Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopaedia

**JOHN OF NEPOMUK:** The most popular national saint of Bohemia, considered the protomartyr of the seal of confession and a patron against calumnies and floods. The historical starting-point of the Nepomuk-legend is the person of John of Pomuk or Nepomuk, a city of Bohemia (55 m. s.w. of Prague). He was born probably about 1340 and studied at the new university in Prague. In 1393 he was made vicar-general of Archbishop John of Jenstein. In the same year, March 20, he became a martyr to the cause of clerical immunity, being thrown into the River Moldau at the behest of King Wenceslaus IV., who was at variance with the clergy, as a penalty for his confirmation, against the king's will, of a new abbot for the Benedictine monastery at Kladrau. Dr. Johanek, as he was called because of his small stature, enjoyed no special reputation; be was rich, possessed houses, and lent money to noblemen and priests. The development and transformation of the legend can be traced through successive stages. The archbishop, who hastened to Rome soon after the crime, in his charge against Wenceslaus, called the victim a martyr; in the biography written a few years later miracles are already recorded by which the drowned man was discovered. The uncritical Bohemian annalists from the fourteenth to the sixteenth century fostered the fable. About the middle of the fifteenth century the statement appears for the first time that the refusal to violate the seal of confession was the cause of John's death. Two decades later (1471), the dean of Prague, Paul Zidek, makes Johanek the queen's confessor. The unscrupulous chronicler Wenceslaus Hayek, the "Bohemian Livy," speaks in 1541 (probably owing to carelessness in the use of his sources) of two Johns of Nepomuk being drowned; the first as confessor, the second for his confirmation of the abbot. The legend is especially indebted for its growth to the Jesuit Balbinus, the "Bohemian Pliny," whose services to the history of his country were so conspicuous that he was persecuted by the government, which preferred oblivion and silence. He was, however, as credulous as he was patriotic, and even became a forger to honor his saint. Although the Prague metropolitan chapter did not accept the biography dedicated to it, "as being frequently destitute of historical foundation and erroneous, a bungling work of mythological rhetoric," Balbinus stuck to it. In 1683 the Prague bridge was adorned with a statue of the saint, which has had numerous successors; in. 1708 the first church was dedicated to him at Königgrätz. Meanwhile, in spite of the objection of the Jesuits, the process was inaugurated which ended with his canonization. On June 25, 1721, he was beatified, and on March 19, 1729, he was canonized under Benedict XIII. The acts of the process, comprising 500 pages, which coat more than 180,000 crowns, distinguish two Johns of Nepomuk and sanction the cultus of the one who was drowned in 1383 as a martyr of the sacrament of penance. The ingenious suggestion has been made that the historical kernel of St. John Nepomuk is really Huss, who was metamorphosed from a Bohemian Reformer into a Roman-Catholic saint; and that the Nepomuk-legend is a Jesuit blending of the John who was drowned and the John who was burned. The resemblances are certainly striking, extending to the manner of celebrating their commemorations. But when the Jesuits came to Prague, the Nepomuk-worship had long been wide-spread; and the idea of canonization originated in opposition not to the Hussites, but to Protestantism, as a weapon of the Counter-Reformation--though his cultus was also intended to supplant Huss in the hearts of the Bohemian people. In the image of the saint which gradually arose the religious history of Bohemia is reflected. This much is historically certain, that the Vicar-general John of Pomuk was drowned in 1393 because of the choice of the abbot, and that Rome, making use of a forged biography, has canonized a man whose very existence can not be demonstrated. GEORG LOESCHE. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The *Vita* by Bohuslav Balbinus is in *ASB*, May, iii, 668-680. The *Acta* leading up to the canonization were published at Verona, 1725, and the *Acta canonizationis* at Rome, 1727. Naturally a large part of the literature on the subject is in Bohemian--for a list consult Potthast, *Wegweiser*, pp. 1400-1401. Consult O. Abel, *Die Legende vom heiligen Johann von Nepomuk*, Berlin, 1855; A. Würfel, *Legende des heiligen Johann von Nepomuk*, Prague, 1862; A. Frind, *Der geschichtliche . . . Johannes von Nepomuk*, Prague, 1871; A. H. Wratislaw, *Life, Legend and Canonization of St. John Nepomucen*, London, 1873; *Die Frage über . . . Johann von Nepomuk*, in *Der Katholik*, i (1882), 273-300, 390-414; T. Schmude, in *ZKT*, vii (1883), 52-123; *KL*, vi. 1725-1742.

