greater need that priests who represent Him should receive power and authority through the Sacrament of Holy Orders to offer up the sublime Sacrifice of the New Law. Sacrifice reaches its outward culmination in the sacrificial act, in which we have to distinguish between the proximate matter and the real form. The form lies, not in the real transformation or complete destruction of the sacrificial gift, but rather in its sacrificial oblation, in whatever way it may be transformed. Even where a real destruction took place, as in the sacrificial slayings of the Old Testament, the act of destroying was performed by the servants of the Temple, whereas the proper oblation, consisting in the "spilling of blood" (aspersio sanguinis), was the exclusive function of the priests. Thus the real form of the Sacrifice of the Cross consisted neither in the killing of Christ by the Roman soldiers nor in an imaginary self-destruction on the part of Jesus, but in His voluntary surrender of His blood shed by another's hand, and in His offering of His life for the sins of the world. Consequently, the destruction or transformation constitutes at most the proximate matter; the sacrificial oblation, on the other hand, is the physical form of the sacrifice. Finally, the object of the sacrifice, as significant of its meaning, lifts the external offering beyond any mere mechanical action into the sphere of the spiritual and Divine. The object is the soul of the sacrifice, and, in a certain sense, its "metaphysicial form". In all religions we find, as the essential idea of sacrifice, a complete surrender to God for the purpose of union with Him; and to this idea there is added, on the part of those who are in sin, the desire for pardon and reconcillation. Hence at once arises the distinction between sacrifices of praise and expiation (sacrificium latreuticum et propitiatorium), and sacrifices of thanksgiving and petition (sacrificium eucharisticum et impetratorium); hence also the obvious inference that under pain of idolatry, sacrifice is to be offered to God alone as the begining and end of all things. Rightly does St. Augustine remark (De civit. Dei, X, iv): "Who ever thought of offering sacrifice except to one whom he either knew, or thought, or imagined to be God?". If then we combine the four constituent ideas in a definition, we may say: "Sacrifice is the external oblation to God by an authorized minister of a sense-perceptible object, either through its destruction or at least through its real transformation, in acknowledgement of God's supreme dominion and of the appeasing of His wrath." We shall demonstrate the applicability of this definition to the Mass in the section devoted to the nature of the sacrifice, after settling the question of its existence. A. Scriptural Proof It is a notable fact that the Divine institution of the Mass can be established, one might almost say, with greater certainty by means of the Old Testament than by means of the New. 1. Old Testament The Old Testament prophecies are recorded partly in types, partly in words. Following the precedent of many Fathers of the Church (see Bellarmine, "De Euchar.", v, 6), the Council of Trent especially (Sess. XXII, cap. i) laid stress on the prophetical relation that undoubtedly exists between the offering of bread and wine by Melchisedech and the Last Supper of Jesus. The occurrence was briefly as follows: After Abraham (then still called "Abram") with his armed men had rescued his nephew Lot from the four hostile kings who had fallen on him and robbed him, Melchisedech, King of Salem (Jerusalem), "bringing forth [ proferens] bread and wine for he was a priest of the Most High God, blessed him [Abraham] and said: Blessed be Abram by the Most High God . . . And he [Abraham] gave him the tithes of all" (Gen., xiv, 18-20). Catholic theologians (with very few exceptions) have from the beginning rightly emphasized the circumstance that Melchisedech brought out bread and wine, not merely to provide refreshment for Abram's followers wearied after the battle, for they were well supplied with provisions out of the booty they had taken (Gen., xiv, 11, 16), but to present bread and wine as food-offerings to Almighty God. Not as a host, but as "priest of the Most High God", he brought forth bread and wine, blessed Abraham, and received the tithes from him. In fact, the very reason for his "bringing forth bread and wine" is expressly stated to have been his priesthood: "for he was a priest". Hence, proferre must necessarily become offerre, even if it were true that the Hiphil word is not an hieratic sacrificial term; but even this is not quite certain (cf. Judges vi, 18 sq.). Accordingly, Melchisedech made a real food-offering of bread and wine. Now it is the express teaching of Scripture that Christ is "a priest for ever according to the order [ kata ten taxin] of Melchisedech" (Ps. cix, 4; Heb., v, 5 sq; vii, 1 sqq). Christ, however, in no way resembled his priestly prototype in His bloody sacrifice on the Cross, but only and solely at His Last Supper. On that occasion He likewise made an unbloody food-offering, only that, as Antitype, He accomplished something more than a mere oblation of bread and wine, namely the sacrifice of His Body and Blood under the mere forms of bread and wine. Otherwise, the shadows cast before by the "good things to come" would have been more perfect than the things themselves, and the antitype at any rate no richer in reality than the type. Since the Mass is nothing else than a continual repetition, commanded by Christ Himself, of the Sacrifice accomplished at the Last Supper, it follows that the Sacrifice of the Mass partakes of the New testament fulfilment of the prophecy of Melchisedech. (Concerning the Paschal Lamb as the second type of the Mass, see Bellarmine, "De Euchar.", V, vii; cf. also von Cichowski, "Das altestamentl. Pascha in seinem Verhaltnis zum Opfer Christi", Munich, 1849.) Passing over the more or less distinct references to the Mass in other prophets (Ps. xxi, 27 sqq., Is., lxvi, 18 sqq.), the best and clearest prediction concerning the Mass is undoubtedly that of Malachias, who makes a threatening announcement to the Levite priests in the name of God: "I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand. For from the rising of the sun even to the down, my name is great among the Gentiles [heathens, non-Jews], and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts" (Mal., i, 10-11). According to the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers of the Church (see Petavius, "De incarn.", xii, 12), the prophet here foretells the everlasting Sacrifice of the New Dispensation. For he declares that these two things will certainly come to pass: + The abolition of all Levitical sacrifices, and + the institution of an entirely new sacrifice. As God's determination to do away with the sacrifices of the Levites is adhered to consistently throughout the denunciation, the essential thing is to specify correctly the sort of sacrifice that is promised in their stead. In regard to this, the following propositions have to be established: + that the new sacrifice is to come about in the days of the Messiah; + that it is to be a true and real sacrifice, and + that it does not coincide formally with the Sacrifice of the Cross. It is easy to show that the sacrifice referred to by Malachias did not signify a sacrifice of his time, but was rather to be a future sacrifice belonging to the age of the Messiah. For though the Hebrew participles of the original can be translated by the present tense (there is sacrifice; it is offered), the mere universality of the new sacrifice -- "from the rising to the setting", "in every place", even "among the Gentiles", i.e. heathen (non-Jewish) peoples -- is irrefragable proof that the prophet beheld as present an event of the future. Wherever Jahwe speaks, as in this case, of His glorification by the "heathen", He can, according to Old Testament teaching (Ps. xxi, 28; lxxi, 10 sqq.; Is., xi, 9; xlix, 6; lx 9, lxvi, 18 sqq.; Amos, ix, 12; Mich., iv. 2. etc.) have in mind only the kingdom of the Messiah or the future Church of Christ; every other explanation is shattered by the text. Least of all could a new sacrifice in the time of the prophet himself be thought of. Nor could there be any idea of is a sacrifice among the genuine heathens, as Hitzig has suggested, for the sacrifices of the heathen, associated with idolatry and impurity, are unclean and displeasing to God (I Cor., x, 20). Again, it could not be a sacrifice of the dispersed Jews (Diaspora), for apart from the fact that the existence of such sacrifices in the Diaspora is rather problematic, they were certainly not offered the world over, nor did they possess the unusual significance attaching to special modes of honouring God. Consequently, the reference is undoubtedly to some entirely distinctive sacrifice of the future. But of what future? Was it to be a future sacrifice among genuine heathens, such as the Aztecs or the native Africans? This is as impossible as in the case of other heathen forms of idolatry. Perhaps then it was to be a new and more perfect sacrifice among the Jews? This also is out of the question, for since the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (A.D. 70), the whole system of Jewish sacrifice is irrevocably a thing of the past; and the new sacrifice moreover, is to be performed by a priesthood of an origin other than Jewish (Is., lxvi, 21). Everything, therefore, points to Christianity, in which, as a matter of fact, the Messiah rules over non-Jewish peoples. The second question now presents itself: Is the universal sacrifice thus promised "in every place" to be only a purely spiritual offering of prayer, in other words a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, such as Protestanism is content with; or is it to be a true sacrifice in the strict sense, as the Catholic Church maintains? It is forthwith clear that abolition and substitution must correspond, and accordingly that the old real sacrifice cannot be displaced by a new unreal sacrifice. Moreover, prayer, adoration, thanksgiving, etc., are far from being a new offering, for they are permanent realities common to every age, and constitute the indispensable foundation of every religion whether before or after the Messiah. The last doubt is dispelled by the Hebrew text, which has no fewer than three classic sacerdotal declarations referring to the promised sacrifice, thus designedly doing away with the possibility of interpreting it metaphorically. Especially important is a substantive Hebrew word for "sacrifice". Although in its origin the generic term for every sacrifice, the bloody included (cf.Gen., iv, 4 sq.; I Kings, ii, 17), it was not only never used to indicate an unreal sacrifice (such as a prayer offering), but even became the technical term for an unbloody sacrifice (mostly food offerings), in contradistinction to the bloody sacrifice which is given the name of Sebach. As to the third and last proposition, no lengthy demonstration is needed to show that the sacrifice of Malachias cannot be formally identified with the Sacrifice of the Cross. This interpretation is at once contradicted by the Minchah, i.e. unbloody (food) offering. Then, there are other cogent considerations based on fact. Though a real sacrifice, belonging to the time of the Messiah and the most powerful means conceivable for glorifying the Divine name, the Sacrifice of the Cross, so far from being offered "in every place" and among non-Jewish peoples, was confined to Golgotha and the midst of the Jewish people. Nor can the Sacrifice of the Cross, which was accomplished by the Saviour in person without the help of a human representative priesthood, be identified with that sacrifice for the offering of which the Messiah makes use of priests after the manner of the Levites, in every place and at all times. Furthermore, he wilfully shuts his eyes against the light, who denies that the prophecy of Malachias is fulfilled to the letter in the Sacrifice of the Mass. In it are united all the characteristics of the promised sacrifice: its unbloody sacrificial rite as genuine Minchah, its universality in regard to place and time its extension to non-Jewish peoples, its delegated priesthood differing from that of the Jews, its essential unity by reason of the identity of the Chief Priest and the Victim (Christ), and its intrinsic and essential purity which no Levitical or moral uncleanliness can defile. Little wonder that the Council of Trent should say (Sess XXII, cap.i): "This is that pure oblation, which cannot be defiled by unworthiness and impiety on the part of those who offer it, and concerning which God has predicted through Malachias, that there would be offered up a clean oblation in every place to His Name, which would be great among the Gentiles (see Denzinger, n. 339). 2. New Testament Passing now to the proofs contained in the New Testament, we may begin by remarking that many dogmatic writers see in the dialogue of Jesus with the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well a prophetic reference to the Mass (John, iv, 21 sqq): Woman believe me, that the hour cometh, when you shall neither on this mountain [Garizim] nor in Jerusalem, adore the Father.... But the hour cometh and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth." Since the point at issue between the Samaritans and the Jews related, not to the ordinary, private offering of prayer practised everywhere, but to the solemn, public worship embodied in a real Sacrifice, Jesus really seems to refer to a future real sacrifice of praise, which would not be confined in its liturgy to the city Jerusalem but would captivate the whole world (see Bellarmine, "De Euchar., v, 11). Not without good reason do most commentators appeal to Heb., xiii, 10: We have an altar [ Thysiastesion, altare], whereof they have no power to eat [ Phagein, edere], who serve the tabernacle." Since St. Paul has just contrasted the Jewish food offering (Bromasin, escis) and Christian altar food, the partaking of which was denied to the Jews, the inference is obvious: where is an altar, there is a sacrifice. But the Eucharist is the food which the Christians alone are permitted to eat: therefore there is a Eucharistic sacrifice. The objection that, in Apostolic times, the term altar was not yet used in the sense of the "Lord's table" (cf. I Cor., x, 21) is clearly a begging of the question, since Paul might well have been the first to introduce the name, it being adopted from him by later writers (e.g. Ignatius of Antioch died A.D. 107). It can scarcely be denied that the entirely mystical explanation of the "spiritual food from the altar of the cross", favoured by St. Thomas Aquinas, Estius, and Stentrup, is far-fetched. It might on the other hand appear still more strange that in the passage of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where Christ and Melchisedech are compared, the two food offerings should be only not placed in prophetical relation with each other but not even mentioned. The reason, however, is not far to seek: parallel lay entirely outside the scope of the argument. All that St. Paul desired to show was that the high priesthood of Christ was superior to the Levitical priesthood of the Old Testament (cf. Heb., vii, 4 sqq.), and this is fully demonstrated by proving that Aaron and his priesthood stood far below the unattainable height of Melchisedech. So much the more, therefore, must Christ as "priest according to the order of Melchisedech" excel the Levitical priesthood. The peculiar dignity of Melchisedech, however, was manifested not through the fact that he made a food offering of bread and wine, a thing which the Levites also were able to do, but chiefly through the fact that he blessed the great "Father Abraham and received the tithes from him". The main testimony of the New Testament lies in the account of the institution of the Eucharist, and most clearly in the words of consecration spoken over the chalice. For this reason we shall consider these words first, since thereby, owing to the analogy between the two formulas clearer light will be thrown on the meaning of the words of consecration spoken over the chalice. For this reason we shall consider these words first, since thereby, owing to the analogy between the two formulae, clearer light will be thrown on the meaning of the words of consecration pronounced over the bread. For the sake of clearness and easy comparison we subjoin the four passages in Greek and English: + Matt., xxvi, 28: Touto gar estin to aima mou to tes [kaines] diathekes to peri pollon ekchynnomenon eis aphesin amartion. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. + Mark, xiv, 24: Touto estin to aima mou tes kaines diathekes to yper pollon ekchynnomenon. This is my blood of the new testament which shall be shed for many. + Luke, xxii, 20: Touto to poterion he kaine diatheke en to aimati mou, to yper ymon ekchynnomenon. This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. + I Cor., xi, 25: Touto to poterion he kaine diatheke estin en to emo aimati. This chalice is the new testament in my blood. The Divine institution of the sacrifice of the altar is proved by showing + that the "shedding of blood" spoken of in the text took place there and then and not for the first time on the cross; + that it was a true and real sacrifice; + that it was considered a permanent institution in the Church. The present form of the participle ekchynnomenon in conjunction with the present estin establishes the first point. For it is a grammatical rule of New Testament Greek, that, when the double present is used (that is, in both the participle and the finite verb, as is the case here), the time denoted is not the distant or near future, but strictly the present (see Fr. Blass, "Grammatik des N. T. Griechisch", p. 193, Gottingen, 1896). This rule does not apply to other constructions of the present tense, as when Christ says earlier (John, xiv, 12): I go (poreuomai) to the father". Alleged exceptions to the rule are not such in reality, as, for instance, Matt., vi, 30: "And if the grass of the field, which is today and tomorrow is cast into the oven (ballomenon) God doth so clothe (amphiennysin): how much more you, O ye of little faith?" For in this passage it is a question not of something in the future but of something occurring every day. When the Vulgate translates the Greek participles by the future (effundetur, fundetur), it is not at variance with facts, considering that the mystical shedding of blood in the chalice, if it were not brought into intimate relation with the physical shedding of blood on the cross, would be impossible and meaningless; for the one is the essential presupposition and foundation of the other. Still, from the standpoint of philology, effunditur (funditur) ought to be translated into the strictly present, as is really done in many ancient codices. The accuracy of this exegesis is finally attested in a striking way by the Greek wording in St. Luke: to poterion . . . ekchynnomenon. Here the shedding of blood appears as taking place directly in the chalice, and therefore in the present. Overzealous critics, it is true, have assumed that there is here a grammatical mistake, in that St. Luke erroneously connects the "shedding" with the chalice (poterion), instead of with "blood" (to aimati) which is in the dative. Rather than correct this highly cultivated Greek, as though he were a school boy, we prefer to assume that he intended to use synecdoche, a figure of speech known to everybody, and therefore put the vessel to indicate its contents. As to the establishment of our second proposition, believing Protestants and Anglicans readily admit that the phrase: "to shed one's blood for others unto the remission of sins" is not only genuinely Biblical language relating to sacrifice, but also designates in particular the sacrifice of expiation (cf. Lev., vii 14; xiv, 17; xvii, 11; Rom. iii, 25, v, 9; Heb. ix, 10, etc.). They, however, refer this sacrifice of expiation not to what took place at the Last Supper, but to the Crucifixion the day after. From the demonstration given above that Christ, by the double consecration of bread and wine mystically separated His Blood from His Body and thus in a chalice itself poured out this Blood in a sacramental way, it is at once clear that he wished to solemnize the Last Supper not as a sacrament merely but also as a Eucharistic Sacrifice. If the "pouring out of the chalice" is to mean nothing more than the sacramental drinking of the Blood, the result is an intolerable tautology: "Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood, which is being drunk". As, however, it really reads "Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood, which is shed for many (you) unto remission of sins," the double character of the rite as sacrament and sacrifice is evident. The sacrament is shown forth in the "drinking", the sacrifice in the "shedding of blood". "The blood of the new testament", moreover, of which all the four passages speak, has its exact parallel in the analogous institution of the 0ld Testament through Moses. For by Divine command he sprinkled the people with the true blood of an animal and added, as Christ did, the words of institution (Ex., xxiv, 8): "This is the blood of the covenant (Sept.: idou to aima tes diathekes) which the Lord hath made with you". St. Paul, however, (Heb., ix, 18 sq.) after repeating this passage, solemnly demonstrates (ibid., ix, 11 sq) the institution of the New Law through the blood shed by Christ at the crucifixion; and the Savior Himself, with equal solemnity, says of the chalice: This is My Blood of the new testament ". It follows therefore that Christ had intended His true Blood in the chalice not only to be imparted as a sacrament, but to be also a sacrifice for the remission of sins. With the last remark our third statement, viz. as to the permanency of the institution in the Church, is also established. For the duration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is indissolubly bound up with the duration of the sacrament. Christ's Last Supper thus takes on the significance of a Divine institution whereby the Mass is established in His Church. St. Paul (I Cor., xi, 25), in fact, puts into the mouth of the Savior the words: "This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me". We are now in a position to appreciate in their deeper sense Christ's words of consecration over the bread. Since only St. Luke and St. Paul have made additions to the sentence, "This is My Body", it is only on them that we can base our demonstration. + Luke, xxii, 19: Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis datur; touto esti to soma mou to uper umon didomenon; This is my body which is given for you. + I Cor., xi, 24: Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur; touto mou esti to soma to uper umon [klomenon]; This is my body which shall be broken for you. Once more, we maintain that the sacrifical "giving of the body" (in organic unity of course with the "pouring of blood" in the chalice) is here to be interpreted as a present sacrifice and as a permanent institution in the Church. Regarding the decisive point, i.e. indication of what is actually taking place, it is again St. Luke who speaks with greatest clearness, for to soma he adds the present participle, didomenon by which he describes the "giving of the body" as something happening in the present, here and now, not as something to be done in the near future. The reading klomenon in St. Paul is disputed. According to the best critical reading (Tischendorf, Lachmann) the participle is dropped altogether so that St. Paul probably wrote: to soma to uper umon (the body for you, i.e. for your salvation). There is good reason, however, for regarding the word klomenon (from klan to break) as Pauline, since St. Paul shortly before spoke of the "breaking of bread" (I Cor, x, 16), which for him meant "to offer as food the true body of Christ". From this however we may conclude that the "breaking of the body" not only confines Christ's action to the strictly present, especially as His natural Body could not be "broken" on the cross (cf. Ex, xii, 46; John, xix, 32 sq), but also implies the intention of offering a "body broken for you" (uper umon) i.e. the act constituted in itself a true food offering. All doubt as to its sacrificial character is removed by the expresslon didomenon in St. Luke, which the Vulgate this time quite correctly translates into the present: "quod pro vobis datur." But "to give one's body for others" is as truly a Biblical expression for sacrifice (cf. John, vi, 52; Rom., vii, 4; Col., i, 22: Heb, x, 10, etc.) as the parallel phrase, "the shedding of blood". Christ, therefore, at the least Supper offered up His Body as an unbloody sacrifice. Finally, that He commanded the renewal for all time of the Eucharistic sacrifice through the Church is clear from the addition: "Do this for a commemoration of me" (Luke, xxxii, 19; I Cor, xi, 24). B. Proof from Tradition Harnack is of opinion that the early Church up to the time of Cyprian (d. 258) the contented itself with the purely spiritual sacrifices of adoration and thanksgiving and that it did not possess the sacrifice of the Mass, as Catholicism now understands it. In a series of writings, Dr. Wieland, a Catholic priest, likewise maintained in the face of vigorous opposition from other theologians, that the early Christians confined the essence of the Christian sacrifice to a subjective Eucharistic prayer of thanksgiving, till Irenaeus (d. 202) brought forward the idea of an objective offering of gifts, and especially of bread and wine. He, according to this view, was the first to include in his expanded conception of sacrifice, the entirely new idea of material offerings (i.e. the Eucharistic elements) which up to that time the early Church had formally repudiated. Were this assertion correct, the doctrine of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, c. ii), according to which in the Mass "the priests offer up, in obedience to the command of Christ, His Body and Blood" (see Denzinger, "Enchir", n. 949), could hardly take its stand on Apostolic tradition; the bridge between antiquity and the present would thus have broken by the abrupt intrusion of a completely contrary view. An impartial study of the earliest texts seems indeed to make this much clear, that the early Church paid most attention to the spiritual and subjective side of sacrifice and laid chief stress on prayer and thanksgiving in the Eucharistic function. This admission, however, is not identical with the statement that the early Church rejected out and out the objective sacrifice, and acknowledged as genuine only the spiritual sacrifice as expressed in the "Eucharistic thanksgiving". That there has been an historical dogmatic development from the indefinite to the definite, from the implicit to the explicit, from the seed to the fruit, no one familiar with the subject will deny. An assumption so reasonable, the only one in fact consistent with Christianity, is, however, fundamently different from the hypothesis that the Christian idea of sacrifice has veered from one extreme to the other. This is a priori improbable and unproved in fact. In the Didache or "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles", the oldest post-Biblical literary monument (c. A.D. 96), not only is the" breaking of bread" (cf. Acts, xx, 7) referred to as a "sacrifice" (Thysia) and mention made of reconciliation with one's enemy before the sacrifice (cf. Matt., v, 23), but the whole passage is crowned with an actual quotation of the prophecy of Malachias, which referred, as is well known, to an objective and real sacrifice (Didache, c. xiv). The early Christians gave the name of "sacrifice"; not only to the Eucharistic "thanksgiving," but also to the entire ritual celebration including the liturgical "breaking of bread", without at first distinguishing clearly between the prayer and the gift (Bread and Wine, Body and Blood). When Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107), a disciple of the Apostles, says of the Eucharist: "There is only one flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ, only one chalice containing His one Blood, one altar (en thysiasterion), as also only one bishop with the priesthood and the deacons" (Ep., ad. Philad. iv), he here gives to the liturgical Eucharistic celebration, of which alone he speaks, by his reference to the "altar" an evidently sacrificial meaning, often as he may use the word "altar" in other contexts in a metaphorical sense. A heated controversy had raged round the conception of Justin Martyr (d. 166) from the fact that in his "Dialogue with Tryphon" (c. 117) he characterizes "prayer and thanksgiving" (euchai kai eucharistiai) as the "one perfect sacrifice acceptable to God" (teleiai monai kai euarestoi thysiai). Did he intend by thus emphasizing the interior spiritual sacrifice to exclude the exterior real sacrifice of the Eucharist? Clearly he did not, for in the same "Dialogue" (c. 41) he says the "food offering" of the lepers, assuredly a real gift offering (cf. Levit, xiv), was a figure (typos) of the bread of the Eucharist, which Jesus commanded to be offered (poiein) in commemoration of His sufferings." He then goes on: "of the sacrifices which you (the Jews) formerly offered, God through Malachias said: 'I have no pleasure, etc'. By the sacrifices (thysion), however, which we Gentiles present to Him in every place, that is (toutesti) of the bread of Eucharist and likewise of the chalice Eucharist, he then said that we glorify his name, while you dishonour him". Here "bread and chalice" are by the use of toutesti clearly included as objective gift offerings in the idea of the Christian sacrifice. If the other apologists (Aristides, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Arnobius) vary the thought a great deal -- God has no need of sacrifice; the best sacrifice is the knowledge of the Creator; sacrifice and altars are unknown to the Christians -- it is to be presumed not only that under the imposed by the disciplina arcani they withheld the whole truth, but also that they rightly repudiated all connection with pagan idolatry, the sacrifice of animals, and heathen altars. Tertullian bluntly declared: "we offer no sacrifice (non sacrificamus) because we cannot eat both the Supper of God and that of demons" (De spectac., c., xiii). And yet in another passage (De orat., c., xix) he calls Holy Communion "participation in the sacrifice" (participatio sacrificii), which is accomplished "on the altar of God" (ad aram Dei); he speaks (De cult fem., II, xi) of a real, not a mere metaphorical, "offering up of sacrifice" (sacrificium offertur); he dwells still further as a Montanist (de pudicit, c., ix) as well on the "nourishing power of the Lord's Body" (opimitate dominici corporis) as on the "renewal of the immolation of Christ" (rursus illi mactabitur Christus). With Irenaeus of Lyons there comes a turning point, in as much as he, with conscious clearness, first puts forward "bread and wine" as objective gift offerings, but at the same time maintains that these elements become the "body and blood" of the Word through consecration, and thus by simply combining these two thoughts we have the Catholic Mass of today. According to him (Adv. haer., iv, 18, 4) it is the Church alone "that offers the pure oblation" (oblationem puram offert), whereas the Jews "did not receive the Word, which is offered (or through whom an offering is made) to God" (non receperunt Verbum quod [ aliter, per quod] offertur Deo). Passing over the teaching of the Alexandrine Clement and Origen, whose love of allegory, together with the restrictions of the disciplina arcani, involved their writings in mystic obscurity, we make particular mention of Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) whose celebrated fragment Achelis has wrongly characterized as spurious. He writes (Fragm. in Prov., ix, i, P. G., LXXX, 593), "The Word prepared His Precious and immaculate Body (soma) and His Blood (aima), that daily kath'ekasten) are set forth as a sacrifice (epitelountai thyomena) on the mystic and Divine table (trapeze) as a memorial of that ever memorable first table of the mysterious supper of the Lord". Since according to the judgment of even Protestant historians of dogma, St. Cyprian (d. 258) is to be regarded as the "herald" of Catholic doctrine on the Mass, we may likewise pass him over, as well as Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) and Chrysostom (d. 407) who have been charged with exaggerated "realism", and whose plain discourses on the sacrifice rival those of Basil (d. 379), Gregory of Nyssa (d. c. 394) and Ambrose (d. 397). Only about Augustine (d. 430) must a word be said, since, in regard to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist he is cited as favouring the "symbolical" theory. Now it is precisely his teaching on sacrifice that best serves to clear away the suspicion that he inclined to a merely spiritual interpretation. For Augustine nothing is more certain than that every religion, whether true or false, must have an exterior form of celebration and worship (Contra Faust., xix, 11). This applies as well to Christians (l. c., xx, 18), who "commemorate the sacrifice consummated (on the cross) by the holiest oblation and participation of the Body and Blood of Christ" (celebrant sacrosancta oblatione et participatione corporis et sanguinis Christi). The Mass is, in his eyes (De Civ. Dei, X, 20), the "highest and true sacrifice" (summum verumque sacrificium), Christ being at once "priest and victim" (ipse offerens, ipse et oblatio) and he reminds the Jews (Adv. Jud, ix, 13) that the sacrifice of Malachias is now made in every place (in omni loco offerri sacrificium Christianorum). He relates of his mother Monica (Confess., ix, 13) that she had asked for prayers at the altar (ad altare) for her soul and had attended Mass daily. From Augustine onwards the current of the Church's tradition flows smoothly along in a well-ordered channel, without check or disturbance, through the Middle Ages to our own time. Even the powerful attempt made to stem it through the Reformation had no effect. A briefer demonstration of the existence of the Mass is the so-called proof from prescription, which is thus formulated: A sacrificial rite in the Church which is older than the oldest attack made on it by heretics cannot be decried as "idolatry", but must be referred back to the Founder of Christianity as a rightful heritage of which He was the originator. Now the Church's legitimate possession as regards the Mass can be traced back to the beginnings of Christianity. It follows that the Mass was Divinely instituted by Christ. Regarding the minor proposition, the proof of which alone concerns us here, we may begin at once with the Reformation, the only movement that utterly did away with the Mass. Psychologically, it is quite intelligible that men like Zwingli, Karlstadt and Oecolampadius should tear down the altars, for they denied Christ's real presence in the Sacrament. Calvinism also in reviling the "papistical mass" which the Heidelberg catechism characterized as "cursed idolatry" was merely self-consistent since it admitted only a "dynamic" presence. It is rather strange on the other hand that, in spite of his belief in the literal meaning of the words of consecration, Luther, after a violent "nocturnal disputation with the devil", in 1521, should have repudiated the Mass. But it is exactly these measures of violence that best show to what a depth the institution of the Mass had taken root by that time in Church and people. How long had it been taking root? The answer, to begin with is: all through the Middle Ages back to Photius, the originator of the Eastern Schism (869). Though Wycliffe protested against the teaching of the Council of Constance (1414-18), which maintained that the Mass could be proved from Scripture; and though the Albigenses and Waldenses claimed for the laity also the power to offer sacrifice (cf. Denzinger, "Enchir.", 585 and 430), it is none the less true that even the schismatic Greeks held fast to the Eucharistic sacrifice as a precious heritage from their Catholic past. In the negotiations for reunion at Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439) they showed moreover that they had kept it intact; and they have faithfully safeguarded it to this day. From all which it is clear that the Mass existed in both Churches long before Photius, a conclusion borne out by the monuments of Christian antiquity. Taking a long step backwards from the ninth to the fourth century, we come upon the Nestorians and Monophysites who were driven out of the Church during the fifth century at Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). From that day to this they have celebrated in their solemn liturgy the sacrifice of the New Law, and since they could only have taken it with them from the old Christian Church, it follows that the Mass goes back in the Church beyond the time of Nestorianism and Monophysitism. Indeed, the first Nicene Council (325) in its celebrated eighteenth canon forbade priests to receive the Eucharist from the hands of deacons for the very obvious reason that "neither the canon nor custom have handed down to us, that those, who have not the power to offer sacrifice (prospherein) may give Christ's body to those who offer (prospherousi)". Hence it is plain that for the celebration of the Mass there was required the dignity of a special priesthood, from which the deacons as such were excluded. Since, however, the Nicene Council speaks of a "custom that takes us at once into the third century, we are already in the age of the Catacombs with their Eucharistic pictures, which according to the best founded opinions represent the liturgical celebration of the Mass. According to Wilpert, the oldest representation of the Holy Sacrifice is the "Greek Chapel" in the Catacomb of St. Priscilla (c. 150). The most convincing evidence, however, from those early days is furnished by the liturgies of the West and the East, the basic principles of which reach back to Apostolic times and in whch the sacrifical idea of the Eucharistic celebration found unadulterated and decisive expression (see LITURGIES). We have therefore traced the Masses from the present to the earliest times, thus establishing its Apostolic origin, which in turn goes back again to the Last Supper. II. THE NATURE OF THE MASS In its denial of the true Divinity of Christ and of every supernatural institution, modern unbelief endeavours, by means of he so-called historico-religious method, to explain the character of the Eucharist and the Eucharist sacrifice as the natural result of a spontaneous process of development in the Christian religion. In this connection it is interesting to observe how these different and conflicting hypotheses refute one another, with the rather startling result at the end of it all that a new, great, and insoluble problem looms of the investigation. While some discover the roots of the Mass in the Jewish funeral feasts (O. Holtzmann) or in Jewish Essenism (Bousset, Heitmuller, Wernle), others delve in the underground strata of pagan religions. Here, however, a rich variety of hypotheses is placed at their disposal. In this age of Pan-Babylonism it is not at all surprising that the germinal ideas of the Christian communion should be located in Babylon, where in the Adapa myth (on the tablet of Tell Amarna) mention has been found of "water of life" and "food of life" (Zimmern). Others (e.g. Brandt) fancy they have found a still more striking analogy in the "bread and water" (Patha and Mambuha) of the Mandaean religion. The view most widely held today among upholders of the historico-religious theory is that the Eucharist and the Mass originated in the practices of the Persian Mithraism (Dieterich, H. T. Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, Robertson, etc.). "In the Mandaean mass" writes Cumont ("Mysterien des Mithra", Leipzig, 1903, p.118), "the celebrant consecrated bread and water, which he mixed with perfumed Haoma-juice, and ate this food while performing the functions of divine service". Tertullian in anger ascribed this mimicking of Christian rites to the "devil" and observed in astonishment (De prescript haeret, C. xl): "celebrat (Mithras) et panis oblationem." This is not the place to criticize in detail these wild creations of an overheated imagination. Let it suffice to note that all these explanations necessarily lead to impenetrable night, as long as men refuse to believe in the true Divinity of Christ, who commanded that His bloody sacrifice on the Cross should be daily renewed by an unbloody sacrifice of His Body and Blood in the Mass under the simple elements of bread and wine. This alone is the origin and nature of the Mass. A. The Physical Character of the Mass In regard to the physical character there arises not only the question as to the concrete portions of the liturgy, in which the real offering lies hidden, but also the question regarding the relation of the Mass to the bloody sacrifice of the Cross. To begin with the latter question as much the more important, Catholics and believing Protestants alike acknowledge that as Christians we venerate in the bloody sacrifice of the Cross the one, universal, absolute Sacrifice for the salvation of the world. And this indeed is true in a double sense first, because among all the sacrifices of the past and future the Sacrifice on the Cross alone stands without any relation to, and absolutely independent of, any other sacrifice, a complete totality and unity in itself; second because every grace, means of grace and sacrifice, whether belonging to the Jewish, Christian or pagan economy, derive their whole undivided strength, value, and efficiency singly and alone from this absolute sacrifice on the Cross. The first consideration implies that all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, as well as the Sacrifice of the Mass, bear the essential mark of relativity, in so far as they are necessarily related to the Sacrifice of the Cross, as the periphery of a circle to the centre. From the second consideration it follows that all other Sacrifices, the Mass included, are empty, barren and void of effect, so far and so long as they are not supplied from the mainstream of merits (due to the suffering) of the Crucified. Let us deal briefly with this double relationship. Regarding the qualification of relativity, which adheres to every sacrifice other than the sacrifice of the Cross, there is no doubt that the sacrifices of the Old Testament by their figurative forms and prophetic significance point to the sacrifice of the Cross as their eventual fulfilment. The Epistle to the Hebrews (viii-x) in particular develops grandly the figurative character of the Old Testament. Not only was the Levitie priesthood, as a "shadow of the things to come" a faint type of the high priesthood of Christ, but the complex sacrificial cult, broadly spread out in its parts, prefigured the one sacrifice of the Cross. Serving only the legal "cleansing of the flesh" the Levitical sacrifices could effect no true "forgiveness of sins"; by their very inefficacy however they point prophetically to the perfect Sacrifice of propitiation on Golgotha. Just for that reason their continual repetition as well as their great diversity was essential to them, as a means of keeping alive in the Jews the yearning for the true sacrifice of expiation which the future was to bring. This longing was satiated only by the single Sacrifice of the Cross, which was never again to be repeated. Naturally the Mass, too, if it is to have the character of a legitimate sacrifice must be in accord with this inviolable rule, no longer Indeed as a type prophetic of future things, but rather as the living realization and renewal of the past. Only the Last Supper, standing midway as it were between the figure and its fulfilment, still looked to the future, in so far as it was an anticipatory commemoration of the sacrifice of the Cross. In the discourse in which the Eucharist was instituted, the "giving of the body" and the "Shedding of the Blood" were of necessity related to the physical separation of the blood from the body on the Cross, without which the sacramental immolation of Christ at the Last Supper would be inconceivable. The Fathers of the Church, such as Cyprian (Ep., lxiii, 9), Ambrose (De offic., I, xlviii), Augustine (Contra Faust., XX, xviii) and Gregory the Great (Dial., IV, lviii), insist that the Mass in its essential nature must be that which Christ Himself characterized as a "commemoration" of Him (Luke, xxii, 19) and Paul as the "showing of the death of the Lord" (I Cor, xi, 26). Regarding the other aspect of the Sacrifice on the Cross, viz. the impossibility of its renewal, its singleness and its power, Paul again proclaimed with energy that Christ on the Cross definitively redeemed the whole world, in that he "by His own Blood, entered once into the holier having obtained eternal redemption" (Heb., ix 12). This does not mean that mankind is suddenly and without the action of its own will brought back to the state of innocence in Paradise and set above the necessity of working to secure for itself the fruits of redemption. Otherwise children would be in no need of baptism nor adults of justifying faith to win eternal happiness. The "completion" spoken of by Paul can therefore refer only to the objective side of redemption, which does not dispense with, but on the contrary requires, the proper subjective disposition. The sacrifice once offered on the Cross filled the infinite reservoirs to overflowing with healing waters but those who thirst after justice must come with their chalices and draw out what they need to quench their thirst. In this important distinction between objective and subjective redemption, which belongs to the essence of Christianity, lies not merely the possibility, but also the justification of the Mass. But here unfortunately Catholics and Protestants part company. The latter can see in the Mass only a "denial of the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ". This is a wrong view, for if the Mass can do and does no more than convey the merits of Christ to mankind by means of a sacrifice exactly as the sacraments do it without the use of sacrifice, it stands to reason that the Mass is neither a second independent sacrifice alongside of the sacrifice on the Cross, nor a substitute whereby the sacrifice on the Cross is completed or its value enhanced. The only distinction between the Mass and the sacrament lies in this: that the latter applies to the individual the fruits of the Sacrifice on the Cross by simple distribution, the other by a specific offering. In both, the Church draws upon the one Sacrifice on the Cross. This is and remains the one Sun, that gives life, light and warmth to everything; the sacraments and the Mass are only the planets that revolve round the central body. Take the Sun away and the Mass is annihilated not one whit less than the sacraments. On the other hand, without these two the Sacrifice on the Cross would reign as independently as, conceivably the sun without the planets. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, can. iv) therefore rightly protested against the reproach that "the Mass is a blasphemy against or a derogation from the Sacrifice on the Cross" (cf. Denzinger, "Enchir.", 951). Must not the same reproach be cast upon the Sacraments also? Does it not apply to baptism and communion among Protestants? And how can Christ Himself put blasphemy and darkness in the way of His Sacrifice on the Cross when He Himself is the High Priest, in whose name and by whose commission His human representative offers sacrifice with the words: "This is my Body, this is my Blood"? It is the express teaching of the Church (cf. Trent, Sess. XXII, i) that the Mass is in its very nature a "representation" (representatio), a "commemoration" (memoria) and an "application" (applicatio) of the Sacrifice of the Cross. When indeed the Roman Catechism (II, c. iv, Q. 70) as a fourth relation, adopts the daily repetition (instauratio), it means that such a repetition is to be taken not in the sense of multiplication, but simply of an application of the merits of the Passion. Just as the Church repudiates nothing so much as the suggestion that by the Mass the sacrifice on the Cross is as it were set aside, so she goes a step farther and maintains the essential identity of both sacrifices, holding that the main difference between them is in the different manner of sacrifice -- the one bloody the other unbloody (Trent, Sess. XXII, ii): "Una enim eademque est hostia idem nunc offerens sacerdotum ministerio, qui seipsum tunc in cruce obtulit, sofa offerendi ratione diversa". In as much as the sacrificing priest (offerens) and the sacrificial victim (hostia) in both sacrifices are Christ Himself, their same amounts even to a numerical identity. In regard to the manner of the sacrifice (offerendi ratio) on the other hand, it is naturally a question only of a specific identity or unity that includes the possibility of ten, a hundred, or a thousand masses. B. The Constituent Parts of the Mass Turning now to the other question as to the constituent parts of the liturgy of the Mass in which the real sacrifice is to be looked for we need only take into consideration its three chief parts: the Offertory, the Consecration and the Communion. The antiquated view of Johann Eck, according to which the act of sacrifice was comprised in the prayer "Unde et memores . . . offerimus", is thus excluded from our discussion, as is also the of Melchior Canus, who held that the sacrifice is accomplished in the symbolical ceremony of the breaking of the Host and its commingling with the Chalice. The question therefore arises first: Is the sacrifice comprised in the Offertory? From the wording of the prayer this much at least is clear that bread and wine constitute the secondary sacrificial elements of the Mass, since the priest in the true language of sacrifice, offers to God bread as an unspotted host (immaculatam hostiam) and wine as the chalice of salvation (calicem salutaris). But the very significance of this language proves that attention is mainly directed to the prospective transubstantiation of the Eucharistic elements. Since the Mass is not a mere offering of bread and wine, like the figurative food offering of Melchisedech, it is clear that only the Body and Blood of Christ can be the primary matter of the sacrifice as was the case at the Last Supper (cf. Trent, Sess. XXII, i, can. 2; Denzinger, n. 938, 949). Consequently the sacrifice is not in the Offertory. Does it consist then in the priest's Communion? There were and are theologians who favour that view. They can be ranged in two classes, according as they see in the Communion the essential or the co-essentlal. Those who belong to the first category (Dominicus Soto, Renz, Bellord) had to beware of the heretical doctrine proscribed by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, can. 1), viz., that Mass and Communion were identical. In American and English circles the so-called "banquet theory" of the late Bishop Bellord once created some stir (cf. The Ecclesiastical Review, XXXIII, 1905, 258 sq). According to that view, the essence of the sacrifice was not to be looked for in the offering of a gift to God, but solely in the Communion. Without communion there was no sacrifice. Regarding pagan sacrifices Döllinger ("Heidentum und Judentum", Ratisbon 1857) had already demonstrated the incompatibility of this view. With the complete shedding of blood pagan sacrifices ended, so that the supper which sometimes followed it was expressive merely of the satisfaction felt at the reconciliation with gods. Even the horrible human sacrifices had as their object the death of the victim only and not a cannibal feast. As to the Jews, only a few Levitical sacrifices, such as the peace offering, had feasting connected with them; most, and especially the burnt offerings (holocausta), were accomplished without feasting (cf. Levlt., vi, 9 sq.). Bishop Bellord, having cast in his lot with the "banquet theory", could naturally find the essence of the Mass in the priests' Communion only. He was indeed logically bound to allow that the Crucifixion itself had the character of a sacrifice only in conjunction with the Last Supper, at which alone food was taken; for the Crucifixion excluded any ritual food offering. These disquieting consequences are all the more serious in that they are devoid of any scientific basis. Harmless, even though improbable, is that other view (Bellarmine, De Lugo, Tournely, etc.) which includes the Communion as at least a co-essential factor in the constitution of the Mass; for the consumption of the Host and of the contents of the Chalice, being a kind of destruction, would appear to accord with the conception of the sacrifice developed above. But only in appearance; for the sacrificial transformation of the victim must take place on the altar, and not in the body of the celebrant, while the partaking of the two elements can at most represent the burial and not the sacrificial death of Christ. The Last Supper also would have been a true sacrifice only on condition that Christ had given the Communion not only to His apostles but also to Himself. There is however no evidence that such a Communion ever took place, probable as it may appear. For the rest, the Communion of the priest is not the sacrifice, but only the completion of, and participation in, the sacrifice, it belongs therefore not to the essence, but to the integrity of the sacrifice. And this integrity is also preserved absolutely even in the so-called "private Mass" at which the priest alone communicates; private Masses are allowed for that reason (cf. Trent, Sess. XXII, can. 8). When the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia (1786), proclaiming the false principle that "participation in the sacrifice is essential to the sacrifice", demanded at least the making of a "spiritual communion" on the part of the faithful as a condition of allowing private Masses, it was denied by Pius VI in his Bull "Auctorem fidei" (1796) (see Denzinger, n. 1528). After the elimination of the Offertory and Communion, there remains only the Consecration as the part in which the true sacrifice is to be sought. In reality, that part alone is to be regarded as the proper sacrificial act which is such by Christ's own institution. Now the Lord's words are: "This is my Body; this is my Blood." The Oriental Epiklesis cannot be considered as the moment of consecration for the reason that it is absent in the Mass in the West and is known to have first come into practice after Apostolic times (see Eucharist). The sacrifice must also be at the point where Christ personally appears as High Priest and human celebrant acts only as his representative. The priest does not however assume the personal part of Christ either at the Offertory or Communion. He only does so when he speaks the words: "This is My Body; this is My Blood", in which there is no possible reference to the body and blood of the celebrant. While the Consecration as such can be shown with certainty to be the act of Sacrifice, the necessity of the twofold consecration can be demonstrated only as highly probable. Not only older theologlans such as Frassen, Gotti, and Bonacina, but also later theologians such as Schouppen, Stentrup and Fr. Schmid, have supported the untenable theory that when one of the consecrated elements is invalid, such as barley bread or cider, the consecration of the valid element not only produces the Sacrament, but also the (mutilated) sacrifice. Their chief argument is that the sacrament in the Eucharist is inseparable in idea from the sacrifice. But they entirely overlooked the fact that Christ positively prescribed the twofold conscration for the sacrifice of the Mass (not for the sacrament), and especially the fact that in the consecration of one element only the intrinsically essential relation of the Mass to the sacrifice of the Cross is not symbolically represented. Since it was no mere death from suffocation that Christ suffered, but a bloody death, in which His veins were emptied of their Blood, this condition of separation must receive visible representation on the altar, as in a sublime drama. This condition is fulfilled only by the double consecration, which brings before our eyes the Body and the Blood in the state of separation, and thus represents the mystical shedding of blood. Consequently, the double consecration is an absolutely essential element of the Mass as a relative sacrifice. B. The Metaphysical Character of the Sacrifice of the Mass The physical essence of the Mass having been established in the consecration of the two species, the metaphysical question arises as to whether and in what degree the scientific concept of sacrifice is realized in this double consecration. Since the three ideas, sacrificing priest, sacrificial gift, and sacrificial object, present no difficulty to the understanding, the problem is finally seen to lie entirely in the determination of the real sacrificial act (actio sacrifica), and indeed not so much in the form of this act as in the matter, since the glorified Victim, in consequence of Its impassibility, cannot be really transformed, much less destroyed. In their investigation of the idea of destruction, the post-Tridentine theologians have brought into play all their acuteness, often with brilliant results, and have elaborated a series of theories concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass, of which, however, we can discuss only the most notable and important. But first, that we may have at hand a reliable, critical standard wherewith to test the validity or invalidity of the various theories, we maintain that a sound and satisfactory theory must satisfy the following four conditions: + the twofold consecration must show not only the relative, but also the absolute moment of sacrifice, so that the Mass will not consist in a mere relation, but will be revealed as in itself a real sacrifice; + the act of sacrifice (actio sacrifica), veiled in the double consecration, must refer directly to the sacrificial matter -- i.e. the Eucharistic Christ Himself -- not to the elements of bread and wine or their unsubstantial species; + the sacrifice of Christ must somehow result in a kenosis, not in a glorification, since this latter is at most the object of the sacrifice, not the sacrifice itself; + since this postulated kenosis, however, can be no real, but only a mystical or sacramental one, we must appraise intelligently those moments which approximate in any degree the "mystical slaying" to a real exinanition, instead of rejecting them. With the aid of these four criteria it is comparatively easy to arrive at a decision concerning the probability or otherwise of the different theories concerning the sacrifice of the Mass. (i) The Jesuit Gabriel Vasquez, whose theory was supported by Perrone in the last century, requires for the essence of an absolute sacrifice only -- and thus, in the present case, for the Sacrifice of the Cross -- a true destruction or the real slaying of Christ, whereas for the idea of the relative sacrifice of the Mass it suffices that the former slaying on the Cross be visibly represented in the separation of Body and Blood on the altar. This view soon found a keen critic in Cardinal de Lugo, who, appealing to the Tridentine definition of the Mass as a true and proper sacrifice, upbraided Vasquez for reducing the Mass to a purely relative sacrifice. Were Jephta to arise again today with his daughter from the grave, he argues (De Euchar, disp. xix, sect. 4, n. 58), and present before our eyes a living dramatic reproduction of the slaying of his daughter after the fashion of a tragedy, we would undoubtedly see before us not a true sacrifice, but a historic or dramatic representation of the former bloody sacrifice. Such may indeed satisfy the notion of a relative sacrifice, but certainly not the notion of the Mass which includes in itself both the relative and the absolute (in opposition to the merely relative) sacrificial moment. If the Mass is to be something more than an Ober-Ammergau Passion Play, then not only must Christ appear in His real personality on the altar, but He must also be in some manner really sacrificed on that very altar. The theory of Vasquez thus fails to fulfil the first condition which we have named above. To a certain extent the opposite of Vasquez's theory is that of Cardinal Cienfuegos, who, while exaggerating the absolute moment of the Mass, undervalues the equally essential relative moment of the sacrifice. The sacrificial destruction of the Eucharistic Christ he would find in the voluntary suspension of the powers of sense (especially of sight and hearing), which the sacramental mode of existence implies, and which lasts from the consecration to the mingling of the two Species. But, apart from the fact that one may not constitute a hypothetical theologumenon the basis of a theory, one can no longer from such a standpoint successfully defend the indispensability of the double consecration. Equally difficult is it to find in the Eucharistic Christ's voluntary surrender of his sensitive functions the relative moment of sacrifice, i.e. the representation of the bloody sacrifice of the Cross. The standpoint of Suarez, adopted by Scheeben, is both exalting and imposing; the real transformation of the sacrificial gifts he refers to the destruction of the Eucharistic elements (in virtue of the transubstantiation) at their conversion into the Precious Body and Blood of Christ (immulatio perfectiva), just as, in the sacrifice of incense in the Old Testament, the grains of incense were transformed by fire into the higher and more precious form of the sweetest odour and fragrance. But, since the antecedent destruction of the substance of bread and wine can by no means be regarded as the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, Suarez is finally compelled to identify the substantial production of the Eucharistic Victim with the sacrificing of the same. Herein is straightway revealed a serious weakness, already clearly perceived by De Lugo. For the production of a thing can never be identical with its sacrifice; otherwise one might declare the gardener's production of plants or the farmer's raising of cattle a sacrifice. Thus, the idea of kenosis which in the minds of all men is intimately linked with the notion of sacrifice, and which we have given above as our third condition, is wanting in the theory of Suarez. To offer something as a sacrifice always means to divest oneself of it, even though this self-divestment may finally lead to exaltation. In Germany the profound, but poorly developed theory of Valentin Thalhofer found great favour. We need not, however, develop it here, especially since it rests on the false basis of a supposed "heavenly sacrifice" of Christ, which, as the virtual continuation of the Sacrifice of the Cross, becomes a temporal and spatial phenomenon in the Sacrifice of the Mass. But, as practically all other theologians teach, the existence of this heavenly sacrifice (in the strict sense) is only a beautiful theological dream, and at any rate cannot be demonstrated from the Epistle to the Hebrews. (ii) Disavowing the above-mentioned theories concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass, theologians of today are again seeking a closer approximation to the pre-Tridentine conception, having realized that post-Tridentine theology had perhaps for polemical reasons needlessly exaggerated the idea of destruction in the sacrifice. The old conception, which our catechisms even today proclaim to the people as the most natural and intelligible, may be fearlessly declared the patristic and traditional view; its restoration to a position of general esteem is the service of Father Billot (De sacram., I, 4th ed., Rome, 1907, pp. 567 sqq.). Since this theory refers the absolute moment of the sacrifice to the (active) "sacramental mystical slaying", and the relative to the (passive) "separation of Body and Blood", it has indeed made the "two-edged sword" of the double consecration the cause from which the double character of the Mass as an absolute (real in itself) and relative sacrifice proceeds. We have an absolute sacrifice, for the Victim is -- not indeed in specie propria, but in specie aliena -- sacramentally slain, we have also a relative sacrifice, since the sacramental separation of Body and Blood represents perceptibly the former shedding of Blood on the Cross. While this view meets every requirement of the metaphysical nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass, we do not think it right to reject offhand the somewhat more elaborate theory of Lessius instead of utilizing it in the spirit of the traditional view for the extension of the idea of a "mystical slaying". Lessius (De perfect. moribusque div. XII, xiii) goes beyond the old explanation by adding the not untrue observation that the intrinsic force of the double consecration would have as result an actual and true shedding of blood on the altar, if this were not per accidens impossible in consequence of the impassibility of the transfigured Body of Christ. Since ex vi verborum the consecration of the bread makes really present only the Body, and the consecration of the Chalice only the Blood, the tendency or the double consecration is towards a formal exclusion of the Blood from the Body. The mystical slaying thus approaches nearer to a real destruction and the absolute sacrificial moment of the Mass receives an important confirmation. In the light of this view, the celebrated statement of St. Gregory of Nazianzus becomes of special importance ("Ep. clxxi, ad Amphil." in P. G., XXXVII, 282): "Hesitate not to pray for me . . . when with bloodless stroke [ anaimakto tome] thou separatest [ temnes] the Body and Blood of the Lord; having speech as a sword [ phonen echon to Xiphos]." As an old pupil of Cardinal Franzelin (De Euchar., p. II, thes. xvi, Rome, 1887), the present writer may perhaps speak a good word for the once popular, but recently combatted theory of Cardinal De Hugo, which Franzelin revived after a long period of neglect; not however that he intends to proclaim the theory in its present form as entirely satisfactory, since, with much to recommend it, it has also serious defects. We believe, however, that this theory, like that of Lessius, might be most profitably utilized to develop, supplement, and deepen the traditional view. Starting from the principle that the Eucharistic destruction can be, not a physical but only a moral one, De Lugo finds this exinanition in the voluntary reduction of Christ to the condition of food (reductio ad statum cibi el potus), in virtue of which the Saviour, after the fashion of lifeless food, leaves himself at the mercy of mankind. That this is really equivalent to a true kenosis no one can deny. Herein the Christian pulpit has at its disposal a truly inexhaustible source of lofty thoughts wherewith to illustrate in glowing language the humility and love, the destitution and defencelessness of Our Saviour under the sacramental veil, His magnanimous submission to irreverence, dishonour, and sacrilege, and wherewith to emphasize that even today that fire of self-sacrifice which once burned on the Cross, still sends forth its tongues of flame in a mysterious manner from the Heart of Jesus to our altars. While, in this incomprehenslble condescension, the absolute moment of sacrifice is disclosed in an especially striking manner, one is reluctantly compelled to recognize the absence of two of the other requisites: in the first place, the necessity of the double consecration is not made properly apparent, since a single consecration would suffice to produce the condition of food, would therefore achieve the sacrifice; secondly, the reduction to the state of articles of food reveals not the faintest analogy to the blood -- shedding on the Cross, and thus the relative moment of the Sacrifice of the Mass is not properly dealt with. De Lugo's theory seems, therefore, of no service in this connection. It renders, howover, the most useful service in extending the traditional idea of a "mystical slaying", since indeed the reduction of Christ to food is and purports to be nothing else than the preparation of the mystically slain Victim for the sacrificial feast in the Communion of the priest and the faithful. III. THE CAUSALITY OF THE MASS In this section we shall treat: (a) the effects (effectus) of the Sacrifice of the Mass, which practically coincide with the various ends for which the Sacrifice is offered, namely adoration, thanksgiving, impetration, and expiation; (b) the manner of its efficacy (modus efliciendi), which lies in part objectively in the Sacrifice of the Mass itself (ex opere operato), and partly depends subjectively on the personal devotion and piety of man (ex opere operantis). A. The Effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass The Reformers found themselves compelled to reject entirely the Sacrifice of the Mass, since they recognized the Eucharist merely as a sacrament. Both their views were founded on the reflection, properly appraised above that the Bloody Sacrifice of the Cross was the sole Sacrifice of Christ and of Christendom and thus does not admit of the Sacrifice of the Mass. As a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving in the symbolical or figurative sense, they had earlier approved of the Mass, and Melanchthon resented the charge that Protestants had entirely abolished it. What they most bitterly opposed was the Catholic doctrine that the Mass is a sacrifice not only of praise and thanksgiving, but also of impetration and atonement, whose fruits may benefit others, while it is evident that a sacrament as such can profit merely the recipient. Here the Council of Trent interposed with a definition of faith (Sess. XXII, can. iii): "If any one saith, that the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. . . but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits only the recipient, and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema" (Denzinger, n. 950). In this canon, which gives a summary of all the sacrificial effects in order, the synod emphasizes the propitiatory and impetratory nature of the sacrifice. Propitiation (propitiatio) and petition (impetratio) are distinguishable from each other, in as much as the latter appeals to the goodness and the former to the mercy of God. Naturally, therefore, they differ also as regards their objects, since, while petition is directed towards our spiritual and temporal concerns and needs of every kind, propitiation refers to our sins (peccata) and to the temporal punishments (poenae), which must be expiated by works of penance or satisfaction (satisfactiones) in this life, or otherwise by a corresponding suffering in purgatory. In all these respects the impetratory and expiatory Sacrifice of the Mass is of the greatest utility, both for the living and the dead. Should a Biblical foundation for the Tridentine doctrine be asked for, we might first of all argue in general as follows: Just as there were in the Old Testament, in addition to sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, propitiatory and impetratory sacrifices (cf. Lev., iv. sqq; II Kings, xxiv, 21 sqq., etc.), the New Testament, as its antitype, must also have a sacrifice which serves and suffices for all these objects. But, according to the prophecy of Malachias, this is the Mass, which is to be celebrated by the Church in all places and at all times. Consequently, the Mass is the impetratory and propitiatory sacrifice. As for special reference to the propitiatory character, the record of instituation states expressly that the Blood of Christ is in the chalice "unto remission of sins" (Matt., xxvi, 28). The chief source of our doctrine, however, is tradition, which from the earliest times declares the impetratory value of the Sacrifice of the Mass. According to Tertullian (Ad scapula, ii), the Christians sacrificed "for the welfare of the emperor" (pro salute imperatoris); according to Chrysostom (Hom. xxi in Act. Apost., n. 4), "for the fruits of the earth and other needs". St Cyril of Jerusalem (d .386)) describes the liturgy of the Mass of his day as follows ("Catech. myst." v, n. 8, in P. G., XXXIII, 1115): "After the spritual Sacrifice [ pneumatike thysia], the unbloody service [ anaimaktos latreia] is completed; we pray to God, over this sacrifice of propitiation [ epi tes thysias ekeines tou ilasmou] for the universal peace of the churches, for the proper guidance of the world, for the emperor, soldiers and companions, for the infirm and the sick, for those stricken with trouble, and in general for all in need of help we pray and offer up this sacrifice [ tauten prospheromen ten thysian]. We then commemorate the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, that God may, at their prayers and intercessions graciously accept our supplication. We afterwards pray for the dead . . . since we believe that it will be of the greatest advantage [ megisten onesin esesthai], if we in the sight of the holy and most awesome Victim [ tes hagias kai phrikodestates thysias] discharge our prayers for them. The Christ, who was slain for our sins, we sacrifice [ Christon esphagmenon yper ton emeteron amartematon prospheromen] to propitiate the merciful God for those who are gone before and for ourselves." This beautiful passage, which reads like a modern prayer-book, is of interest in more than one connection. It proves in the first place that Christian antiquity recognized the offering up of the Mass for the deceased, exactly as the Church today recognizes requiem Masses -- a fact which is confirmed by other independent witnesses, e.g. Tertullian (De monog., x), Cyprian (Ep. lxvi, n. 2), and Augustine (Confess., ix, 12). In the second place, it informs us that our so-called Masses of the Saints also had their prototype among the primitive Christians, and for this view we likewise find other testimonies -- e.g. Tertullian (De Cor., iii) and Cyprian (Ep. xxxix, n. 3). By a Saint's Mass is meant, not the offering up of the Sacrifice of the Mass to a saint which would be impossible without most shameful idolatry, but a sacrifice, which, while offered to God alone, on the one hand thanks Him for the triumphal coronation of the saints, and on the other aims at procuring for us the saint's efficacious intercession with God. Such is the authentic explanation of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII cap, iii, in Denzinger, n. 941). With this threefold limitation, Masses "in honour of the saints" are certainly no base "deception", but are morally allowable, as the Council of Trent specifically declares (loc. cit. can. v); "If any one saith, that it is an imposture to celebrate masses in honour of the saints and for obtaining their intercession with God, as the Church intends, let him be anathema". The general moral permissibility of invoking the intercession of the saints, concerning which this is not the place to speak, is of course assumed in the present instance. While adoration and thanksgiving are effects of the Mass which relate to God alone, the success of impetration and expiation on the other hand reverts to man. These last two effects are thus also called by theologians the "fruits of the Mass" (fructus missae) and this distinction leads us to the discussion of the difficult and frequently asked question as to whether we are to impute infinite or finite value to the Sacrifice of the Mass. This question is not of the kind which may be answered with a simple yes or no. For, apart from the already indicated distinction between adoration and thanksgiving on the one hand and impetration and expiation on the other, we must also sharply distinguish between the intrinsic and the extrinsic value of the Mass (valor intrinsecus, extrinsecus). As for its intrinsic value, it seems beyond doubt that, in view of the infinite worth of Christ as the Victim and High Priest in one Person, the sacrifice must be regarded as of infinite value, just as the sacrifice of the Last Supper and that of the Cross. Here however, we must once more strongly emphasize the fact that the ever-continued sacrificial activity of Christ in Heaven does not and cannot serve to accumulate fresh redemptory merits and to assume new objective value; it simply stamps into current coin, so to speak, the redemptory merits definitively and perfectly obtained in the Sacrifice of the Cross, and sets them into circulation among mankind. This also is the teaching of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII cap. ii): "of which bloody oblation the fruits are most abundantly obtained through this unbloody one [the Mass]." For, even in its character of a sacrifice of adoration and thanksgiving, the Mass draws its whole value and all Its power only from the Sacrifice of the Cross which Christ makes of unceasing avail in Heaven (cf. Rom. viii, 34; Heb., vii, 25). There is, however, no reason why this intrinsic value of the Mass derived from the Sacrifice of the Cross, in so far as it represents a sacrifice of adoration and thanksgiving, should not also operate outwardly to the full extent of its infinity, for it seems inconceivable that the Heavenly Father could accept with other than infinite satisfaction the sacrifice of His only-begotten Son. Consequently God, as Malachias had already prophesied, is in a truly infinite degree honoured, glorified, and praised in the Mass; through Our Lord Jesus Christ he is thanked by men for all his benefits in an infinite manner, in a manner worthy of God. But when we turn to the Mass as a sacrifice of impetration and expiation, the case is different. While we must always regard its intrinsic value as infinite, since it is the sacrifice of the God-Man Himself, its extrinsic value must necessarily be finite in consequence of the limitations of man. The scope of the so-called "fruits of the Mass" is limited. Just as a tiny chip of wood can not within it the whole energy of the sun, so also, and in a still greater degree, is man incapable of converting the boundless value of the impetratory and expiatory sacrifice into an infinite effect for his soul. Wherefore, in practice, the impetratory value of the sacrifice is always as limited as is its propitiatory and satisfactory value. The greater or less measure of the fruits derived will naturally depend very much on the pesonal efforts and worthiness, the devotion and fervour of those who celebrate or are present at Mass. This limitation of the fruits of the Mass must, however, not be misconstrued to mean that the presence of a large congregation causes a diminution of the benefits derived from the Sacrifice by the individual, as if such benefits were after some fashion divided into so many aliquot parts. Neither the Church nor the Christian people has any tolerance for the false principle: "The less the number of the faithful in the church, the richer the fruits". On the contrary the Bride of Christ desires for every Mass a crowded church, being rightly convinced that from the unlimited treasures of the Mass much more grace win result to the individual from a service participated in by a full congregation, than from one attended merely by a few of the faithful. This relative infinite value refers indeed only to the general fruit of the Mass (fructus generalis), and not to the special (fructus specialis) two terms whose distinction will be more clearly characterized below. Here, however, we may remark that by the special fruit of the Mass is meant that for the application of which according to a special intention a priest may accept a stipend. The question now arises whether in this connection the applicable value of the Mass is to be regarded as finite or infinite (or, more accurately, unlimited). This question is of importance in view of the practical consequences it involves. For, if we decide in favour of the unlimited value, a single Mass celebrated for a hundred persons or intentions is as efficacious as a hundred Masses celebrated for a single person or intention. On the other hand, it is clear that, if we incline towards a finite value, the special fruit is divided pro rata among the hundred persons. In their quest for a solution of this question, two classes of theologians are distinguished according to their tendencies: the minority (Gotti, Billuart, Antonio Bellarini, etc.) are inclined to uphold the certainty or at least the probability of the former view, arguing that the infinite dignity of the High Priest Christ can not be limited by the finite sacrificial activity of his human representative. But, since the Church has entirely forbidden as a breach of strict justice that a priest should seek to fulfil, by reading a single Mass, the obligations imposed by several stipends (see Denzinger, n. 1110) these theologians hasten to admit that their theory is not to be translated into practice, unless the priest applies as many individual Masses for all the intentions of the stipend-givers as he has received stipends. But in as much as the Church has spoken of strict justice (justitia commutativa), the overwhelming majority of theologians incline even theoretically to the conviction that the satisfactory -- and, according to many, also the propitiatory and impetratory -- value of a Mass for which a stipend has been taken, is so strictly circumscribed and limited from the outset, that it accrues pro rata (according to the greater or less number of the living or the dead for whom the Mass is offered) to each of the individuals. Only on such a hypothesis is the custom prevailing among the faithful of having several Masses celebrated for the deceased or for their intentions intelligible. Only on such a hypothesis can one explain the widely established "Mass Association", a pious union whose members voluntarily bind themselves to read or get read at least one Mass annually for the poor souls in purgatory. As early as the eighth century we find in Germany a so-called "Totenbund" (see Pertz, "Monum. Germaniae hist.: Leg.", II, i, 221). But probably the greatest of such societies is the Messbund of Ingolstadt, founded in 1724; it was raised to a confraternity (Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception) on 3 Feb., 1874, and at present counts 680,000 members (cf. Beringer, "Die Ablasse, ihr Wesen u. ihr Gebrauch", 13th ed., Paderborn, 1906, pp. 610 sqq.). Tournely (De Euch. q. viii, a. 6) has also sought in favour of this view important internal grounds of probability, for example by adverting to the visible course of Divine Providence: all natural and supernatural effects in general are seen to be slow and gradual, not sudden or desultory, wherefore it is also the most holy intention of God that man should, by his personal exertions, strive through the medium of the greatest possible number of Masses to participate in the fruits of the Sacrifice of the Cross. B. The Manner of Efficacy of the Mass In theological phrase an effect "from the work of the action" (ex opere operato) signifies a grace conditioned exclusively by the objective bringing into activity of a cause of the supernatural order, in connection with which the proper disposition of the subject comes subsequently into account only as an indispensable antecedent condition (conditio sine qua non), but not as a real joint cause (concausa). Thus, for example, baptism by its mere ministration produces ex opere operato interior grace in each recipient of the sacrament who in his heart opposes no obstacle (obez) to the reception of the graces of baptism. On the other hand, all supernatural effects, which, presupposing the state of grace are accomplished by the personal actions and exertions of the subject (e.g. everything obtained by simple prayer), are called effects "from the work of the agent"; (ex opere operantis). we are now confronted with the difficult question: In what manner does the Eucharistic Sacrifice accomplish its effects and fruits? As the early scholastics gave scarcely any attention to this problem, we are indebted for almost all the light thrown upon it to the later scholastics. (i) It is first of all necessary to make clear that in every sacrifice of the Mass four distinct categories of persons really participate. At the head of all stands of course the High Priest, Christ Himself; to make the Sacrifice of the Cross fruitful for us and to secure its application, He offers Himself as a sacrifice, which is quite independent of the merits or demerits of the Church, the celebrant or the faithful present at the sacrifice, and is for these an opus operatum. Next after Christ and in the second place comes the Church as a juridical person, who, according to the express teaching of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, cap. i), has received from the hands of her Divine Founder the institution of the Mass and also the commission to ordain constantly priests and to have celebrated by these the most venerable Sacrifice. This intermediate stage between Christ and the celebrant may be neither passed over nor eliminated, since a bad and immoral priest, as an ecclesiastical official, does not offer up his own sacrifice -- which indeed could only be impure -- but the immaculate Sacrifice of Christ and his spotless Bride, which can be soiled by no wickedness of the celebrant. But to this special sacrificial activity of the Church, offering up the sacrifice together with Christ, must also correspond a special ecclesiastico-human merit as a fruit, which, although in itself an opus operantis of the Church, is yet entirely independent of the worthiness of the celebrant and the faithful and therefore constitutes for these an opus operatum. When, however, as De Lugo rightly points out, an excommunicated or suspended priest celebrates in defiance of the prohibition of the Church, this ecclesiastieal merit is always lost, since such a priest no longer acts in the name and with the commission of the Church. His sacrifice is nevertheless valid, since, by virtue of his priestly ordination, he celebrates in the name of Christ, even though in opposition to His wishes, and, as the self-sacrifice of Christ, even such a Mass remains essentially a spotless and untarnished sacrifice before God. We are thus compelled to concur in another view of De Lugo, namely that the greatness and extent of this ecclesiastical service is dependent on the greater or less holiness of the reigning pope, the bishops, and the clergy throughout the World, and that for this reason in times of ecclesiastical decay and laxity of morals (especially at the papal court and among the episcopate) the fruits of the Mass, resulting from the sacrificial activity of the Church, might under certain circumstances easily be very small. With Christ and His Church is associated in third place the celebrating priest, since he is the representative through whom the real and the mystical Christ offer up the sacrifice. If, therefore, the celebrant be a man of great personal devotion, holiness, and purity, there will accrue an additional fruit which will benefit not himself alone, but also those in whose favour he applies the Mass. The faithful are thus guided by sound instinct when they prefer to have Mass celebrated for their intentions by an upright and holy priest rather than by an unworthy one, since, in addition to the chief fruit of the Mass, they secure this special fruit which springs ex opera operantis, from the piety of the celebrant. Finally, in the fourth place, must be mentioned those who participate actively in the Sacrifice of the Mass, e.g., the servers, sacristan, organist, singers, and the whole congregation joining in the sacrifice. The priest, therefore, prays also in their name: Offerimus (i.e. we offer). That the effect resulting from this (metaphorical) sacrificial activity is entirely dependent on the worthiness and piety of those taking part therein and thus results exclusively ex opere operantis is evident without further demonstration. The more fervent the prayer, the richer the fruit. Most intimate is the active participation in the Sacrifice of those who receive Holy Communion during the Mass since in their case the special fruits of the Communion are added to those of the Mass. Should sacramental Communion be impossible, the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII. cap. vi) advises the faithful to make at least a "spiritual communion" (spirituali effectu communicare), which consists in the ardent desire to receive the Eucharist. However, as we have already emphasized, the omission of real or spiritual Communion on the part of the faithful present does not render the Sacrifice of the Mass either invalid or unlawful, wherefore the Church even permits "private Masses", which may on reasonable grounds be celebrated in a chapel with closed doors. (ii) In addition to the active, there are also passive participators in the Sacrifice of the Mass. These are the persons in whose favour -- it may be even without their knowledge and in opposition to their wishes -- the Holy Sacrifice is offered. They fall into three categories: the community, the celebrant, and the person (or persons) for whom the Mass is specially applied. To each of these three classes corresponds ex opere operato a special fruit of the Mass, whether the same be an impetratory effect of the Sacrifice of Petition or a propitiatory and satisfactory effect of the Sacrifice of Expiation. Although the development of the teaching concerning the threefold fruit of the Mass begins only with Scotus (Quaest. quodlibet, xx), it is nevertheless based on the very essence of the Sacrifice itself. Since, according to the wording of the Canon of the Mass, prayer and sacrifice is offered for all those present, the whole Church, the pope, the diocesan bishop, the faithful living and dead, and even "for the salvation of the whole world", there must first of all result a "general fruit" (fructus generalis) for all mankind, the bestowal of which lies immediately in the will of Christ and His Church, and can thus be frustrated by no contrary intention of the celebrant. In this fruit even the excommunicated, heretics, and infidels participate, mainly that their conversion may thus be effected. The second kind of fruit (fructus personalis, specialissimus) falls to the personal share of the celebrant, since it were unjust that he -- apart from his worthiness and piety (opus operantis) -- should come empty-handed from the sacrifice. Between these two fruits lies the third, the so-called "special fruit of the Mass" (fructus specialis, medius, or ministerialis), which is usually applied to particular living or deceased persons according to the intention of the celebrant or the donor of a stipend. This "application" rests so exclusively in the hands of the priest that even the prohibition of the Church cannot render it inefficacious, although the celebrant would in such a case sin through disobedience. For the existence of the special fruit of the Mass, rightly defended by Pius VI against the Jansenistic Synod of Pistoia (1786), we have the testimony also of Christian antiquity, which offered the Sacrifice for special persons and intentions. To secure in all cases the certain effect of this fructus specialis, Suarez (De Euch., disp. lxxix, Sect. 10) gives priests the wise advice that they should always add to the first a "second intention" (intentio secunda), which, should the first be inefficacious, will take its place. (iii) A last and an entirely separate problem is afforded by the special mode of efficacy of the Sacrifice of Expiation. As an expiatory sacrifice, the Mass has the double function of obliterating actual sins, especially mortal sins (effectus stricte propitiatorius), and also of taking away, in the case of those already in the state of grace, such temporal punishments as may still remain to be endured (effectus satisfactorius). The main question is: Is this double effect ex opere operato produced mediately or immediately? As regards the actual forgiveness of sin, it must, in opposition to earlier theologians (Aragon, Casalis, Gregory of Valentia), be maintained as undoubtedly a certain principle, that the expiatory sacrifice of the Mass can never accomplish the forgiveness of mortal sins otherwise than by way of contrition and penance, and therefore only mediately through procuring the grace of conversion (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, cap. ii: "donum paenitentiae concedens"). With this limitation, however, the Mass is able to remit even the most grievous sins (Council of Trent, 1. c., "Crimina et peccata etiam ingentia dimittit"). Since, according to the present economy of salvation, no sin whatsoever, grievous or trifling, can be forgiven without an act of sorrow, we must confine the efficacy of the Mass, even in the case of venial sins, to obtaining for Christians the grace of contrition for less serious sins (Sess. XXII, cap. i). It is indeed this purely mediate activity which constitutes the essential distinction between the sacrifice and the sacrament. Could the Mass remit sins immediately ex opere operato, like Baptism or Penance, it would be a sacrament of the dead and cease to be a sacrifice (see Sacrament). Concerning the remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, however, which appears to be effected in an immediate manner, our judgment must be different. The reason lies in the intrinsic distinction between sin and its punishment. Without the personal cooperation and sorrow of the sinner, all forgiveness of sin by God is impossible; this cannot however be said of a mere remission of punishment. One person may validly discharge the debts or fines of another, even without apprising the debtor of his intention. The same rule may be applied to a just person, who, after his justification, is still burdened with temporal punishment consequent on his sins. It is certain that, only in this immediate way, can assistance be given to the poor souls in purgatory through the Sacrifice of the Mass, since they are henceforth powerless to perform personal works of satisfaction (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, de purgat.). From this consideration we derive by analogy the legitimate conclusion that the case exactly the same as regards the living. C. Practical Questions Concerning the Mass From the exceedingly high valuation, which the Church places on the Mass as the unbloody Sacrifice of the God-Man, issue, as it were spontaneously all those practical precepts of a positive or a negative nature, which are given in the Rubrics of the Mass, in Canon Law, and in Moral Theology. They may be conveniently divided into two categories, according as they are intended to secure in the highest degree possible the objective dignity of the Sacrifice or the subjective worthiness of the celebrant. 