**JOHN OF SALISBURY:** English ecclesiastic, and bishop of Chartres; b. at Salisbury between 1110 and 1120; d. at Chartres (54 m. s.w. of Paris) Oct. 25, 1180. ### Life. He was of humble Saxon origin, but in 1136 left his native land to study in France, especially in Paris. Among his teachers there were the famous Abelard, Robert of Melun, and Alberic of Reims. After studying dialectics at Paris for two years, he went to Chartres, where for three years he heard the lectures of William of Conches, and later studied under Richard l'Évèque, Hardewin the German, Theodoric, Peter Elias, and others. He returned to Paris and began the study of theology, his teachers being Gilbert de la Porrée, Robert Pulleyne, and Simon of Poissy. Despite bitter poverty, he spent twelve years in France, passing the latter portion of the time with his intimate friend Peter, abbot of the Cistercian monastery of Moutier la Celle near Troyes, through whom he became acquainted with Bernard of Clairvaux. This powerful head of the Cistercians brought John to the attention of Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, who had fled from England to escape Stephen. When the archbishop was able to return to his see, John was invited, in 1148 or the beginning of 1149, to act as his chancellor or secretary. He was a firm defender of the spiritual and secular supremacy of the pope and of the independence of the clergy, regarding these principles as the means of protecting mankind against the injustice of the secular arm and the consequences of sin. He sought to carry out his doctrine in practical ecclesiastical life, even though his views that only the Roman Catholic hierarchy could unfold the blessings of Christianity aroused the opposition of the court and of the bishops, the latter regarding themselves as peers of the realm rather than as subject to a distant pope. The increasing age and infirmity of the archbishop brought additional ecclesiastical responsibilities upon John, while he was able to render many important political services to Henry II. after the death of Stephen in 1154. Sent on repeated missions for both prelate and king, he crossed the Alps, according to his own statement, ten times, visiting the Curia during the reign of Pope Eugenius III. and living for three months at Benevento with Adrian IV., with whom he was on terms of personal friendship. His position became difficult, however, after the death of Adrian in 1159, when he took sides with Alexander III. against the antipope Victor IV. He secured the recognition of Alexander in England, but came in conflict with the king and the royalist bishops as the exponent of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. He was deprived of his preferments and emoluments, and was even in peril of his life, so that he contemplated flight from England, but was rehabilitated at the petition of the pope, the archbishop, and Thomas Becket. His power reached its climax when the latter, his close personal friend, succeeded Theobald as archbishop of Canterbury in 1162. Throughout the struggle between the archbishop and the king, John remained the faithful friend of the former, whom he preceded into exile in 1163. When a nominal peace was patched up between the archbishop and Henry in 1170, John returned to England, and, though he was not present at the actual scene of the arch-bishop's murder, he hastened there soon enough to receive some of the martyr's blood as a relic. A time of peril followed until the papal influence and popular opinion forced the king to change his course. John, who had fled from Canterbury, again received his preferments, and cooperated zealously with Richard of Dover, the successor of Thomas. He was likewise active in the canonization of the murdered prelate. In 1176 he was unanimously chosen bishop of Chartres, and was consecrated in August of the same year. There, however, he was obliged to struggle against all manner of opposition, although he enjoyed the support of the pope, and in 1179 attended the third Lateran Council, where he uttered a solemn warning against unjustifiable innovations and urged the clergy to conform to the Gospel. ### Writings. The most important and comprehensive work of John of Salisbury was his *Policraticus sive de nugis curalium et vestigiis philosophorum*, written in 1159 and dedicated to Thomas Becket. It is a system of ecclesiastical and political economics and ethics