1. Precepts for the Promotion of the Dignity of the Sacrifice (a) One of the most important requisites for the worthy celebration of the Mass is that the place in which the all-holy Mystery is to be celebrated should be a suitable one. Since, in the days of the Apostolic Church, there were no churches or chapels, private houses with suitable accommodation were appointed for the solemnization of "the breaking of bread" (cf. Acts, ii, 46; xx, 7 sq.; Col., iv, 15; Philem., 2). During the era of the persecutions the Eucharistic services in Rome were transferred to the catacombs, where the Christians believed themselves secure from government agents. The first "houses of God" reach back certainly to the end of the second century, as we learn from Tertullian (Adv. Valent., iii) and Clement of Alexandria (Strom., I, i). In the second half of the fourth century (A.D. 370), Optatus of Mileve (De Schism. Donat. II, iv) could already reckon more than forty basilicas which adorned the city of Rome. From this period dates the prohibition of the Synod of Laodicea (can. lviii) to celebrate Mass in private houses. Thenceforth the public churches were to be the sole places of worship. In the Middle Ages the synods granted to bishops the right of allowing house-chapels within their dioceses. According to the law of today (Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, de reform.), the Mass may be celebrated only in Chapels and public (or semi-public) oratories, which must be consecrated or at least blessed. At present, private chapels may be erected only in virtue of a special papal indult (S.C.C., 23 Jan., 1847, 6 Sept., 1870). In the latter case, the real place of sacrifice is the consecrated altar (or altar-stone), which must be placed in a suitable room (cf. Missale Romanum, Rubr. gen., tit. xx). In times of great need (e.g. war, persecution of Catholics), the priest may celebrate outside the church, but naturally only in a becoming place, provided with the most necessary utensils. On reasonable grounds the bishop may, in virtue of the so-called "quinquennial faculties", allow the celebration of Mass in the open air, but the celebration of Mass at sea is allowed only by papal indult. In such an indult it is usually provided that the sea be calm during the celebration, and that a second priest (or deacon) be at hand to prevent the spilling of the chalice in case of the rocking of the ship. (b) For the worthy celebration of Mass the circumstance of time is also of great importance. In the Apostolic age the first Christians assembled regularly on Sundays for "the breaking of bread" (Acts, xx, 7: "on the first day of the week"), which day the "Didache" (c. xiv), and later Justin Martyr (I Apol., lxvi), already name "the Lord's day". Justin himself seems to be aware only of the Sunday celebration, but Tertullian adds the fast-days on Wednesday and Friday and the anniversaries of the martyrs ("De cor. mil.", iii; "De orat.", xix). As Tertullian calls the whole paschal season (until Pentcost) "one long feast", we may conclude with some justice that during this period the faithful not only communicated daily, but were also present at the Eucharistic Liturgy. As regards the time of the day, there existed in the Apostolic age no fixed precepts regarding the hour at which the Eucharistic celebration should take place. The Apostle Paul appears to have on occasion "broken bread" about midnight (Acts, xx, 7). But Pliny the Younger, Governor of Bithynia (died A.D. 114), already states in his official report to Emperor Trajan that the Christians assembled in the early hours of the morning and bound themselves by a sacramentum (oath), by which we can understand today only the celebration of the mysteries. Tertullian gives as the hour of the assembly the time before dawn (De cor. mil., iii: antelucanis aetibus). When the fact was adverted to that the Saviour's Resurrection occurred in the morning before sunrise, a change of the hour set in, the celebration of Mass being postponed until this time. Thus Cyprian writes of the Sunday celebration (Ep., lxiii): "we celebrate the Resurrection of the Lord in the morning." Since the fifth century the "third hour" (i.e. 9 a.m.) was regarded as "canonical" for the Solemn Mass on Sundays and festivals. When the Little Hours (Prime, Terce, Sext, None) began in the Middle Ages to lose their significance as "canonical hours", the precepts governing the hour for the conventual Mass received a new meaning. Thus, for example, the precepts that the conventual Mass should be held after None on fast days does not signify that it be held between midday and evening, but only that "the recitation of None in choir is followed by the Mass". It is in general left to the discretion of the priest to celebrate at any hour between dawn and midday (ab aurora usque ad meridiem). It is proper that he should read beforehand Matins and Lauds from his breviary. The sublimity of the Sacrifice of the Mass demands that the priest should approach the altar wearing the sacred vestments (amice, stole, cincture, maniple, and chasuble). Whether the priestly vestments are historical developments from Judaism or paganism, is a question still discussed by archaeologists. In any case the "Canones Hippolyti" require that at Pontifical Mass the deacons and priests appear in "white vestments", and that the lectors also wear festive garments. No priest may celebrate Mass without light (usually two candles), except in case of urgent necessity (e.g. to consecrate a Host as the Viaticum for a person seriously ill). The altar-cross is also necessary as an indication that the Sacrifice of the Mass is nothing else than the unbloody reproduction of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Usually, also, the priest must be attended at the altar by a server of the male sex. The celebration of Mass without a server is allowed only in case of need (e.g. to procure the Viaticum for a sick person, or to enable the faithful to satisfy their obligation of hearing Mass). A person of the female sex may not serve at the altar itself, e.g. transfer the missal, present the cruets, etc. (S.R.C., 27 August, 1836). Women (especially nuns) may, however, answer the celebrant from their places, if no male server be at hand. During the celebration of Mass a simple priest may not wear any head-covering -- whether biretta, pileolus, or full wig (comae fictitiae) -- but the bishop may allow him to wear a plain perruque as a protection for his hairless scalp. (c) To preserve untarnished the honour of the most venerable sacrifice, the Church has surrounded with a strong rampart of special defensive regulations the institution of "mass-stipends"; her intention is on the one hand to keep remote from the altar all base avarice, and on the other, to ensure and safeguard the right of the faithful to the conscientious celebration of the Masses bespoken. By a mass-stipend is meant a certain monetary offering which anyone makes to the priest with the accompaning obligation of celebrating a Mass in accordance with the intentions of the donor (ad intentionem dantis). The obligation incurred consists, concretely speaking, in the application of the "special fruit of the Mass" (fructus specialis), the nature of which we have alreadly described in detail (A, 3). The idea of the stipend emanates from the earliest ages, and its justification lies incontestably in the axiom of St. Paul (I Cor., ix, 13): "They that serve the altar, partake with the altar". Originally consisting of the necessaries of life, the stipend was at first considered as "alms for a Mass" (eleemosyna missarum), the object being to contribute to the proper support of the clergy. The character of a pure alms has been since lost by the stipend, since such may be accepted by even a wealthy priest. But the Pauline principle applies to the wealthy priest just as it does to the poor. The now customary money-offering, which was introduced about the eighth century and was tacitly approved by the Church, is to be regarded merely as the substitute or commutation of the earlier presentation of the necessaries of life. In this very point, also, a change from the ancient practice has been introduced, since at present the individual priest receives the stipend personally, whereas formerly all the clergy of the particular church shared among them the total oblations and gifts. In their present form, the whole matter of stipends has been officially taken by the Church entirely under her protection, both by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, de ref. ) and by the dogmatic Bull "Auctorem fidei" (1796) of Pius VI (Denzinger, n. 1554). Since the stipend, in its origin and nature, claims to be and can be nothing else than a lawful contribution towards the proper support of the clergy, the false and foolish views of the ignorant are shown to be without foundation when they suppose that a Mass may he simoniacally purchased with money (Cf. Summa Theologica II-II:100:2). To obviate all abuses concerning of the amount of the stipend, there exists in each diocese a fixed "mass-tax" (settled either by ancient custom or by an episcopal regulation), which no priest may exceed, unless extraordinary inconvenience (e.g. long fasting or a long journey on foot) justifies a somewhat larger sum. To eradicate all unworthy greed from among both laity and clergy in connection with a thing so sacred, Pius IX in his Constitution "Apostolicae Sedis" of 12 Oct., 1869, forbade under penalty of excommunication the commercial traffic in stipends (mercimonium missae stipendiorum). The trafficking consists in reducing the larger stipend collected to the level of the "tax", and appropriating the surplus for oneself. Into the category of shameful traffic in stipends also falls the reprehensible practice of booksellers and tradesmen, who organize public collections of stipends and retain the money contributions as payment for books, merchandise, wines, etc., to be delivered to the clergy (S.C.C., 31 Aug., 1874, 25 May, 1893). As special punishment for this offence, suspensio a divinis reserved to the pope is proclaimed against priests, irregularity against other clerics, and excommunication reserved to the bishop, against the laity. Another bulwark against avarice is the strict regulation of the Church, binding under pain of mortal sin, that priests shall not accept more intentions than they can satisfy within a reasonable period (S.C.C, 1904). This regulation was emphasized by the additional one which forbade stipends to be transferred to priests of another diocese without the knowledge of their ordinaries (S.C.C., 22 May, 1907). The acceptance of a stipend imposes under pain of mortal sin the obligation not only of reading the stipulated Mass, but also of fulfilling conscientiously all other appointed conditions of an important character (e.g. the appointed day, altar, etc.). Should some obstacle arise, the money must either be returned to the donor or a substitute procured. In the latter case, the substitute must be given, not the usual stipend, but the whole offering received (cf. Prop. ix damn. 1666 ab Alex. VIII in Denzinger, n. 1109), unless it be indisputably clear front the circumstances that the excess over the usual stipend was meant by the donor for the first priest alone. There is tacit condition which requires the reading of the stipulated Mass as soon as possible. According to the common opinion of moral theologians, a postponement of two months is in less urgent cases admissible, even though no lawful impediment can be brought forward. Should, however, a priest postpone a Mass for a happy delivery until after the event, he is bound to return the stipends. However, since all these precepts have been imposed solely in the interests of the stipend-giver, it is evident that he enjoys the right of sanctioning all unusual delays. (d) To the kindred question of "mass-foundations" the Church has, in the interests of the founder and in her high regard for the Holy Sacrifice, devoted the same anxious care as in the case of stipends. Mass-foundations (fundationes misssarum) are fixed bequests of funds or real property, the interest or income from which is to procure for ever the celebration of Mass for the founder or according to his intentions. Apart from anniversaries, foundations of Masses are divided, accordlng to the testamentary arrangement of the testator, into monthly, weekly, and daily foundations. As ecclesiastical property, mass-foundations are subject to the administration of the ecclesiastical authorities, especially of the diocesan bishop, who must grant hls permission for the acceptance of such and must appoint for them the lowest rate. Only when episcopal approval has been secured can the foundation be regarded as completed; thenceforth it is unalterable for ever. In places where the acquirement of ecclesiastical property is subject to the approval of the State (e.g. in Austria), the establishment of a mass-foundation must also be submitted to the secular authorities. The declared wishes of the founder are sacred and decisive as to the manner of fulfillment. Should no special intention be mentioned in the deed of foundation, the Mass must be applied for the founder himself (S.C.C., I8 March, 1668). To secure punctuality in the execution of the foundation, Innocent XII ordered in 1697 that a list of the mass-foundations, arranged according to the months, be kept in each church possessing such endowments. The administrators of pious foundations are bound under pain of mortal sin to forward to the bishop at the end of each year a list of all founded Masses left uncelebrated together with the money therefor (S.C.C., 25 May, 18). The celebrant of a founded Mass is entitled to the full amount of the foundation, unless it is evident from the circumstances of the foundation or from the wording of the deed that an exception is justifiable. Such is the case when the foundation serves also as the endowment of a benefice, and consequently in such a case the beneficiary is bound to pay his substitute only the regular tax (S.C.C., 25 July, 1874). Without urgent reason, founded Masses may not be celebrated in churches (or on altars) other than those stipulated by the foundation. Permanent transference of such Masses is reserved to the pope, but in isolated instances the dispensation of the bishop suffices (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXI de ref.; Sess. XXV de ref.). The unavoidable loss of the income of a foundation puts an end to all obligations connected with it. A serious diminution of the foundation capital, owing to the depreciation of money or property in value, also the necessary increase of the mass-tax, scarcity of priests, poverty of a church or of the clergy may constiutute just grounds for the reduction of the number of Masses, since it may be reasonably presumed that the deceased founder would not under such difficult circumstance insist upon the obligation. On 21 June, 1625, the right of reduction, which the Council of Trent had conferred on bishops, abbots, and the generals of religious orders, was again reserved by Urban VIII to the Holy See. 2. Precepts to secure the Worthiness of the Celebrant Although, as declared by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, cap. i), the venerable, pure, and sublime Sacrifice of the God-man "cannot be stained by any unworthiness or impiety of the celebrant", still ecclesiastical legislation has long regarded it as a matter of special concern that priests should fit themselves for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice by the cultivation of integrity, purity of heart, and other qualities of a personal nature. (a) In the first place it may be asked: Who may celebrate Mass? Since for the validity of the sacrifice the office of a special priesthood is essential, it is clear, to begin with, that only bishops and priests (not deacons) are qualified to offer up the Holy Sacrifice (see Eucharist). The fact that even at the beginning of the second century the regular officiator at the Eucharistic celebration seems to have been the bishop will be more readily understood when we remember that at this early period there was no strict distinction between the offices of bishop and priest. Like the "Didache" (xv), Clement of Rome (Ad Cor., xl-xlii) speaks only of the bishop and his deacon in connection with the sacrifice. Ignatius of Antioch, indeed, who bears irrefutable testimony to the existence of the three divisions of the hierarchy -- bishop (episkopos), priests (presbyteroi) and deacons (diakonoi) -- confines to the bishop the privilege of celebrating thanksgiving Divine Service when he says: "It is unlawful to baptize or to hold the agape without the bishop." The "Canones Hippolyti", composed probably about the end of the second century, first contain the regulation (can. xxxii): "If, in the absence of the bishop, a priest be at hand, all shall devolve upon him, and he shall be honoured as the bishop is honoured. "Subsequent tradition recognizes no other celebrant of the Mystery of the Eucharist than the bishops and priests, who are validly ordained "according to the keys of the Church," (secundum claves Ecclesiae). (Cf. Lateran IV, cap. "Firmiter" in Denzinger, n. 430.) But the Church demands still more by insisting also on the personal moral worthiness of the celebrant. This connotes not alone freedom from all ecclesiastical censures (excommunication, suspension, interdict), but also a becoming preparation of the soul and body of the priest before he approaches the altar. To celebrate in the state of mortal sin has always been regarded by the Church as an infamous sacrifice (cf. I Cor., xi, 27 sqq.). For the worthy (not for the valid) celebration of the Mass it is, therefore, especially required that the celebrant be in the state of grace. To place him in this condition, the awakening of perfect sorrow is no longer sufficient since the Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, cap. vii in Denzinger, n. 880), for there is a strict eccleciastical precept that the reaction of the Sacrament of Penance must precede the celebration of Mass. This rule applies to all priests, even when they are bound by their office (ex officio) to read Mass, e.g. on Sundays for their parishioners. Only in instances when no confessor can be procured, may they content themselves with reciting an act of perfect sorrow (contritio), and they then incur the obligation of going to confession "as early as possible" (quam primum), which in canon law, signifies within three days at furthest. In addition to the pious preparation for the Mass (accessus), there is prescribed a correspondingly long thanksgiving after Mass (recessus), whose length is fixed by moral theologians between fifteen minutes and half an hour, although in this connection the particular official engagements of the priest must be considered. As regards the length of the Mass itself, the duration is naturally variable, according as a Solemn High Mass is sung or a Low Mass celebrated. To perform worthily all the ceremonies and pronounce clearly all the prayers in Low Mass requires on an average about half an hour. Moral theologians justly declare that the scandalous haste necessary to finish Mass in less than a quarter of an hour is impossible without grievous sin. With regard to the more immediate preparation of the body, custom has declared from time immemorial, and positive canon law since the Council of Constance (1415), that the faithful, when receiving the Sacrament of Altar, and priests, when celebrating the Holy Sacrifice, must be fasting (jejunium naturale) which means that they must have partaken of no food or drink whatsoever from midnight. Midnight begins with the first stroke of the hour. In calculating the hour, the so-called "mean time" (or local time) must be used: according to a recent decision (S.C.C., 12 July, 1893), Central-European time may be also employed, and, in North America, "zone time". The movement recently begun among the German clergy, favouring a mitigation of the strict regulation for weak or overworked priests with the obligation of duplicating, has serious objections, since a general relaxation of the ancient strictness might easily result in lessening respect for the Blessed Sacrament and in a harmful reaction among thoughtless members of the laity. The granting of mitigations in general or in exceptional cases belongs to the Holy See alone. To keep away from the altar irreverent adventurers and unworthy priests, the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, de ref.) issued the decree, made much more stringent in later times, that an unknown priest without the Celebret may not be allowed to say Mass in any church. (b) A second question may be asked: "Who must say Mass?" In the first place, if this question be considered identical with the enquiry as to whether a general obligation of Divine Law binds every priest by reason of his ordination, the old Scholastics are divided in opinion. St. Thomas, Durandus, Paludanus, and Anthony of Bologna certainly maintained the existence of such an obligation; on the other hand, Richard of St. Victor, Alexander of Hales, Bonaventure, Gabriel Biel, and Cardinal Cajetan declared for the opposite view. Canon law teaches nothing on the subject. In the absence of a decision, Suarez (De Euchar., disp. lxxx, sect. 1, n. 4) believes that one who conforms to the negative view, may be declared free from grievous sin. Of the ancient hermits we know that they did not celebrate the Holy Sacrifice in the desert, and St. Ignatius Loyola, guided by high motives, abstained for a whole year from celebrating. Cardinal De Lugo (De Euchar., disp. xx, sect. 1, n. 13) takes a middle course, by adopting theoretically the milder opinion, while declaring that, in practice, omission through lukewarmness and neglect may, on account of the scandal caused, easily amount to mortal sin. This consideration explains the teaching of the moral theologians that every priest is bound under pain of mortal sin to celebrate at least a few times each year (e.g. at Easter, Pentecost, Christmas, the Epiphany). The obligation of hearing Mass on all Sundays and holy days of obligation is of course not abrogated for such priests. The spirit of the Church demands -- and it is today the practically universal custom -- that a priest should celebrate daily, unless he prefers to omit his Mass occasionally through motives of reverence. Until far into the Middle Ages it was left to the discretion of the priest, to his personal devotion and his zeal for souls, whether he should read more than one Mass on the same day. But since the twelfth century canon law declares that he must in general content himself with one daily Mass, and the synods of the thirteenth century allow, even in case of necessity, at most a duplication (see Bination). In the course of time this privilege of celebrating the Holy Sacrifice twice on the same day was more and more curtailed. According to the existing law, duplication is allowed, under special conditions, only on Sundays and holy days, and then only in the interests of the faithful, that they may be enabled to fulfil their obligation of hearing Mass. For the feast of Christmas alone have priests universally been allowed to retain the privilege of three Masses, in Spain and Portugal this privilege was extended to All Souls' Day (2 Nov.) by special Indult of Benedict XIV (1746). Such customs are unknown in the East. This general obligation of a priest to celebrate Mass must not be confounded with the special obligation which results from the acceptance of a Mass-stipend (obligatio ex stipendio) or from the cure of souls (obligatio ex cura animarum). Concerning the former sufficient has been already said. As regards the claims of the cure of souls, the obligation of Divine Law that parish priests and administrators of a parish should from time to time celebrate Mass for their parishioners, arises from the relations of pastor and flock. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, de ref.) has specified this duty of application more closely, by directing that the parish priest should especially apply the Mass, for which no stipend may be taken, for his flock on all Sundays and holy days (cf. Benedict XIX, "Cum semper oblatas", 19 Aug., 1744). The obligation to apply the Mass pro populo extends also to the holy days abrogated by the Bull of Urban VIII, "Universa per orbem", of 13 Sept., 1642; for even today these remain "canonically fixed feast days", although the faithful are dispensed from the obligation of hearing Mass and may engage in servile works. The same obligation of applying the Mass falls likewise on bishops, as pastors of their dioceses, and on those abbots who exercize over clergy and people a quasi-episcopal jurisdiction. Titular bishops alone are escepted, although even in their case the application is to be desired (cf. Leo XIII, "In supremacy, 10 June, 1882). As the obligation itself is not only personal, but also real, the application must, in case of an impediment arising either be made soon afterwards, or be effected through a substitute, who has a right to a mass stipend as regulated by the tax. Concerning this whole question, see Heuser, "Die Verpflichtung der Pfarrer, die hl. Messe fur die Gemeinde zu applicieren" (Düsseldorf 1850). (c) For the sake of completeness a third and last question must te touched on in this section: For whom may Mass be celebrated? In general the answer may be given: For all those and for those only, who are fitted to participate in the fruits of the Mass as an impetratory, propitiatory, and satisfactory sacrifice. From this as immediately derived the rule that Mass may not be said for the damned in Hell or the blessed in Heaven, since they are incapable of receiving the fruits of the Mass; for the same reason children who die unbaptized are excluded from the benefits of the Mass. Thus, there remain as the possible participants only the living on earth and the poor souls in purgatory (cf. Trent, Sess. XXII, can. iii; Sess. XXV, decret. de purgat.). Partly out of her great veneration of the Sacrifice, however, and partly to avoid scandal, the Church has surrounded with certain conditions, which priests are bound in obedience to observe, the application of Mass for certain classes of the living and dead. The first class are non-tolerated excommunicated persons, who are to be avoided by the faithful (excommunicati vitandi). Although, according to various authors, the priest is not forbidden to offer up Mass for such unhappy persons in private and with a merely mental intention, still to announce publicly such a Mass or to insert the name of the excommunicated person in the prayers, even though he may be in the state of grace owing to perfect sorrow or may have died truly repentant, would be a "communicatio in divinis", and is strictly forbidden under penalty of excommunication (cf. C. 28, de sent. excomm., V, t. 39). It is likewise forbidden to offer the Mass publicly and solemnly for deceased non-Catholics, even though they were princes (Innoc. III C. 12, X 1. 3, tit. 28). On the other hand it is allowed, in consideration of the welfare of the state, to celebrate for a non-Catholic living ruler even a public Solemn Mass. For living heretics and schismatics also for the Jews, Turks, and heathens, Mass may be privately applied (and even a stipend taken) with the object of procuring for them the grace of conversion to the true Faith. For a deceased heretic the private and hypothetical application of the Mass is allowed only when the priest has good grounds for believing that the deceased held his error in good faith (bona fide. Cf. S.C. Officii, 7 April, 1875). To celebrate Mass privately for deceased catechumens is permissible, since we may assume that they are already justified by their desire of Baptism and are in purgatory. In like manner Mass may be celebrated privately for the souls of deceased Jews and heathens, who have led an upright life, since the sacrifice is intended to benefit all who are in purgatory. For further details see Göpfert, "Moraltheologie", III (5th ed., Paderborn, 1906). J. POHLE Massa Candida Massa Candida Under the date 24 August, the "Martyrologium Romanum" records this commemoration: At Carthage, of three hundred holy martyrs in the time of Valerian and Gallienus. Among other torments, the governor ordering a limekiln to be lighted and live coals with incense to be set near by, said to these confessors of the Faith: "Choose whether you will offer incense to Jupiter or be thrown down into lime." And they, armed with faith, confessing Christ, the Son of God, with one swift impulse hurled themselves into the fire, where in the fumes of the burning lime, they were reduced to a powder. Hence this band of blessed ones in white raiment have been held worthy of the name, White Mass. The date of this event may be placed between A.D. 253, when Gallienus was associated with his father in the imperial office and A.D. 260 when Valerian was entrapped and made prisoner by Sapor, King of Persia. As to the exact place, St. Augustine [Ser. cccvi (al. cxii), 2] calls these martyrs the "White Mass of Utica", indicating that there they were specially commemorated. Utica was only 25 miles from the city of Carthage, which was the capital of a thickly populated district, and the three hundred may have been brought from Utica to be judged by the procurator (Galerius Maximus). The fame of the Massa Candida has been perpetuated chiefly through two early references to them: that of St. Augustine, and that of the poet Prudentius (q.v.). The latter, in the thirteenth hymn of his peri stephanon collection, has a dozen lines describing "the pit dug in the midst of the plain, filled nearly to the brim with lime that emitted choking vapours", how the "stones vomit fire, and the snowy dust burns." After telling how they faced this ordeal, he concludes: "Whiteness [ candor] possesses their bodies; purity [ candor] bears their minds [or, souls] to heaven. Hence it [the "head-long swarm" to which the poet has referred in a preceding line] has merited to be forever called the Massa Candida." Both St. Augustine and Prudentius were at the height of their activity before the end of the fourth century. Moreover, St. Augustine was a native and a resident of this same Province of Africa, while Prudentius was a Spaniard. It is natural to suppose that the glorious tale of the three hundred of Carthage had become familiar to both writers through a fresh and vivid tradition -- no older than the traditions of the Civil War now are in, say, the American South. It is not even probable that either of them originated the metaphor under which the martyrs of the limekiln have been known to later generation: the name Massa Candida had, most likely been long in use among the faithful of Africa and Spain. As Christians, they would have been reminded of Apoc., vii, 13 and 14, by every commemoration of a martyrdom; as Romans -- at least in language and habit of thought -- they were aware that candidates (candidati) for office were said to have been so called in Republican Rome from the custom of whitening the toga with chalk or lime (calx) when canvassing for votes. Given the Apocalyptic image and the Latin etymology (candor -- candidus -- candidatus; cf. in the "Te Deum", "Candidatus martyrum exercitus"), it was almost inevitable that this united body of witnesses for Christ, together winning their heavenly white raiment in the incandescent lime, which reduced their bodies to a homogeneous mass, should, by the peculiar form of their agony, have suggested this name to the African and Spanish Christians. (For the casuistry of the self-destruction of the Massa Candida, see SUICIDE.) E. MACPERSON Massa Carrara Massa Carrara DIOCESE OF MASSA CARRARA (MASSENSIS). Diocese in Central Italy (Lunigiana and Garfagnana). The city is located on the Frigido, in a district rich in various mines but especially famous for its pure white marble, which the Romans preferred to those of Paros and Pentelius. Massa Carrara is the "Mansio ad Taberna Frigida" of the "Tabula Peutingeriana". In the ninth century it belonged to the bishops of Luni, and was confirmed to them by Otto I and by Frederick Barbarossa, though really at that time subject to the Malaspina, counts of Lunigiana. It passed from Lucca to Pisa, was held by the Visconti and the Fieschi, again by Lucca, and was later a free commune under the protectorate of Florence. In 1434 it took the marquis Antonio Alberico Malaspina for its lord; in 1548 the marquisate passed to the House of Cybò, through the marriage of Lorenzo of that name with Riccarda Malaspina. In 1568, Carrara became a principality, and in 1664 a duchy. The most famous prince of the house of Cybò was Alberico I, who endowed his little state with a model code of law. The daughter of Alderamo, the last of the Cybòs, married Rinaldo Ercole d'Este, and by this marriage the duchy became united with that of Modena; in 1806 it was given to Elisa Bacchiochi, and in 1814 to Maria Beatrice, daughter of Rinaldo Ercole, at whose death the duchy returned to Modena. The name of Carrara comes from Carraria, a stone quarry. An academy of sculpture founded by Duchess Maria Teresa (1741) has its seat at Carrara in the old but magnificent ducal palace. The fine cathedral dates from 1300. Carrara is the birthplace of the sculptors Tacca, Baratta, Finelli, and Tenerani, and of the statesman Pellegrino Rossi. The see was created in 1822 at the instance of Duchess Maria Beatrice, and its first bishop was Francesco Maria Zappi; it was then suffragen of Pisa, but since 1855 has been suffragen of Modena. The sanctuary of Santa Maria dei Quercioli, founded in 1832, is in the Diocese of Carrera. The latter has 213 parishes, 155,400 inhabitants, one religious house of men, seven of women, and four educational institutes for male students, and as many for girls. CAPPELLITTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, SV (Venice, 1857); FARSETTI, Ragionamento storico intorno alla citta de Modena; VIANI, Memorie della famiglia Cybò. U. BENIGNI Massachusetts Massachusetts One of the thirteen original United States of America. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts covers part of the territory originally granted to the Plymouth Company of England. It grew out of the consolidation (in 1692) of the two original colonies, Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay. The settlement at Plymouth began with the landing of the Pilgrims, 22 December 1620; the Colony of Massachusetts Bay was established under John Endicott at Salem in 1628. The royal province created by this ocnsolidation included also the District of Maine and so remained until the present state of Maine was set off from Massachusetts by Congress, 3 March 1820. No authentic and complete survey of the State of Massachusetts exists, but it is generally believed to include an area of about 8040 square miles, with a population of rather more than three millions. Of this number 1,373,752 are Catholics, distributed among the three Dioceses of Boston (the Archdiocese), Fall River, and Springfield, which are the actual ecclestical divisions of the state. Classified by nationalities, this Catholic population comprises more than 7000 Germans, 50,000 Portuguese, 100,000 Italians 150,000 French Canadians, 10,000 Lituanians, 3000 Syrians, 25,000 Poles, 1000 Negroes, 81 Chinese, 3000 Bravas, the remainder--more than 1,000,000--being principally Irish or of Irish parentage. I. COLONIAL HISTORY A. Settlement The explorations and settlements of the Northmen upon the shores of Massachusetts, the voyages of the Cabots, the temporary settlement (1602) of the Gosnold party on one of the Elizabeth Islands of Buzzard's Bay, and the explorations and the mapping of the New England coast by Captain John Smith are usually passed over as more or less conjectural. The undisputed history of Massachusetts begins with the arrival of the "Mayflower" in December, 1620. Nevertheless the due appreciation of these precious events gives a ready and logical explanation of many acts, customs and laws of the founders of this commonwealth which, in general, are imperfectly understood. The early maps (1582) mark the present territory of New England under the name "Norumbega", and show that the coast had been visited by Christian mariners--whether by fishermen in search of the fisheries set forth by Cabot, or by the daring Drakes, Frosibers, and Hawkinses of Elizabeth's reign, does not seem clear. It is an accepted fact that, when Gosnold set out in 1602, there was not a single English settlement on the Continent. France did not acknowledge the claim of England over the whole territory. A French colony had been established where now is northern Virginia, under the name of "New France." This was after Verazzano's expedition made by order of Francis I. A French explorer, too, the Huguenot Sieur de Monts, had been to Canada, and knew much about the resources of that country, especially the fur trade of the Indian tribes. Henry IV had given De Monts a patent to all the country now included in New England, also a monopoly of the fur trade. All this is important, because it entered into the conditions of the early permanent settlement here. For a quarter of a century prior to the coming of the Pilgrims, the French and the Dutch resented the encroachments of the English. "The Great Patent for New England", of 1620, granted to Gorges and his forty associates, has been called a "despotic as well as a gigantic commerical monopoly." This grant included the New netherlands of the Dutch, the French Acadia and indeed, nearly all the present inhabited British possessions in North America, besides all New England, the State of New York, half of New Jersey, nearly all of Pennsylvania, and the country to the west--in short, all the territory from the fortieth degree of north latitude to the forty-eighth and from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. The English increased the enmity of the French by destroying the Catholic settlements of St.-Croix and at Port-Royal, and had aroused the suspicion and hostility of the Indians by the treachery of Hunt, an act described by Mather as "one which constrained the English to suspend their trade and abandon their prospects of a settlement in New England." The religious conditions were no less ominous for the Pilgrims. At the opening of the sixteenth century, all Christian Europe, with slight exceptions, was Catholic and loyal to the papacy; at the close of that century England herself was the mother of three antipapacy sects: the State Church and its two divisions; the Nonconformists, or Puritans; and the Separatists, or Pilgrims. At the time of the sailing of the "Mayflower", the Puritans had become as fully disenfranchised by the Anglican Church as the Pilgrims had estranged themselves from both; each distrusted the others; all three hated the Church of Rome. Gorges and his associated had found the French and their Jesuit missionaries a stumbling-block in the way of securing fur-trading privileges from the Indians. The alleged gold and copper mines of Smith and of Gosnold were now regarded as myths; unless something could be done at once, the opportunities offered by their charter monopoly would be worthless. A permanent English settlement in America was the only sure way of preventing the French and the Dutch from acquiring the Virginia territory. The Gorges company knew of the cherished hopes of the Pilgrims to find a home away from their English persecutors, and, after much chicanery on the part of the promoters, the company agreed to found a home for the Pilgrims in the new world. The articles of agreement were wholly commercial, and the "Mayflower" sailed for Virginia. History differs in its interpretation of the end of that voyage, but all agree that the Pilgrims, in landing at Plymouth, 22 December, 1620, were outside any jurisdiction of their patrons, the Virginia Company. The Pilgrims themselves recognized their difficulty, and the famous "Compact" was adopted, before landing, as a basis of government by mutual agreement. Gorges protected his company's investment by obtaining from James I the new charter of 1620 which controlled, on a commercial basis, all religious colonization in America. The struggle of race against, race, tribe against tribe, neighbour against neighbour were all encouraged so long as the warfare brought gain to the mercenary adventurers at home. The Pilgrims, finding themselves deserted by the instigators of this ill-feeling, were forced by the law of self-preservation to continue religious intolerance and the extermination of the Indians. Thus it is that we find the laws, the customs and the manners of these first English settlers so interwoven with the religio-commercial principle. The coming of the Puritans, in 1629-30, added the factor of politics, which resulted in establishing in America the very thing against which these "Purists" had fought at home, namely, the union of Church and State. Here, again, at Puritan Salem, Gorges and Mason cloaked their commercialism under religion, as the accounts of La Tour and Winslow attest, and so effective were their machinations that, as early as 1635, Endicott's zeal had not left a set of the king's colours intact with the red cross thereon -- that relic of popery insufferable in a Puritan community. B. Colonial Legislation The legality of the early acts of the colonists depends, to a great degree, on whether the charters granted to the two colonies were for the purpose of instituting a corporation for trading purposes, or whether they are regarded as constitutions and foundations af a government. This much-controversial point has never been settled satisfactorily. The repeated demands from the king, often with threat of prosecution, for the return of the charters were ignored, so that, until 1684, the colony was practically a free state, independent of England, and professing little, if any, loyalty. Judging from the correspondence, it is more than probable that the intention of the Crown in granting the charter was that the corporation should have a local habitation in England, and it is equally evident that the colony did not possess the right to make its own laws. It is plainly stated, in the patent granted to the Puritans, who the governor and other officials of the colony should be, showing thereby that the Crown retained the right of governing. A new charter was granted in 1692 covering Massachusetts, Plymouth, Maine, Nova Scotia, and the intervening territory, entitled "The Province of Massachusetts Bay in New England"; nevertheless it was not until the Treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, that the proceedings on the part of the home Government, to assert the Crown's rights, abated notably. During the half-century in which the Puritans ignored the terms of their charter, and made laws in accordance with their own selfish interests, many of those acts ocurred which history has since condemned. At the first meeting of the general Court held 30 August, 1630, it was voted to build a house for the minister and maintain it at the state's expense--an act of described by Benedict, in his History of the Baptists, as the first dangerous act performed by the rulers of this incipent government which led to innumerable evils, hardships, and privations to all who had the misfortune to dissent from the ruling power in after times.--The Viper in Embryo; here was an importation and establishment, in the outset of the settlement, of the odious doctrine of Church and State which had thrown empires into convulsions, had caused rivers of blood to be shed, had crowded prisons with innocent victims, and had driven the Pilgrims (he means Puritans) themselves who were now engaged in the mistaken legislation, from all that was dear in their native homes. This union of Church and State controlled the electorate and citizenship of the colony, made the school a synonym of both, excluded Catholic priests and prohibited the entrance of Jesuits, condemned witches to death, banished Roger Williams and the Quakers, established the pillory, and in other ways left to posterity many chapters of uncharitableness intolerance, and curelty. After the War of Independence, the old colonial government took a definite constitutional form under the Union, in 1780, and the first General Court of the sovereign State of Massachusetts convened in October of that year. This constitution was revised in 1820. C. Catholic Colonization The Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay Colonies were composed principally of English. Near the close of the reign of Charles I, however, the forced emigration of the Irish brought many of that race to these shores; their number is hard to estimate, first, because the law made it obligatory that all sailings must take place from English ports, so that there are no records of those who came from Ireland with English sailing registry; secondly, because the law, under heavy penalties, obliged all Irishmen in certain towns of Ireland to take English surnames--the names of some small town, of a colour, of a particular trade or office, or of a certain art or craft. Children in Ireland were separated forcibly from their parents and under new names sent into the colonies. Men and women, from Cork and its vicinity, were openly sold into slavery for America. Connaught, which was nine-tenths Catholic, was depopulated. The frequently published statement in justification of Cromwell's persecution, that the victimes of this white slave-traffic were criminals, finds no corroboration in the existence of a single penal colony in this country. In 1634 the General Court of Massachusetts Bay also granted land for an irish settlement on the banks of the Merrimac River. (See ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON; IRISH IN COUNTRIES OTHER THAN IRELAND.) II. MODERN MASSACHUSETTS A. Statistics of Population In 1630 the population of Plymouth and Massachusetts Colonies was estimated at 8000 white people; in 1650, at 16,000; in 1700, at 70,000; while in 1750 it was placed at 220,000. In 1790 the population of the State of Massacusetts was 378, 787; in 1905 it was 3,003,680. The density of population increased from 47 to the square mile, in 1790, to 373, in 1905. In 1790 over nine-tenths of the population lived in rural communities, while in 1905 less than one-fourth (22.26 per cent) of the total populatiion lived in communities of 8000 or less. The great tide of Irish immigration began in 1847. This has since conspicously modified the population of Massachusetts. In 1905 the ratio of increase in the native and in the foreign-born of the population was 6.46 per cent and 8.47 per cent respectively; the number of native-born in the total population being 2, 085,636, and that of the foreign-born being 918,044, an increase of the latter of 459.7 per cent since 1850. This foreign-born population is mostly (83.91 per cent) in cities and towns with populations of more than 8000. Ireland has furnished 25.75 per cent of the total foreign-born. Canada (exclusive of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and prince Edward Island) is second, with a population of 12.88 per cent of the total foreign-born population. At present Russia supplies the largest increase in foreign-born, having risen fron one-half of one per cent, in 1885, to 6.43 per cent, in 1905. Italy's contribution in the same period rose from 76 per cent to 5.51 per cent. Almost sixty per cent of the entire population of Massachusetts is now of foreign parentage. In the cities of Fall River and Lawrence it runs as high as four-fifths of the entire population, while in Holyoke, Lowell, and Chicopee it is more than three-fourths. In Boston the population of foreign parentage forms 60.03 per cent, while at New Bedford it rises to 72.34 per cent, at Worcester to 65.64 percent, at Cambridge to 65.16 per cent, at Woburn to 63.63 per cent, and at Salem to 61.10 per cent. The Greeks have increased in Massachusetts 1242.7 per cent since 1895, a greater rapidity of increase than all peoples of foreign parentage in the population. Austria comes next, and italy is third. In the city of Boston, Irish parentage gives 174,770 out of a total census of 410,960 persons of foreign parentage, and this nationality predominates in every ward except the eighth, where Russian parentage stands first. The transformation in the racial and national population in Massachusetts has likewise changed the religious prominence of the various denominations. The present order of denominations in this state is: Catholics, 69.2 per cent; Congregationalist, 7.6 per cent, Baptists, 5.2 per cent; Methodists, 4.2 per cent; Protestant Episcopalians, 3.3 per cent. B. Economic Conditions Massachusetts was not favoured by nature for an agricultural centre. The soil is sandy in the level areas and clayey in the hill sections. The valleys of the streams are rich in soil favourable to vegetable- and fruit-production. The early industries were cod and mackerel fisheries. At the outbreak of the Revolutiion, commerce was the most profitable occupation, and after the declaration of peace, Massachusetts sent its ships to all parts of the world. The European wars helped this commerce greatly until the War of 1812, with its embargo and non-intercourse laws, which forced the American vessels to stay at home. It had its recompense however, in the birth of manufactures, an industry attempted as early as 1631 and 1644 but subsequently suppressed by the mother country. The first cotton mill was established at Beverly in 1787. It was not until 1840, however, that the cotton and leather industries attained permanent leadership. According to the published statistics of 1908, Massachusetts had 6044 manufacturing establishments, with a yearly product valued at $1,172,808,782. The boot and shoe industry was the leading industry of the State, with a yearly production of $213,506,562. This industry produced 18.2 per cent of the product value of the State, and one-half of all the product in this line in the United States. The cotton manufactures were 13.51 per cent of the State's total product. The total capital devoted to production in the state was $717,787,955. More than 480,000 wage-earners were employed (323,308 males; 156,826 females) in the various manufacturing industries of the State, the two leading industries employing 35.22 per cent of the aggregate average number of all employees. The average yearly earning for each operative is $501.71. The Massachusetts laws prohibit more than fifty-eight hours weekly employment in mercantile establishments, and limit the day's labour to ten hours. No woman or minor can be employed for purposes of manufacturing between the hours of ten o'clock p.m. and six o'clock a.m.; no minor under eighteen years and no woman can be employed in any textile factory between six o'clock p.m. and six o'clock a.m.; no child under fourteen years of age can be employed during the hours when the public schools are in session, nor between seven o'clock p.m. and six o'clock a.m. Children under fourteen years, and children over fourteen years and under sixteen years, who cannot read at sight and write legible simple sentences in the English language, shall be permitted to work on Saturdays between six o'clock a.m. and seven o'clock p.m. only. Transportation facilities have kept pace with the growth of the industries. Two main railroad systems connect with the West, and, by means of the interstate branches, these connect with all the leading industrial cities. One general railroad system with its subdivisions connects witht he South, via New York. The means of transportation by water are no less complete thant hose by rail, and offer every facility to bring coal and other supplies of the world into connection with the various railroad terminals for distribution. C. Education All education in Massachusetts was at first religious. We read of the establishment in 1636 of Harvard College, "lest an illiterate ministry might be left to the churches," and "to provide for the instruction of the people in piety, morality, and learning." The union of Church and State was accepted, and the General Court agreed to give 400 pounds towards the establishment of the college. Six years later it was resolved, "taking into consideration the great neglect of many parents and guardians in training up their children in learning and labor and other employment which may be profitable to the Commonwealth . . . that chosen men in every town are to redress this evil, are to have power to take account of parents, masters, and of their children, especially of their ability to read and understand the principles of religion and the capital laws of the country." This was the origin of compulsory education in Massacusetts. In 1647 every town was ordered, under penalty of a fine, to build and support a school for the double purpose of religious instruction and of citizenship; every large town of one hundred families to build a grammar school to fit the youths for the university. Thus was established the common free school. The union of Church and State was as pronounced in education as in civic affairs. When the grants from the legislature--colonial, provincial, and state--failed to meet the expenses of salaries and maintenance, lotteries were employed. The last grant to Harvard College from the public treasury was in 1814. Congregationalism had controlled education and legislation, and the corporation of Harvard College was limited to state officials and a specified number of Congregational clergymen. It was not until 1843 that other than Congregationalists were eligible for election as overseers of the college. The original system of state education, as outlined above, was uninterrupted until the close of the Revolution. The burdens of the war, with its poverty and taxation, reduced the "grammar school" to a very low standard. Men of ability found a more lucrative occupation than teaching. Private schools sprang into existence about this time, and the legacies of Dummer, Philips, Williston, and others made their foundations the prparatory schools for Harvard. In 1789 the legislature passed an act substituting six months for the constant instruction provided for towns of fifty families; and the law required a grammar-teacher of determined qualifications for towns of 200 families, instead of the similar requirements for all towns of half that population. In 1797 the Legislature formally adopted all the incorporated academies as public state schools, and thus denominational education almost entirely replaced the grammar schools founded in 1647. The act of 1789 was repealed in 1824. This aided greatly the private denominational schools and gave to them a false and fictious social, intellectual, and moral standing. The American Institute of Instruction was formed in 1830 at Boston as a protest against the low standard of teaching in the public schools. Three years prior to this (1827) the Legislature had established the State Board of Education, which remained unchanged in form until 1909. That same year was made historic by the Legislature voting to make it unlawful to use the common schools, or to teach anything in the schools, in order to turn the children to a belief in any particular sect. This was the first show of strength Unitarianism had manifestd in Massachusetts, and it had retained its control of the educational policy of the state since that date. In 1835 the civil authorities at Lowell authorized