based on Christianity and the wisdom of the ancients, and designed to lead from the triviality of secular and court life to a true knowledge and government of the world. In his book the author wove from his wealth of experience both a picture of actual life and the ideal of true Christian living, in which the Church should rule and lead all mankind as the guardian and representative of divine law and true human justice. The *Policraticus*, the first great theory of the State in the Middle Ages, exercised an influence on Thomas Aquinas and Vincent of Beauvais. It was first edited, apparently by the Brethren of the Common Life, at Brussels about 1480. Immediately after the *Policraticus* John wrote the *Metalogicus*, which may be regarded as its continuation; this was also dedicated to Thomas Becket. This work, which is in four books and which was first edited at Paris in 1610, is a presentment of true and false science, in which the author castigates not only contempt of science, especially of logic, but also false and sophistic scholasticism. These aberrations of his contemporaries were compared with the sound views of Plato and the academic school, and especially with Aristotle, whose *Organon* John of Salisbury was the first in western Europe to know and use. His earliest work was his *Entheticus (Eutheticus, Nutheticus), sive de dogmate philosophorum*, written about 1155, and consisting of a philosophical and satirical poem in 928 distichs, dedicated to Thomas Becket. The first part contains a critical presentation of the basal concepts of the Greek and Roman philosophers, who are unfavorably contrasted with the higher truth of Christianity. The second part exhorts Thomas to consider the plight of the threatened and afflicted Church, and describes the lamentable condition of England. The poem is extant in only two manuscripts, and was first edited by C. Petersen at Hamburg in 1843. John was likewise the author of a *Historia pontificalis*, embracing the years 1148-52 and written about 1165 as a supplement to the chronicle of Sigibert and his immediate successors. The fragment begins with the Council of Reims, which John attended, and breaks off abruptly in the middle of a sentence discussing the events of 1152. The only edition is that by W. Arndt in *MGH, Script.*, xx (1868), 515-545. The minor works of John of Salisbury were his *Vita Sancti Anselmi*, written in 1163 as a supplement to Eadmer's larger biography of Anselm and designed as an aid in the projected canonization of the saint at the Council of Tours, and his *Vita et passio Sancti Thomae*, composed shortly after 1170 as an argument for the canonization of Thomas Becket. His letters, collected by him in four books, although the present collection of 327 is contained in two parts, are of great importance both for his biography and for the ecclesiastical history of his time, since they are addressed to popes (Adrian and Alexander III.), to princes, and to many ecclesiastical and secular potentates. The first edition of J. Masson (Paris, 1611) contained only 302 letters, but others have since been discovered. A number of additional works have been ascribed to this author. Some titles may refer to treatises now lost, while certain others may represent individual chapters of the *Policraticus*. A complete edition of the works of John of Salisbury (not without flaws) was published by J.. A. Giles (5 vols. *PEA*, Oxford, 1848) and reprinted in *MPL*, xcix. (K. SCHAARSCHMIDT.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: The best sources of knowledge are his own works, particularly his letters in vol. i. of Giles' edition, ut sup. Two lives are those by H. Reuter, *Johannes von Salisbury*, Berlin, 1842; K. Schaarschmidt, Johannes Saresbariensis nach Leben und Studien, Schriften und Philosophie, Leipsic, 1862. Consult further: K. Pauli, in *Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht*, 1881, pp. 265 sqq.; R. L. Poole, *Illustrations of the History of Mediaeval Thought*, chaps. iv.-vii., London, 1884; W. Stubbs, *Seventeen Lectures on the Study of . . . History*, lects. vi.-vii., ib. 1886; P. Gennrich, in *ZKG*, xii (1893), 544-551; J. H. Overton, *The Church in England*, i. 207, 217, 218, London, 1897; *Histoire littéraire de la France*, xiv. 89-161; Ceillier, *Auteurs sacrés*, xiv. 675-680; Neander, *Christian Church*, iv. 194-195, 357-358, 415 et passim; *DNB*, xxix. 439-448.

**JOHN, SAINT, CHRISTIANS OF.** See MANDÆANS.

**JOHN, SAINT, FIRE OF (SAINT JOHN'S FIRE):** A fire lighted in accord with ancient custom in various countries, especially in southern Germany, on the evening or eve of the day of St. John the Baptist (June 24) in the open air on hills and mountains, or in the streets and villages. It must be needfire, and the ceremonies attending it are the dancing of the young around it, the throwing of all sorts of flowers, herbs, and garlands into it, the priestly blessing of the fire, the kindling and rolling of a wheel wrapped with straw ("St. John's wheel") the erection of a tree, the driving of cattle through the fire, the carrying of torches and fire-brands, and the like. All manner of healing and beneficent properties are ascribed to the fire, such as protection against sickness, cure of all diseases (especially epilepsy), fertility, exemption from fire and storm, and safety against witchcraft. Although the origin, extension, and significance of these customs are uncertain, it is at least clear that they are survivals of a primitive cult of the light, fire, and sun, current throughout the Indo-Germanic peoples. Parallels are accordingly found not only in the Greco-Roman world, as in the Vesta-cult and the Palilia, but also among the Celts, Germans, and Slavs, though there is no evidence that one people borrowed from another. The festival was obviously a celebration of the summer solstice. The garlands, like the rolling of the wheel and the dancing round the fire, symbolize the sun, but the so-called "solstice-girdle," as the ironwort and wormwood hallowed in ancient custom are called, represent the girdle bound about his loins by the Apostle John lest he should become weary in his wanderings. The fire of St. John celebrates the solstice, the time when the days are longest, and also the time when the bloom of spring passes over to the harvest. At that period the heat of summer threatens sickness, so that the blessings of fertility must be assured, and all impending danger be averted. It is the time when lost treasures rise and are exposed to the light of the sun, and spirits seeking release wander about. All plants then develop especially healing properties, and water is then particularly good both for bathing and drinking. This is explained by the ancient Germanic belief in Baldur, the god of light, whose place is here taken by John the Baptist. The fire of St. John thus represents victory of light over darkness, the shortest night of the year, on which in the far north the sun does not set, being transformed into day by the fires. The Church was fully conscious of the relation of the feast of St. John to the summer solstice, and endeavored to suppress the custom of kindling fires; but it was forced to yield to popular usage, so that finally the fire was not only tolerated, but the clergy and the nobility took part in the celebration. Attempts were made at an early time, however, to give the fire of St. John a Christian interpretation, and medieval theologians of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries interpreted it with reference to John i. 8. Others sought to explain the fire from the legend of the burning of the Baptist's bones at Sebaste, while the dance was supposed to be a reminiscence of the dance of the daughter of Herodias, all efforts being made to avoid any allusion to paganism. In many placers, especially in Evangelical countries, the fires of St. John have been forbidden in modern times, or have become obsolescent of themselves. (A. FREYBE.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: P. M. Paciandi, *De cultu S. Joannis Baptistae antiquitates Christianae*, Rome, 1758; C. F. de Khautz, *De ritu ignis in natali S. Johannis accensi*, Vienna, 1759; Ersch and Gruber, Allgemeine Encyclopädie, section II., vol. xxii., p. 265; F. Nork, *Festkalender*, pp. 406 sqq., Stuttgart, 1847; J. Grimm, *Deutsche Mythologie*, p. 578 sqq., Göttingen, 1854; R. Chambers, *Book of Days*, under June 24, 2 vols., London, 1862-64.

**JOHN, SAINT, OF BEVERLEY:** Bishop of Hexham and of York; d. at Beverley (27 m. e.s.e. of York) May 7, 721. He was born in Northumbria of noble parentage, studied at Canterbury under Archbishop Theodore, and was an inmate of Hilda's monastery at Streanæshalch (Whitby). In 687 he became bishop of Hexham, and on the death of Bosa in 705 was transferred to York. He established a convent at Beverley, and in 718 gave up his bishopric and retired thither. He was eloquent, learned, and holy, a founder of schools, and a famous teacher. Bede was ordained by him and may have been his scholar. After St. Cuthbert, he was the greatest of the North English saints and the miracles related of him rival those of Cuthbert and Aidan. Henry V. attributed the victory at Agincourt to his intercession, the battle being fought on his day. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The fundamental source is Bede, *Hist. eccl*., iv. 23, v. 2-6, 24. Consult also: *Fasti Eboracenses*, ed. W. H. Dixon and J. Raine, i. 84-92, London, 1883; J. Raine, *The Historians of the Church of York*, i., pp. lii.-lx., 239-348, 511-541 (no. 71 of *Rolls Series*, ib. 1879); W. Bright, *Early English Church Hist.*, pp. 398-399, Oxford, 1897; *DNB*, xxix. 435-436; *DCB*, iii. 377-378.