the establishment of separate Catholic schools with Catholic teachers and with all textbooks subject to the pastor's approval. The municipality paid all the expenses except the rent of rooms. This experiment was a great success. The general wave of religious fanaticism, which swept the country a few years later, was responsible for the acceptance of the referendum vote of 21, May, 1855, which adopted the constitutional amendment that "all moneys thus raised by taxation in town, or appropriated by the state, shall never be appropriated to any religious sect for the maintenance exclusively of its own schools." The Civil War resulted in a saner view of many questions which had ben blurred by by passion and prejudice, and in 1862 (and again in 1880) the statute law was modiefied so that "Bible reading is required, but without written note or oral comment; a pupil is exempt from taking part in any such exercise if his parent or guardian so wishes; any version is allowed, and no committee may purchase or order to be used in any public school books calculated to favor the tenets of any particular sect of Christians." This, in brief, is the process by which the secularization of the public schools came about, a complete repudiation of the law of 1642. Massachusetts has ten state normal schools with over 2000 pupils and a corps of 130 teachers. In the 17,566 public schools there are 524,319 pupils with an average attendance of 92 per cent. The proportion of teachers is 1281 male and 13, 497 female. The total support of the public schools amounts annually to $14, 697,774. There are forty-two academies with an enrolment of over 6000 pupils, and 344 private schools with a registration of 91,772. The local annual tax for school support per chhild between the ages of five to fifteen years is $26. The total valuation of all schools fifteen years is $26. The total valuation of all schools in Massachusetts is $3, 512, 557,604. There are within the state eighteen colleges or universities, six of them devoted to the education of women only. Massachusetts has also eight schools of theology, three law schools, four medical schools, two dental schools, one school of pharmacy, and three textile schools. The only colleges in Massachusetts (except textile schools) receiving state or deferal subsidies are the State Agricultural Colleges and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the latter receiving both. The number of public libraries in Massachusetts exceeds that of any other state. The list includes 2586 libraries with 10,810,974 volumes valued at $12,657,757. There are 623 reading rooms, of which 301 are free. There are thirty schools for the dependent and the afflicted. The growth of the Catholic schools has been notable. Besides Holy Cross College at Worcester, and Boston College at Boston, there are in the Diocese of Boston seventy-nine grammar schools and twenty-six high schools with a teaching staff of 1075 persons and an enrolment of 52,143. This represents an investment of more than $2,700.000, a yearly interest of $135,000. More than a third of the parishes in this diocese now maintain parochial schools. In the Diocese of Fall River there are over 12,000 pupils in 28 parochial schools, besides a commercial school with 363 pupils. In the Diocese of Springfield there are 24, 562 pupils in 56 parochial schools. D. Laws affecting Religion and Morals Elsewhere in this article we have traced colonial laws and legislation. The Constitution of the United States gave religious liberty. The State Constitution of 1780 imposed a religious test as a qualification for office and it authorized the legislature to tax the towns, if necessary "for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religiion, and morality." The former law was repealed in 1821, and the latter in 1833. Complete religious equality has existed since the latter date. The observance of the Lord's Day is amply safeguarded, but entertainments for charitable purposes given by charitable or religious societies are permitted. The keeping of open shop or engaging in work or business not for charitable purposes is forbidden. Many of the rigid laws of colonial days are yet unrepealed. There is no law authorizing the use of prayer in the Legislature; custom, however, has made it a rule to open each session with prayer. This same custom has become the rule in opening the several sittings of the higher courts. Catholic priests have officiated at times at the former. The present Archbishop of Boston offered prayer at the opening of at least one term of the Superior Court, being the first Catholic to perform this office. The courts and the judiciary have full power to administer oaths. The legal holidays in Massachusetts are 22 February, 19 April (Patriot's Day), 30 May, 4 July, the first Monday in September (Labor Day), 12 Oct. (Columbus Day), Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. The list does not include Good Friday. The seal of confession is not recognized by law, although in practice sacramental confession is generally treated as a privileged conversation. Incorporation of churches and of charitable institutions is authorized by statute. Such organizations may make their own laws and elect their own officers. Every religious society so organized shall constitute a body corporate with the powers given to corporations, body corporate with the powers given to corporations. Section 44, chapter 36, of the Public Statutes provide that the Roman Catholic archbishop or bishop, the vicar-general of the diocese, and the pastor of the church for the time being, or a majority of these, may associate with themselves two laymen, communications of the church, may form a body corporate, the signers of the certificate of incorporation becoming the trustees. Such corporation may receive, hold, and manage all real and personal property belonging to the church, sell, transfer, hold trusts, bequests, etc., but all property belonging to any church or parish, or held by such a corporation, shall never exceed one hundred thousand dollars, exclusive of church buildings. All church property and houses of religious worship (except that part of such houses appropriated for purposes other than religious worship or instruction) are exempt from taxation. This exemption extends to the property of literary, benevolent, charitable, and scientific institutions and temperance societies; also to legacies, cemeteries, and tombs. Clergymen are exempt from service as constables, from jury service, and service in the militia. Clergymen are permitted by law to have access to prisoners after death sentence, and are among those designated as "officials" who may be present at executions. The statutes prohibit marriage between relatives, and recognize marriage by civil authorities and by rabbis. The statutory grounds for divorce recognized are adulter, impotency, desertion continued for three consecutive years, confirmed habits of intoxication by liquor, opium, or drugs, cruel and abusive treatment; also if either party is sentenced for life to hard labour, or five or more years in state prison, jail, or house of correction. The Superior Court hears all divorce libels. After a decree of divorce has become absolute, either party may marry again as if the other were dead; except that the party from whom the decree was granted shall not marry within two years. The sale of intoxicating liquors is regulated by law. Each community, city or town votes annually upon the question, whether or not licence to sell liquor shall be issued in that municipality. Special boards are appointed to regulate the conditions of such licences. The number of licences that may be granted in each town or city is limited to one to each thousand persons, though Boston has a limitation of one license to five hundred of the population. The hours of opening and closing bars are regulated by law. Any person owning property can object to the granting of a licence to sell intoxicating liquors within twenty-five feet of his property. A licence cannot be granted to sell intoxicating liquors on the same street as or within four hundred feet of a public school. E. Religious Libery In the beginning Massachusetts was Puritan against the Catholic first, against all non-conformists to their version of established religion next. The Puritan was narrow in mind and for the most part limited in education, a type of man swayed easily to extremes. England was at that period intensely anti-papal. In Massachusetts, however, the antipathy early became racial: first against the French Catholic, later against the Irish Catholic. This racial religious bigotry has not disappeared wholly in Massachusetts. Within the pale of the Church racial schisms have been instigated from time to time in order that the defeat of Catholicism might be accomplished when open antagonism from without failed to accomplish the end sought. In politics it is often the effective shibboleth. Congregationalism soon took form in the colony and as early as 1631 all except Puritans were excluded by law from the freedom of the body politic. In 1647 the law became more specific and excluded priests from the colony. This act was reaffirmed in 1770. Bowdoin College preserves the cross and Harvard College the "Indian Dictionary" of Sebastian Rasle, the priest executed under the provision of the law. In 1746 a resolution and meeting at Faneuil Hall bear testimony that Catholics must prove, as well as affirm, their loyalty to the colony. Washington himself was called upon to suppress the insult of Pope Day at the siege of Boston. Each of these events was preceded by a wave of either French or Irish immigration, a circumstance which was repeated in the religious fanaticism of the middle of the nineteenth centruy. Cause and effect seem well established and too constant to be incidental. In all the various anti-Catholic uprisings, from colonial times to the present, there is not one instance where the Catholics were the aggressors by word or deed: their patience and forbearance have always been in marked contrast to the conduct of their non-Catholic contemporaries. In every one of the North Atlantic group of states, the Catholics now constitute the most numerous religiious denomination. In Massachusetts the number of the leading denominations is as follows: Catholics 1,373,752; Congregationalists 119,196; Baptists 80,894; Methodists, 6,498; Protestant Episcopalians 51,636, Presbyterians 8559. F. Catholic Progress Throughout the account of the doings among the colonists, there are references to the coming, short stay, and departure of some Irish priest or French Jesuit. In the newspaper account of the departure of the French from Boston, in 1782, it is related that the clergy and the selectmen paraded through the streets preceded by a cross-bearer. It was some fifty years later that the prosperity and activity of the Church aroused political demagoguery and religious bigotry. Massachusetts, as well as new York and Philadelphia, experienced the storm: a convent was burned, churches were threatened, monuments to revered heroes of the Church were razed, and cemeteries descrated. The consoling memory, however, of this period, is that Massachusetts furnished the Otises, the Lees, the Perkinses, Everetts, and Lorings--all non-Catholics--whose voices and pens were enlisted heartily in the cause of justice, toleration, and unity. In 1843, Rhode Island and Connecticut were set off from the original Diocese of Boston. Maine and New Hampshire, also under the jurisdiction of Boston, were made a new diocese ten years later, with the episcopal see at Portland. This was the period of the great Irish immigration, and Boston received a large quota. This new influx was, as in the previous century, looked upon as an intrusion and the usual result followed. New England had now become what Lowell was pleased to call "New Ireland". This religious and racial transformation, made the necessity for churches, academics, schools, asylums, priests, and teachers an imperative one. The work of expansion, both material and spiritual went forward apace. The great influx of Canadian Catholics added much to the Catholic population, which had now reached more than a million--souls over sixty-nine percent of the total religious population of the state. The era was not without its religious strife, this time within public and charitable institutions, state and municipal. This chapter reads like those efforts of proselytizing in the colonial days when names of Catholic children were changed, paternity denied, maternity falsified--all in the hope of destroying the true religiious inheritance of the state wards. The influence of Catholics in the governing of institutions, libraries, and schools has since then increased somewhat. The spiritual necessities of the vast Catholic communities are provided for abundantly; orphans are well housed; unfortunates securely protected; the poor greatly succoured; and the sick have the sacraments at their very door. Schools, academies, colleges, and convents, wherein Catholic education is given, are now within the reach of all. The whole period of Archbishop William's administration (1866-1907) has been appropriately called "the brick and mortar age of the Catholic Church in New England." (See ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON.) Upon the death of Archbiship Williams, in the summer of 1907, his coadjutor, the Most Reverend William H. O'Connell, D.D. (the present archbiship), was promoted to the metropolitan see. This archbiship invited the National Convention of the federation of Catholic Societies to meet in Boston with resulting interest, activity, and strength to that society, in which, indeed, he has shown a special interest. To develop the solidarity of priests and people, of races and nations, of the cultured and the unlettered--a unity of all the interests of the Church, the archbiship needed a free press: he purchased "The Pilot", secured able and fearless writers and placed it at a nominal cost within the reach of all. The dangers to the immigrant in a new and fascination enviroment are all anticipated, and safeguards are being strengthened daily. At the same time, the inherited misunderstanding of Puritan Massachusetts, and the evil machinations of those who would use religion and charity for selfish motives or aggrandizement are still active. The Catholic mind is aroused, however, and the battle for truth is being waged; Catholic Massachusetts moves forward, all under one banner--French Canadian, Italian, Pole, German, Portuguese, Greek, Scandinavian, and Irish--each vying with the other for an opportunity to prove his loyalty to the Church, to its priests, and to their spiritual leader. In every diocese and in each county well-organized branches of the Federation, exist, temperance and church societies flourish, educational and charitable associations are alive and active. The Church's ablest laymen are enlisted, and all are helping mightily to accomplish the avowed intention of the Archbishop of Boston, to make Massachusetts the leading Catholic state in the country. (See also CHEVERUS, JEAN LOUIS DE; FALL RIVER, DIOCESE OF; SPRINGFIELD, DIOCESE OF.) AUSTIN, History of Massachusetts (Boston, 1876); BANCROFT, History of the United States, I (London, 1883-84); BARRY, History of New England, I (Boston, 1855); Boston Town Records (Boston, 1772); BRADFORD, History of Plymouth Plantation; DAVIS, The New England States, III (Boston, 1897); DRAKE, The Making of New England, 1584-1643 (New York), 1886); DWIGHT, Travels in New England, I (New Haven, 1821), 22; EMERSON, Education in Massachusetts, Massachusetts Historical Collection (Boston, 1869); HALE, Review of the Proceedings of the Nunnery Committee (Boston, 1855); HARRINGTON, History of Harvard Medical School, III (New York, 1905); Irish Historical Proceedings, II (Boston, 1899); LEARY, History of the Catholic Church in New England States, I (Boston, 1899); Massachusetts Historical Society Collection, 1st ser., V. (Boston, 1788); Proceedings, 2d ser., III (Boston, 1810) McGee, The Irish Settlers in America (Boston, 1851); PARKER, The First Charter and the Early Religious Legislation of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Historical Collection (1869); WALSH, The Early Irish Catholic Schools of Lowell, Mass.,1835-1865 (Boston, 1901); IDEM, Am. Cath. Q. Rev. (January, 1904). THOMAS F. HARRINGTON Guglielmo Massaia Guglielmo Massaia A Cardinal, born 9 June, 1809, at Piova in Piedmont, Italy; died at Cremona, 6 August, 1889. His baptismal name was Lorenzo; that of Guglielmo was given him when he became a religious. He was first educated at the Collegio Reale at Asti under the care of his elder brother Guglielmo, a canon and precentor of the cathedral of that city. On the death of his brother he passed as a student to the diocesan seminary; but at the age of sixteen entered the Capuchin Franciscan Order, receiving the habit on 25 September, 1825. Immediately after his ordination to the priesthood, he was appointed lector of theology; but even whilst teaching he acquired some fame as a preacher and was chosen confessor to Prince Victor Emmanuel, afterwards King of Italy, and Ferdinand, Duke of Genoa. The royal family of Piedmont would have nominated him on several occasions to an episcopal see, but he strenuously opposed their project, being desirous of joining the foreign missions of his order. He obtained his wish in 1846. That year the Congregation of Propaganda, at the instance of the traveller Antoine d'Abbadie, determined to establish a Vicariate-Apostolic for the Gallas in Abyssinia. The mission was confided to the Capuchins, and Massaia was appointed first vicar-apostolic, and was consecrated in Rome on 24 May of that year. On his arrival in Abyssinia he found the country in a state of religious agitation. The heretical Coptic bishop, Cyril, was dead and there was a movement amongst the Copts towards union with Rome. Massaia, who had received plenary faculties from the pope, ordained a number of native priests for the Coptic Rite; he also obtained the appointment by the Holy See of a vicar-apostolic for the Copts, and himself consecrated the missionary Giustino de Jacobis to this office. But this act aroused the enmity of the Coptic Patriarch of Egypt, who sent a bishop of his own, Abba Salama, to Abyssinia. As a result of the ensuing political agitation, Massaia was banished from the country and had to flee under an assumed name. In 1850 he visited Europe to gain a fresh band of missionaries and means to develop his work: he had interviews with the French Minister of Foreign Affairs in Paris, and with Lord Palmerston in London. On his return to the Gallas he founded a large number of missions; he also established a school at Marseilles for the education of Galla boys whom he had freed from slavery; besides this he composed a grammar of the Galla language which was published at Marseilles in 1867. During his thirty-five years as a missionary he was exiled seven times, but he always returned to his labours with renewed vigour. However, in 1880 he was compelled by ill-health to resign his mission. In recognition of his merit, Leo XIII raised him to the titular Archbishopric of Stauropolis, and on 10 November, 1884, to the dignity of cardinal of the title of S. Vitalis. At the command of the pope he wrote an account of his missionary labours, under the title, "I miei trentacinque anni di missione nell' alta Etiopia", the first volume of which was published simultaneously at Rome and Milan in 1883, and the last in 1895. In this work he deals not only with the progress of the mission, but with the political and economic conditions of Abyssinia as he knew them. MASSAIA, I miei trentacinque anni etc.; Analecta Ordinis FF. Min. Capp., V, 291 seq. FATHER CUTHBERT Massa Marittima Diocese of Massa Marittima (MASSANA) Massa Marittima, in the Province of Grosseto, in Tuscany, first mentioned in the eighth century. It grew at the expense of Populonia, an ancient city of the Etruscans, the principal port of that people, and important on account of its iron, tin, and copper works. Populonia was besieged by Sulla, and in Strabo's time was already decadent; later it suffered at the hands of Totila, of the Lombards, and in 817 of a Byzantine fleet. After this, the bishops of Populonia abandoned the town, and in the eleventh century, established their residence at Massa. In 1226 Massa became a commune under the protection of Pisa. In 1307 it made an alliance with Siena, which was the cause of many wars between the two republics that brought about the decadence of Massa. The town has a fine cathedral. The first known Bishop of Populonia was Atellus (about 495); another was Saint Cerbonius (546), protector of the city, to whom Saint Gregory refers in his Dialogues. Among the bishops of Massa were the friar Antonio (1430), a former general of the Franciscans, and legate of Boniface IX; Leonardo Dati (1467), author of poetic satires; Alessandro Petrucci (1601), who embellished the cathedral and the episcopal palace; the Camaldolese Eusebio da Ciani (1719), who governed the diocese for fifty-one years. This see was at first suffragan of Pisa, but since 1458 of Siena. It has 29 parishes, 68,200 inhabitants, one religious house of men and four of women. CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, XVII (Venice, 1862). U. BENIGNI. Enemond Masse Enemond Massé One of the first Jesuits sent to New France; born at Lyons, 1574; died at Sillery, l2 May, 1646. He went to Acadia with Father Biard, and when it was found impossible to effect any good there, they established a new mission at the present Bar Harbor, Maine, which was soon after destroyed by the English -- Massé being set adrift on the sea in an open boat. He succeeded in reaching a French ship and returned to France. In 1625 he again set sail for Canada, and remained there until the fall of Quebec. He returned a third time in 1632, but, as he was in advanced in age, he no longer laboured among the savages, but lived mostly at Sillery, which he built as a reservation for the converted Indians. A monument has recently been erected to his honour at this place on the site of the old Jesuit Church which stood on the bank of the St. Lawrence a short distance above Quebec. T.J. CAMPBELL Bequest For Masses (Canada) Bequests for Masses (Canada) The law governing bequests, being concerned with "property and civil rights", falls within the legislative competency of the provincial legislatures, not of the Dominion Parliament. The basic law in all the provinces is, however, not the same. Any question concerning bequests is, therefore, one of provincial, not Dominion law. There is no statute enacted by any of the legislatures specially affecting bequests for Masses. Quebec In this province there is no question of the validity of such bequests. The basic law is the French law as in force in the province at the time of the cession (1759-63). Whether such bequests were or are valid under English statutory or Common Law, is immaterial. Under article 869 of the Civil Code a testator may make bequests for charitable or other lawful purposes. The freedom of the practice of the Catholic religion being not only recognized but guaranteed, as well under the Treaty of Cession (1763) as under the terms of the Quebec Act (1774), and subsequent Provincial Legislation (14 & 15 Vic., Can., c. 175) having confirmed that freedom, a bequest for the saying of Masses is clearly for a lawful purpose. Ontario In this province the law of England, as in force on 15 October, 1792, introduced "so far as it was not from local circumstances inapplicable", under powers conferred by the statute of 1791, which divided the old Province of Quebec into Lower and Upper Canada, is the basic law. That Act preserved to Roman Catholics in Upper Canada the rights as regards their religion secured to them under the Act of 1774. The provincial legislation cited as regards Quebec being enacted after the reunion of Upper and Lower Canada, was also law in this province. The validity of bequests for the saying of Masses was upheld in the case of Elmsley and Madden (18 Grant Chan. R. 386). The court held that the English law, as far as under it such dispositions may have been invalid, was inapplicable under the circumstances of the province, wherein the Catholic religion was tolerated. This case has been accepted as settling the law. British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan In British Columbia the civil law of England, as it existed on 19 November, 1858, and in the three other of these provinces, that law as it existed on 15 July, 1870, "so far as not from local circumstances inapplicable", is the basic law. The Ontario judgment above cited is in practice accepted as settling the question under consideration. In Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island Though there is no statutory enactment making the English law applicable, it has, since the acquisition of Acadia by Great Britain, been recognized as being in force. In these provinces, however, that law in so far as it may treat as void dispositions for the purpose in question as being for superstitious uses, has always been treated as inapplicable. The validity of such bequests was maintained in an elaborate judgment of Hodgins, Master of the Rolls, in an unreported case of Gillis and Gillis in Prince Edward Island in 1894. CHAS. J. DOHERTY. Bequests For Masses (England) Bequests for Masses (England) Before the Reformation dispositions of property, whether real or personal, for the purposes of Masses, were valid, unless where, in the case of real property, they might happen to conflict with the Mortmain laws by being made to religious congregations. There was a tenure of land known as tenure by divine service, an incident of which was the saying of Masses and of prayers for the dead. The Statute of Westminster, 31 Edward III, c. 11, contained a provision that the administrators of an intestate should be able to recover by action debts due to the intestate and that they should administer and dispense for the soul of the dead. The wills of various great people who lived in those ages contain bequests for Masses. Henry VII left £250 for 10,000 Masses to be said for his and other souls. The will of Henry VIII, made on 30 December, 1546, contains a provision for an altar over his tomb in St. George's Chapel in Windsor where daily Mass shall be said "as long as the world shall indure", and it sets out a grant to the dean and canons of the chapel of lands to the value of £600 a year for ever to find two priests to say Mass and to keep four obits yearly and to give alms for the King's soul: and it contains other provisions for requiem masses and prayers for his soul. But in a.d. 1531, by the statute 23 Henry VIII, c. 10, all subsequent assurances or dispositions of land to the use of a perpetual obit (i. e. a service for the dead to be celebrated at certain fixed periods) or the continual service of a priest were to be void if the use was to extend over more than twenty years, but if the use was limited to that or a less period the dispositions were to be valid. That even private Masses, were at that time approved by the state is shown by the six articles passed in a.d. 1539 (32 Henry VIII, c. 14), which constituted the denial of their expediency a felony. Henry VIII died 28 January a.d. 1547. The change of religion became much more marked in the following reign, and the government fostered the establishment in England of the Protestant doctrines which had begun to spread on the continent. In the same year the Six Articles were repealed and the Statute of Chauntries (1 Edward VI, c. 14) was passed from which the invalidity of bequests for requiem Masses has been deduced. The preamble to the statute recites that "a great part of the superstition and errors in the Christian religion hath been brought into the minds and estimation of men by reason of the ignorance of their very true and perfect salvation through the death of Jesus Christ and by devising and phantasying vain opinions of purgatory and masses satisfactory to be done for them which be departed, the which doctrine and vain opinion by nothing more is maintained and upholden than by the abuse of trentals, chauntries and other provisions made for the continuance of the said blindness and ignorance." The statute, after further reciting that the property given to such uses ought to be devoted to the founding of schools and other good purposes, enacted that property given to such uses, which had been so used within the preceding five years, should be given to the king. The statute only applied to past dispositions of property and it did not declare the general illegality of bequests for requiem Masses, nor has any other statute ever so declared (Cary v. Abbot, 1802, 7 Ves. 495). Nevertheless, the establishment of that principle has been deduced from it (West v. Shuttleworth, 1835, 2 M. & K. 679; Heath v. Chapman, 1854, 2 Drew 423). The statute was not repealed under Mary, and by 1 Eliz., c. 24, all property devoted to such uses in Mary's reign was given to the crown. There is a series of cases on the question decided under Elizabeth, notably that of Adams v. Lambert, decided in 1602, in the report of which the other cases are cited. Some of these decisions are slightly conflicting, but the main points to be drawn from the series are, first, that uses for Masses or prayers for the dead were held to be superstitions and unlawful, but, second, that the question of their unlawfulness was considered according as they came within the provisions of the Statute 1 Edward VI, c. 14. In that and the following century the Catholic religion was proscribed and any devise or bequest for the promotion of it was illegal and, as regarded the purpose thereof, void (Re Lady Portington 1692, 1 Salk 162). In the report of that case, as also in other later cases, the terms "superstitious" and "unlawful" appear to be applied indifferently to purposes for the maintenance of the Catholic religion. But dispositions for Catholic poor or Catholic schools or other Catholic purposes which might come under the general construction of "charity", passed to the crown to be devoted to other lawful charitable purposes (Cary v. Abbot above). In 1829 the Roman Catholic Relief Act was passed, which contained, however, in some of its sections still unrepealed, certain penal provisions against members of religious orders of men by reason of which the status of these orders in the United Kingdom is illegal. In 1832 the Roman Catholic Charities Act (2 and 3 William IV, c. 115) was passed. By it Catholics were, as regards their charitable purposes, put in the same position as that of Protestant dissenters. Therefore now, seemingly, a bequest for the celebration of Masses with no intention for souls departed would be valid, and, moreover, it would constitute a good charitable bequest, and so, it would be valid though made in perpetuity (Re Michel's Trusts, 1860, 28 Beav. 42). But it has been held that the act has not validated bequests for requiem Masses, that the law still regards them as "superstitious" (West v. Shuttleworth above), that they do not constitute charitable bequests and that, accordingly, the property given under them passes to the person otherwise entitled (Heath v. Chapman above). This is the position of the law today with the exception made by the Roman Catholic Charities Act, 1860, which provides that no lawful devise or bequest to any Catholic or Catholic Charity is to be invalidated because the estate devised or bequeathed is, also, subject to any trust deemed to be superstitious or prohibited through being to religious orders of men, but such latter trust may be apportioned by the Court or the Charity Commissioners to some other lawful Catholic charitable trust. Thus, a trust for requiem Masses is as such invalid, and where no question of apportionment can arise, for instance, where there is a specific legacy of money for the purpose only of such Masses, the estate which is subject to the trust does not pass to any charity but to the person otherwise entitled to it (Re Fleetwood, Sidgreaves v. Brewer, 1880, 15 Ch. D. 609). Also, a legacy for requiem Masses is invalid even though the legacy be payable in a country where it would be legally valid (Re Elliot, 1891, 39 W. R. 297). The grounds on which this position of the law is based appear rather unsatisfactory. Admittedly, there is no direct statutory illegality. In the case of Heath v. Chapman (above) Kindersley V. C. stated that the Statute I Edward VI, c. 14, assumed that trusts for Masses were already illegal — that they were in fact so — and that the statute has stamped on all such trusts, whether made before or since it, the character of illegality on the ground of being superstitious. Seeing that the statute was passed in the year of the death of Henry VIII, within eight years of the passing of the Six Articles, and that during that time there had been no statutory abolition of the Mass or condemnation of the doctrine of purgatory, it is not easy to discern how the legal invalidity of such bequests had already become established. In West v. Shuttleworth (above), which is the leading case on the subject, Pepys M. R. stated that it was by analogy to the statute that the illegality of these bequests had become established. This would seem to mean that their illegality was based upon the general policy of the law and upon principles resulting from such a change in the national system as must have arisen in that age from the complete change in the national church. In that case, since the policy applied to the whole realm including Ireland, where Protestantism became the established church and an even more vigorous anti-Catholic policy was pursued by the legislature, one would expect to find the illegality of bequests for Masses established in Ireland also, though the statute itself did not apply to Ireland. Thus, in the case of the Attorney-General v. Power, 1809 (1 B. & Ben. 150) Lord Manners, Irish Lord Chancellor, in giving judgment with regard to a bequest to a school by a Catholic testator, stated that he would not act upon the presumption that it was for the endowment of a Catholic school, and that such a bequest would by the law of England be deemed void either as being contrary to the provisions of the statute of Edward VI or as being against public policy. Yet the same Lord Chancellor, in the case of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations v. Walsh, 1823, 7 Ir. Eq. 32, after a prolonged argument before him, held a bequest for requiem Masses to be good. The ground of public policy in respect of this question seems no longer to hold good. There is no longer any public policy against Catholicism as such. As mentioned above, seemingly, a bequest for the mere celebration of Masses with no intention for souls departed would be valid. Moreover, seemingly, a bequest for the propagation of the doctrine of purgatory would be a good charitable bequest (Thornton v. Howe, 1862, 31 Beav. 19). Thus, since the Roman Catholic Charities Act 1832, putting Catholics as regards "their . . . charitable purposes" in the same position as other persons, the holding a bequest for Masses for the dead to be invalid appears necessarily to imply that the bequest is not to a charitable purpose and thereby to involve the inconsistency that it is not a "charity" to practise by the exercise of a "charity" the doctrine which it is a "charity" to propagate. Yet this is so even though, by the bequest being for Masses to be said for the departed generally, there is evidence of an intention on the part of the testator of promoting more than his own individual welfare. Thus, apparently, the real basis of the legal view of these bequests is that the law may not recognize the purpose of a spiritual benefit to one's fellow-creatures in an after existence intended by a person believing in the possibility of such a benefit. But such an attitude, apart from the inconsistency mentioned, seems to be opposed to the present policy of the law with regard to religious opinions, especially when the act of worship directed by the bequest, when viewed apart from the particular believed effect, is approved by the law as a charity. Doubt as to the soundness of the present law on the subject was expressed by Romilly M. R. in the case Re Michels Trusts (above), where he upheld a bequest for a Jewish prayer to be recited on the testator's anniversary in perpetuity, there being no evidence that the prayer was to be recited for the benefit of the testator's soul, and in the case re Blundell's Trusts, 1861 (30 Beav. 362), where he considered himself compelled, in compliance with the judgment in West v. Shuttleworth (above), to disallow a bequest by a Catholic testator for requiem Masses, stating that the law declaring such bequests to be invalid had now become so established that only a judgment of the House of Lords could alter it. It would be desirable that the decision of that tribunal should be obtained on this question. In Ireland bequests for requiem Masses have long been regarded as valid, and, by a recent decision given upon exhaustive consideration of the question by the Irish Court of Appeal, the law is settled that such bequests, even when the Masses are to be said in private, constitute good charitable gifts and so may be made in perpetuity (O'Hanlon v. Logue, 1906, 1 Ir. 247). But in Ireland, also, religious orders of men are illegal and any bequest for Masses to such an order which is to go to the benefit of the order is illegal and void (Burke v. Power, 1905, 1 Ir. 123). But such a bequest was allowed in one recent case, and in cases where the bequest for Masses contains no indication that the money is to go to the order itself the Court will allow the bequest (Bradshaw v. Jackman, 1887, 21 L. R. Ir. 15). The decisions show a strong general tendency to seek any means of escaping those penal provisions of the Catholic Relief Act, 1829, which, though never actively enforced, still remain on the statute book. This statutory illegality of any bequest to a religious order of men to go to the benefit of the order applies, of course, equally to England and to Scotland, where these provisions against religious orders are also law, but there does not appear to be any report of any decision on the point in either of these countries. In Scotland the position seems, otherwise, to be as follows: though, in the centuries succeeding the Reformation the public policy was distinctly anti-Catholic and there was legislation (like the anti-Popery Act passed in 1700, which, amongst other provisions, penalized the hearing of Mass) directed against the Catholic religion, yet there seems to have been no Statute which has given rise to the question of "superstition" on the special point of gifts for prayers for the dead. By an Act passed in 1793 Catholics in Scotland, who had made a declaration now no longer required, were put upon the same footing as other persons. The Catholic Charities Act, 1832, applied also to Scotland. The term "charity" is even rather more widely interpreted in Scottish law than in English law. Thus, in Scotland through the repeal of the legislation against Catholics and the legalization of bequests to their charitable purposes, legacies for requiem Masses seem to pass unquestioned. There is little doubt that, if they were to be challenged, the Courts would uphold them. In a recent case where there was a bequest for the celebration of Mass in perpetuity (there was no mention of any intention for the dead) the validity of the bequest was not in any way called in question (Marquess of Bute's Trustees v. Marquess of Bute, 1904, 7 F. 42). The law as to superstitious uses prevailing in England is not taken to be imported into the laws of British colonies or possessions (Yeap v. Ong, 1875, L. R. 6 C. P. 396). In Australia, though by an Act of the British Parliament passed in 1828, all the laws and statutes in force in England at that date were, as far as possible, to be applied to the administration of justice in the Courts of the new Australasian Colonies, the law as to superstitious uses has been held by the Supreme Court of Victoria not to apply there (In the Will of Purcell, 1895, 21, V. L. R. 249). This decision was followed in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in 1907 (Re Hartnett, 7 S. R. 463). There is little doubt that the law which these cases declare would be followed in all other Australian Colonies and in New Zealand. In India bequests for requiem Masses are valid (Das Merces v. Cones, 1864, 2 Hyde 65; Judah v. Judah, 1870, 2 B. L. R. 433). COKE on Littleton 96 (b); NICHOL, Wills of the Kings and Queens of England and of members of the Blood Royal from William the Conqueror to Henry VII (London, 1780); Will of King Henry the Eighth from an authentic copy in the Hands of an Attorney (London, 1793); DUKE on the Law of Charitable Uses, edited by BRIDGMAN (London, 1805). R. S. NOLAN. Devises and Bequests For Masses (United States) Devises and Bequests for Masses (United States) Prior to the period of the Reformation in England in 1532, Masses for the repose of the souls of the donors of property given for that purpose were upheld in England, but during that year a statute was passed providing that thereafter all uses declared of land, except leaseholds of twenty years, to the intent to have perpetual or the continued service of a priest, or other like uses, should be void. In the reign of Edward VI (1547), another statute was passed declaring the king entitled to all real and certain specified personal property theretofore disposed of for the perpetual finding of a priest or maintenance of any anniversary or obit, or other like thing, or any light or lamp at any church or chapel. These statutes did not make disposition of personal property to such uses void, and the statute of Henry VIII was prospective and applied only to assurances of land to churches and chapels, and that of Edward VI was limited to dispositions of property, real and personal, theretofore made. But the English chancellors and the English judges, in the absence of any express statute, determined all dispositions of property, whether real or personal, given or devised for uses specified in the two statutes, to be absolutely void as contrary to public policy, being for superstitious uses. The decision covered legacies such as to priests to pray for the soul of the donor or for the bringing up of poor children in the Roman Catholic faith. It has been expressly decided that these statutes and the doctrine of superstitious uses as enunciated by the English judges do not apply in the United States, although the first colonies from which the States grew were established subsequently to the dates of the adoption of the statutes referred to, and this, notwithstanding the fact that in some of the states statutes were passed adopting the common law and statutes of England so far as the same might be applicable to the altered condition of the settlers in the colonies. It has been pointed out that it is a maxim of law in the United States that a man may do what he will with his own, so long as he does not violate the law by so doing or devote his property to an immoral purpose; consequently, since there is a legal equality of sects and all are thus in the eyes of the law equally orthodox, to discriminate between what is a pious and what a superstitious use would be to infringe upon the constitutional guarantee of perfect freedom and equality of all religions (see opinion of Tuley, J., in the case o Kehoe v. Kehoe, reported as a note to Gilman v. McArdle, 12 Abb. N. C., 427 New York). In none of the states of the Union, therefore, are bequests or devises of property for Masses for the dead invalid on the ground of being superstitious, but there is a diversity among the decisions as to the circumstances under which such bequests or devises will be sustained. In New York the law of England on the subject of charitable and religious trusts has been completely abrogated by statute, it being intended that there should be no system of public charities in that state except through the medium of corporate bodies. The policy has been to enact from time to time general and special laws specifying and sanctioning the particular object to be promoted, restricting the amount of property to be enjoyed, carefully keeping the subject under legislative control, and always providing a competent and ascertained donee to take and use the charitable gifts (Levy v. Levy, 33 N. Y,, 97; Holland v. Alcock, 108 N. Y., 312). In accordance with this policy a general act was passed regulating the incorporation of religious bodies, and empowering the trustees to take into their possession property whether the same has been given, granted or devised directly to a church, congregation or society, or to any other person for their use (Laws of 1813, c. 60, s. 4, III; Cummings and Gilbert, "Gen. Laws and other Statutes of N. Y.", p. 3401). By the provisions of other statutes Roman Catholic churches come under this act (Laws of 1862, c. 45; Cummings and Gilbert, loc. cit., p. 3425). Therefore a bequest of real property for Masses will be upheld if it comply with the statutory requirements, which are; + (1) that the gift be to a corporation duly authorized by its charter or by statute to take gifts for such purpose and not to a private person; + (2) that the will by which the gift is made shall have been properly executed at least two months before the testator's death (Cummings and Gilbert, loc. cit., p. 4470; Laws of 1848, c. 319; Laws of 1860, c. 360: Lefevre v. Lefevre, 59 N. Y., 434), and + (3) that if the testator have a wife, child, or parent the bequest shall not exceed one-half of his property after his debts are paid (ibid., see Hagenmeyer's Will, 12 Abb. N. C., 432). Every trust of personal property, which is not contrary to public policy and is not in conflict with the statute regulating the accumulation of interest and protecting the suspension of absolute ownership in property of that character, is valid when the trustee is competent to take and a trust is for a lawful purpose well defined so as to be capable of being specifically executed by the court (Holmes v. Mead, 52 N. Y., 332). "If then a Catholic desire to make provision by will for saying of Masses for his soul, there is not the shadow of a doubt but that every court in the State [New York], if not in the Union, would uphold the bequest if the mode of making it were agreeable to the law" (see careful article written in 1886 by F. A. McCloskey in "Albany Law Journal", XXXII, 367). For similar reasons in Wisconsin, where all trusts are abolished by statute except certain specified trusts with a definite beneficiary, a gift for Masses, to be good, must not be so worded as to constitute a trust. Thus a bequest in the following language: "I do give and bequeath unto the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Green Bay, Wisconsin, the sum of $4150, the said sum to be used and applied as follows: For Masses for the repose of my soul, two thousand dollars, for Masses for the repose of the soul of my deceased wife, etc., etc." The court held that a trust was created by this language, and says: "It is evident that such a trust is not capable of execution, and no court would take cognizance of any question in respect to it for want of a competent party to raise and litigate any question of abuse or perversion of the trust." But it adds: "We know of no legal reason why any person of the Catholic faith, believing in the efficacy of Masses, may not make a direct gift or bequest to any bishop or priest of any sum out of his property or estate for Masses for the repose of his soul or the souls of others, as he may choose. Such gifts or bequests, when made in clear, direct, and legal form, should be upheld; and they are not to be considered as impeachable or invalid under the rule that prevailed in England by which they were held void as gifts to superstitious uses" (72 N. W. Rep., 631). The same view was taken by the Supreme Court of Alabama, where a bequest to a church to be used in solemn Masses for the repose of the soul of the testator was held invalid inasmuch as it did not respond to any one of the following tests: + (1) that it was a direct bequest to the church for its general uses; + (2) that it created a charitable use; or + (3) that it created a valid private trust. It was not a charity inasmuch as it was "for the benefit alone of his own soul, and cannot be upheld as a public charity without offending every principle of law by which such charities are supported and it was not valid as a private trust for want of a living beneficiary to support it (Festorazzi v. St. Joseph's R. C. Church of Mobile, 25 Law. Rep. Ann., 360). In Illinois an opposite conclusion is reached, it being held distinctly that a devise for Masses for the repose of the soul of the testator, or for the repose of the souls of other named persons, is valid as a charitable use, and the devise for such purpose will not be allowed to fail for want of a competent trustee, but the court will appoint a trustee to take the gift and apply it to the purposes of the trust. Such a bequest s distinctly held to be within the definition of charities which are to be sustained irrespective of the indefiniteness of the beneficiaries, or of the lack of trustees, or the fact that the trustees appointed are not competent to take; and it is not derived from the Statute of Charitable Uses (43 Elizabeth, c. 4), but existed prior to and independent of that statute. The court quotes with approval the definition of a charity as given by Mr. Justice Gray of Massachusetts: "A charity in a legal sense may be more fully defined as a gift, to be applied consistently with existing laws, for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their hearts under the influence of education or religion, by relieving their bodies from disease, suffering, or constraint, by assisting them to establish themselves for life, or by erecting and maintaining public buildings or works, or otherwise lessening the burthen of government. It is immaterial whether the purpose is called charitable in the gift itself, if it be so