**JOHN, SAINT, ORDER OF HOSPITALERS OF:** One of the most famous of the so-called military orders of the Middle Ages (see MILITARY RELIGIOUS ORDERS). They are known by various names: the Knights Hospitalers of St. John of Jerusalem, *Milites hospitalis S. Joannis Hierosolymitani, Johannitae*, etc.; later, from their chief seats, Knights of Rhodes and Knights of Malta. ### Origin and Development into a Military Order. The origin of the order is obscure, but it was evidently based on an older foundation, a "hospital of Jerusalem," which seems to have been an independent establishment of the citizens of Amalfi. Previous to the capture of Jerusalem by the Crusaders (1099) the rector of the hospital was a Brother Gerhard (or Gerald; in later time the name Tunc or Tonque was added), who enlarged the institution after the city was taken and reorganized it. With the cooperation of the Crusaders the hospital increased in importance, and Gerhard may thus be regarded as the founder of the Hospitalers of St. John. He was succeeded by Raymond du Puy, who gave the brothers a rule which was approved by Innocent II., Eugene III., and Lucius III., and in 1287-90 William of Stefano made the first collection of statutes; a second was made in 1303 and there two collections formed the basis of all subsequent ones. At first all members wore a black robe with a cross of eight points of white linen affixed to it, worn on the left breast. In 1259 Alexander IV. granted to members of the first class a red mantle with a white cross. In hospital service the order was most active; its institutions were models for the age, and its rules and regulations formed the patterns for the other orders of Hospitalers (q.v.). The chief hospital at Jerusalem was built opposite the Holy Sepulcher and was a large structure with wide colonnades, in which hundreds of pilgrims and invalids found welcome and assistance. This institution continued its activity even after the capture of Jerusalem by Saladin, while the order supported hospitals in numerous other places, particularly in Acre, Cyprus, Rhodes, and Malta. Skilled physicians were soon found in the hospitals, and all clothing, food, wine, and other necessities for the sick were furnished by the various houses. Gradually, however, as the struggle against the infidels claimed every energy, the knights were released from the care of the sick, and complaints were soon heard, especially in the East, that invalids were neglected by many houses. The order became more and more knightly, and steadily lost its monastic character, whereas originally the monks had almost outnumbered the knights in the membership of the order. With surprising rapidity valuable possessions and privileges were acquired both in the Orient and in the Occident. In Palestine the castles of the knights stretched from north to south, especially along the threatened frontier from Hebron to Ascalon, on the eastern shore of Lake Tiberias, and in the vicinity of Tripolis and Antioch. The rest of the grand master, after the fall of Jerusalem, was the citadel of Margat, which was supposed to be impregnable, until it was taken by Sultan Kalaun in 1285, Acre, the last possession of the knights in Palestine, being captured six years later. ### The Knights in Rhodes and Malta. A scanty remnant of the order fled to Cyprus, where the king provided them a refuge in the city of Limisso. In 1309, so speedy was its revival, the Grand Master Foulques de Villaret captured the island of Rhodes and founded a kingdom which lasted for two centuries, was a bulwark of Europe against the Turks, and only fell through treachery in 1522. This was the period of the order's great prosperity. Its wealth was increased by the greater portion of the estates of the Knights Templars (q.v.) after their suppression in 1311, and the income of the Knights of St: John was at least 36,000,000 francs annually, eighteen or twenty times that of the king of France. The order was divided into eight "languages," Provence (always considered the first), Auvergne, France, Italy, Aragon, England, Germany, and Castile. Each "language" was subdivided into grand priories and these into commanderies, the latter visited periodically by the grand prior. At the head of the entire order stood the grand master, aided by the chapter-general which convened at stated intervals and had legislative power. After the loss of Rhodes the knights had no home until 1530, when Charles V. gave them the island of Malta (whence the name "Knights of Malta"), which they defended courageously against the Turks. With the grand-mastership of Jean de la Valette (1557-68) the order reached its climax, but the Reformation brought them one disaster after another, while internal dissension added to the calamities, and the knights became mere protectors of merchantmen against pirates. Under the Grand Master Ferdinand von Hompesch, the island was betrayed to Bonaparte and on Sept. 4, 1800, it was seized by the English. The order was suppressed in Bavaria and Spain, while Paul I. of Russia, who had been elected grand master in place of Von Hompesch, was not recognized by the pope. The Roman Catholic remnants were collected under the administration of a grand master who is appointed by the pope and who has resided in Rome since 1834. ### Modern Affiliations. In Prussia the commandery of Brandenburg preserved its existence as the Protestant part of the order, although its property was confiscated in 1810 and it became a meaningless decoration. In 1852, however, it was reorganized by Frederick William IV., and has since been extremely active as a hospital order. It has founded some fifty hospitals, including one established at Beirut during the persecutions of the Christians by the Druses of Lebanon in 1860. In the wars of 1864, 1866, and 1870 the Hospitalers gave invaluable aid to the sick and wounded. In like manner the Roman-Catholic Hospitalers, called distinctively Knights of Malta, have revived the original functions of the order, at least in Germany. (G. UHLHORN†.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: A very complete review of the literature of the subject is given by F. de Hellwald, *Bibliographie methodique de l'ordre . . . de St. Jean de Jerusalem*, Rome, 1885. The sources are collected in *Codice diplomdel sacro militare ordine Gerosolimitano*, Lucca, 1733, and in the great work begun by J. Delaville de Roulx, *Cartulaire générale de l'ordre des hospitaliers S. Jean de Jerusalern*, of which 2 vols. have so far appeared, Paris, 1894 sqq., with which cf. the same author's *De prima origine hospitaliorum Hierosolymitarum*, Paris, 1885, and his Les Statuts de l'ordre . . . , in Bibliothèque de l'école des chartes, xviii., pp. 341-356. Consult: R. Aubert de Verto; d'Aubeuf. *Hist. des chevaliers hospitaliers*, Paris, 1726; A. von Winterfeld, (Geschichte des ritterlichen Ordens St. Johannis vom Spital zu Jerusalem, Berlin, 1859; M. J. J. G. Saige, *De l'anciénnité de l'hôpital St. Jean de Jerusalem*, in *Bibliothèque de l'école des chartes*. 1863. p. 552; H. von Ortenburg, *Der Ritterorden des heiligen Johannes von Jerusalem*, Regensburg, 1866; J. Wilson, *Concise Account of St. John's Gate, Clerkenwell, and of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem*, London, 1869; F. C. Woodhouse, *The Military Religious Orders of the Middle Ages*, New York, 1879 A. T. Drane, *The Knights of St. John*, London, 1881; W. K. R. Bedford, *The Regulations of the Old Hospital of the Knights of St. John at Valetta*, ib. 1882; G. Uhlhorn, in *ZKG*, vi (1882), 46; H. Prutz, *Kulturgeschichte der Kreuzzüge*, pp. 235 sqq., Berlin, 1883; F. von Finck, *Uebersicht über die Geschichte des ritterlichen Ordens St. Johannis*, Berlin, 1890; C. Herrlich, *Die Balley Brandenburgh des Johanniterordens*, ib. 1891; J. von Pflug-Hartung, *Die Anfänge des Johanniterordens in Deutschland*, ib. 1899; Helyot, *Ordres monastiques*, iii. 72 sqq.; Heimbucher, *Orden und Kongregationen*; *KL*, vi. 1791-1803; S. F. A. Caulfield, *Dawn of Christianity in Modern Europe . . . Knights of the Hospital . . . *, London, 1909.