described as to show that it is charitable in its nature" (Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen, 539). The court proceeds to show that the Mass is intended to be a repetition of the sacrifice of the Cross, and is the chief and central act of worship in the Catholic Church; that it is public. It points out the Catholic belief on the subject of Purgatory, and holds that the adding of a particular remembrance in the Mass does not change the character of the religious service and render it a mere private benefit; and further, that the bequest is an aid to the support of the clergy (Hoeffer v. Clogan, 49 N. E. Rep., 527). In Pennsylvania bequests and devises for Masses are distinctly held to be gifts for religious uses, the Supreme Court of that state having expressed the same view of the law subsequently adopted in Illinois. The court uses the following language: "According to the Roman Catholic system of faith there exists an intermediate state of the soul, after death and before final judgment, during which guilt incurred during life and unatoned for must be expiated; and the temporary punishments to which the souls of the penitent are thus subjected may be mitigated or arrested through the efficacy of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice. Hence the practice of offering Masses for the departed. It cannot be doubted that, in obeying the injunction of the testator, intercession would be specially invoked in behalf of the testator alone. The service is just the same in kind whether it be designed to promote the spiritual welfare of one or many. Prayer for the conversion of a single impenitent is as purely a religious act as a petition for the salvation of thousands. The services intended to be performed in carrying out the trust created by the testator's will, as well as the objects designed to be attained, are all essentially religious in their character" (Rhymer's Appeal, 93 Pa., 142). In Pennsylvania care must be taken to observe the provisions of the Act of 26 April, 1855, P. L., 332, which prohibits devises or legacies for charitable or religious uses, unless by will executed at least one month before the death of the testator. A gift to be expended for Masses, being a religious use, would come within this statute. The provisions of the law relating to attesting witnesses, requiring two credible and disinterested witnesses when any gift is made by will for religious or charitable uses, should also be noted. In Massachusetts the courts take the same view as those of Pennsylvania, that gifts for Masses are to be sustained as for religious uses (Re Schouler, 134 Mass., 126). In Iowa the Supreme Court has sustained a bequest "to the Catholic priest who may be pastor of the R. Catholic Church when this will shall be executed, three hundred dollars that Masses may be said for me", as being valid, though it contains no element of a charitable use. The court says: "We have said that this bequest, if the priest should accept the money, is a private trust: and we think it possesses the essential elements of such a trust, as much as it would if the object were the erection of a monument or the doing of any other act intended alone to perpetuate the memory or name of the testator. But even if there is a technical departure because of no living beneficiary, still the bequest is valid. We have also said that it is not a charity, and we can discover no element of a charity in it. It seems to be a matter entirely personal to the testator. In one or more cases the courts have felt the necessity in order to sustain such a bequest, to denominate it a charity because charitable bequests have had the sanction of the law. We know of no such limitation on testamentary acts as that bequests or devises must be in the line of other such acts, if otherwise lawful" (Moran v. Moran, 73 N. W. Rep., 617). It follows then that there is no legal inhibition on bequests for Masses in any of the United States either on the ground of public policy or because they offend against any inherent principle of right. But care must be taken in drafting the will to observe the statutes, where any exist, in relation to devises or bequests in trust for any purpose as well as the current of decisions where cases have arisen. The language should be clear and drawn in accordance with legal rules. It should not be left to the chances of interpretation. See the authorities quoted above. WALTER GEORGE SMITH. Jean-Baptiste Massillon Jean-Baptiste Massillon A celebrated French preacher and bishop; born 24 June, 1663; died 28 September, 1742. The son of François Massillon, a notary of Hyères in Provence, he began his studies in the college of that town and completed them in the college of Marseilles, both under the Oratorians. He entered the Congregation of the Oratory at the age of eighteen. After his novitiate and theological studies, he was sent as professor to the colleges of the congregation at Pèzenas, Marseilles, Montbrison, and, lastly, Vienne, where he taught philosophy and theology for six years (1689-95). Ordained priest in 1691, he commenced preaching in the chapel of the Oratory at Vienne and in the vicinity of that city. Upon the death of Villeroy, Archbishop of Lyons (1693), he was called upon to deliver the funeral oration, and six months later that of M. de Villars, Archbishop of Vienne. Joining the Lyons Oratory in 1695, and summoned to Paris in the following year, to be director of the Seminary of Saint-Magloire, he was thenceforward able to devote himself exclusively to preaching. As director of this seminary he delivered those lectures (conférences) to young clerics which are still highly esteemed. But a year later he was removed from his position at Saint-Magloire for having occupied himself too exclusively with preaching. Having preached the Lent at Montpellier in 1698, he preached it the next year at the Oratory of Paris. His eloquence in this series of discourses was very much approved, and, although he aimed at preaching in a style unlike that of his predecessors, public opinion already hailed him as the successor of Bossuet and Bourdaloue who were at that time reduced to silence by age. At the end of this year he preached the Advent at the court of Louis XIV — an honour which was in those days highly coveted as the consecration of a preacher's fame. He justified every hope, and the king wittily declared that, where he had formerly been well pleased with the preachers, he was now very ill pleased with himself. Massillon, by command, once more appeared in the chapel of Versailles for the Lent of 1701. Bossuet, who, according to his secretary, had thought Massillon very far from the sublime in 1699, this time declared himself very well satisfied, as was the king. Massillon was summoned again for the Lent of 1704. This was the apogee of his eloquence and his success. The king assiduously attended his sermons, and in the royal presence Massillon delivered that discourse "On the Fewness of the Elect", which is considered his masterpiece. Nevertheless, whether because the compromising relations of the orator with certain great families had produced a bad impression on the king, or because Louis ended by believing him inclined — as some of his brethren of the Oratory were thought to be — to Jansenism, Massillon was never again summoned to preach at the Court during the life of Louis XIV, nor was he even put forward for a bishopric. Nevertheless he continued, from 1704 to 1718, to preach Lent and Advent discourses with great success in various churches of Paris. Only in the Advent of 1715 did he leave those churches to preach before the Court of Stanislas, King of Lorraine. In the interval he preached, with only moderate success, sermons at ceremonies of taking the habit, panegyrics, and funeral orations. Of his funeral orations that on Louis XIV is still famous, above all for its opening: "God alone is great" — uttered at the grave of a prince to whom his contemporaries had yielded the title of "The Great". After the death of this king Massillon returned to favour at Court. In 1717 the regent nominated him to the Bishopric of Clermont (Auvergne) and caused him to preach before the young king, Louis XV, the Lenten course of 1718, which was to comprise only ten sermons. These have been published under the title of "Le Petit Carême" — Massillon's most popular work. Finally, he was received, a few months later, into the French Academy, where Fleury, the young king's preceptor, pronounced his eulogy. But Massillon, consecrated on 21 December, 1719, was in haste to take possession of his see. With its 29 abbeys, 224 priories, and 758 parishes, the Diocese of Clermont was one of the largest in France. The new bishop took up his residence there, and left it only to assist, by order of the regent, in the negotiations which were to decide the case of Cardinal de Noailles (q. v.) and certain bishops suspected of Jansenism, in accepting the Bull "Unigenitus", to assist at the coronation of Louis XV, and to preach the funeral sermon of the Duchess of Orleans, the regent's mother. He made it his business to visit one part of his diocese each year, and at his death he had been through the whole diocese nearly three times, even to the poorest and remotest parishes. He set himself to re-establish or maintain ecclesiastical discipline and good morals among his clergy. From the year 1723 on, he annually assembled a synod of the priests; he did this once more in 1742, a few days before his death. In these synods and in the retreats which followed them he delivered the synodal discourses and conférences which have been so much, and so justly, admired. If he at times displayed energy in reforming abuses, he was generally tender and fatherly towards his clergy; he was willing to listen to them; he promoted their education, by attaching benefices to his seminaries, and assured them a peaceful old age by building a house of retirement for them. He defended his clergy against the king's ministers, who wished to increase their fiscal burdens, and he never ceased to guard them against the errors and subterfuges of the Jansenists, who, indeed, assailed him sharply in their journal "Les Nouvelles Ecclésiastiques". Thoroughly devoted to all his diocesan flock, he busied himself in improving their condition. This is apparent in his correspondence with the king's intendants and ministers, in which he does his utmost to alleviate the lot of the Auvergne peasantry whenever there is a disposition to increase their taxation, or the scourge of a bad season afflicts their crops. The poor were always dear to him: not only did he plead for them in his sermons, but he assisted them out of his bounty, and at his death he instituted the hospital of Clermont for his universal heirs, the poor. His death was lamented, as his life had been blessed and admired by his contemporaries. Posterity has numbered him with Bossuet, Fénelon, Fléchier, and Mascaron, among the greatest French bishops of the eighteenth century. As an orator, no one was more appreciated by the eighteenth century, which placed him easily — at least as to preaching properly so called — above Bossuet and Bourdaloue. Our age places him rather lower. Massillon has neither the sublimity of Bossuet nor the logic of Bourdaloue: with him the sermon neglects dogma for morality, and morality loses its authority, and sometimes its security, in the eyes of Christians. For at times he is so severe as to render himself suspect of Jansenism, and again he is so lax as to be accused of complaisancy for the sensibilities and the philosophism of his time. His chief merit was to have excelled in depicting the passions, to have spoken to the heart in a language it always understood, to have made the great, and princes, understand the loftiest teachings of the Gospel, and to have made his own life and his work as a bishop conform to those teachings. During Massillon's lifetime only the funeral oration on the Prince de Conti was published (1709); he even disavowed a collection of sermons which appeared under his name at Trévoux (1705, 1706, 1714). The first authentic edition of his works appeared in 1745, published by his nephew, Father Joseph Massillon, of the Oratory; it has been frequently reprinted. But the best edition was that of Blampignon, Bar-le-Duc, 1865-68, and Paris, 1886, in four vols. It comprises ten sermons for Advent, forty-one for Lent, eight on the mysteries, four on virtues, ten panegyrics, six funeral orations, sixteen ecclesiastical conferences, twenty synodal discourses, twenty-six charges, paraphrases on thirty psalms, some pensées choisies, and some fifty miscellaneous letters or notes. D'ALEMBERT, Eloge de Massillon in Histoire des membres de l'Académie française (Paris, 1787), I; V; BAYLE, Massilion (Paris, 1867); BLAMPIGNON, Massillon d'après des documents inédits (Paris, 1879); L'épiscopat de Massillon (Paris, 1884); ATTAIS, Etude sur Massillon (Toulouse, 1882); COHENDY, Correspondance Mandements de Massillon (Clermont, 1883); PAUTHE, Massillon (Paris, 1908). ANTOINE DÉGERT. Massorah Massorah The textual tradition of Hebrew Bible, an official registration of its words, consonants, vowels and accents. It is doubtful whether the word should be pointed from the New Hebrew verb "to hand down," or from the verb meaning "to bind." The former pointing is seen in Ezech. xx, 37; the latter is due to the fact that in the Mishna, the word's primary meaning is "tradition". Our chief witness to Massorah is the actual text of manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible. Other witnesses are several collections of Massorah and the numerous marginal notes scattered over Hebrew manuscripts. The upper and lower margins and the end of the manuscript contain the Greater Massorah, such as lists of words; the side margins contain the lesser Massorah such as variants. The best collection of Massorah is that of Ginsburg, "The Massorah compiled from manuscripts alphabetically and lexically arranged" (3 vols. London, 1880-85). This article will treat: (I) the history and (II) the critical value of Massorah. For the number and worth of Massoretic manuscripts, see MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE. I. HISTORY OF MASSORAH Their sacred books were to the Jews an inspired code and record, a God-intended means to conserve the political and religious unity; and fidelity of the nation. It was imperative upon them to keep those books intact. So far back as the first century B.C., copyists and revisers were trained and employed to fix the Hebrew text. All had one purpose, -- to copy, i.e. according to the face-value of the Massorah. To reproduce their exemplar perfectly, to hand down the Massorah -- only this and nothing more was purposed by the official copyist of the Hebrew Bible. Everything new was shunned. There is evidence that false pronunciations were fixed by Massorah centuries before the invention of points such as are seen in our present Massoretic text. At times such early translations as those of Aquila, Theodotion, the Septuagint and the Peshitto give evidence of precisely the same erroneous pronunciation as is found at the pointed Hebrew text of to-day. (1) The Consonantal Text Hebrew had no vowels in its alphabet. Vowel sounds were for the most part handed down by tradition. Certain consonants were used to express some long vowels, these consonants were called Matres lectionis, because they determined the pronunciation. The efforts of copyists would seem to have become more and more minute and detailed in the perpetuation of the consonantal text. These copyists (grammateis) were at first called Sopherim (from the Hebrew word meaning "to count"), because, as the Talmud says, "they counted all the letters in the Torah" (Kiddushin, 30a). It was not till later on that the name Massoretes, was given to the preservers of Massorah. In the Talmudic period (c. A.D.300-500), the rules for perpetuating Massorah were extremely detailed. Only skins of clean animals must be used for parchment rolls and fastenings thereof. Each column must be of equal length, not more than sixty nor less than forty-eight lines. Each line must contain thirty letters, written with black ink of a prescribed make-up and in the square letters which were the ancestors of our present Hebrew text letters. The copyist must have before him an authentic copy of the text; and must not write from memory a single letter, not even a yod -- every letter must be copied from the exemplar, letter for letter. The interval between consonants should be the breadth of a hair, between words, the breadth of narrow consonant; between sections, the breadth of nine consonants; between books, the breadth of three lines. Such numerous and minute rules, though scrupulously observed, were not enough to satisfy the zeal to perpetuate the consonantal text fixed and unchanged. Letters were omitted which had surreptitiously crept in, variants and conjectural readings were indicated inside-margins -- words, "read but not written" (Qere), "written but not read" (Kethibh), "read one way but written another". These marginal critical notes went on increasing with time. Still more was done to fix the consonantal text. The words and letters of each book and of every section of the twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible were counted. The middle words and rnidddle letters of books and sections were noted. In the Talmud, we see how one rabbi was wont to pester the other with such trivial textual questions as the juxtaposition of certain letters in this or that section, the half-section in which this consonant or that was, etc. The rabbis counted the number of times certain words and phrases occurred in the several books and in the whole Bible; and searched for mystic meanings in that number of times. On the top and bottom margins of manuscripts, they grouped various peculiarities of the text and drew up alphabetical lists of words which occurred equally often -- for instance, of those which appeared once with and once without waw. In Cod. Babylon. Petropolitanus (A.D. 916), we have many critical marginal notes of such and of other peculiarities, v.g. a list of fourteen words written with final He which are to be read with Waw, and of eight words written with final Waw, which are to be read with He. Such were some of the painstaking means employed to preserve the consonantal text of the Massorah. (2) The Points Rolls that were destined for use in the synagogue were always unpointed. Rolls that were for other use came in time to receive vowel-points and accents; these latter indicated the interrelation of words and modulation of the voice in public cantillation. One scribe wrote the consonantal text; another put in vowel-points and accents of Massorah. The history of vocalization of the text is utterly unknown to us. It has been suggested that dogmatic interpretation clearly led to certain punctuations; but it is likelier that the pronunciation was part of Massorah long before the invention of punctuation. The very origin of this invention is doubtful. Bleek assigns it to the eighth century (cf. "Introd. to O.T." I, 109, London, 1894). Points were certainly unused in St. Jerome's time; he had no knowledge whatsoever of them. The punctuation of the traditional text was just as certainly complete in the nineth century; for R. Saadia Gaon (d. 942), of Fayum in Egypt, wrote treatises thereon. The work of punctuating must have gone on for years and been done by a large number of scholars who laboured conjointly and authoritatively. Strack (see "Text of O.T.", in Hastings, "Dict. of Bib.") says it is practically certain that the points came into Massorah by Syriac influence. Syrians strove, by such signs, to perpetuate the correct vocalization and intonation of their Sacred text. Their efforts gave an impulse to Jewish zeal for the traditional vocalization of the Hebrew Bible. Bleek ("Introd. to 0.T.", I, 110, London, 1894) and others are equally certain that Hebrew scholars received their impulse to punctuation from the Moslem method of preserving the Arabic vocalization of the Koran. That Hebrew scholars were influenced by either Syriac or Arabic punctuation is undoubted. Both forms and names of the Massoretic points indicate either Syriac or Arabic origin. What surprises us is the absence of any vestige of opposition to this introduction into Massorah of points that were most decidedly not Jewish. The Karaite Jews surprise us still more, since, during a very brief period, they transliterated the Hebrew text in Arabic characters. At least two systems of punctuation are Massoretic: the Western and the Eastern. The Western is called Tiberian, after the far famed school of Massorah at Tiberias. It prevailed over the Eastern system and is followed in most manuscripts as well as in all printed editions of the Massoretic text. By rather complicated and ingenious combinations of dots and dashes, placed either above or below the consonants, the Massoretes accurately represented ten vowel sounds (long and short a, e, i, o, u) together with four half-vowels or Shewas. These latter corresponded to the very much obscured English sounds of e, a, and o. The Tiberian Massoretes also introduced a great many accents to indicate the tone-syllable of a word, the logical correlation of words and the voice modulation in public reading. The Eastern or Babylonian system of punctuation shows dependence on the Western and is found in a few manuscripts -- chiefest of which is Cod. Babylon. Petropolitanus (A.D. 916). It was the punctuation of Yemen till the eighteenth century. The vowel signs are all above the consonants and are formed from the Matres lectionis. Disjunctive accents of this supralinear punctuation have signs like the first letter of their name; zaqeph; tarha. A third system of punctuation has been found in two fragments of the Bible lately brought to light in Egypt and now in the Bodleian Library (cf. Kahle in "Zeitschrift fur die Alttestam. Wissensehaft", 1901; Friedlander, "A third system of symbols for the Hebrew vowels and accents" in "Jewish Quarterly Review", 1895). The invention of points greatly increased the work of scribes; they now set themselves to list words with a view to perpetuating not only the consonants but the vowels Cod Babyl. Petropolitanus (A.D. 916), for instance, lists eighteen words beginning with Lamed and either Shewa or Hireq followed by Shewa; eighteen words beginning with Lamed and Pathah; together with an alphabetical list of words, which occur only once. II. CRITICAL VALUE OF MASSORAH During the seventeenth century, many Protestant theologians, such as the Buxtorfs, defended the Massoretic text as infallible; and considered that Esdras together with the men of the Great Synagogue had, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not only determined the Hebrew canon but fixed forever the text of the Hebrew Bible, its vowel points and accents, its division into verses and paragraphs and books. Modern text critics value Massorah, just as the Itala and Peshitto, only as one witness to a text of the second century. The pointed Massoretic text is witness to a text which is not certainly earlier than the eighth century. The consonantal text is a far better witness; unfortunately the tradition of this text was almost absolutely uniform. There were different schools of Massoretes, but their differences have left us very few variants of the consonantal text (see MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE). The Massoretes were slaves to Massorah and handed down one and one only text. Even textual peculiarities clearly due to error or accident, were perpetuated by rabbis who puzzled their brains to ferret out mystical interpretations of these peculiarities. Broken and inverted letters, consonants that were too small or too large, dots that were out of place -- all such vagaries were slavishly handed down as if God-intended and full of Divine meaning. WALTER DRUM Antoine Massoulie Antoine Massoulié Theologian, born at Toulouse, 28 Oct., 1632; died at Rome, 23 Jan., 1706. At an early age he entered the order of St. Dominic, in which he held many important offices; but above all these, he prized study, teaching, and writing, for the love of which he refused a bishopric and asked to be relieved of distracting duties. It was said that he knew by heart the Summa of St Thomas. He devoted himself with such earnestness to the study of Greek and Hebrew that he could converse fluently in both of these languages. His knowledge of Hebrew enabled him to overcome in public debate two Jewish Rabbis, one at Avignon in 1659, the other at Florence in l695. The latter became an exemplary Christian, his conversion being modestly ascribed by Massoulié to prayer more than to successful disputation. His published works and some unpublished manuscripts (preserved in the Casanatense Library at Rome) may be divided into two classes: those written in defence of the Thomistic doctrine of physical premotion, relating to God's action on free agents, and those written against the Quietists, whom he strenuously opposed, both by attacking their false teaching and also by explaining the true doctrine according to the principles of St. Thomas. His principal works are: "Divus Thomas sui interpres de divina motione et libertate creata" (Rome, 1692); "Oratio ad explicandam Summan theologicam D. Thomae" (Rome, 1701); "Méditationes de S.Thomas sur les trois vies, purgative, illuminative et unitive" (Toulouse, 1678); "Traité de la véritable oraison, où les erreurs des Quiétistes sont réfutées" (Paris, 1699); "Traité de l'amour de Dieu" (Paris, 1703). D.J. KENNEDY Rene Massuet René Massuet Benedictine patrologist, of the Congregation of St. Maur; born 13 August, 1666, at St. Ouen de Mancelles in the diocese of Evreux; died 11 Jan. 1716, at St. Germain des Prés in Paris. He made his solemn profession in religion in 1682 at Notre Dame de Lire, and studied at Bonnenouvelle in Orleans, where he showed more than ordinary ability. After teaching philosophy in the Abbey of Bee, and theology at St. Stephen 's, in Caen, he attended the lectures of the University and obtained the degrees of bachelor and licentiate in law. After this he taught a year at Jumieges and three years at Fécamp. He spent the year 1702 in Rome in the study of Greek. The following year he was called to St. Germain des Prés and taught theology there to the end of his life. His principal work, which he undertook rather reluctantly, is the edition of the writings of St. Irenaeus, Paris, 1710. An elegant edition of these writings had appeared at Oxford, 1702, but the editor, John Ernest Grabe was less intent on an accurate rendering of the text than on making Irenaeus favour Anglican views. Massuet enriched his edition with valuable dissertations on the heresies inpugned by St. Irenaeus and on the life, writings, and teaching of the saint. He also edited the fifth volume of the "Annales Ord. S. Ben". of Mabillon, with some additions and a preface inclusive of the biographies of Mabillon and Ruinart. We owe hirn, moreover, a letter to John B. Langlois, S.J., in defence of the Benedictine edition of St. Augustine, and five letters addressed to Bernard Pez found in Schelhorn's "Amoenitates Literariae". He left in manuscript a work entitled "Augustinus Graecus", in which he quotes all the passages of St. John Chrysostom on grace. FRANCIS MERSHMANN Quentin Massys Quentin Massys (MESSYS, METZYS) A painter, born at Louvain in 1466; died at Antwerp in 1530 (bet. 13 July and 16 September), and not in 1529, as his epitaph states (it dates from the seventeenth century). The life of this great artist is all adorned, or obscured, with legends. It is a fact that he was the son of a smith. There is nothing to prove, but it is not impossible that he first followed his father's trade. In any case he was a "bronzier" and medalist. On 29 March, 1528, Erasmus wrote to Boltens that Massys had engraved a medallion of him (Effigiem meam fudit aere). This was perhaps the medal dated 1519, a copy of which is at the Museum of Basle. In 1575 Molanas in his history of Louvain states that Quentin is the author of the standard of the baptismal fonts at St-Pierre, but his account is full of errors. As for the wrought iron dome over the well in the Marché-aux-Gants at Antwerp, which popular tradition attributes to him, the attribution is purely fanciful. Tradition also states that the young smith, in love with a young woman of Antwerp, became a painter for her sake. Indeed this pretty fable explains the poetical character of Massys. All his works are like love songs. Facts tell us only that the young man, an orphan since he was fifteen, was emancipated by his mother 4 April, 1491, and that in the same year he was entered as a painter on the registers of the Guild of Antwerp. He kept a studio which four different pupils entered from 1495 to 1510. He had six children by a first marriage with Alyt van Tuylt. She died in 1507. Shortly afterwards, in 1508 or 1509, he married Catherine Heyns, who bore him, according to some, ten children, according to others, seven. He seems to have been a respected personage. As has been seen, he had relations with Erasmus, whose portrait he painted in 1517 (the original, or an ancient copy, is at Hampton Court), and with the latter's friend, Petrus Egidius (Peter Gillis), magistrate of Antwerp, whose portrait by Massys is preserved by Lord Radnor at Longford. Dürer went to visit him immediately on his return from his famous journey to the Low Countries in 1519. On 29 July of that year Quentin had purchased a house, for which he had perhaps carved a wooden statue of his patron saint. In 1520 he worked together with 250 other artists on the triumphal arches for the entry of Emperor Charles V. In 1524 on the death of Joachim Patenier he was named guardian of the daughters of the deceased. This is all we learn from documents concerning him. He led a quiet, well-ordered, middle-class, happy life, which scarcely tallies with the legendary figure of the little smith becoming a painter through love. Nevertheless, in this instance also, the legend is right. For nothing explains better the appearance in the dull prosaic Flemish School of the charming genius of this lover-poet. It cannot be believed, as Molanus asserts, that he was the pupil of Rogier van der Weyden, since Rogier died in 1484, two years before Quentin's birth. But the masters whom he might have encountered at Louvain such as Gonts, or even Dirck, the best among them, distress by a lack of taste and imagination a dryness of ideas and style which is the very opposite of Massys's manner. Add to this that his two earliest known works, in fact the only two which count, the "Life of St. Anne" at Brussels and the Antwerp triptych, the "Deposition from the Cross", date respectively from 1509 and 1511, that is from a period when the master was nearly fifty years old. Up to that age we know nothing concerning him. The "Banker and His Wife" (Louvre) and the "Portrait of a Young Man" (Collection of Mme. André), his only dated works besides his masterpieces, belong to 1513 and 1514 (or 1519). We lack all the elements which would afford us an idea of his formation. He seems like an inexplicable, miraculous flower. When it is remembered that his great paintings have been almost ruined by restorations, it will be understood that the question of Massys contains insoluble problems. In fact the triptych of St. Anne at Brussels is perhaps the most gracious, tender and sweet of all the painting of the North. And it will always be mysterious, unless the principal theme, which represents the family or the parents of Christ, affords some light. It is the theme, dear to Memling, of "spiritual conversations", of those sweet meetings of heavenly persons, in earthly costumes, in the serenity of a Paradisal court. This subject, whose unity is wholly interior and mystic, Memling, as is known, had brought from Germany, where it had been tirelessly repeated by painters, especially by him who was called because of this, the Master der Heiligen Sippe. Here the musical, immaterial harmony, resulting from a composition which might be called symphonic, was enhanced by a new harmony, which was the feeling of the circulation of the same blood in all the assembled persons. It was the poem arising from the quite Germanic intimacy of the love of family. One is reminded of Suso or of Tauler. The loving, tender genius of Massys would be stirred to grave joy in such a subject. The exquisite history of St. Anne, that poem of maternity, of the holiness of the desire to survive in posterity, has never been expressed in a more penetrating, chaste, disquieting art. Besides, it was the beginning of the sixteenth century and Italian influences were making themselves felt everywhere. Massys translated them into his brilliant architecture, into the splendour of the turquoise which he imparted to the blue summits of the mountains, to the horizons of his landscapes. A charming luxury mingles with his ideas and disfigures them. It was a unique work, a unique period; that of an ephemeral agreement between the genius of the North and that of the Renaissance, between the world of sentiment and that of beauty. This harmony which was at the foundation of all the desires of the South, from Dürer to Rembrandt and Goethe, was realized in the simple thought of the ancient smith. By force of candour, simplicity, and love he found the secret which others sought in vain. With still greater passion the same qualities are found in the Antwerp "Deposition". The subject is treated, not in the Italian manner, as in the Florentine or Umbrian "Pietas", but with the familiar and tragic sentiment which touches the Northern races. It is one of the "Tombs" compositions, of which the most famous are those of Saint Mihiel and Solesmes. The body of Christ is one of the most exhausted, the most "dead", the most moving that painting has ever created. All is full of tenderness and desolation. Massys has the genius of tears. He loves to paint tears in large pearls on the eyes, on the red cheeks of his holy women, as in his wonderful "Magdalen" of Berlin or his "Pietà" of Munich. But he had at the same time the keenest sense of grace. His Herodiases, his Salomes (Antwerp triptych) are the most bewitching figures of all the art of his time. And this excitable nervousness made him particularly sensitive to the ridiculous side of things. He had a sense of the grotesque, of caricature, of the droll and the hideous, which is displayed in his figures of old men, of executioners. And this made him a wonderful genre painter. His "Banker" and his "Money Changers" inaugurated in the Flemish School the rich tradition of the painting of manners. He had a pupil in this style, Marinus, many of whose pictures still pass under his name. Briefly, Massys was the last of the great Flemish artists prior to the Italian invasion. He was the most sensitive, the most nervous, the most poetical, the most comprehensive of all, and in him is discerned the tumultuous strain which was to appear 100 years later in the innumerable works of Rubens. VAN MANDER, Le Livre des Peintres, ed. HYMANS (Paris, 1884); WAAGEN, Treasures of Art in England (London, 1854); HYMANS, Quentin Metzys in Gazette des Beaux-Arts (1888); COHEN, Studien zu Quentin Metzys (Bonn, 1894); DE BOSSCHERE, Quentin Metzys (Brussels, 1907); WURZBACH, Niederländisches Kunstlerlexicon (Leipzig, 1906-10). LOUIS GILLET Master of the Sacred Palace Master of the Sacred Palace This office (which has always been entrusted to a Friar Preacher) may briefly be described as being that of the pope's theologian. St. Dominic, appointed in 1218, was the first Master of the Sacred Palace (Magister Sacri Palatii). Among the eighty-four Dominicans who have succeeded him, eighteen were subsequently created cardinals, twenty-four were made archbishops or bishops (including some of the cardinals), and six were elected generals of the order. Several are famous for their works on theology, etc., but only Durandus, Torquemada, Prierias, Mamachi, and Orsi can be mentioned here. As regards nationality: the majority have been Italians; of the remainder ten have been Spaniards and ten Frenchmen, one has been a German and one an Englishman (i.e. William de Boderisham, or Bonderish, 1263-1270?). It has sometimes been asserted that St. Thomas of Aquin was a Master of the Sacred Palace. This is due to a misconception. He was Lector of the Sacred Palace. The offices were not identical. (See Bullarium O. P., III, 18.) Though he and two other contemporary Dominicans, namely his teacher Bl. Albert the Great and his fellow pupil Bl. Ambrose Sansedonico (about both of whom the same assertion has been made) held successively the office of Lecturer on Scripture or on Theology in the papal palace school, not one of them was Master of the Sacred Palace. Their names do not occur in the official lists. While all Masters of the Sacred Palace were Dominicans, several members of other orders were Lectors of the Sacred Palace (e.g. Peckham O.S.F., who became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1279). St. Dominic's work as Master of the Sacred Palace consisted partly at least in expounding the Epistles of St. Paul (Colonna, O.P., c: 1255, who says that the commentary was then extant; Flaminius; S. Antonius; Malvenda, in whose time the MS. of the Epistles used by the Saint as Master of the Sacred Palace was preserved in Toulouse; Echard; Renazzi; Mortier, etc.). These exegetical lectures were delivered to prelates and to the clerical attendants of cardinals who, as the saint observed, had been accustomed to gather in the antechamber and to spend the time in gossip while their masters were having audiences with the pope. According to Renazzi (I, 25), St. Dominic may be regarded as the founder of the papal palace school, since his Biblical lectures were the occasion of its being established. Catalanus, who, however, is not guilty of the confusion alluded to above, says he was the first Lector of the Sacred Palace as well as the first Master of the Sacred Palace. In the thirteenth century the chief duty of the Master of the Sacred Palace was to lecture on Scripture and to preside over the theological school in Vatican: "in scholae Romanae et Pontificiae regimine et in publica sacrae scripturae expositione" (Echard). The Lectores or Magistri scholarum S. Palatii taught under him. It became customary for the Master of the Sacred Palace, according to Cardinal de Luca, to preach before the pope and his court in Advent and Lent. This had probably been sometimes done by St. Dominic. Up to the sixteenth century the Master of the Sacred Palace preached, but after it this work was permanently entrusted to his companion (a Dominican). A further division of labour was made by Benedict XIV (Decree, "Inclyta Fratrum", 1743); at present the companion preaches to the papal household, and a Capuchin preaches to the pope and to the cardinals. But the work of the Master of the Sacred Palace as papal theologian continues to the present day. As it has assumed its actual form by centuries of development, we may give a summary of the legislation respecting it and the various functions it comprises and also of the honours attaching to it. The "Acta" (or "Calenda") of the Palatine officials in 1409 (under Alexander V) show that on certain days the Master of the Sacred Palace was bound to deliver lectures and on other days was expected, if called upon, either to propose or to answer questions at the theological conference which was held in the pope's presence. On 30 October, 1439, Eugene IV decreed that the Master of the Sacred Palace should rank next to the dean of the Rota, that no one should preach before the pope whose sermon had not been previously approved of by him, and that in accordance with ancient usage no one could be made a doctor of theology in Rome but by him (Bullarium O. P., III, 81). Callistus III (13 November, 1455) confirmed and amplified the second part of this decree, but at the same time exempted cardinals from its operation (ibid., p. 356). At present it has fallen into disuse. In the Fifth Lateran Council (sess. x, 4 May, 1513) Leo X ordained that no book should be printed either in Rome or in its district without leave from the cardinal vicar and the Master of the Sacred Palace (ibid., IV, 318). Paul V (11 June, 1620) and Urban VIII added to the obligations imposed by this decree. So did Alexander VII in 1663 (Bullarium, passim). All these later enactments regard the inhabitants of the Roman Province or of the Papal States. They were renewed by Benedict XIV (1 Sept., 1744). And the permission of the Master of the Sacred Palace must be got not only to print, but to publish, and before the second permission is granted, three printed copies must be deposited with him, one for himself, another for his companion, a third a for the cardinal vicar. The Roman Vicariate never examines work intended for publication. For centuries the imprimatur of the Master of the Sacred Palace who always examines them followed the Si videbitur Reverendissimo Magistro Sacri Palatii of the cardinal vicar; now in virtue of custom but not of any ascertained law, since about the year 1825 the cardinal vicar gives an imprimatur, and it follows that of the Master of the Sacred Palace. At present the obligation once incumbent on cardinals of presenting their work to the Master of the Sacred Palace for his imprimatur has fallen into disuse, but through courtesy many cardinals do present their works. In the Constitution "Officiorum ac munerum" (25 Jan., 1897), Leo XIII declared that all persons residing in Rome may get leave from the Master of the Sacred Palace to read forbidden books, and that if authors who live in Rome intend to get their works published elsewhere, the joint imprimatur of the cardinal vicar and the Master of the Sacred Palace renders it unnecessary to ask any other approbation. As is well known, if an author not resident in Rome desires to have his work published there, provided that an agreement with the author's Ordinary has been made and that the Master of the Sacred Palace judges favourably of the work, the imprimatur will be given. In this case the book is known by its having two title pages: the one bearing the name of the domiciliary, the other of the Roman publisher. Before the establishment of the Congregations of the Inquisition (in 1542) and Index (1587), the Master of the Sacred Palace condemned books and forbade reading them under censure. Instances of his so doing occur regularly till about the middle of the sixteenth century; one occurred as late as 1604, but by degrees this task has been appropriated to the above-mentioned congregations of which he is an ex-officio member. The Master of the Sacred Palace was made by Pius V (29 July, 1570; see "Bullarium", V, 245) canon theologian of St. Peter's, but this Bull was revoked by his successor Gregory XIII (11 March, 1575). From the time when Leo X recognized the Roman University or "Sapienza" (5 November, 1513; by the decree "Dum suavissimos") he transferred to it the old theological school of the papal palace. The Master of the Sacred Palace became the president of the new theological faculty. The other members were the pope's grand sacristan (an Augustinian), the commissary of the Holy Office (a Dominican), the procurators general of the five Mendicant Orders, i.e. Dominican, Franciscan (Conventual), Augustinian, Carmelite, and Servite, and the professors who succeeded to the ancient Lectors of the Sacred Palace. Sixtus V is by some regarded as the founder of this college or faculty, but he may have only given its definite form. He is said to have confirmed the prerogative enjoyed by the Master of the Sacred Palace of conferring all degrees of philosophy and theology. Instances of papal diplomas implying this power of the Master of the Sacred Palace occur in the "Bullarium" passim (e.g. of Innocent IV, 6 June, 1406). The presidential authority of the Master of the Sacred Palace over this, the greatest theological faculty in Rome, was confirmed by Leo XII in 1824. Since the occupation of Rome in 1870 the Sapienza has been laicized and turned into a state university, so that on the special occasions when the Master of the Sacred Palace holds an examination, e.g. for the purpose of examining all that are to be appointed to sees in Italy, or again of conferring the title of S.T.D., he does so, with the assistance of the high dignitaries just mentioned, in his apartment in the Vatican. He is also examiner in the concursus for parishes in Rome which are held in the Roman Vicariate. Before Eugene IV issued the Bull referred to above, the Master of the Sacred Palace was in processions, etc., the dignitary immediately under the Apostolic subdeacons, but when this pope raised the auditors of the Rota to the rank of Apostolic subdeacons, he gave the Master of the Sacred Palace the place immediately next to the dean who was in charge of the papal mitre. In 1655, Alexander VII put the other auditors of the Rota above the Master of the Sacred Palace. This was done, according to Cardinal de Luca, solely because one white and black habit looked badly among several violet soutanes. One of the occasional duties of the Master of the Sacred Palace is performed in conjunction with the auditors of the Rota; namely to watch over the three apertures or "drums" through which during a conclave the cardinals receive all communications. In papal processions, the Master of the Sacred Palace walks next to the auditors, immediately behind the bearer of the tiara. Though he has, as we have seen, gradually lost some of his ancient authority and rank, nevertheless at the present day the Master of the Sacred Palace is a very high official. He is one of the three Palatine prelates (the others being the Maggiordomo and the Grand Almoner) to whom as to bishops, the papal guards present arms. He is always addressed, even by cardinals, as "Most Reverend". In the Dominican Order he ranks next to the general, ex-general, and vicar-general. He is ex-officio consultor of the Holy Office, prelate-consultor of Rites, and perpetual assistant of the Index. He is consultor of the Biblical Commission, and is frequently consulted on various matters by the pope as his theologian. His offical audience occurs once a fortnight. The offical apartment of the Master of the Sacred Palace was in the Quirinal, and until recently it contained the unbroken series of portraits of the Masters of the Sacred Palace, from St. Dominic down. These frescoes have been effaced by the present occupants of the Quirinal, but copies of them are to be seen in the temporary apartment of the Master of the Sacred Palace in the Vatican. Bullarium O.P., VIII (Rome, 1730-1740); MSS. in Vatican, Dominican Order, and Minerva Archives; ANTONIUS, Chronicon, III (Lyons, 1586); MALVENDA, Annales Ordinis Praedicatorum (Naples, 1627); fontANA, Syllabus Magistrorum Sacri Palatii Apostolici (Rome, 1663); DE LUCA, Romanae Curiae Relatio (Cologne, 1683); CATALANUS, De Magistro Sacri Palatii Apostolici libri duo (Rome, 1761); QUETIF-ECHARD, Scriptor. Ordinis Praedicatorum (Paris, 1719); CARAFFA, De Gymnasio (Rome, 1751), 135-145; RENAZZI, Storia dell' Universita Romana, etc. (Rome, 1803-1806), passim; MORTIER, Histoire des Maitres Generaux de l'Ordre des Freres Precheurs (Paris, 1903, in progress); BATTANDIER, Annuaire Pont. Cath. (1901), 473-482. REGINALD WALSH Bartholomew Mastrius Bartholomew Mastrius Franciscan, philosopher and theologian, born near Forli, at Meldola, ltaly, in 1602; died 3 January, 1673. He was one of the most prominent writers of his time on philosophy and theology. He received his early education at Cesena, and took degrees at the University of Bologna. He also frequented the Universities of Padua and Rome before assuming the duties of lecturer. He acquired a profound knowledge of scholastic philosophy and theology, being deeply versed in the writings of Scotus. He was an open-minded and independent scholar. As a controversialist he was harsh and arrogant towards his opponents, mingling invective with his arguments. His opinions on some philosophical questions were fiercely combatted by many of his contemporaries and especially by Matthew Ferchi and the Irish Franciscan, John Ponce. When presenting the second volume of his work on the "Sentences" to Alexander VII, to whom he had dedicated it, the pope asked him where he had learned to treat his opponent Ferchi in such a rough manner: Mastrius answered, "From St. Augustine and St. Jerome, who in defence of their respective opinions on the interpretation of Holy Scripture fought hard and not without reason": the pope smilingly remarked, "From such masters other things could be learned". Ponce in his treatise on Logic holds that with qualifying explanations God may be included in the Categories. Mastrius in combatting this opinion characteristically says, "Hic Pontius male tractat Deum sicut et alter". Mastrius had a well-ordered intellect which is seen in the clearness and precision with which he sets forth the subject-matter of discussion. His arguments for and against a proposition show real critical power and are expressed in accurate and clear language. His numerous quotations from ancient and contemporary authors and various schools of thought are a proof of his extensive reading. His works shed light on some of the difficult questions in Scotistic philosophy and theology. His "Philosophy" in five volumes folio, his "Commentaries" on the "Sentences" in four volumes, and his Moral Theology "ad mentem S. Bonaventurae" in one volume were all published in Venice. GREGORY CLEARY Mataco Indians Mataco Indians (Or Mataguayo). A group of wide tribes of very low culture, ranging over a great part of the Chaco region, about the headwaters of the Vermejo and the Picomayo, in the Argentine province of Salta and the Bolivian province of Tarija, and noted for the efforts made by Jesuit and Franciscan missionaries in their behalf in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The group consists, or formerly consisted, of about a dozen tribes speaking the same language with slight dialectic differences, and together constituting a distinct linguistic stock, the Matacoan or Mataguayan, which, however, Quevedo