**JOHN THE STEADFAST:** Elector of Saxony 1525-32, brother of Frederick the Wise (q.v.); b. at Meissen (15 m. n.w. of Dresden) June 30, 1468; d. at Schweinitz (54 m. n.e. of Merseburg) Aug. 16, 1532. He received a scholarly education, was trained in the arts of knighthood, and is said to have distinguished himself in the struggle against the Turks. Luther's writings soon won his heart, and he followed the development of the reformatory movement with ever increasing interest. It was he who, in the absence of the elector, omitted to publish the bull directed against Luther. In his letters to his brother he warmly recommended Luther and admonished the cautious elector to adopt more decidedly the reformer's cause and to influence other princes in the same direction. His influence decided Frederick to protect Luther in the Wartburg. During the printing of his New Testament, Luther sent John the single sheets, and thenceforth he read the Bible daily. In October, 1522, Luther came for the first time, as it seems, on his journey to Erfurt to the court of Weimar and preached several times. His sermons on the limitations of secular authority caused John to dosire further discussion of the subject, and Luther published his treatise *Von weltlicher Obrigkeit*, the principles of which John conscientiously tried to carry out throughout his life. Too ono-sided emphasis of these principles and his anxiety not to interfere improperly in spiritual matters, seem to have been the reason why he tolerated for a long time the agitation of Münzer and Carlstadt. Similarly he did not interfere with the abolition of the Corpus Christi procession, and allowed the reading of the mass and the celebration of the Lord's Supper after the Protestant fashion. When he became sole ruler, after the death of Frederick (May 5, 1525), he announced to the clergy that in future the pure word of God should be preached without human addition, and that all useless ceremonies should be abolished. He resolutely refused an agreement with his cousin, George of Saxony, and with the landgrave of Hesse openly confessed the Evangelical doctrine. To be prepared against machinations of his opponents, a treaty was ratified Feb. 27, 1526, between him and Philip of Hesse, which was soon joined by other Evangelical estates, so that John became the leader of the Evangelical party. As such he appeared at the Diet of Speyer in 1526 (see SPEYER, DIETS OF). Difficult problems awaited him at home. Before he had become elector, Nicolaus Hausman, preacher of Zwickau, had called his attention to the miserable condition of the Church and advised him to undertake a general visitation, pointing to Luther as the most suitable man for that purpose. Luther now proposed to institute four or five commissions of visitation for the whole country, and there followed a demand of the visitators that the privilege to install or depose clergymen should belong exclusively to the sovereign. It was a step in the development of the State Church, and the acknowledgment of the secular ruler as the protector of the Church. Owing to the influence of Luther, John reorganized the University of Wittenberg and checked the greed of the nobility in appropriating the possessions of the Church, which had become a real danger for the country. During this constructive activity of the elector the rumor spread of the formation of a league of Roman Catholic princes at Breslau (1528) for the annihilation of the Evangelical estates and the extirpation of the new heresy. Otto von Pack reported to Landgrave Philip of Hesse that he and the elector were required to reestablish the Roman religion in their countries. Both were convinced of the genuineness of the report and prepared for defense by trying to gain new allies in the north and south. At the advice of Luther and contrary to the wish of Philip, John desisted from assuming the offensive. In full confidence of the justice of his cause he went again to the Diet of Speyer in 1529, and, by openly avowing his Evangelical convictions, incurred the enmity of the majority. He defended the Evangelical interpretation of the Recess of Speyer of 1526, according to which the privilege of ecclesiastical renovation had been granted, and protested against the resolution of the majority, which threatened the further existence of the new Church. At first he was inclined to meet the efforts of the Strasburg Evangelicals who tried to unite the Protestants on the question of the Lord's Supper, but Luther dissuaded him. His acceptance of the Schwabach Article (q.v.), drawn up by Luther, showed his determination to renounce even his league with the landgrave, if the latter would not separate himself from the union efforts of Switzerland and Upper Germany. Although he had sustained many an insult from the emperor, he acknowledged obedience to him, except where it conflicted with the honor of God and his soul's welfare. At the Diet of Augsburg, in 1530, his conduct was heroic. He firmly maintained his Evangelical position, and refused to forbid Evangelical preaching at the demand of the emperor. The great services he rendered to the final success of the Augsburg Confession are well known. On his homeward journey he learned of the