suspects to be connected to the Quaycuran stock, to which belong the Toba, Macobí, and the famous Abipon tribes. Of the Matacoan group, the principle tribes were the Mataco, Mataguayo, and Vejoz. At present the names in most general use are Mataco in Argentina and Nocten (corrupted from the Chiriguano name) in Bolivia. From 60,000 (estimated) in the mission period they are now reduced to about 20,000 souls. In 1690, Father Arcé, from the Jesuit college of Tarija, attempted the first mission among the Mataguayo and Chiriguano, but with little result, owing to their wandering habit. "Houses and churches were built, but the natives poured in and out, like water through a bottomless barrel", and at last, weary of the remonstrances of the missionaries, burned the missions, murdered several of the priests, and drove the others out of the country. At a later period, in 1756, the Jesuit mission of San Ignacio de Ledesma on the Rio Grande, a southern head stream of the Vermejo, was founded for Toba and Mataguayo, of whom 600 were enrolled here at the time of the expulsion of the order in 1767. About the end of the eighteenth century, the Franciscans of Tarija undertook to restore the mission work in the Chaco, founding a number of establishments, among which were Selenas, occupied by Mataguayo and Chiriguani, and Centa (now Oran, Salta province), occupied by Mataguayo and the Vejoz, the two missions in 1799 containing nearly 900 Indians, with 7300 cattle. With the decline of the Spanish power these missions also fell into decay, and the Indians scattered to their forests. In 1895 father Gionnecchini, passing by the place of the old Centa mission, found a cattle coral where the church had been. An interesting account of the present condition of the wild Mataco is quoted by Quevedo from a letter by Father Alejandro Corrado, Franciscan, Tarija. Their houses are light brush structures, scattered through the forest, hardly high enough to allow of standing upright, and are abandoned for others set up in another place, as often as insects or accumulation of filth make necessary. The only furniture is a wooden mortar with a few earthen pots and some skins for sleeping. Men and women shave their heads and wear a single garment about the lower part of the body. The men also pluck out the beard and paint the face and body. They live chiefly upon fish and the fruit of the algarroba, a species of mesquit or honey-locust, but will eat anything that is not poisonous, even rats and grasshoppers. From the algarroba they prepare an intoxicating liquor which rouses them to a fighting frenzy. Their principal ceremony is in connection with the ripening of the algarroba, when the priests in fantastic dress go about the trees, dancing and singing at the top of their voices to the sound of a wooden drum, keeping up the din day and night. A somewhat similar ceremony takes place when a young girl arrives at puberty. Everything is in common, and a woman divides her load of fruits or roots with her neighbours without even a word of thanks. They recognize no authority, even of parents over their children. The men occupy themselves with fishing or occasional hunting, their arms being the bow or club. The women do practically all the other work. Marriage is simple and at the will of the young people, the wife usually going to live with her husband's relatives. Polygamy and adultery are infrequent, but divorce is easy. The woman receives little attention in pregnancy or childbirth, but on the other hand the father conforms to the couvade. Children are named when two or three years old. Abortion is very frequent; infanticide more rare, but the infant is often buried alive on the breast of the dead mother. Disease is driven off by the medicine men with singing and shaking of rattles. They believe in a good spirit to whom they seem to pay no worship; and, in a malevolent night spirit whom they strive to propitiate. They believe that the soul, after death, enters into the body of some animal. The best work upon the language of the Mataco tribes is the grammar and dictionary of the Jesuit missionary, Father Joseph Araoz, with Quevedo's studies of the Nocten and Vejoz dialects, from various sources. ARAOZ, Grammar and Dictionary; BRINTON, American Race (New York, 1891); CHARLEVOIX, Hist. du Paraguay, 3 vols. (Paris, 1756), Eng. tr., 2 vols. (London, 1769); HERVAS, Catalogo de la Lenguas, I (Madrid, 1800); LOZANO, Descrepcion Chorographica del Gran Chaco (Cordoba, 1733); PAGE, La Plata, the Argentine Confederation and Paraguay (New York, 1859); PELLESCHI, Otto Mesi nel Gran Ciacco (Florence, 1881), tr., Eight Months on the Gran Chaco (London, 1886); QUEVEDO, Lenguas Argentinas (Dialecto Nocten, Dialecto Vejoz) in Bol. del Instituto Geografico Argentino, XVI-XVII (Buenos Aires, 1896). JAMES MOONEY Mater Mater A titular bishopric in the province of Byzantium, mentioned as a free city by Pliny under the name of Matera (Hist. natur., V, iv, 5). Mgr. Toulotte ("Géographie de l'Afrique chrétienne", proconsulaire, 197) cites only two occupants of this see: Rusticianus, who died shortly before 411, and Quintasius, who succeeded him. Gams (Series episcoporum, 467) mentions four: Rusticianus, Cultasius for Quintasius, Adelfius in 484, and Victor about the year 556. Mater is now known as Mateur, a small town of 4000 inhabitants, in great part Christian, and is situated in Tunis. The modern town is encircled with a wall, with three gates; it is situated on the railway from Tunis to Bizerta, not far from the lake to which it has given its name. S. VAILHÉ Materialism Materialism As the word itself signifies, Materialism is a philosophical system which regards matter as the only reality in the world, which undertakes to explain every event in the universe as resulting from the conditions and activity of matter, and which thus denies the existence of God and the soul. It is diametrically opposed to Spiritualism and Idealism, which, in so far as they are one-sided and exclusive, declare that everything in the world is spiritual, and that the world and even matter itself are mere conceptions or ideas in the thinking subject. Materialism is older than Spiritualism, if we regard the development of philosophy as beginning in Greece. The ancient Indian philosophy, however, is idealistic; according to it there is only one real being, Brahma; everything else is appearance, Maja. In Greece the first attempts at philosophy were more or less materialistic; they assumed the existence of a single primordial matter -- water, earth, fire, air -- or of the four elements from which the world was held to have developed. Materialism was methodically developed by the Atomists. The first and also the most important systematic Materialist was Democritus, the "laughing philosopher". He taught that out of nothing comes nothing; that everything is the result of combination and division of parts (atoms); that these atoms, separated by empty spaces, are infinitely numerous and varied. Even to man he extended his cosmological Materialism, and was thus the founder of Materialism in the narrow sense, that is the denial of the soul. The soul is a complex of very fine, smooth, round, and fiery atoms: these are highly mobile and penetrate the whole body, to which they impart life. Empedocles was not a thorough-going Materialist, although be regarded the four elements with love and hatred as the formative principles of the universe, and refused to recognize a spiritual Creator of the world. Aristotle reproaches the Ionian philosophers in general with attempting to explain the evolution of the world without the Nous (intelligence); he regarded Protagoras, who first introduced a spiritual principle, as a sober man among the inebriated. The Socratic School introduced a reaction against Materialism. A little later, however, Materialism found a second Democritus in Epicurus, who treated the system in greater detail and gave it a deeper foundation. The statement that nothing comes from nothing, he supported by declaring that otherwise everything might come from everything. This argument is very pertinent, since if there were nothing, nothing could come into existence, i.e. if there were no cause. An almighty cause can of itself through its power supply a substitute for matter, which we cannot create but can only transform. Epicurus further asserted that bodies alone exist; only the void is incorporeal. He distinguished, however, between compound bodies and simple bodies or atoms, which are absolutely unchangeable. Since space is infinite, the atoms must likewise be infinitely numerous. This last deduction is not warranted, since, even in infinite space, the bodies might be limited in number -- in fact, they must be, as otherwise they would entirely fill space and therefore render movement impossible. And yet Epicurus ascribes motion to the atoms, i.e. constant motion downwards. Since many of them deviate from their original direction, collisions result and various combinations are formed. The difference between one body and another is due solely to different modes of atomic combination; the atoms themselves have no quality, and differ only in size, shape, and weight. These materialistic speculations contradict directly the universally recognized laws of nature. Inertia is an essential quality of matter, which cannot set itself in motion, cannot of itself fix the direction of its motion, least of all change the direction of the motion once imparted to it. The existence of all these capabilities in matter is assumed by Epicurus: the atoms fall downwards, before there is either "up" or "down"; they have weight, although there is as yet no earth to lend them heaviness by its attraction. From the random clash of the atoms could result only confusion and not order, least of all that far-reaching design which is manifested in the arrangement of the world, especially in organic structures and mental activities. However, the soul and its origin present no difficulty to the Materialist. According to him the soul is a kind of vapour scattered throughout the whole body and mixed with a little heat. The bodies surrounding us give off continually certain minute particles which penetrate to our souls through our sense-organs and excite mental images. With the dissolution of the body, the corporeal soul is also dissolved. This view betrays a complete misapprehension of the immaterial nature of psychical states as opposed to those of the body -- to say nothing of the childish notion of sense-perception, which modern physiology can regard only with an indulgent smile. Epicurean Materialism received poetic expression and further development in the didactic poem of the Roman Lucretius. This bitter opponent of the gods, like the modern representatives of Materialism, places it in outspoken opposition to religion. His cosmology is that of Epicurus; but Lucretius goes much further, inasmuch as he really seeks to give an explanation of the order in the world, which Epicurus referred unhesitatingly to mere chance. Lucretius asserts that it is just one of the infinitely numerous possibilities in the arrangement of the atoms; the present order was as possible as any other. He takes particular pains to disprove the immortality of the soul, seeking thus to dispel the fear of death, which is the cause of so much care and crime. The soul (anima) and the mind (animus) consist of the smallest, roundest, and most mobile atoms. That "feeling is an excitement of the atoms", he lays down as a firmly established principle. He says: "When the flavour of the wine vanishes, or the odour of the ointment passes away in the air, we notice no diminution of weight. Even so with the body when the soul has disappeared." He overlooks the fact that the flavour and odour are not necessarily lost, even though we cannot measure them. That they do not perish is now certain and, we must therefore conclude, still less does the spiritual soul cease to exist. However, the soul is no mere odour of a body, but a being with real activity; consequently, it must itself be real, and likewise distinct from the body, since thought and volition are incorporeal activities, and not movement which, according to Lucretius at least, is the only function of the atoms. Christianity reared a mighty dam against Materialism, and it was only with the return to antiquity in the so-called restoration of the sciences that the Humanists again made it a powerful factor. Giordano Bruno, the Pantheist, was also a Materialist: "Matter is not without its forms, but contains them all; and since it carries what is wrapped up in itself, it is in truth all nature and the mother of all the living." But the classical age of Materialism began with the eighteenth century, when de la Mettrie (1709-51) wrote his "Histoire naturelle de l'âme" and "L'homme machine." He holds that all that feels must be material: "The soul is formed, it grows and decreases with the organs of the body, wherefore it must also share in the latter's death" -- a palpable fallacy, since even if the body is only the soul's instrument, the soul must be affected by the varying conditions of the body. In the case of this Materialist we find the moral consequences of the system revealed without disguise. In his two works, "La Volupté" and "L'art de jouer", he glorifies licentiousness. The most famous work of this period is the "Système de la nature" of Baron Holbach (1723-89). According to this work there exists nothing but nature, and all beings, which are supposed to be beyond nature, are creatures of the imagination. Man is a constituent part of nature; his moral endowment is simply a modification of his physical constitution, derived from his peculiar organization. Even Voltaire found himself compelled to offer a determined opposition to these extravagant attacks on everything spiritual. In Germany Materialism was vigorously assailed, especially by Leibniz (q.v.). As, however, this philosopher sought to replace it with his doctrine of monads, an out-and-out spiritualistic system, he did not give a real refutation. On the other hand, Kant was supposed to have broken definitively the power of Materialism by the so-called idealistic argument, which runs: Matter is revealed to us only in consciousness; it cannot therefore be the cause or the principle of consciousness. This argument proves absolutely nothing against Materialism, unless we admit that our consciousness creates matter, i.e. that matter has no existence independent of consciousness. If consciousness or the soul creates matter, the latter cannot impart existence to the soul or to any psychical activity. Materialism would indeed be thus utterly annihilated: there would be no matter. But, if matter is real, it may possess all kinds of activities, even psychical, as the Materialists aver. As long as the impossibility of this is not demonstrated, Materialism is not refuted. Idealism or Phenomenalism, which entirely denies the existence of matter, is more absurd than Materialism. There is, however, some truth in the Kantian reasoning. Consciousness or the psychical is far better known to us than the material; what matter really is, no science has yet made clear. The intellectual or the psychical, on the other hand, is presented immediately to our consciousness; we experience our thoughts, volitions, and feelings; in their full clearness they stand before the eye of the mind. From the Kantian standpoint a refutation of Materialism is out of the question. To overcome it we must show that the soul is an entity, independent of and essentially distinct from the body, an immaterial substance; only as such can it be immortal and survive the dissolution of the body. For Kant, however, substance is a purely subjective form of the understanding, by means of which we arrange our experiences. The independence of the soul would thus not be objective; it would be simply an idea conceived by us. Immortality would also be merely a thought-product; this the Materialists gladly admit, but they call it, in plainer terms, a pure fabrication. The German Idealists, Fichte, Hegel, and Schelling, seriously espoused the Phenomenalism of Kant, declaring that matter, and, in fact, the whole universe, is a subjective product. Thereby indeed Materialism is entirely overcome, but the Kantian method of refutation is reduced to absurdity. The reaction against this extravagant Spiritualism was inevitable, and it resulted by a sort of necessary consequence in the opposite extreme of outspoken Materialism. Repelled by these fantastic views, so contrary to all reality, men turned their whole energy to the investigation of nature. The extraordinary success achieved in this domain led many investigators to overestimate the importance of matter, its forces, and its laws, with which they believed they could explain even the spiritual. The chief representatives of Materialism as a system during this period are Büchner (1824-99), the author of "Kraft und Stoff"; K. Vogt (1817-95), who held that thought is "secreted" by the brain, as gall by the liver and urine by the kidneys: Czolbe (1817-73); Moleschott, to whom his Materialism brought political fame. Born on 9 August, 1822, at Herzogenbusch, North Brabant, he studied medicine, natural science, and the philosophy of Hegel at Heidelberg from 1842. After some years of medical practice in Utrecht, he qualified as instructor in physiology and anthropology at the University of Heidelberg. His writings, especially his "Kreislauf des Lebens" (1852), created a great sensation. On account of the gross materialism, which he displayed both in his works and his lectures, he received a warning from the academic senate by command of the Government, whereupon he accepted in 1854 a call to the newly founded University of Zürich. In 1861 Cavour, the Italian premier, granted him a chair at Turin, whence fifteen years later he was called to the Sapienza in Rome, which owed its foundation to the popes. Here death suddenly overtook him in 1893, and, just as he had had burnt the bodies of his wife and daughter who had committed suicide, he also appointed in his will that his own body should be reduced to ashes. The most radical rejection of everything ideal is contained in the revised work "Der Einzige und sein Eigentum" (1845; 3rd ed., 1893) of Max Stirner, which rejects everything transcending the particular Ego and its self-will. The brilliant success of the natural sciences gave Materialism a powerful support. The scientist, indeed, is exposed to the danger of overlooking the soul, and consequently of denying it. Absorption in the study of material nature is apt to blind one to the spiritual; but it is an evident fallacy to deny the soul, on the ground that one cannot experimentally prove its existence by physical means. Natural science oversteps its limits when it encroaches on the spiritual domain and claims to pronounce there an expert decision, and it is a palpable error to declare that science demonstrates the non-existence of the soul. Various proofs from natural science are of course brought forward by the Materialists. The "closed system of natural causation" is appealed to: experience everywhere finds each natural phenomenon based upon another as its cause, and the chain of natural causes would be broken were the same brought in. On the other hand, Sigwart (1830-1904) justly observes that the soul has its share in natural causation, and is therefore included in the system. At most it could be deduced from this system that a pure spirit, that God could not interfere in the course of nature; but this cannot be proved by either experience or reason. On the contrary it is clear that the Author of nature can interfere in its course, and history informs us of His many miraculous interventions. In any case it is beyond doubt that our bodily conditions are influenced by our ideas and volitions, and this influence is more clearly perceived by us than the causality of fire in the production of heat. We must therefore reject as false the theory of natural causation, if this means the exclusion of spiritual causes. But modern science claims to have given positive proof that in the human body there is no place for the soul. The great discovery by R. Mayer (1814-78), Joule (1818-89), and Helmholtz (1821-94) of the conservation of energy proves that energy cannot disappear in nature and cannot originate there. But the soul could of itself create energy, and there would also be energy lost, whenever an external stimulus influenced the soul and gave rise to sensation, which is not a form of energy. Now recent experiment has shown that the energy in the human body is exactly equivalent to the nutriment consumed. In these facts, however, there is absolutely nothing against the existence of the soul. The law of the conservation of energy is an empirical law, not a fundamental principle of thought; it is deduced from the material world and is based on the activity of matter. A body cannot set itself in motion, can produce no force; it must be impelled by another, which in the impact loses its own power of movement. This is not lost, but is changed into the new movement. Thus, in the material world, motion, which is really kinetic energy, can neither originate nor altogether cease. This law does not hold good for the immaterial world, which is not subject to the law of inertia. That our higher intellectual activities are not bound by the law is most plainly seen in our freedom of will, by which we determine ourselves either to move or to remain at rest. But the intellectual activities take place with the cooperation of the sensory processes; and, since these latter are functions of the bodily organs, they are like them subject to the law of inertia. They do not enter into activity without some stimulus; they cannot stop their activity without some external influence. They are, therefore, subject to the law of the conservation of energy, whose applicability to the human body, as shown by biological experiment, proves nothing against the soul. Consequently, while even without experiment, one must admit the law in the case of sentient beings, it can in no wise affect a pure spirit or an angel. The "Achilles" of materialistic philosophers, therefore, proves nothing against the soul. It was accordingly highly opportune when the eminent physiologist, Dubois Reymond (1818-96), called a vigorous halt to his colleague by his "Ignoramus et Ignorabimus". In his lectures, "Ueber die Grenzen der Naturerkenntniss" (Leipzig, 1872), he shows that feeling, consciousness, etc., cannot be explained from the atoms. He errs indeed in declaring permanently inexplicable everything for which natural science cannot account; the explanation must be furnished by philosophy. Even theologians have defended Materialism. Thus, for example, F.D. Strauss in his work "Der alte und neue Glaube" (1872) declares openly for Materialism, and even adopts it as the basis of his religion; the material universe with its laws, although they occasionally crush us, must be the object of our veneration. The cultivation of music compensates him for the loss of all ideal goods. Among the materialistic philosophers of this time, Ueberweg (1826-71), author of the well-known "History of Philosophy", deserves mention; it is noteworthy that he at first supported the Aristotelean teleology, but later fell away into materialistic mechanism. There is indeed considerable difficulty in demonstrating mathematically the final object of nature; with those to whom the consideration of the marvellous wisdom displayed in its ordering does not bring the conviction that it cannot owe its origin to blind physical forces, proofs will avail but little. To us, indeed, it is inconceivable how any one can overlook or deny the evidences of design and of the adaptation of means for the attainment of manifold ends. The teleological question, so awkward for Materialism, was thought to be finally settled by Darwinism which, as K. Vogt cynically expressed it, God was shown the door. The blind operation of natural forces and laws, without spiritual agencies, was held to explain the origin of species and their purposiveness as well. Although Darwin himself was not a Materialist, his mechanical explanation of teleology brought water to the mill of Materialism, which recognizes only the mechanism of the atoms. This evolution of matter from the protozoon to man, announced from university chairs as the result of science, was eagerly taken up by the social democrats, and became the fundamental tenet of their conception of the world and of life. Although officially socialists disown their hatred of religion, the rejection of the higher destiny of man and the consequent falling back on the material order serve them most efficiently in stirring up the deluded and discontented masses. Against this domination of Materialism among high and low there set in towards the end of the nineteenth century a reaction, which was due in no small measure to the alarming translation of the materialistic theory into practice by the socialists and anarchists. At bottom, however, it is but another instance of what the oldest experience shows: the line of progress is not vertical but spiral. Overstraining in one direction starts a rebound in the opposite extreme. The spiritual will not be reduced to the material, but it frequently commits the error of refusing to tolerate the coexistence of matter. Thus at present the reaction against Materialism leads in many instances to an extreme Spiritualism or Phenomenalism, which regards matter merely as a projection of the soul. Hence also the widely-echoed cry: "Back to Kant". Kant regarded matter as entirely the product of consciousness, and this view is outspokenly adopted by L. Busse, who, in his work "Geist und Körper, Seele und Leib" (Leipzig, 1903), earnestly labours to discredit Materialism. He treats exhaustively the relations of the psychical to the physical, refutes the so-called psycho-physical parallelism, and decides in favour of the interaction of soul and body. His conclusion is the complete denial of matter. "Metaphysically the world-picture changes . . . . The corporeal world as such disappears -- it is a mere appearance for the apprehending mind -- and is succeeded by something spiritual. The idealistic-spiritualistic metaphysics, whose validity we here tacitly assume without further justification, recognizes no corporeal but only spiritual being. 'All reality is spiritual', is its verdict" (p. 479). How little Materialism has to fear from Kantian rivalry is plainly shown, among others, by the natural philosopher Uexk ll. In the "Neue Rundschau" of 1907, Umrisse einer neuen Weltanschauung, he most vigorously opposes Darwinism and Haeckelism, but finally rejects with Kant the substantiality of the soul, and even falls back into the Materialism which he so severely condemns. He says: "The disintegrating influence of Haeckelism on the spiritual life of the masses comes, not from the consequences which his conception of eternal things calls forth, but from the Darwinian thesis that there is no purpose in nature. Really, one might suppose that on the day, when the great discovery of the descent of man from the ape was made the call went forth: 'Back to the Ape'." The walls, which confine Materialism, still stand in all their firmness: it is impossible to explain the purposive character of life from material forces." "We are so constituted that we are capable of recognizing certain purposes with our intellect, while others we long for and enjoy through our sense of beauty. One general plan binds all our spiritual and emotional forces into a unity." "This view of life Haeckel seeks to replace by his senseless talk about cell-souls and soul-cells, and thinks by his boyish trick to annihilate the giant Kant. Chamberlain's words on Haeckelism will find an echo in the soul of every educated person: 'It is not poetry, science, or philosophy, but a still-born bastard of all three'." But what does the "Giant Kant" teach? That we ourselves place the purpose in the things, but that it is not in the things! This view is also held by Materialists. Uexk ll finds the refutation of Materialism in the "empirical scheme of the objects", which is formed from our sense-perceptions. This is for him, indeed, identical with the Bewegungsmelodie (melody of motion), to which he reduces objects. Thus again there is no substance but only motion, which Materialism likewise teaches. We shall later find the Kantian Uexk ll among the outspoken Materialists. Philosophers of another tendency endeavour to refute Materialism by supposing everything endowed with life and soul. To this class belong Fechner, Wundt, Paulsen, Haeckel, and the botanist Franc, who ascribe intelligence even to plants. One might well believe that this is a radical remedy for all materialistic cravings. The pity is that Materialists should be afforded an opportunity for ridicule by such a fiction. That brute matter, atoms, electrons should possess life is contrary to all experience. It is a boast of modern science that it admits only what is revealed by exact observation; but the universal and unvarying verdict of observation is that, in the inorganic world, everything shows characteristics opposite to those which life exhibits. It is also a serious delusion to believe that one can explain the human soul and its unitary consciousness on the supposition of cell-souls. A number of souls could never have one and the same consciousness. Consciousness and every psychic activity are immanent, they abide in the subject and do not operate outwardly; hence each individual soul has its own consciousness, and of any other knows absolutely nothing. A combination of several souls into one consciousness is thus impossible. But, even if it were possible, this composite consciousness would have a completely different content from the cell-souls, since it would be a marvel if all these felt, thought, and willed exactly the same. In this view immortality would be as completely done away with as it is in Materialism. We have described this theory as an untenable fiction. R. Semon, however, undertakes to defend the existence of memory in all living beings in his work "Die Mneme als erhaltendes Prinzip im Wechsel des organischen Geschehens" (Leipzig, 1905). He says: "The effect of a stimulus on living substance continues after the stimulation, it has an engraphic effect. This latter is called the engram of the corresponding stimulus, and the sum of the engrams, which the organism inherits or acquires during its life, is the mneme, or memory in the widest sense." Now, if by this word the persistence of psychic and corporeal states were alone signified, there would be little to urge against this theory. But by memory is understood a psychic function, for whose presence in plants and minerals not the slightest plea can be offered. The persistence is even more easily explained in the case of inorganic nature. This Hylozoism, which, as Kant rightly declares, is the death of all science, is also called the "double aspect theory" (Zweiseitentheorie). Fechner indeed regards the material as only the outer side of the spiritual. The relation between them is that of the convex side of a curve to the concave; they are essentially one, regarded now from without an again from within -- the same idea expressed in different words. By this explanation Materialism is not overcome but proclaimed. For as to the reality of matter no sensible man can doubt; consequently, if the spiritual is merely a special aspect of matter, it also must be material. The convex side of a ring is really one thing with the concave; there is but the same ring regarded from two different sides. Thus Fechner, in spite of all his disclaimers of Materialism, must deny the immortality of the soul, since in the dissolution of the body the soul must also perish, and he labours to no effect when he tries to bolster up the doctrine of survival with all kinds of fantastic ideas. Closely connected with this theory is the so-called "psycho-physical parallelism", which most modern psychologists since Fechner, especially Wundt and Paulsen, energetically advocate. This emphasizes so strongly the spirituality of the soul that it rejects as impossible any influence of the soul on the body, and thus makes spiritual and bodily activities run side by side (parallel) without affecting each other. Wundt, indeed, goes so far as to make the whole world consist of will-units, and regards matter as mechanized spiritual activity. Paulsen, on the other hand, endeavours to explain the concurrence of the two series of activities by declaring that the material processes of the body are the reflection of the spiritual. One might well think that there could not be a more emphatic denial of Materialism. Yet this exaggerated Spiritualism and Idealism agrees with the fundamental dogma of the Materialists in denying the substantiality and immortality of the soul. It asserts that the soul is nothing else than the aggregate of the successive internal activities without any psychical essence. This declaration leads inevitably to Materialism, because activity without an active subject is inconceivable; and, since the substantiality of the soul is denied, the body must be the subject of the spiritual activities, as otherwise it would be quite impossible that to certain physical impressions there should correspond perceptions, volitions, and movements. In any case this exaggerated Spiritualism, which no intelligent person can accept, cannot be regarded as a refutation of Materialism. Apart from Christian philosophy no philosophical system has yet succeeded in successfully combatting Materialism. One needs but a somewhat accurate knowledge of the recent literature of natural science and philosophy to be convinced that the "refutation" of Materialism by means of the latest Idealism is idle talk. Thus, Ostwald proclaims his doctrine of energy the refutation of Materialism, and, in his "Vorlesungen ber Naturphilosophie", endeavours "to fill the yawning chasm, which since Descartes gapes between spirit and matter", by subordinating the ideas of matter and spirit under the concept of energy. Thus, consciousness also is energy, the nerve-energy of the brain. He is inclined "to recognize consciousness as an essential characteristic of the energy of the central organ, just as space is an essential characteristic of mechanical energy and time of kinetic energy." Is not this Materialism pure and simple? Entirely materialistic also is the widely accepted physiological explanation of psychical activities, especially of the feelings, such as fear, anger etc. This is defended (e.g.) by Uexküll, whom we have already referred to as a vigorous opponent of Materialism. He endeavours to found, or at least to illustrate this by the most modern experiments. In his work "Der Kampf um die Tierseele" (1903), he says: "Suppose that with the help of refined röntgen rays we could project magnified on a screen in the form of movable shadow-waves the processes in the nervous system of man. According to our present knowledge, we might thus expect the following. We observe the subject of the experiment, when a bell rings near by, and we see the shadow on the screen (representing the wave of excitation) hurry along the auditory nerve to the brain. We follow the shadow into the cerebrum, and, if the person makes a movement in response to the sound, centrifugal shadows are also presented to our observation. This experiment would be in no way different from any physical experiment of a similar nature, except that in the case of the brain with its intricate system of pathways the course of the stimulus and the transformation of the accumulated energy would necessarily form a very complicated and confused picture." But what will be thereby proved or even illustrated? Even without r ntgen rays we know that, in the case of hearing, nerve waves proceed to the brain, and that from the brain motor effects pass out to the peripheral organs. But these effects are mere movements, not psychical perception; for consciousness attests that sensory perception, not to speak of thought and volition, is altogether different from movements, in fact the very opposite. We can think simultaneously of opposites (e. g. existence and nonexistence, round and angular), and these opposites must be simultaneously present in our consciousness, for otherwise we could not compare them, nor perceive and declare their oppositeness. Now, it is absolutely impossible that a nerve or an atom of the brain should simultaneously execute opposite movements. And, not merely in the case of true opposites, but also in the judgment of every distinction, the nerve elements must simultaneously have different movements, of different rapidity and in different directions. An undisguised Materialism is espoused by A. Kann in his "Naturgeschichte der Moral und die Physik des Denkens", with the sub-title "Der Idealismus eines Materialisten" (Vienna and Leipzig, 1907). He says: "To explain physically the complicated processes of thought, it is above all necessary that the necessity of admitting anything 'psychical' be eliminated. Our ideas as to what is good and bad are for the average man so intimately connected with the psychical that it is a prime necessity to eliminate the psychical from our ideas of morality, etc. Only when pure, material science has built up on its own foundations the whole structure of our morals and ethics can one think of elaborating for unbiased readers what I call the 'Physics of Thinking'. To prepare the ground for the new building, one must first 'clear away the debris of ancient notions', that is 'God, prayer, immortality (the soul)'." The reduction of psychical life to physics is actually attempted by J. Pikler in his treatise "Physik des Seelenlebens" (Leipzig, 1901). He converses with a pupil of the highest form, at first in a very childish way, but finally heavy guns are called into action. "That all the various facts, all the various phenomena of psychical life, all the various states of consciousness are the self-preservation of motion, has not yet, I think, been explained by any psychologist." Such is indeed the case, for, generally speaking, gross Materialism has been rejected. Materialism refers psychical phenomena to movements of the nerve substance; but self-preservation of motion is motion, and consequently this new psycho-physics is pure Materialism. In any case, matter cannot "self-preserve" its motion; motion persists on its own account in virtue of the law of the conservation of energy. Therefore, according to this theory, all matter ought to exhibit psychical phenomena. Still more necessary and simple was the evolution of the world according to J. Lichtneckert (Neue wissenschaftl. Lebenslehre der Weltalls, Leipzig, 1903). His "Ideal oder Selbstzweckmaterialismus als die absolute Philosophie" (Ideal or End-in-itself Materialism as the Absolute Philosophy) offers "the scientific solution of all great physical, chemical, astronomical, and physiological world-riddles." Let us select a few ideas from this new absolutist philosophy. "That God and matter are absolutely identical notions, was until to-day unknown." "Hitherto Materialism investigated the external life of matter, and Idealism its internal life. From the fusion of these two conceptions of life and the world, which since the earliest times have walked their separate ways and fought each other, issues the present 'Absolute Philosophy.' Heretofore Materialism has denied, as a fundamental error, teleology or the striving for an end, and hence also the spiritual or psychical qualities of matter, while Idealism has denied the materiality of the soul or of God. Consequently, a complete and harmonious world-theory could not be reached. The Ideal or End-in-itself Materialism, or Monism, is the crown or acme of all philosophies, since in it is contained the absolute truth, to which the leading intellects of all times have gradually and laboriously contributed. Into it flow all philosophical and religious systems, as streams into the sea." "Spirit or God is matter, and, vice versa, matter is spirit or God. Matter is no raw, lifeless mass, as was hitherto generally assumed, since all chemico-physical processes are self-purposive. Matter, which is the eternal, unending, visible, audible, weighable, measurable etc. deity, is gifted with the highest evolutionary and transforming spiritual or vital qualities, and indeed possesses power to feel, will, think, and remember. All that exists is matter or God. A non-material being does not exist. Even space is matter. . ." One needs only to indicate such fruits of materialistic science to illustrate in their absurdity the consequences of the pernicious conception of man and the universe known as Materialism. But we cite these instances also as a positive proof that the much-lauded victory of modern Idealism over Materialism has no foundation in fact. To our own time may be applied what the well-known historian of Materialism, Friedrich Albert Lange (Geschichte des Materialismus u. Kritik seiner Bedeutung in der Gegenwart), wrote in 1875: "The materialistic strife of our day thus stands before us as a serious sign of the times. To-day, as in the period before Kant and the French Revolution, a general relaxation of philosophical effort, a retrogression of ideas, is the basic explanation of the spread of Materialism." What he says indeed of the relaxation of philosophical effort is no longer true to-day; on the contrary, seldom has there been so much philosophizing by the qualified and the unqualified as at the beginning of the present and the end of the last century. Much labour has been devoted to philosophy and much has been accomplished, but, in the words of St. Augustine, it is a case of magni gressus praeter viam (i.e. long strides on the wrong road). We find simply philosophy, without ideas, for Positivism, Empiricism, Pragmatism, Psychologism, and the numerous other modern systems are all enemies of ideas. Even Kant himself, whom Lange invokes as the bulwark against Materialism, is very appropriately called by the historian of Idealism, O. Willman, "the lad who throws stones at ideas". The idea, whose revival and development, as Lange expects, "will raise mankind to a new level is, as we have shown, not to be sought in non-Christian philosophy. Only a return to the Christian view of the world, which is founded on Christian philosophy and the teachings of the Socratic School, can prevent the catastrophes prophesied by Lange, and perhaps raise mankind to a higher cultural level. This philosophy offers a thorough refutation of cosmological and anthropological Materialism, and raises up the true Idealism. It shows that matter cannot of itself be uncreated or eternal, which indeed may be deduced from the fact that of itself it is inert, indifferent to rest and to motion. But it must be either at rest or in motion if it exists; if it existed of itself, in virtue of its own nature, it would be also of itself in either of those conditions. If it were of itself originally in motion, it could have never come to rest, and it would not be true that its nature is indifferent to rest and to motion and could be equally well in either of the two conditions. With this simple argument the fundamental error is confuted. An exhaustive refutation will be found in the present author's writings: "Der Kosmos" (Paderborn, 1908); "Gott u. die Sch pfung" (Ratisbon, 1910); "Die Theodizee" (4th ed., 1910); "Lehrbuch der Apologetik", I (3rd ed., Münster, 1903). Anthropological Materialism is completely disproved by demonstrating for psychical activities a simple, spiritual substance distinct from the body -- i.e. the soul. Reason assumes the existence of a simple being, since a multiplicity of atoms can possess no unitary, indivisible thought, and cannot compare two ideas or two psychical states. That which makes the comparison must have simultaneously in itself both the states. But a material atom cannot have two different conditions simultaneously, cannot for example simultaneously execute two different motions. Thus, it must be an immaterial being which makes the comparison. The comparison itself, the perception of the identity or difference, likewise the idea of necessity and the idea of a pure spirit, are so abstract and metaphysical that a material being cannot be their subject. For a full refutation of anthropological Materialism see Gutberlet, Lehrbuch der Psychologie (4th ed., Munster, 1904); Idem, Der Kampf um die Seele (2 vols., 2nd ed., Mains, 1903). Consult also Fabri, Briefe gegen den M. (Stuttgart, 1864); Prat, L'impuissance du M. (Paris, 1868); Moigno, Le M. et la force (2nd ed., Paris, 1873); Hertling, Ueber d. Grenzen d. mechanischen Naturerkl rung (Bonn, 1875); Flint, Antitheistic Theories (London, 1879); Bowne, Some Difficulties of M. in Princeton Rev. (1881), pp. 344-372; Dressler, Der belebte u. der unbelebte Stoff (Freiburg, 1883); Lilly, Materialism and Morality in Fortnightly Review (1886), 573-94; (1887), 276-93; Bossu, Refutation du mat rialisme (Louvain, 1890); Dreher, Der M. eine Verirrung d. menschlichen Geistes (Berlin, 1892); Corrance, Will M. be the Religion of the Future? In Dublin Review (1899), 86-96; Courbet, Faillete du M. (Paris, 1899); Fullerton, The Insufficiency of M. in Psychol. Review, IX (1902), 156-73; Pesch, Die grossen Weltrathsel (Freiburg, 1883; 3rd ed., 1907); Stockl, Der M. gepruft in seinen Lehrsatzen u. deren Consequenzen (Mainz, 1878). See also bibliography under God, Soul, Spiritualism, World. CONSTANTIN GUTBERLET Feast of the Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary Feast of the Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary Second Sunday in October. The object of this feast is to commemorate the dignity of the Mary as Mother of God. Mary is truly the Mother of Christ, who in one person unites the human and divine nature. This title was solemnly ratified by the Council of Ephesus, 22 June, 431. The hymns used in the office of the feast also allude to Mary's dignity as the spiritual mother of men. The love of Mary for all mankind was that of a mother, for she shared all the feelings of her son whose love for men led Him to die for our redemption (Hunter, Dogm.Theo. 2, 578). The feast was first granted, on the petition of King Joseph Manuel, to the dioceses of Portugal and to Brasil and Algeria, 22 January, 1751, together with the feast of the Purity of Mary, and was assigned to the first Sunday in May, dupl. maj. In the following year both feasts were extended to the province of Venice, 1778 to the kingdom of Naples, and 1807 to Tuscany. At present the feast is not found in the universal calendar of the church, but nearly all diocesan calendars have adopted it. In the Roman Breviary the feast of the Maternity is commemorated on the second, and the feast of the Purity on the third, Sunday in October. In Rome, in the Church of S. Augustine, it is celebrated as a dupl. 2. classis with an octave, in honour of the miraculous statue of the Madonna del Parto by Sansovino. This feast is also the titular feast of the Trinitarians under the invocation of N. S. de los Remedios. At Mesagna in Apulia it is kept 20 February in commemoration of the earthquake, 20 February 1743. F. G. HOLWECK Mathathias Mathathias The name of ten persons of the Bible, variant in both Hebrew and Greek of Old Testament and in Greek of New Testament; uniform in Vulgate. The meaning of the name is "gift of Jah", or "of Jahweh" (cf. Theódoros). In the Hebrew, the first four of these persons are called Mattith Jah (mtthyh). (1) Mathathias (B. Thamathía, A. Maththathías), one of the sons of Nebo who married an alien wife (I Est., x, 41) and later repudiated her; he is called Mazitias in III Esd., ix, 35. (2) Mathathias (Sept. Matthathías), one of the six who stood at the right of Esdras while he read the law to the people (II Esd., viii, 4). (3) Mathathias (Sept. Matthathías), a Levite of Corite stock and eldest son of Sellum; he had charge of the frying of cakes for the temple-worship (I Par., ix, 31). (4) Mathathias (Sept. Mattathías), a Levite, one of Asaph's musicians before the ark (I Par., xvi, 5). (5) Mathathias (I Par., xv, 18, 21; xxv, 3, 21; Heb. Mththyhw; A. Mattathías in first three, Matthías in last; B. Immatathía in first, Mettathías in second, Mattathías in last two), a Levite of the sons of Idithun, one of the musicians who played and sung before the ark on its entrance into Jerusalem, later the leader of the fourteenth group of musicians of King David. (6) Mathathias (I Mach., ii passim; xiv, 29; Sept. Mattathías), the father of the five Machabees) who fought with the Seleucids for Jewish liberty. (7) Mathathias (I Mach., xi, 70), the son of Absalom and a captain in the army of Jonathan the Machabee; together with Judas the son of Calphi, he alone stood by Jonathan's side till the tide of battle turned in the plain of Asor. (8) Mathathias (I Mach., xvi, 14), a son of Simon the high priest; he and his father and brother Judas were murdered by Ptolemee, the son of Abobus, at Doch. (9 and 10) Mathathias (Matthathías), two ancestors of Jesus (Luke, iii, 25, 26). Walter Drum Theobald Mathew Theobald Mathew Apostle of Temperance, born at Thomastown Castle, near Cashel, Tipperary, Ireland, 10 October, 1790; died at Queenstown, Cork, 8 December, 1856. His father was James Mathew, a gentleman of good family; his mother was Anne, daughter of George Whyte of Cappaghwhyte. At twelve he was sent to St. Canice's Academy, Kilkenny. There he spent nearly seven years, during which time he became acquainted with two Capuchin Fathers, who seem to have influenced him deeply. In September, 1807, he went to Maynooth College, and in the following year joined the Capuchin Order in Dublin. Having made his profession and completed his studies, he was ordained priest by Archbishop Murray of Dublin on Easter Sunday, 1814. His first mission was in Kilkenny, where he spent twelve months. He was then transferred to Cork where he spent twenty-four years before beginning his great crusade against intemperance. During these years he ministered in the "Little Friary", and organized schools, industrial classes, and benefit societies at a time when there was no recognized system of Catholic education in Ireland. He also founded a good library, and was foremost in every good work for the welfare of the people. In 1830 he took a long lease of the Botanic Gardens as a cemetery for the poor. Thousands, who died in the terrible cholera of 1832, owed their last resting-place as well as relief and consolation in their dying hours to Father Mathew. ln 1828 he was appointed Provincial of the Capuchin Order in Ireland a position which he held for twenty-three years. In 1838 came the crisis of his life. Drunkenness had become widespread, and was the curse of all classes in Ireland. Temperance efforts had failed to cope with the evil, and after much anxious thought and prayer, in response to repeated appeals from William Martin, a Quaker, Father Mathew decided to inaugurate a total abstinence movement. On 10 April, 1838, the first meeting of the Cork Total Abstinence Society was held in his own schoolhouse. He presided, delivered a modest address, and took the pledge himself. Then with the historic words, "Here goes in the Name of God", he entered his signature in a large book lying on the table. About sixty followed his example that night and signed the book. Meetings were held twice a week, in the evenings and after Mass on Sundays. The crowds soon became so great that the schoolhouse had to be abandoned and the Horse Bazaar, a building capable of holding 4000, became the future meeting-place. Here, night after night, Father Mathew addressed crowded assemblies. In three months he had enrolled 25,000 in Cork alone; in five months the number had increased to 130,000. The movement now assumed a new phase. Father Mathew decided to go forth and preach his crusade throughout the land. ln Dec., 1839, he went to Limerick and met with an extraordinary triumph. Thousands came in from the adjoining counties and from Connaught. In four days he gave the pledge to 150,000. In the same month he went to Waterford, where in three days he enrolled 80,000. In March, 1840, he enrolled 70,000 in Dublin. In Maynooth College he reaped a great harvest, winning over 8 professors and 250 students, whilst in Maynooth itself, and the neighbourhood, he gained 36,000 adherents. In January, 1841, he went to Kells, and in two days and a half enrolled 100,000. Thus in a few years he travelled through the whole of Ireland, and in February, 1843, was able to write to a friend in America: "I have now, with the Divine Assistance, hoisted the banner of Temperance in almost every parish in Ireland". He did not confine himself to the preaching of temperance alone. He spoke of the other virtues also, denounced crime of every kind, and secret societies of every description. Crime diminished as his movement spread, and neither crime nor secret societies ever flourished where total abstinence had taken root. He was of an eminently practical, as well as of a spiritual turn of mind. Thackeray, who met him in Cork in 1842 wrote of him thus: "Avoiding all political questions, no man seems more eager than he for the practical improvement of this country. Leases and rents, farming improvements, reading societies, music societies -- he was full of these, and of his schemes of temperance above all." Such glorious success having attended his efforts at home, he now felt himself free to answer the earnest invitations of his fellow-country-men in Great Britain. On 13 August, 1842, he reached Glasgow, where many thousands joined the movement. In July, 1843, he arrived in England and opened his memorable campaign in Liverpool. From Liverpool he went to Manchester and Salford, and, having visited the chief towns of Lancashire, he went on to Yorkshire, where he increased his recruits by 200,000. His next visit was to London where he enrolled, 74,000. During three months in England he gave the pledge to 600,000. He then returned to Cork where trials awaited him. In July, l845, the first blight destroyed the potato crop, and in the following winter there was bitter distress. Father Mathew was one of the first to warn the government of the calamity which was impending. Famine with all its horrors reigned throughout the country during the years 1846-47. During those years, the Apostle of Temperance showed himself more than ever the Apostle of Charity. In Cork he organized societies for collecting and distributing food supplies. He stopped the building of his own church and gave the funds in charity. He spent 600 pounds ($3000) a month in relief, and used his influence in England and America to obtain food and money. Ireland lost 2,000,000 inhabitants during those two years. All organization was broken up, and the total abstinence movement received a severe blow. In 1847 Father Mathew was placed first on the list for the vacant Bishopric of Cork, but Rome did not confirm the choice of the clergy. In the early part of 1849, in response to earnest invitations, he set sail for America. He visited New York, Boston, New Orleans, Washington, Charlestown, Mobile, and many other cities, and secured more than 500,000 disciples. After a stay of two and a half years he returned to Ireland in Dec., 1851. Men of all creeds and politics have borne important testimony to the wonderful progress and the beneficial effects of the movement he inaugurated. It is estimated that he gave the total abstinence pledge to 7,000,000 people, and everyone admits that in a short time he accomplished a great moral revolution. O'Connell characterized it as "a mighty miracle", and often declared that he would never have ventured to hold his Repeal "monster meetings" were it not that he had the teetotalers "for his policemen". His remains rest beneath the cross in "Father Mathew's Cemetery" at Queenstown. On 10 October, 1864, a fine bronze statue by Foley was erected to his memory in Cork, and during his centenary year a marble statue was erected in O'Connell Street, Dublin. The influence of Father Mathew's movement is still felt in many a country and especially in his own. In 1905 the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland assembled at Maynooth unanimously decided to request the Capuchin Fathers to preach a Temperance Crusade throughout the country. In carrying out this work their efforts have been crowned with singular success. The Father Mathew Memorial Hall, Dublin, is a centre of social, educative, and temperance work, and is modelled on the Temperance Institute, founded and maintained by the Apostle of Temperance himself. The Father Mathew Hall, Cork, is doing similar work. The Dublin Hall publishes a monthly magazine called "The Father Mathew Record", which has a wide circulation. A special organization called "The Young Irish Crusaders" was founded in Jan., 1909, and its membership is already over 100,000. FATHER AUGUSTINE Francois-Desire Mathieu François-Désiré Mathieu Bishop and cardinal, born 27 May, 1839; died 26 October, 1908. Born of humble family at Einville, Department of Meurthe and Moselle, France, he made his studies in the diocesan school and the seminary of the Diocese of Nancy, and was ordained priest in 1863. He was engaged successively as professor in the school (petit séminaire) of Pont-A-Mousson, chaplain to the Dominicanesses at Nancy (1879), and parish priest of Saint-Martin at Pont-à-Mousson (1890). Meanwhile, he had won the Degree of Doctor of Letters with a Latin and a French thesis, the latter being honoured with a prize from the French Academy for two years. On 3 January, 1893, he was nominated to the Bishopric of Angers, was preconized on 19 January, and consecrated on 20 March. He succeeded Mgr Freppel, one of the most remarkable bishops of his time, and set himself to maintain all his predecessor's good works. To these he added the work of facilitating the education of poor children destined for the priesthood. He inaugurated the same pious enterprise in the Diocese of Toulouse, to which he was transferred three years later (30 May, 1896) by a formal order of Leo XIII. In his new See he laboured, in accordance with the views of this pontiff, to rally Catholics to the French Government. With this aim he wrote the "Devoir des catholiques", an episcopal charge which attracted wide attention and earned for him the pope's congratulations. In addition he was summoned to Rome to be a cardinal at the curia (19 June, 1899). Having resigned the See of Toulouse (14 December, 1899), his activities were thenceforward absorbed in the work of the Roman congregations and some diplomatic negoti ations which have remained secret. Nevertheless, he found leisure to write on the Concordat of 1801 and the conclave of 1903. In 1907 he was admitted to the French Academy with a discourse which attracted much notice. Death came to him unexpectedly next year in London, whither he had gone to assist at the Eucharistic Congress. Under a somewhat common place exterior he had rich and active nature, an inquiring and open mind, a fine and well-cultivated intelligence which did credit to the French clergy. His works include "De Joannis abbatis Gorziensis vita" (Nancy 1878); "L'Ancien Régime dans la Province de Lorraine et Barrois" (Paris, 1871; 3rd ed., 1907); "Le Concordat de 1801" (Paris, 1903); "Les derniers jours de Leon XIII et le conclave de 1903" (Paris, 1904); a new edition of his works began to appear in Paris, July, 1910. ANTOINE DÉGERT Methuselah Methuselah One of the Hebrew patriarchs, mentioned in Genesis 5. The word is variously given as Mathusale (1 Chronicles 1:3; Luke 3:37) and Mathusala. Etymologists differ with regard to the signification of the name. Holzinger gives "man of the javelin" as the more likely meaning; Hommel and many with him think that it means "man of Selah", Selah being derived from a Babylonian word, given as a title to the god, Sin; While Professor Sayee attributes the name to a Babylonian word which is not understood. The author of Genesis traces the patriarch's descent through his father Henoch to Seth, a son of Adam and Eve. At the time of his son's birth Henoch was sixty-five years of age. When Methuselah had reached the great age of one hundred and eighty-seven years he became the father of Lamech. Following this he lived the remarkable term of seven hundred and eighty-two years, which makes his age at his death nine hundred and sixty-nine years. It follows thus that his death occurred in the year of the Deluge. There is no record of any other human being having lived as long as this for which reason the name, Methuselah, has become a Synonym for longevity. The tendency of rationalists and advanced critics of different creeds leads them to deny outright the extraordinary details of the ages of patriarchs. Catholic commentators, however, find no difficulty in accepting the words of the Genesis. Certain exegetes solve the difficulty to their own satisfaction by declaring that the year meant by the sacred writer is not the equivalent of our year. In the Samaritan text Methuselah was sixty-seven at Lamech's birth, and 720 at his death. JOSEPH V. MOLLOY St. Matilda St. Matilda Queen of Germany, wife of King Henry I (The Fowler), b. at the Villa of Engern in Westphalia, about 895; d. at Quedlinburg, 14 March, 968. She was brought up at the monastery of Erfurt. Henry, whose marriage to a young widow, named Hathburg, had been declared invalid, asked for Matilda's hand, and married her in 909 at Walhausen, which he presented to her as a dowry. Matilda became the mother of: Otto I, Emperor of Germany; Henry, Duke of Bavaria; St. Bruno, Archbishop of Cologne; Gerberga, who married Louis IV of France; Hedwig, the mother of Hugh Capet. In 912 Matilda's husband succeeded his father as Duke of Saxony, and in 918 he was chosen to succeed King Conrad of Germany. As queen, Matilda was humble, pious, and generous, and was always ready to help the oppressed and unfortunate. She wielded a wholesome influence over the king. After a reign of seventeen years, he died in 936. He bequeathed to her all his possessions in Quedlinburg, Poehlden, Nordhausen, Grona, and Duderstadt. It was the king's wish that his eldest son, Otto, should succeed him. Matilda wanted her favourite son Henry on the royal throne. On the plea that he was the first-born son after his father became king, she induced a few nobles to cast their vote for him, but Otto was elected and crowned king on 8 August, 936. Three years later Henry revolted against his brother Otto, but, being unable to wrest the royal crown from him, submitted, and upon the intercession of Matilda was made Duke of Bavaria. Soon, however, the two brothers joined in persecuting their mother, whom they accused of having impoverished the crown by her lavish almsgiving. To satisfy them, she renounced the possessions the deceased king had bequeathed to her, and retired to her villa at Engern in Westphalia. But afterwards, when misfortune overtook her sons, Matilda was called back to the palace, and both Otto and Henry implored her pardon. Matilda built many churches, and founded or supported numerous monasteries. Her chief foundations were the monasteries at Quedlinburg, Nordhausen, Engern, and Poehlden. She spent many days at these monasteries and was especially fond of Nordhausen. She died at the convents of Sts. Servatius and Dionysius at Quedlinburg, and was buried there by the side of her husband. She was venerated as a saint immediately after her death. Her feast is celebrated on 14 March. Two old Lives of Matilda are extant; one, Vita antiquior, written in the monastery of Nordhausen and dedicated to the Emperor Otto II; edited by KOEPKE in Mon. Germ. Script., X, 575-582, and reprinted in MIGNE, P.L., CLI, 1313-26. The other, Vita Mahtildis reginae, written by order of the Emperor Henry II, is printed in mon. Germ. Script., IV, 283-302, and in MIGNE, P.L., CXXXV, 889-9220. CLARUS, Die heilige Mathilde, ihr Gemahl Heinrich I, und ihre Sohne Otto I, Heinrich und Bruno (Munster, 1867); SCHWARZ, Die heilige Mathilde, Gemahlin Heinrichs I. Konigs von Deutschland (Ratisbon, 1846); Acta SS., March, II, 351-65. MICHAEL T. OTT Matilda of Canossa Matilda of Canossa Countess of Tuscany, daughter and heiress of the Marquess Boniface of Tuscany, and Beatrice, daughter of Frederick of Lorraine, b. 1046; d. 24 July, 1114. In 1053 her father was murdered. Duke Gottfried of Lorraine, an opponent of the Emperor Henry III, went to Italy and married the widowed Beatrice. But, in 1055, when Henry III entered Italy he took Beatrice and her daughter Matilda prisoners and had them brought to Germany. Thus the young countess was early dragged into the bustle of these troublous times. That, however, did not prevent her receiving an excellent training; she was finely educated, knew Latin, and was very fond of serious books. She was also deeply religious, and even in her youth followed with interest the great ecclesiastical questions which were then prominent. Before his death in 1056 Henry III gave back to Gottfried of Lorraine his wife and stepdaughter. When Matilda grew to womanhood she was married to her stepbrother Gottfried of Lower Lorraine, from whom, however, she separated in 1071. He was murdered in 1076; the marriage was childless, but it cannot be proved that it was never consummated, as many historians asserted. From 1071 Matilda entered upon the government and administration of her extensive possessions in Middle and Upper Italy. These domains were of the greatest importance in the political and ecclesiastical disputes of that time, as the road from Germany by way of Upper Italy to Rome passed through them. On 22 April, 1071, Gregory VII became pope, and before long the great battle for the independence of the Church and the reform of ecclesiastical life began. In this contest Matilda was the fearless, courageous, and unswerving ally of Gregory and his successors. Immediately on his elevation to the papacy Gregory entered into close relations with Matilda and her mother. The letters to Matilda (Beatrice d. 1076) give distinct expression to the pope's high esteem and sympathy for the princess. He called her and her mother "his sisters and daughters of St. Peter" (Regest., II, ix), and wished to undertake a Crusade with them to free the Christians in the Holy Land (Reg., I, xi). Matilda and her mother were present at the Roman Lenten synods of 1074 and 1075, at which the pope published the important decrees on the reform of ecclesiastical life. Both mother and daughter reported to the pope favourably on the disposition of the German king, Henry IV, and on 7 December, 1074, Gregory wrote to him, thanking him for the friendly reception of the papal legate, and for his intention to co- operate in the uprooting of simony and concubinage from among the clergy. However, the quarrel between Gregory and Henry IV soon began. In a letter to Beatrice and Matilda (11 Sept., 1075) the pope complained of the inconstancy and changeableness of the king, who apparently had no desire to be at peace with him. In the next year (1076) Matilda's first husband, Gottfried of Lorraine, was murdered at Antwerp. Gregory wrote to Bishop Hermann of Metz, 25 August, 1076, that he did not yet know in which state Matilda "the faithful handmaid of St. Peter" would, under God's guidance, remain. On account of the action of the Synod of Worms against Gregory (1076), the latter was compelled to lay Henry IV under excommunication. As the majority of the princes of the empire now took sides against the king, Henry wished to be reconciled with the pope, and consequently travelled to Italy in the middle of a severe winter, in order to meet the pope there before the latter should leave Italian soil on his journey to Germany. Gregory, who had already arrived in Lombardy when he heard of the king's journey, betook himself at Matilda's advice to her mountain stronghold of Canossa for security. The excommunicated king had asked the Countess Matilda, his mother- in-law Adelaide, and Abbot Hugh of Cluny, to intercede with the pope for him. These fulfilled the king's request, and after long opposition Gregory permitted Henry to appear before him personally at Canossa and atone for his guilt by public penance. After the king's departure the pope set out for Mantua. For safety Matilda accompanied him with armed men, but hearing a rumour that Archbishop Wibert of Ravenna, who was unfriendly to Gregory, was preparing an ambush for him, she brought the pope back to Canossa. Here she drew up a first deed of gift, in which she bequeathed her domains and estates from Ceperano to Radicofani to the Roman Church. But as long as she lived she continued to govern and administer them freely and independently. When, soon after, Henry again renewed the contest with Gregory, Matilda constantly supported the pope with soldiers and money. On her security the monastery of Canossa had its treasure melted down, and sent Gregory seven hundred pounds of silver and nine pounds of gold as a contribution to the war against Henry. The latter withdrew from the Romagna to Lombardy in 1082, and laid waste Matilda's lands in his march through Tuscany. Nevertheless the countess did not desist from her adherence to Gregory. She was confirmed in this by her confessor, Anselm, Bishop of Lucca. In similar ways she supported the successors of the great pope in the contest for the freedom of the Church. When in 1087, shortly after his coronation, Pope Victor III was driven from Rome by the antipope Wibert, Matilda advanced to Rome with an army, occupied the Castle of Sant'Angelo and part of the city, and called Victor back. However, at the threats of the emperor the Romans again deserted Victor, so that he was obliged to flee once more. At the wish of Pope Urban II Matilda married in 1089 the young Duke Welf of Bavaria, in order that the most faithful defender of the papal chair might thus obtain a powerful ally. In 1090 Henry IV returned to Italy to attack Matilda, whom he had already deprived of her estates in Lorraine. He laid waste many of her possessions, conquered Mantua, her principal stronghold, by treachery in 1091, as well as several castles. Although the vassals of the countess hastened to make their peace with the emperor, Matilda again promised fidelity to the cause of the pope, and continued the war, which now took a turn in her favour. Henry's army was defeated before Canossa. Welf, Duke of Bavaria, and his son of the same name, Matilda's husband, went over to Henry in 1095, but the countess remained steadfast. When the new German king, Henry V, entered Italy in the autumn of 1110, Matilda did homage to him for the imperial fiefs. On his return he stopped three days with Matilda in Tuscany, showed her every mark of respect, and made her imperial vice-regent of Liguria. In 1112, she reconfirmed the donation of her property to the Roman Church that she had made in 1077 (Mon. Germ. Hist.: Legum, IV, i, 653 sqq.). After her death Henry went to Italy in 1116, and took her lands -- not merely the imperial fiefs, but also the freeholds. The Roman Church, though, put forward its legitimate claim to the inheritance. A lengthy dispute now issued over the possession of the dominions of Matilda, which was settled by a compromise between Innocent II and Lothair III in 1133. The emperor and Duke Henry of Saxony took Matilda's freeholds as fiefs from the pope at a yearly rent of 100 pounds of silver. The duke took the feudal oath to the pope; after his death Matilda's possessions were to be restored wholly to the Roman Church. Afterwards there were again disputes about these lands, and in agreements between the popes and emperors of the twelfth century this matter is often mentioned. In 1213 the Emperor Frederick II recognized the right of the Roman Church to the possessions of Matilda. Donizo, Vita Mathildis, ed. Bethmann in Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., XII, 348-409; Vita alia in Muratori, Scriptores rer. Italicorum, V, 389-397; Libelli de lite in Mon. Germ. Hist., I-III; Huddy, Matilda, Countess of Tuscany (London, 1905); Fiorentini, Memorie di Matilda, la gran contessa di Toscana (Lucca, 1642; new ed., 1756); Tosti, La contessa Matilde e i Romani Pontefici (Florence, 1859; new ed., Rome, 1886); RenÉe, La grande Italienne, Mathilde de Toscane (Paris, 1859); Overmann, Die Besitzungen der Grossgräfin Mathilde von Tuscien (Berlin, 1892); Hefele, Konziliengeschichte, v (2nd ed., Freiburg im Br., 1886); Meyer von Knonau, Jahrbücher des deutschen Reiches unter Heinrich IV. und Heinrich V. (6 vols., Leipzig, 1890-1907); Potthast, Bibl. hist. med. ævi, 2nd., II, 1486. J.P. Kirsch Matins Matins I. NAME The word "Matins" (Lat. Matutinum or Matutinae), comes from Matuta, the Latin name for the Greek goddess Leucothae or Leucothea, white goddess, or goddess of the morning (Aurora): Leucothee graius, Matuta vocabere nostris, Ovid, V, 545. Hence Matutine, Matutinus, Matutinum tempus, or simply Matutinum (i.e. tempus); some of the old authors prefer Matutini Matutinorum, or Matutinae. In any case the primitive signification of the word under these different forms was Aurora, sunrise. It was at first applied to the office Lauds, which, as a matter of fact, was said at dawn (see LAUDS), its liturgical synonym being the word Gallicinium (cock-crow), which also designated this office. The night-office retained its name of Vigils, since, as a rule, Vigils and Matins (Lauds) were combined, the latter serving, to a certain extent, as the closing part of Vigils. The name Matins was then extended to the office of Vigils, Matins taking the name of Lauds, a term which, strictly speaking, only designates the last three psalms of that office, i.e. the "Laudate" psalms. At the time when this change of name took place, the custom of saying Vigils at night was observed scarcely anywhere but in monasteries, whilst elsewhere they were said in the morning, so that finally it did not seem a misapplication to give to a night Office a name which, strictly speaking, applied only to the office of day-break. The change, however, was only gradual. St. Benedict (sixth century) in his description of the Divine Office, always refers to Vigils as the Night Office, whilst that of day-break he calls Matins, Lauds being the last three psalms of that office (Regula, cap. XIII-XIV; see LAUDS). The Council of Tours in 567 had already applied the title "Matins" to the Night Office: ad Matutinum sex antiphonae; Laudes Matutinae; Matutini hymni are also found in various ancient authors as synonymous with Lauds. (Hefele-Leclercq, "Hist. des Conciles", V, III, 188, 189.) II.ORIGIN (MATINS AND VIGILS) The word Vigils, at first applied to the Night Office, also comes from a Latin source, both as to the term and its use, namely the Vigiliae or nocturnal watches or guards of the soldiers. The night from six o'clock in the evening to six o'clock in the morning was divided into four watches or vigils of three hours each, the first, the second, the third, and the fourth vigil. From the liturgical point of view and in its origin, the use of the term was very vague and elastic. Generally it designated the nightly meetings, synaxes, of the Christians. Under this form, the watch (Vigil) might be said to date back as early as the beginning of Christianity. It was either on account of the secrecy of their meetings, or because of some mystical idea which made the middle of the night the hour par excellence for prayer, in the words of the psalm: media nocte surgebam ad confitendum tibi, that the Christians chose the night time for their synaxes, and of all other nights, preferably the Sabbath. There is an allusion to it in the Acts of the Apostles (xx, 4), as also in the letter of Pliny the Younger. The liturgical services of these synaxes was composed of almost the same elements as that of the Jewish Synagogue: readings from the Books of the Law, singing of psalms, divers prayers. What gave them a Christian character was the fact that they were followed by the Eucharistic service, and that to the reading from the Law, the apostles and the Acts of the Apostles was very soon added, as well as the Gospels and sometimes other books which were non-canonical, as, for example, the Epistles of Saint Clement, that of Saint Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Saint Peter, etc. The more solemn watches, which were held on the anniversaries of martyrs or on certain feasts, were also known by this title, especially during the third and fourth centuries. The Vigil in this case was also called pannychis, because the greater part of the night was devoted to it. Commenced in the evening, they only terminated the following morning, and comprised, in addition to the Eucharistic Supper, homilies, chants, and divers offices. These last Vigils it was that gave rise to certain abuses, and they were finally abolished in the Church (see VIGILS). Notwithstanding this, however, the Vigils, in their strictest sense of Divine Office of the Night, were maintained and developed. Among writers from the fourth to the sixth century we find several descriptions of them. The "De Virginitate", a fourth-century treatise, gives them as immediately following Lauds. The author, however, does not determine the number of psalms which had to be recited. Methodius in his "Banquet of Virgins" (Symposion sive Convivium decem Virginum) subdivided the Night Office or pannychis into watches, but it is difficult to determine what he meant by these nocturnes. St. Basil also gives a very vague description of the Night Office or Vigils, but in terms which permit us to conclude that the psalms were sung, sometimes by two choirs, and sometimes as responses. Cassian gives us a more detailed account of the Night Office of the fifth century monks. The number of psalms, which at first varied, was subsequently fixed at twelve, with the addition of a lesson from the Old and another from the New Testament. St. Jerome defended the Vigils against the attacks of Vigilantius, but it is principally concerning the watches at the Tombs of the Martyrs that he speaks in his treatise, "Contra Vigilantium". Of all the descriptions the most complete is that in the "Peregrinatio AEtheriae", the author of which assisted at Matins in the Churches of Jerusalem, where great solemnity was displayed. (For all these texts, see Bäumer-Biron, loc. cit., p. 79, 122, 139, 186, 208, 246, etc.) Other allusions are to be found in Caesaurius of Arles, Nicetiuis or Nicetae of Treves, and Gregory of Tours (see Baumer-Biron, loc. cit., I, 216, 227, 232). III.THE ELEMENTS OF MATINS FROM THE FOURTH TO THE SIXTH CENTURY In all the authors we have quoted, the form of Night Prayers would appear to have varied a great deal. Nevertheless in these descriptions, and in spite of certain differences, we find the same elements repeated: the psalms generally chanted in the form of responses, that is to say by one or more cantors, the choir repeating one verse, which served as a response, alternately with the verses of psalms which were sung by the cantors; readings taken from the Old and the New Testament, and later on, from the works of the Fathers and doctors; litanies or supplications; prayer for the divers members of the Church, clergy, faithful, neophytes, and catechumens; for emperors; travellers; the sick; and generally for all the necessities of the Church, and even prayer for Jews and for heretics. [Baumer, Litanie u. Missal, in "Studien des Benediktinerordens", II (Raigern, 1886), 287, 289.] It is quite easy to find these essential elements in our modern Matins. IV. MATINS IN THE ROMAN AND OTHER LITURGIES In the modern Roman Liturgy, Matins, on account of its length, the position it occupies, and the matter of which it is composed, may be considered as the most important office of the day, and for the variety and richness of its elements the most remarkable. It commences more solemnly than the other offices, with a psalm (Ps. xciv) called the Invitatory, which is chanted or recited in the form of a response, in accordance with the most ancient custom. The hymns, which have been but tardily admitted into the Roman Liturgy, as well as the hymns of the other hours, form part of a very ancient collection which, so far at least as some of them are concerned, may be said to pertain to the seventh or even to the sixth century. As a rule they suggest the symbolic signification of this Hour (see No. V), the prayer of the middle of the night. This principal form of the Office should be distinguished from the Office of Sunday, of Feasts, and the ferial or week day Office. The Sunday Office is made up of the invitatory, hymn, three nocturns, the first of which comprises twelve psalms, and the second and third three psalms each; nine lessons, three to each nocturn, each lesson except the ninth being followed by a response; and finally, the canticle Te Deum, which is recited or sung after the ninth lesson instead of a response. The Office of Feasts is similar to that of Sunday, except that there are only three psalms to the first nocturn instead of twelve. The week-day or ferial office and that of simple feasts are composed of one nocturn only, with twelve psalms and three lessons. The Office of the Dead and that of the three last days of Holy Week are simpler, the absolutions, benedictions, and invitatory being omitted, at least for the three last days of Holy Week, since the invitatory is said in the Offices of the Dead. The principal characteristics of this office which distinguish it from all the other offices are as follows: + The Psalms used at Matins are made up of a series commencing with Psalm i and running without intermission to Psalm cviii inclusive. The order of the Psalter is followed almost without interruption, except in the case of feasts, when the Psalms are chosen according to their signification, but always from the series i-cviii, the remaining Psalms being reserved for Vespers and the other Offices. + The Lessons form a unique element, and in the other Offices give place to a Capitulum or short lesson. This latter has possibly been introduced only for the sake of symmetry, and in its present form, at any rate, gives but a very incomplete idea of what the true reading or lesson is. The Lessons of Matins on the contrary are readings in the proper sense of the term: they comprise the most important parts of the Old and the New Testament, extracts from the works of the principal doctors of the Church, and legends of the martyrs or of the other saints. The lessons from Holy Scripture are distributed in accordance with certain fixed rules (rubrics) which assign such or such books of the Bible to certain seasons of the year. In this manner extracts from all the Books of the Bible are read at the Office during the year. The idea, however, of having the whole Bible read in the Office, as proposed by several reformers of the Breviary, more especially during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, has never been regarded favourably by the Church, which views the Divine Office as a prayer and not as an object of study for the clergy. + The Invitatory and, on certain days, the Finale or Te Deum also form one of the principal characteristics of this Office. + The Responses, more numerous in this Office, recall the most ancient form of psalmody; that of the psalm chanted by one alone and answered by the whole choir, as opposed to the antiphonic form, which consists in two choirs alternately reciting the psalms. + The division into three or two Nocturns is also a special feature of Matins, but it is impossible to say why it has been thought by some to be a souvenir of the military watches (there were not three, but four, watches) or even of the ancient Vigils, since ordinarily there was but one meeting in the middle of the night. The custom of rising three times for prayer could only have been in vogue, as exceptional, in certain monasteries, or for some of the more solemn feasts (see Nocturns). + In the Office of the Church of Jerusalem, of which the pilgrim Ætheria gives us a description, the Vigils on Sundays terminate with the solemn reading of the Gospel, in the Grotto of the Holy Sepulchre. This practice of reading the Gospel has been preserved in the Benedictine Liturgy. It is a matter for regret that in the Roman Liturgy this custom, so ancient and so solemn, is no longer represented but by the Homily. The Ambrosian Liturgy, better perhaps than any other, has preserved traces of the great Vigils or pannychides, with their complex and varied display of processions, psalmodies, etc. (cf. Dom Cagin; "Paleographie Musicale", vol. VI, p. 8, sq.; Paul Lejay; Ambrosien (rit.) in "Dictionnaire d'Archeol. Chret. et de Liturgie", vol. I, p. 1423 sq.). The same Liturgy has also preserved Vigils of long psalmody. This Nocturnal Office adapted itself at a later period to a more modern form, approaching more and more closely to the Roman Liturgy. Here too are found the three Nocturns, with Antiphon, Psalms, Lessons, and Responses, the ordinary elements of the Roman Matins, and with a few special features quite Ambrosian. In the Benedictine Office, Matins, like the text of the Office, follows the Roman Liturgy quite closely. The number of psalms, viz. twelve, is always the same, there being three or two Nocturns according to the degree of solemnity of the particular Office celebrated. Ordinarily there are four Lessons, followed by their responses, to each Nocturn. The two most characteristic features of the Benedictine Matins are: the Canticles of the third Nocturn, which are not found in the Roman Liturgy, and the Gospel, which is sung solemnly at the end, the latter trait, as already pointed out, being very ancient. In the Mozarabic Liturgy (q.v.), on the contrary, Matins are made up of a system of Antiphons, Collects, and Versicles which make them quite a departure from the Roman system. V. SIGNIFICATION AND SYMBOLISM From the foregoing it is clear that Matins remains the principal Office of the Church, and the one which, in its origin, dates back the farthest, as far as the Apostolic ages, as far even as the very inception of the Church. It is doubtless, after having passed through a great many transformations, the ancient Night Office, the Office of the Vigil. In a certain sense it is, perhaps, the Office which was primitively the preparation for the Mass, that is to say, the Mass of the Catechumens, which presents at any rate the same construction as that Office:--the reading from the Old Testament, then the epistles and the Acts, and finally the Gospel--the whole being intermingled with psalmody, and terminated by the Homily (cf. Cabrol: "Les Origines Liturgiques", Paris, 1906, 334 seq.). If for a time this Office appeared to be secondary to that of Lauds or Morning Office, it is because the latter, originally but a part of Matins, drew to itself the solemnity, probably on account of the hour at which it was celebrated, permitting all the faithful to be present. According to another theory suggested by the testimony of Lactantius, St. Jerome, and St. Isidore, the Christians, being ignorant of the date of Christ's coming, thought He would return during the middle of the night, and most probably the night of Holy Saturday or Easter Sunday, at or about the hour when He arose from the sepulchre. Hence the importance of the Easter Vigil, which would thus have become the model or prototype of the other Saturday Vigils, and incidentally of all the nightly Vigils. The idea of the Second Advent would have given rise to the Easter Vigil, and the latter to the office of the Saturday Vigil (Batiffol, "Hist. du Bréviaire", 3). The institution of the Saturday Vigil would consequently be as ancient as that of Sunday. BONA, De Divina Psalmodia in Opera Omnia (Antwerp, 1677), 693 sq.; GRANCOLAS, Commentarius historicus in Rom. Breviar., 100; PROBST, Brevier und Breviergebet (Tubingen, 1854), 143 sq.; BAUMER, Histoire du Breviaire, tr. BIRON, I (Paris, 1905), 60 sq.; DUCHESNE, Christian Worship (1904), 448, 449; BATIFFOL, Histoire du Breviaire, 3 sq.; THALHOFER, Handbuch der Katholischen Liturgik, II, 434, 450; GASTOUE, Les Vigiles Nocturnes (Paris, 1908) (Collection Bloud); see HOURS (CANONICAL); LAUDS; VIGILS; BREVIARY. F. CABROL Matricula Matricula A term having several meanings in the field of Christian antiquity. (1) The word is applied first to the catalogue or roll of the clergy of a particular church; thus Clerici immatriculati denoted the elergy entitled to maintenance from the resources of the church to which they were attached. Allusions to matricula in this sense are found in the second and third canons of the Council of Agde and in canon 13 of the Council of Orleans (both of the sixth century). (2) This term was also applied to the ecclesiastical list of poor pensioners who were assisted from the church revenues; hence the names matricularii, matriculariae, by which persons thus assisted, together with those who performed menial services about the church, were known. (3) The house in which such pensioners were lodged was also known as matricula, which thus becomes synonymous with xenodochium. MAURICE M. HASSET Matteo Da Sienna Matteo da Sienna (Matteo di Giovanni di Bartolo). Painter, born at Borgo San Sepolcro, c. 1435; died 1495. His common appellation was derived from his having worked chiefly in the city of Siena. In the fourteenth century the masters of the Sienese school rivalled the Florentine painters; in the fifteenth, the former school, resisting the progress achieved at Florence, allowed itself to be outstripped by its rival. Although in this period it gives the impression of a superannuated art, Sienese painting still charms with its surviving line traditional qualities -- its sincerity of feeling, the refined grace of its figures, its attention to minutiae of dress and of architectural background, and its fascinating frankness of execution. Of these qualities Matteo has his share, but he is furthermore dlstinguished by the dignity of his female figures, the gracious presence of his angels, and the harmony of a colour scheme at once rich and brilliant. For this reason critics pronounce him the best of the fifteenth century Sienese painters. The earliest authentic work of Matteo is dated 1470, a Virgin enthroned, with angels, painted for the Servites, and now in the Academy of Siena. In 1487 he executed for the high altar of Santa Maria de' Servi del Borgo -- the Servite church of his native village -- an "Assumption" with the Apostles and other saints looking on; on the predella he has painted the history of the Blessed Virgin. According to G. Milanesi (in his edition of Vasari, II, Florence, 1878, p. 493, note 3), the main portion of this painting is still to be seen in the church, while the lateral portions have been removed to the sacristy. Some other Madonnas of his, deserve particular rnention: one in the Palazzo Tolomei at Siena, the Virgin and Infant Jesus painted, in 1484 for the city palace of Sienna, on a pilaster in the hall decorated by Spinello Aretino; in the duomo of Pienza, a Virgin and Child enthroned between St. Mathew and St. Catherine, St. Bartholomew and St. Luke. On the lunette Matteo painted the Flagellation, and on the predella three medallions -- "Ecce Homo", the Virgin, and an Evangelist. The signature reads : "Opus Mathei Johannis de Senis". As decoration for the pavement of the cathedral of Sienna, he designed three subjects : "The Sibyl of Samos", "The Deliverance of Bethulia", and "The Massacre of the Innocents". In 1477 he painted his "Madonna della Neve" (Our Lady of Snow), for the church under that invocation at Sienna. On comparing this with the Servite Madonna of 1470, it is seen to surpass the earlier work in beauty of types, symmetry of proportions, and colour-tone. The St. Barbara, a composition made for the church of San Domenico at Siena, is also remarkable work: tvvo angels are gracefully laying a crown on the saint's head, while others, accompanied by St. Mary Magdalen and St. Catherine of Alexandria and playing instruments, surround her. When Matteo treats subjects involving lively action, he loses a great deal of his power. The incidental scenes are combined in a confused way, the expression of feeling is forced, and degenerates into grimace, and the general result is affected and caricature-like. GASTON SORTAIS Matteo of Aquasparta Matteo of Aquasparta A celebrated Italian Franciscan, born at Aquasparta in the Diocese of Todi, Umbria, about 1235; died at Rome, 29 October, 1302. He was a member of the Bentivenghi family, to which Cardinal Bentivenga (d. 1290), also a Franciscan, belonged. Matteo entered the Franciscan Order at Todi, took the degree of Master of Theology at Paris, and taught also for a time at Bologna. The Franciscan, John Peckham, having become Archbishop of Canterbury in 1279, Matteo was in 1280 made Peckham's successor as Lecter sacri Patatii apostolici, i.e. he was appointed reader (teacher) of theology to the papal Curia. In 1287 the chapter held at Montpellier elected him general in succession to Arlotto of Prato. When Girolamo Masci (of Ascoli), who had previously been general of the Franciscan Order, became pope as Nicholas IV, 15 Feb., 1288, he created Matteo cardinal of the title of San Lorenzo in Damaso in May of that year. After this Matteo was made Cardinal Bishop of Porto, and p nitentiarius maior (Grand Penitentiary). He still, however, retained the direction of the order until the chapter of 1289. Matteo had summoned this chapter to meet at Assisi, but Nicholas IV caused it to be held in his presence at Rieti; here Raymond Gaufredi, a native of Provence, was elected general. As general of the order Matteo maintained a moderate, middle course; among other things he reorganized the studies pursued in the order. In the quarrel between Boniface VIII and the Colonna, from 1297 onwards, he strongly supported the pope, both in official memorials and in public sermons. Boniface VIII appointed him, both in 1297 and 1300, to an important embassy to Lombardy, the Romagna, and to Florence, where the Blacks (Neri) and the Whites (Bianchi), that is, the Guelphs and Ghibellines, were violently at issue with each other. In 1301 Matteo returned to Florence, following Charles of Valois, but neither peace nor reconciliation was brought about. The Blacks finally obtained the upper hand, and the chiefs of the Ghibelline party were obliged to go into exile; among these was the poet Dante. In a famous passage of the "Divina Commedia" (Paradiso, XII, 124-26), Dante certainly speaks as an extreme Ghibelline against Matteo of Aquasparta. Matteo, however, had died before this. He was buried in the Franciscan church of Ara C li, where his monument is still to be seen. Matteo was a very learned philosopher and theologian; he was further a personal pupil of St. Bonaventure, whose teaching, in general, he followed, or rather developed. In this respect he was one of what is known as the older Franciscan school, who preferred Augustinianism to the more pronounced Aristoteleanism of St. Thomas Aquinas. His principal work is the acute "Quæstiones disputatæ", which treats of various subjects. Of this one book appeared at Quaracchi in 1903 (the editing and issue are discontinued for the present), namely: "Quæstiones disputatæ selectæ", in "Bibliotheca Franciscana scholastica medii ævi", I; the "Quæstiones" are preceded by a "Tractatus de excellentia S. Scripturæ" (pp. 1-22), also by a "Sermo de studio S. Scripturæ" (pp. 22-36); it is followed by "De processione Spiritus Sancti" (pp. 429-53). Five "Quæstiones de Cognitione" had already been edited in the collection called "De humanæ cognitionis ratione anecdota quædam" (Quaracchi, 1883), 87-182. The rest of his works, still unedited are to be found at Assisi and Todi. Among them are: "Commentarius in 4 libros Sententiarum" (autograph); "Concordantiæ super 4 ll. Sententiarum"; "Postilla super librum Job"; "Postilla super Psalterium" (autograph); "In 12 Prophetas Minores"; "In Danielem"; "In Ev. Matthæi"; "In Apocalypsim" (autograph); "In Epist. ad Romanos"; "Sermones dominicales et feriales" (autograph). Cf. the editions referred to of the Qu st. disput. (1903), pp. v-xvi, and De Hum. Cognit., pp. xiv-xv; Chronica XXIV Min'str. General O. Min. in Analecta Franciscana, III (Quaracchi, 1897), 406-19, 699, 703; WADDING, Scriptores Ord. Min. (Rome, 1650), 252, (1806), 172, (1906), 269-70; SBARALEA, Suppl. ad Script. O. M. (Rome, 1806), 525; DENIFLE-CHATELAIN, Chartular. Univ. Paris., II (Paris, 1891), 59; EHRLE in Zeitschrift für kathol. Theologie, VII (Innsbruck, 1883), 46; GRABMANN, Die philosophische und theologische Erkenntnislehre des Kardinals Matth us von Aquasparta (Vienna, 1906); Theologische Studien der Leo Gesellschaft, Pt. XIV. MICHAEL BIHL Matter Matter (Gr. hyle; Lat. materia; Fr. matière; Ger. materie and stoff), the correlative of Form. See HYLOMORPHISM; FORM. Taking the term in its widest sense, matter signifies that out of which anything is made or composed. Thus the original meaning of hyle (Homer) is "wood", in the sense of "grove" or "forest"; and hence, derivatively, "wood cut down" or timber. The Latin materia, as opposed to lignum (wood used for fuel), has also the meaning of timber for building purposes. In modern languages this word (as signifying raw material) is used in a similar way. Matter is thus one of the elements of the becoming and continued being of an artificial product. The architect employs timber in the building of his house; the shoemaker fashions his shoes from leather. It will be observed that, as an intrinsic element, matter connotes composition, and is most easily studied in a consideration of the nature of change. This is treated ex professo in the article on CAUSE (q. v.). It will, however, be necessary to touch upon it briefly again here, since matter can only be rationally treated in so far as it is a correlate. The present article will therefore be divided into paragraphs giving the scholastic doctrine under the following heads: (1) Secondary Matter (in accidental change); (2) Primordial Matter (in substantial change); (3) The Nature of Primordial Matter; (4) Privation; (5) Permanent Matter; (6) The Unity of Matter; (7) Matter as the Principle of Individuation; (8) The Causality of Matter; (9) Variant Theories. (1) Secondary Matter Accepting matter in the original sense given above, Aristotle defines the "material cause" hoion ho chalkos tou andriantos kai ho argyros tes phiales. That the form of the statue is realized in the bronze, that the bronze is the subject of the form, is sensibly evident. These two elements of the statue or bowl are the intrinsic "causes" of its being what it is. With the addition of the efficient and final cause (and of privation) they constitute the whole doctrine of its ætiology, and are invoked as a sufficient explanation of "accidental" change. There is no difficulty in understanding such a doctrine. The determinable "matter" (here, in scholastic terminology, more properly substance) is the concrete reality — brass or white metal — susceptible of determination to a particular mode of being. The determinant is the artificial shape or form actually visible. The "matter" remains substantially the same before, throughout, and after its fashioning. (2) Primordial Matter The explanation is not so obvious when it is extended to cover substantial change. It is indeed true that already in speaking ot the "matter" of accidental change (substance), we go beyond the experience given in sense perception. But, when we attempt to deal with the elements of corporeal substance, we proceed still farther in the process of abstraction. It is impossible to represent to ourselves either primordial matter or substantial form. Any attempt to do so inevitably results in a play of imagination that tends to falsify their nature, for they are not imaginable. The proper objects of our understanding are the essences of those bodies with which we are surrounded (cf. S. Thomas, "De Principio Individuationis"). We have, however, no intuitive knowledge of these, nor of their principles. We may reason about them, indeed, and must so reason if we wish to explain the possibility of change; but to imagine is to court the danger of arriving at entirely false conclusions. Hence whatever may be asserted with regard to primordial matter must necessarily be the result of pure and abstract reasoning upon the concrete data furnished by sense. It is an inexisting principle invoked to account for substantial alteration. But, as St. Thomas Aquinas remarks, whatever knowledge of it we may acquire is reached only by its analogy to "form" (ibid.). The two are the inseparable constituents of corporeal beings. The teaching of Aquinas may be briefly set out here as embodying that also of Aristotle, with which it is in the main identical. It is the teaching commonly received in the School; though various other opinions, to which allusion will be made later, are to be found advanced both before and after its formulation by Aquinas. (3) The Nature of Primordial Matter For St. Thomas primordial matter is the common ground of substantial change, the element of indetermination in corporeal beings. It is a pure potentiality, or determinability, void of substantiality, of quality, of quantity, and of all the other accidents that determine sensible being. It is not created, neither is it creatable, but rather concreatable and concreated with Form, (q. v.), to which it is opposed as a correlate, as one of the essential "intrinsic constituents" (De Principiis Naturæ) of those corporeal beings in whose existence the act of creation terminates. Similarly it is not generated, neither does it corrupt in substantial change, since all generation and corruption is a transition in which one substance becomes another, and consequently can only take place in changes of composite subjects. It is produced out of nothing and can only cease to be by falling back into nothingness (De Natura Materiæ, i). Its potentiality is not a property superadded to its essence, for it is a potentiality towards substantial being (In I Phys., Lect. 14). A stronger statement is to be found in "QQ. Disp.", III, Q. iv., a. 2 ad 4: "The relation of primordial matter . . . to passive potentiality is as that of God . . . to active (potentiam activam). Therefore matter is its passivity as God is His activity". It is clear throughout that St. Thomas has here in view primordial matter in the uttermost degree of abstraction. Indeed, he is explicit upon the point. "That is commonly called primordial matter which is in the category of substance as a potentiality cognized apart from all species and form, and even from privation; yet susceptive of forms and privations" (De spiritual. creat., Q. i, a. 1). If we were "obliged to define its essence, it would have for specific difference its relation to form, and for genus its substantiality" (Quod., IX, a. 6. 3). And again: "It has its being by reason of that which comes to it, since in itself it has incomplete, or rather no being at all" (De Princip. Naturæ). Such information is mainly negative in character, and the phrases employed by St. Thomas show that there is a certain difficulty in expressing exactly the nature of the principle under consideration. This difficulty evidently arises from the imagination, and with imagination the philosophy of matter has nothing to do. We must begin with the real, the concrete being. To explain this, and the changes it is capable of undergoing, we must infer the coexistence of matter and form determinable and determinant. We may then strip matter, by abstraction, of this or that determination; we may consider it apart from all its determinations. But once attempt to consider it apart from that analogy by which alone we can know it, once strip it mentally of its determinability by form, and nothing — absolute nothing — remains. For matter is neither realizable nor thinkable without its correlative. The proper object of intelligence, and likewise the subject of being, is Ens, Verum. Hence St. Thomas teaches further that primordial matter is "a substantial reality" (i. e., a reality reductively belonging to the category of substance), "potential towards all forms, and, under the action of a fit and proportioned efficient cause, determinable to any species of corporeal substance" (In VII Met., sect. 2); and, again: "It is never stripped of form and privation; now it is under one form now under another. Of itself it can never exist" (Do Princip. Natur.) . What has been said may appear to deny to matter the reality that is predicated of it. This is not the case. As the determinable element in corporeal substance it must have a reality that is not that of the determining form. The mind by abstraction may consider it as potential to any form, but can never overstep the limit of its potentiality as inexistent (cf. Aristotle's ti enyparchontos (Phys., iii, 194b, 16) and realized in bodies without finding itself contemplating absolute nothingness. Of itself matter can never exist, and consequently of itself it can never be thought. (4) Privation The use of the term "privation" by Aquinas brings us to an exceedingly interesting consideration. While primordial matter, as "understood" without any form or privation, is an indifferent potentiality towards information by any corporeal form, the same matter, considered as realized by a given form, and actually existing, does not connote this indefinite capacity of information. There is, in fact, a certain rhythmic evolution of forms observable in nature. By electrolysis only oxygen and hydrogen can be obtained from water; from oxygen and hydrogen in definite proportions only water is generated. This fact St. Thomas expresses in the physical terms of his time: "If any particular matter, e. g. fire or air, were despoiled of its form, it is manifest that the potentiality towards other educible forms remaining in it would not be so ample, as is the case in regard to matter (considered) universally" (De Nat. Mat., v). The consideration gives us the signification of "privation", as used in the theory of substantial change. Matter is "deprived" of the form or forms towards which alone it is potential when actually existing in some one or other state of determination. Hence the distinction that is found in the Opuscule "Do Principiis Naturæ". (5) Permanent Matter " Matter that does not connote a privation is permanent, whereas that which does is transient". The connotation of a privation limits primordial matter to that which is realized by a form disposing it towards realization by certain other definite forms. "Privation" is the absence of those forms. Permanent matter is matter considered in the highest degree of abstraction, and connoting thereby no more than its correlation to form in general. (6) The Unity of Matter Further, this (permanent) matter is said to be one; not however, in the sense of a numerical unity. Every corporeal being is held to result from the union of matter and form. There are in consequence as many distinct individual realized portions of matter as there are distinct bodies (atoms, for example) in the universe. Nevertheless, when the severally determining principles and privations are abstracted from, when matter is cognized in its greatest abstraction, it is cognized as possessing a logical unity. It is understood without any of those dispositions that make it differ numerically with the multiplication of bodies (De Principiis Naturæ). (7) Matter as the Principle of lndividuation More important is the doctrine that grounds in matter the numerical distinction of specifically identical corporeal beings. In the general doctrine of St. Thomas, the individual — "this thing" (hoc aliquid) — is a primordial substance, individualized by the fact that it is what it is ("Substantia individuatur per seipsam": Summa, Pars I, Q. xxix, a. 1). It is intrinsically complete, capable of subsisting in itself as the subject of accidents in the ontological order, and of predicates in the logical. It is undivided in itself, distinct from all other, incommunicable (cf. De Principio Individuationis). These characteristic notes are realized in the case of two substances that differ by essence. Thus, for St. Thomas, no two angels (q. v.) are specifically identical (Summa, Pars I, Q. 1, a. 4). More than this, even a corporeal form, however material and low in the hierarchy of forms, would not be other than unique in its species, if it could exist (or be thought), apart from its relation to matter (cf. De Spiritual. Creaturis, Q. i, a. 8). Whiteness, if it could subsist without any subject, would be unique. If a plurality of such accidental forms could subsist they also would differ specifically — as whiteness, redness, etc. But this distinction evidently does not obtain in the case of a number of individuals belonging to one species. They are essentially identical. How is it, then, that they can constitute a plurality? The answer given by St. Thomas to this question is his doctrine of the Principle of Individuation. Whereas the plurality of simple substances, or "forms", is due to a real difference of their essences (as a triangle differs from a circle), the plurality of identical essences, or "forms", supposes an intrinsic principle of individuation for each (as two triangles realized in two pieces of wood) . Thus, simple substances differ by reason of their nature, formally; while composite ones differ by reason of an inherent principle, materially. They are multiplied within a given species by reason of matter. At this point a peculiarly delicate question arises. The abstract essence of man connotes matter. If, then, primordial matter be the principle of individuation, it would seem that the abstract essence is already individualized. Wherein would lie the admitted difference between the species and the individual? On the other hand, if that be not the case, it would appear equally evident that, in adding to the individual a principle not contained in the abstract essence, it would no longer be an object of classification in the species. It would not be merely the concrete realization of the essence, but something more. In either case the doctrine would seem to be incompatible with modern Realism. St. Thomas avoids the difficulty by teaching that matter is the principle of individuation, but only as correlated to quantity. The expressions that he uses are "materia signata", "materia subjecta dimensioni" (In Boeth. de Trin., Q. iv, a. 2), "materia sub certis dimensionibus" (De Nat. Mat., iii) . This needs some explanation. Quantity, as such, is an accident; and it is evident that no accident can account for the individuality of its own subject. But quantity results in corporeal substance by reason of matter. Primordial matter, then, considered as such, has a relation to quantity consequent upon its necessary relation to form (De Nat. Mat., iv). When actuated by form it has dimensions — the "inseparable concomitants that determine it in time and place" (De Princip. Individ.). The abstract essence, then, embracing matter as it does form, will connote an aptitude or potentiality towards a quantitative determination, necessarily resultant in each concrete subject realized. Here, as formerly, the fact must not be lost sight of that the reasoning begins with the concrete bodies actually existing in nature. It is by an abstraction that we consider matter without the actual quantity that it always exhibits when realized in corporeal substance. Peter, as a matter of fact, differs from Paul, yet they are specifically identical as rational animals. Peter is "this" man, and Paul is "that", but "this" and "that", because "here" and "there". "Form is not individuated in that it is received in matter, but only in that it is received in this or that distinct matter, and determined to here and now" (In Boeth. de Trin. Q. iv, a. 1). It is evident that "here" and "now" are the immediate and inseparable signs for us of the individual. They indicate " hœc caro et ossa". And they are only possible by reason of (informed) matter, the ground of divisibility and location in space. Still, it must be noted that "materia signata quantitate" is not to be understood as primordial matter having an aptitude towards fixed and invariable dimensions. The determined dimensions that are found in the existing subject are to be attributed, St. Thomas teaches, to matter as "individuated by indeterminate dimensions preunderstood in it" (" In Boeth. de Trin.", Q. iv, a. 2; "De Nat. Mat.", vii). This remark explains how an individual (as Peter) can vary in dimension without varying in identity; and at the same time gives the reply of Aquinas to the difficulty raised above. Primordial matter, as connoted in the essence, has am aptitude towards indeterminate dimensions. These dimensions when realized are the ground of the determined dimensions (ibid.) that make the individual hic et nunc an object of sense-perception (De Nat. Materiæ, iii). (8) The Causality of Matter Since Primordial Matter is numbered among the causes of corporeal being, the mature of its causality remains to be considered. (See CAUSE.) All scholastics admit its concurrence with form, as an intrinsic cause; but they are not unanimous as to the precise part it plays. For Suarez it is unitive; for John of St. Thomas receptive. The Conimbricences place its causality in both notes. It would, perhaps, seem more consonant with the doctrine of St. Thomas to adopt Cardinal Mercier's opinion that the causality of matter is first receptive and second unitive; provided always that its essential potentiality be never lost sight of. (9) Variant Theories of Matter The teaching of Aquinas has been given as substantially identical with that of Aristotle. The main point of divergence lies in the opinion of Aristotle that the world — and consequently matter — is eternal. St. Thomas, in accepting the doctrine of Creation, denies the eternity of primordial matter. It is interesting to note how this doctrine of matter, as the potential, or determinable, element in change, unites and corrects the views of Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Plato. The perpetual flux of the first is found in the continual transformations that take place in material nature. The changeless "one" of the second is recognized in the abstract essences eternally identical with themselves. And the world of "ideas" of Plato is assigned its place as a world of intellectual abstractions practised upon the bodies that fall under the observation of the senses. The universal is immanent in the individual and multiplied by reason of its matter. In the system of Plato, matter (me on, apeiron: the "formless and invisible") is also the condition under which being becomes the object of the senses. It gives to being all its imperfections. It is by a mixture of being and nothingness, rather than by the realization of a potentiality, that sensible things exist. While for Aristotle matter is a real element of being, for Plato it is not. Of Neoplatonists, Philo (following Plato and the Stoics) also considered matter the principle of imperfection, of limitation and of evil; Plotinus made it empty space, or a pure possibility of Being. These systems are mentioned here because through them St. Augustine drew his knowledge of Greek philosophy. And in the doctrine of St. Augustine we find the source of an important current of thought that ran through the Middle Ages. He puts forward at different times two views as to the nature of matter. It is first, corporeal substance in a chaotic state; second, an element of complete indetermination, approaching to the me on of Plato. St. Augustine was not directly acquainted with the works of Aristotle, yet he seems to have approached very closely to this thought (probably through the Latin writings of the Neoplatonists) in certain passages of the "Confessions" (cf. Lib. XIII v and xxxiii): For the changeableness of changeable things is capable of all those forms to which the changeable are changed. And what is this? Is it soul? Or body? If it could be said: 'Nothing: something that is and is not', that would I say . . . 'For from nothing they were made by Thee, yet not of Thee: nor of anything not Thine, or which was before, but of concreated matter, because Thou didst create its informity without any interposition of time.' St. Augustine does not teach the dependence of quantity upon matter; and he admits a quasimatter in the angels. Moreover, his doctrine of the rationes seminales (of Stoical origin), which found many adherents among later scholastics, clearly assigns to matter something more than the character of pure potentiality attributed to it by St. Thomas. It may noted that Albert the Great, the predecessor of St. Thomas, also taught this doctrine and, further, was of the opinion that the angelic "forms" must be held to have a fundamentum, or ground of differentiation, analogous to matter in corporeal beings. Following St. Augustine, Alexander of Hales and St. Bonaventure, with the Franciscan School as a whole, teach that matter is one of the intrinsic elements of all creatures. Matter and form together are the principles of individuation for St. Bonaventure. Duns Scotus is more characteristically subtle on the point, which is a capital one in his synthesis. Matter is to be distinguished as: + Materia primo prima, the universalized indeterminate element of contingent beings. This has real and numerical unity. + Materia secundo prima, united with "form" and quantified. + Materia tertio prima, subject of accidental change in existing bodies. For Scotus, who acknowledges his indebtedness to Avicebron for the doctrine (De rerum princip., Q. viii, a. 4), Materia primo prima is homogeneous in all creatures without exception. His system is dualistic. Among later notable scholastics Suarez may be cited as attributing an existence to primordial matter. This is a logical consequence of his doctrine that no real distinction is to be admitted between essence and existence. God could, he teaches, "preserve matter without a form as He can a form without matter" (Disput. Metaph., xv, sec. 9). In his opinion, also, quantified matter no longer appears as the principle of individuation. A considerable number of theologians and philosophers have professed his doctrine upon both these points. ALBERTUS MAGNUS, Opera (Lyons, 1851); ALEXANDER OF HALES, In duodecim Aristotelis Metaphysicœ libros (1572); IDEM, Universœ Theologiœ Summa (Cologne, 1622): St. THOMAS AQUINAS, Opera (Parma, 1852-72), especially the Opuscula De Natura Materiœ, De Principio Individuationis, De Spiritualibus Creaturis, In Boethium de Trinitate, De Principiis Naturœ, Quodlibet, IX, Q. iv, De Mixtione Elementorum; ARISTOTLE, Opera (Paris, 1619); ST. AUGUSTINE, Opera (Antwerp, 1679-1703); ST. BONAVENTURE, Opera (Paris, 1864-71); CAIETAN, Summa . . . Thomœ a Vio . . . Commentariis illustrata (Lyons, 1562); DE WULF, Histoire de la Philosophie Médiévale (Louvain); FARGES, Matière et Forme en présence des Sciences modernes (Paris, 1892); GROTE, Aristotle (London, 1873); IDEM, Plato and the other companions of Socrates (London, 1865); HARPER, The Metaphysics of the School (London, 1879); LORENZELLI, Philosophiœ Theoreticœ Institutiones (Rome, 1896); MERCIER, Ontologie (Louvain, 1902); NYS, Cosmologie (Louvain, 1904); SCOTUS, Opera (Lyons, 1639); SAINT-HILAIRE, Œuvres d'Aristote (Paris, 1837-92); SUAREZ; Metaphysicarum disputationum (Mainz, 1605); UEREEWEG: History of Philosophy, tr. MORRIS (1872); WINDELBAND, A History of Philosophy, tr. TUFTS (New York, 1893). FRANCIS AVELING. Carlo Matteucci Carlo Matteucci Physicist, born at Forli, in the Romagna, 21 June, 1811; died at Ardenza, near Leghorn, 25 July, 1868. He studied mathematics at the University of Bologna, receiving his doctorate in 1829. Then he went to the Paris Ecole Polytechnique for two years as a foreign student. In 1831 he returned to Forli and began to experiment in physics. In taking up the Voltaic pile he took sides against Volta's contact theory of electricity. He remained at Florence until his father's death in 1834, when he went to Ravenna and later to Pisa. His study of the Voltaic battery led him to announce the law that the decomposition in the electrolytic cell corresponds to the work developed in the elements of the pile. From the external effect it became possible to calculate the material used up in the pile. In 1837 he was invited by his friend Buoninsegni, president of the Ravenna Hospital, to take charge of its chemical laboratory and at the same time assume the title and rank of professor of physics at the college. There he did most excellent work and soon became famous. Arago, hearing of the vacancy in the chair of physics at the University of Pisa, wrote to Humboldt asking him to recommend Matteucci to the Grand-Duke of Tuscany. This application was successful and there at Pisa he continued his researches. Beginning with Arago's and Faraday's discoveries he developed by ingenious experiments our knowledge of electrostatics, electro-dynamics, induced currents, and the like, but his greatest achievements however were in the field of electro-physiology, with frogs, torpedoes, and the like. He was also successful as a politician. In 1848 Commissioner of Tuscany to Charles Albert; sent to Frankfort to plead the cause of his country before the German Assembly; 1849 in Pisa, director of the telegraphs of Tuscany; 1859 provisional representative of Tuscany at Turin, and then sent to Paris with Peruzzi and Neri Corsini to plead the annexation of Piedmont; 1860 Inspector-General of the telegraph lines of the Italian Kingdom. Senator at the Tuscan Assembly in 1848, and again in the Italian Senate in 1860; Minister of Public Instruction, 1862, in the cabinet of Rattazzi. He won the Copley medal of the Royal Society of London, and was made corresponding member of the Paris Academy of Sciences in 1844. He published a great deal in English, French, and Italian journals of science. His larger works were: + "Lezioni di fisica" (4th ed., Pisa, 1858); + "Lezioni sui fenomeni fisico-chimici dei corpi viventi" (2nd ed., Pisa, 1846); + "Manuale di telegrafia elettrica" (2nd ed., Pisa, 1851); + "Cours spécial sur l'induction, le magnétisme de rotation", etc. (Paris, 1854); + "Lettres sur l'instruction publique" (Paris, 1864); + "Traité des phénomènes electro-physiologiques des animaux" (Paris, 1844). WILLIAM FOX St. Matthew St. Matthew Apostle and evangelist. The name Matthew is derived from the Hebrew Mattija, being shortened to Mattai in post-Biblical Hebrew. In Greek it is sometimes spelled Maththaios, B D, and sometimes Matthaios, CEKL, but grammarians do not agree as to which of the two spellings is the original. Matthew is spoken of five times in the New Testament; first in Matthew 9:9, when called by Jesus to follow Him, and then four times in the list of the Apostles, where he is mentioned in the seventh (Luke 6:15, and Mark 3:18), and again in the eighth place (Matthew 10:3, and Acts 1:13). The man designated in Matthew 9:9, as "sitting in the custom house", and "named Matthew" is the same as Levi, recorded in Mark 2:14, and Luke 5:27, as "sitting at the receipt of custom". The account in the three Synoptics is identical, the vocation of Matthew-Levi being alluded to in the same terms. Hence Levi was the original name of the man who was subsequently called Matthew; the Maththaios legomenos of Matthew 9:9, would indicate this. The fact of one man having two names is of frequent occurrence among the Jews. It is true that the same person usually bears a Hebrew name such as "Shaoul" and a Greek name, Paulos. However, we have also examples of individuals with two Hebrew names as, for instance, Joseph-Caiaphas, Simon-Cephas, etc. It is probable that Mattija, "gift of Iaveh", was the name conferred upon the tax-gatherer by Jesus Christ when He called him to the Apostolate, and by it he was thenceforth known among his Christian brethren, Levi being his original name. Matthew, the son of Alpheus (Mark 2:14) was a Galilean, although Eusebius informs us that he was a Syrian. As tax-gatherer at Capharnaum, he collected custom duties for Herod Antipas, and, although a Jew, was despised by the Pharisees, who hated all publicans. When summoned by Jesus, Matthew arose and followed Him and tendered Him a feast in his house, where tax-gatherers and sinners sat at table with Christ and His disciples. This drew forth a protest from the Pharisees whom Jesus rebuked in these consoling words: "I came not to call the just, but sinners". No further allusion is made to Matthew in the Gospels, except in the list of the Apostles. As a disciple and an Apostle he thenceforth followed Christ, accompanying Him up to the time of His Passion and, in Galilee, was one of the witnesses of His Resurrection. He was also amongst the Apostles who were present at the Ascension, and afterwards withdrew to an upper chamber, in Jerusalem, praying in union with Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and with his brethren (Acts 1:10 and 1:14). Of Matthew's subsequent career we have only inaccurate or legendary data. St. Irenæus tells us that Matthew preached the Gospel among the Hebrews, St. Clement of Alexandria claiming that he did this for fifteen years, and Eusebius maintains that, before going into other countries, he gave them his Gospel in the mother tongue. Ancient writers are not as one as to the countries evangelized by Matthew, but almost all mention Ethiopia to the south of the Caspian Sea (not Ethiopia in Africa), and some Persia and the kingdom of the Parthians, Macedonia, and Syria. According to Heracleon, who is quoted by Clement of Alexandria, Matthew did not die a martyr, but this opinion conflicts with all other ancient testimony. Let us add, however, that the account of his martyrdom in the apocryphal Greek writings entitled "Martyrium S. Matthæi in Ponto" and published by Bonnet, "Acta apostolorum apocrypha" (Leipzig, 1898), is absolutely devoid of historic value. Lipsius holds that this "Martyrium S. Matthæi", which contains traces of Gnosticism, must have been published in the third century. There is a disagreement as to the place of St. Matthew's martyrdom and the kind of torture inflicted on him, therefore it is not known whether he was burned, stoned, or beheaded. The Roman Martyrology simply says: "S. Matthæi, qui in Æthiopia prædicans martyrium passus est". Various writings that are now considered apocryphal, have been attributed to St. Matthew. In the "Evangelia apocrypha" (Leipzig, 1876), Tischendorf reproduced a Latin document entitled: "De Ortu beatæ Mariæ et infantia Salvatoris", supposedly written in Hebrew by St. Matthew the Evangelist, and translated into Latin by Jerome, the priest. It is an abridged adaptation of the "Protoevangelium" of St. James, which was a Greek apocryphal of the second century. This pseudo-Matthew dates from the middle or the end of the sixth century. The Latin Church celebrates the feast of St. Matthew on 21 September, and the Greek Church on 16 November. St. Matthew is represented under the symbol of a winged man, carrying in his hand a lance as a characteristic emblem. E. JACQUIER Gospel of St. Matthew Gospel of St. Matthew I. CANONICITY The earliest Christian communities looked upon the books of the Old Testament as Sacred Scripture, and read them at their religious assemblies. That the Gospels, which contained the words of Christ and the narrative of His life, soon enjoyed the same authority as the Old Testament, is made clear by Hegesippus (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", IV, xxii, 3), who tells us that in every city the Christians were faithful to the teachings of the law, the prophets, and the Lord. A book was acknowledged as canonical when the Church regarded it as Apostolic, and had it read at her assemblies. Hence, to establish the canonicity of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, we must investigate primitive Christian tradition for the use that was made of this document, and for indications proving that it was regarded as Scripture in the same manner as the Books of the Old Testament. The first traces that we find of it are not indubitable, because post-Apostolic writers quoted the texts with a certain freedom, and principally because it is difficult to say whether the passages thus quoted were taken from oral tradition or from a written Gospel. The first Christian document whose date can be fixed with comparative certainty (95-98), is the Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians. It contains sayings of the Lord which closely resemble those recorded in the First Gospel (Clement, xvi, 17 = Matt., xi, 29; Clem., xxiv, 5 = Matt., xiii, 3), but it is possible that they are derived from Apostolic preaching, as, in chapter xiii, 2, we find a mixture of sentences from Matthew, Luke, and an unknown source. Again, we note a similar commingling of Evangelical texts elsewhere in the same Epistle of Clement, in the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, in the Epistle of Polycarp, and in Clement of Alexandria. Whether these these texts were thus combined in oral tradition or emanated from a collection of Christ's utterances, we are unable to say. + The Epistles of St. Ignatius (martyred 110-17) contain no literal quotation from the Holy Books; nevertheless, St. Ignatius borrowed expressions and some sentences from Matthew ("Ad Polyc.", ii, 2 = Matt., x, 16; "Eph.", xiv, 2 = Matt., xii, 33, etc.). In his "Epistle to the Philadelphians" (v, 12), he speaks of the Gospel in which he takes refuge as in the Flesh of Jesus; consequently, he had an evangelical collection which he regarded as Sacred Writ, and we cannot doubt that the Gospel of St. Matthew formed part of it. + In the Epistle of Polycarp (110-17), we find various passages from St. Matthew quoted literally (xii, 3 = Matt.,v. 44; vii, 2 = Matt., xxvi, 41, etc.). + The Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles (Didache) contains sixty-six passages that recall the Gospel of Matthew; some of them are literal quotations (viii, 2 = Matt., vi, 7-13; vii, I = Matt., xxviii 19; xi, 7 = Matt., xii, 31, etc.). + In the so-called Epistle of Barnabas (117-30), we find a passage from St. Matthew (xxii, 14), introduced by the scriptural formula, os gegraptai, which proves that the author considered the Gospel of Matthew equal in point of authority to the writings of the Old Testament. + The "Shepherd of Hermas" has several passages which bear close resemblance to passages of Matthew, but not a single literal quotation from it. + In his "Dialogue" (xcix, 8), St. Justin quotes, almost literally, the prayer of Christ in the Garden of Olives, in Matthew, xxvi, 39,40. + A great number of passages in the writings of St. Justin recall the Gospel of Matthew, and prove that he ranked it among the Memoirs of the Apostles which, he said, were called Gospels (I Apol., lxvi), were read in the services of the Church (ibid., @i), and were consequently regarded as Scripture. + In his "Legatio pro christianis", xii, 11, Athenagoras (117) quotes almost literally sentences taken from the Sermon on the Mount (Matt., v, 44). + Theophilus of Antioch (Ad Autol., III, xiii-xiv) quotes a passage from Matthew (v, 28, 32), and, according to St. Jerome (In Matt. Prol.), wrote a commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew. + We find in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs--drawn up, according to some critics, about the middle of the second century--numerous passages that closely resemble the Gospel of Matthew (Test. Gad, v, 3; vi, 6; v, 7 = Matt., xviii, 15, 35; Test. Jos., i, 5, 6 = Matt., xxv, 35, 36, etc.), but Dr. Charles maintains that the Testaments were written in Hebrew in the first century before Jesus Christ, and translated into Greek towards the middle of the same century. In this event, the Gospel of Matthew would depend upon the Testaments and not the Testaments upon the Gospel. The question is not yet settled, but it seems to us that there is a greater probability that the Testaments, at least in their Greek version, are of later date than the Gospel of Matthew, they certainly received numerous Christian additions. + The Greek text of the Clementine Homilies contains some quotations from Matthew (Hom. iii, 52 = Matt., xv, 13); in Hom. xviii, 15, the quotation from Matt., xiii, 35, is literal. + Passages which suggest the Gospel of Matthew might be quoted from heretical writings of the second century and from apocryphal gospels--the Gospel of Peter, the Protoevangelium of James, etc., in which the narratives, to a considerable extent, are derived from the Gospel of Matthew. + Tatian incorporated the Gospel of Matthew in his "Diatesseron"; we shall quote below the testimonies of Papias and St. Irenæus. For the latter, the Gospel of Matthew, from which he quotes numerous passages, was one of the four that constituted the quadriform Gospel dominated by a single spirit. + Tertullian (Adv. Marc., IV, ii) asserts, that the "Instrumentum evangelicum" was composed by the Apostles, and mentions Matthew as the author of a Gospel (De carne Christi, xii). + Clement of Alexandria (Strom., III, xiii) speaks of the four Gospels that have been transmitted, and quotes over three hundred passages from the Gospel of Matthew, which he introduces by the formula, en de to kata Maththaion euaggelio or by phesin ho kurios. It is unnecessary to pursue our inquiry further. About the middle of the third century, the Gospel of Matthew was received by the whole Christian Church as a Divinely inspired document, and consequently as canonical. The testimony of Origen ("In Matt.", quoted by Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", III, xxv, 4), of Eusebius (op. cit., III, xxiv, 5; xxv, 1), and of St. Jerome ("De Viris Ill.", iii, "Prolog. in Matt.,") are explicit in this repsect. It might be added that this Gospel is found in the most ancient versions: Old Latin, Syriac, and Egyptian. Finally, it stands at the head of the Books of the New Testament in the Canon of the Council of Laodicea (363) and in that of St. Athanasius (326-73), and very probably it was in the last part of the Muratorian Canon. Furthermore, the canonicity of the Gospel of St. Matthew is accepted by the entire Christian world. II. AUTHENTICITY OF THE FIRST GOSPEL The question of authenticity assumes an altogether special aspect in regard to the First Gospel. The early Christian writers assert that St. Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew; this Hebrew Gospel has, however, entirely disappeared, and the Gospel which we have, and from which ecclesiastical writers borrow quotations as coming from the Gospel of Matthew, is in Greek. What connection is there between this Hebrew Gospel and this Greek Gospel, both of which tradition ascribes to St. Matthew? Such is the problem that presents itself for solution. Let us first examine the facts. A. TESTIMONY OF TRADITION According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 111, xxxix, 16), Papias said that Matthew collected (synetaxato; or, according to two manuscripts, synegraphato, composed) ta logia (the oracles or maxims of Jesus) in the Hebrew (Aramaic) language, and that each one translated them as best he could. Three questions arise in regard to this testimony of Papias on Matthew: (1) What does the word logia signify? Does it mean only detached sentences or sentences incorporated in a narrative, that is to say, a Gospel such as that of St. Matthew? Among classical writers, logion, the diminutive of logos, signifies the "answer of oracles", a "prophecy"; in the Septuagint and in Philo, "oracles of God" (ta deka logia, the Ten Commandments). It sometimes has a broader meaning and seems to include both facts and sayings. In the New Testament the signification of the word logion is doubtful, and if, strictly speaking, it may be claimed to indicate teachings and narratives, the meaning "oracles" is the more natural. However, writers contemporary with Papias--e. g. St. Clement of Rome (Ad Cor., liii), St. Irenæus (Adv. Hær., I, viii, 2), Clement of Alexandria (Strom., I, cccxcii), and Origen (De Princip., IV, xi)--have used it to designate facts and savings. The work of Papias was entitled "Exposition of the Oracles" [ logion] of the Lord", and it also contained narratives (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", III, xxxix, 9). On the other hand, speaking of the Gospel of Mark, Papias says that this Evangelist wrote all that Christ had said and done, but adds that he established no connection between the Lord's sayings (suntaxin ton kuriakon logion). We may believe that here logion comprises all that Christ said and did. Nevertheless, it would seem that, if the two passages on Mark and Matthew followed each other in Papias as in Eusebius, the author intended to emphasize a difference between them, by implying that Mark recorded the Lord's words and deeds and Matthew chronicled His discourses. The question is still unsolved; it is, however, possible that, in Papias, the term logia means deeds and teachings. (2) Second, does Papias refer to oral or written translations of Matthew, when he says that each one translated the sayings "as best he could"? As there is nowhere any allusion to numerous Greek translations of the Logia of Matthew, it is probable that Papias speaks here of the oral translations made at Christian meetings, similar to the extemporaneous translations of the Old Testament made in the synagogues. This would explain why Papias mentions that each one (each reader) translated "as best he could". (3) Finally, were the Logia of Matthew and the Gospel to which ecclesiastical writers refer written in Hebrew or Aramaic? Both hypotheses are held. Papias says that Matthew wrote the Logia in the Hebrew (Hebraidi) language; St. Irenæus and Eusebius maintain that he wrote his gospel for the Hebrews in their national language, and the same assertion is found in several writers. Matthew would, therefore, seem to have written in modernized Hebrew, the language then used by the scribes for teaching. But, in the time of Christ, the national language of the Jews was Aramaic, and when, in the New Testament, there is mention of the Hebrew language (Hebrais dialektos), it is Aramaic that is implied. Hence, the aforesaid writers may allude to the Aramaic and not to the Hebrew. Besides, as they assert, the Apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel to help popular teaching. To be understood by his readers who spoke Aramaic, he would have had to reproduce the original catechesis in this language, and it cannot be imagined why, or for whom, he should have taken the trouble to write it in Hebrew, when it would have had to be translated thence into Aramaic for use in religious services. Moreover, Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6) tells us that the Gospel of Matthew was a reproduction of his preaching, and this we know, was in Aramaic. An investigation of the Semitic idioms observed in the Gospel does not permit us to conclude as to whether the original was in Hebrew or Aramaic, as the two languages are so closely related. Besides, it must be home in mind that the greater part of these Semitisms simply reproduce colloquial Greek and are not of Hebrew or Aramaic origin. However, we believe the second hypothesis to be the more probable, viz., that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic. Let us now recall the testimony of the other ecclesiastical writers on the Gospel of St. Matthew. St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., III, i, 2) affirms that Matthew published among the Hebrews a Gospel which he wrote in their own language. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, x, 3) says that, in India, Pantænus found the Gospel according to St. Matthew written in the Hebrew language, the Apostle Bartholomew having left it there. Again, in his "Hist. eccl." (VI xxv, 3, 4), Eusebius tells us that Origen, in his first book on the Gospel of St. Matthew, states that he has learned from tradition that the First Gospel was written by Matthew, who, having composed it in Hebrew, published it for the converts from Judaism. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6), Matthew preached first to the Hebrews and, when obliged to go to other countries, gave them his Gospel written in his native tongue. St. Jerome has repeatedly declared that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew ("Ad Damasum", xx; "Ad Hedib.", iv), but says that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, etc., and all the commentators of the Middle Ages repeat that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Erasmus was the first to express doubts on this subject: "It does not seem probable to me that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, since no one testifies that he has seen any trace of such a volume." This is not accurate, as St. Jerome uses Matthew's Hebrew text several times to solve difficulties of interpretation, which proves that he had it at hand. Pantænus also had it, as, according to St. Jerome ("De Viris Ill.", xxxvi), he brought it back to Alexandria. However, the testimony of Pantænus is only second-hand, and that of Jerome remains rather ambiguous, since in neither case is it positively known that the writer did not mistake the Gospel according to the Hebrews (written of course in Hebrew) for the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew. However all ecclesiastical writers assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, by quoting the Greek Gospel and ascribing it to Matthew, thereby affirm it to be a translation of the Hebrew Gospel. B. EXAMINATION OF THE GREEK GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW Our chief object is to ascertain whether the characteristics of the Greek Gospel indicate that it is a translation from the Aramaic, or that it is an original document; but, that we may not have to revert to the peculiarities of the Gospel of Matthew, we shall here treat them in full. (1) The Language of the Gospel St. Matthew used about 1475 words, 137 of which are apax legomena (words used by him alone of all the New Testament writers). Of these latter 76 are classical; 21 are found in the Septuagint; 15 (battologein biastes, eunouchizein etc.) were introduced for the first time by Matthew, or at least he was the first writer in whom they were discovered; 8 words (aphedon, gamizein, etc.) were employed for the first time by Matthew and Mark, and 15 others (ekchunesthai, epiousios, etc.) by Matthew and another New Testament writer. It is probable that, at the time of the Evangelist, all these words were in current use. Matthew's Gospel contains many peculiar expressions which help to give decided colour to his style. Thus, he employs thirty-four times the expression basileia ton ouranon; this is never found in Mark and Luke, who, in parallel passages, replace it by basileia tou theou, which also occurs four times in Matthew. We must likewise note the expressions: ho pater ho epouranions, ho en tois ouranois, sunteleia tou alonos, sunairein logon, eipein ti kata tinos, mechri tes semeron, poiesai os, osper, en ekeino to kairo, egeiresthai apo, etc. The same terms often recur: tote (90 times), apo tote, kai idou etc. He adopts the Greek form Ierisiluma for Jerusalem, and not Ierousaleu, which he uses but once. He has a predilection for the preposition apo, using it even when Mark and Luke use ek, and for the expression uios David. Moreover, Matthew is fond of repeating a phrase or a special construction several times within quite a short interval (cf. ii, 1, 13, and 19; iv, 12, 18, and v, 2; viii, 2-3 and 28; ix, 26 and 31; xiii, 44, 4.5, and 47, etc.). Quotations from the Old Testament are variously introduced, as: outos, kathos gegraptai, ina, or opos, plerothe to rethen uto Kuriou dia tou prophetou, etc. These peculiarities of language, especially the repetition of the same words and expressions, would indicate that the Greek Gospel was an original rather than a translation, and this is confirmed by the paronomasiæ (battologein, polulogia; kophontai kai ophontai, etc.), which ought not to have been found in the Aramaic, by the employment of the genitive absolute, and, above all, by the linking of clauses through the use of men . . . oe, a construction that is peculiarly Greek. However, let us observe that these various characteristics prove merely that the writer was thoroughly conversant with his language, and that he translated his text rather freely. Besides, these same characteristics are noticeable in Christ's sayings, as well as in the narratives, and, as these utterances were made in Aramaic, they were consequently translated; thus, the construction men . . . de (except in one instance) and all the examples of paronomasia occur in discourses of Christ. The fact that the genitive absolute is used mainly in the narrative portions, only denotes that the latter were more freely translated; besides, Hebrew possesses an analogous grammatical construction. On the other hand, a fair number of Hebraisms are noticed in Matthew's Gospel (ouk eginosken auten, omologesei en emoi, el exestin, ti emin kai soi, etc.), which favour the belief that the original was Aramaic. Still, it remains to be proved that these Hebraisms are not colloquial Greek expressions. (2) General Character of the Gospel Distinct unity of plan, an artificial arrangement of subject-matter, and a simple, easy style--much purer than that of Mark--suggest an original rather than a translation. When the First Gospel is compared with books translated from the Hebrew, such as those of the Septuagint, a marked difference is at once apparent. The original Hebrew shines through every line of the latter, whereas, in the First Gospel Hebraisms are comparatively rare, and are merely such as might be looked for in a book written by a Jew and reproducing Jewish teaching. However, these observations are not conclusive in favour of a Greek original. In the first place, the unity of style that prevails throughout the book, would rather prove that we have a translation. It is certain that a good portion of the matter existed first in Aramaic--at all events, the sayings of Christ, and thus almost three-quarters of the Gospel. Consequently, these at least the Greek writer has translated. And, since no difference in language and style can be detected between the sayings of Christ and the narratives that are claimed to have been composed in Greek, it would seem that these latter are also translated from the Aramaic. This conclusion is based on the fact that they are of the same origin as the discourses. The unity of plan and the artificial arrangement of subject-matter could as well have been made in Matthew's Aramaic as in the Greek document; the fine Greek construction, the lapidary style, the elegance and good order claimed as characteristic of the Gospel, are largely a matter of opinion, the proof being that critics do not agree on this question. Although the phraseology is not more Hebraic than in the other Gospels, still it not much less so. To sum up, from the literary examination of the Greek Gospel no certain conclusion can be drawn against the existence of a Hebrew Gospel of which our First Gospel would be a translation; and inversely, this examination does not prove the Greek Gospel to be a translation of an Aramaic original. (3) Quotations from the Old Testament It is claimed that most of the quotations from the Old Testament are borrowed from the Septuagint, and that this fact proves that the Gospel of Matthew was composed in Greek. The first proposition is not accurate, and, even if it were, it would not necessitate this conclusion. Let us examine the facts. As established by Stanton ("The Gospels as Historical Documents", II, Cambridge, 1909, p. 342), the quotations from the Old Testament in the First Gospel are divided into two classes. In the first are ranged all those quotations the object of which is to show that the prophecies have been realized in the events of the life of Jesus. They are introduced by the words: "Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet," or other similar expressions. The quotations of this class do not in general correspond exactly with any particular text. Three among them (ii, 15; viii, 17; xxvii, 9, 10) are borrowed from the Hebrew; five (ii, 18; iv, 15, 16; xii, 18-21; xiii, 35; xxi, 4, 5) bear points of resemblance to the Septuagint, but were not borrowed from that version. In the answer of the chief priests and scribes to Herod (ii, 6), the text of the Old Testament is slightly modified, without, however, conforming either to the Hebrew or the Septuagint. The Prophet Micheas writes (v, 2): "And thou Bethlehem, Ephrata, art a little one among the thousands of Juda"; whereas Matthew says (ii, 6): " And thou Bethlehem the land of Juda art not the least among the princes of Juda". A single quotation of this first class (iii, 3) conforms to the Septuagint, and another (i, 23) is almost conformable. These quotations are to be referred to the first Evangelist himself, and relate to facts, principally to the birth of Jesus (i, ii), then to the mission of John the Baptist, the preaching of the Gospel by Jesus in Galilee, the miracles of Jesus, etc. It is surprising that the narratives of the Passion and the Resurrection of Our Lord, the fulfilment of the very clear and numerous prophecies of the Old Testament, should never be brought into relation with these prophecies. Many critics, e. g. Burkitt and Stanton, think that the quotations of the first class are borrowed from a collection of Messianic passages, Stanton being of opinion that they were accompanied by the event that constituted their realization. This "catena of fulfilments of prophecy", as he calls it, existed originally in Aramaic, but whether the author of the First Gospel had a Greek translation of it is uncertain. The second class of quotations from the Old Testament is chiefly composed of those repeated either by the Lord or by His interrogators. Except in two passages, they are introduced by one of the formula: "It is written"; "As it is written"; "Have you not read?" "Moses said". Where Matthew alone quotes the Lord's words, the quotation is sometimes borrowed from the Septuagint (v, 21 a, 27, 38), or, again, it is a free translation which we are unable to refer to any definite text (v, 21 b, 23, 43). In those Passages where Matthew runs parallel with Mark and Luke or with either of them, all the quotations save one (xi, 10) are taken almost literally from the Septuagint. (4) Analogy to the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke From a first comparison of the Gospel of Matthew with the two