warlike preparations of his enemies, but his interpretation of the Word of God withheld him from opposing an attack of his emperor. After some weeks, however, he, as well as Luther, was convinced by jurists that the relation of the emperor to the estates was not strictly monarchical, both parties being bound by law and right, and that the emperor, in attacking the Evangelicals, acted not only against God, but against his own imperial rights; therefore a defense of the Evangelicals would be justified, and in 1531 the Protestants formed a defensive league under the leadership of John. On the question of the election of Ferdinand as Roman king, he took a much firmer stand. At the beginning of the Diet of Augsburg he had been determined to oppose it for legal reasons, and what he heard later of the practises of the emperor and Ferdinand confirmed him in his opposition. Luther advised him, though hesitatingly, to concede the election, but in this point John followed his chancellor, Brück, who asked him to protest against it. The elector was declared disobedient because he did not appear personally at the election, and thus the rupture between him and the emperor was decided. Political conditions, however, forced the emperor again to approach the Evangelical estates, and on July 23, 1532, the religious peace of Nuremberg (see N UREMBERG, R ELIGIOUS P EACE OF) was ratified. John had not the gifts of statesmanship which his brother Frederick possessed, but he was a man of fearless courage, deep Evangelical convictions, and unsullied life. (T. KOLDE.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are: Spalatlin's *Biographie*, in J. B. Mencke, *Conspectus script. rer. Germ*., ii. 1123 sqq., Leipsic, 1728; C. E. Förstemann, *Urkundlenbuch zur Geschichte des Reichstags zu Augsburg*, 2 vols., Halle, 1833-35; idem, *Archiv für die Geschichte der kirchlichen Reformation*, i., part 1, ib. 1833; idem, *Neues Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der . . . Kirchen-Reformation*, vol. i., Hamburg, 1842; C. G. Neudecker, *Aktenstücke aus dem Zeitalter der Reformation*, Nuremberg, 1839-40; and the various editions of Luther's correspondence. C. A. H. Burckhardt, *Geschichte der sächsischen Kirchen- und Schulvisitationen*, Leipsic, 1879; H. Schwarz, *Landgraf Philipp von Hessen und die Packischen-Händel*, Leipsic, 1884; O. Winckelmann, *Der schmalkaldische Bund und der Marburger Religionsfriede*, Strasburg, 1892; L. von Ranke, *Deutsche Geschichte*, vols. iii.-iv., Leipsic, 1894; *Cambridge Modern History*, ii. 233-276, New York, 1904; and the literature under LUTHER; REFORMATION.

**JOHN OF THESSALONICA**: Archbishop of Thessalonica. He was delegate of the pope at the sixth ecumenical council (Constantinople, 680). In the proceedings of the second synod held at Nicæa (Mansi, xiii. 164) occurs a fragment of his dialogue between a Christian and a pagan, in which image-worship is justified. Image-worship, he says, relates to the saints and not to the pictures, to God as he used to walk among men; even the angels have a certain corporeality. There has also been handed down a speech of John entitled "On the death of the most holy . . . Mother of God and ever virgin Mary." It is complete only in an old Slavonic translation (in Popov, *Bibliograficeskija materialy*, pp. 40-65, Moscow, 1879); fragments of the original are in Tischendorf, *Apocalypses apocryphae* (Leipsic, 1866). The speech follows closely the *De dormitione Mariae* of Pseudo-John and has been ascribed to him. There is also extant a writing entitled "On the glorious, victorious Demetrius" (*ASB*., Oct., iv. 104-160) which bears the name of John of Thessalonica. (N. BONWETSCH.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: Leo Allatius *De Symeonum scriptis*, pp. 105, 110, Paris, 1664; M. Le Quien *Oriens Christianus*, ii. 42, 3 vols., Paris, 1740; W. Cave *Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum historia literaria*, i. 597, Oxford, 1740; Fabricius-Harles, *Bibliotheca Graeca*, x. 219, 250, 285, Hamburg, 1807; Krumbacher, *Geschichte*, p. 192; *DCB*, iii. 396.

**JOHN-BONITES:** An order of hermits, founded by Giovanni Buono (b. at Mantua 1168; d. Oct. 23, 1249), who, after long years as a strolling jongleur, was converted in 1208. Retiring to a lonely spot near the church of Santa Maria di Budriolo, not far from Cesena, he is said to have lived first as an absolute hermit, but about 1217 began to gather companions around him. Although he never took orders and could neither read nor write, the fame of his extraordinary mortifications wrought marvellous conversions, both among his immediate followers and among the heretical Lombard Patarenes, many of whom he restored to the Church. Without formulating a written rule, or even a definite mode of life, for his spiritual children, communities of hermits are said to have originated in his own lifetime, located at Bertinoro (near Forli), Mantua, Venice, Bologna, Parma, Ferrara, Poggiolo, Faenza, Poncelia, and Rimini. A few years before Buono's death, the John-Bonites (*Johann-bonitae, Jambonitae*), whom their founder had vested with a gray habit, were bound by Innocent IV. to the Augustinian rule. Alexander IV., by bull of Aug. 13, 1256, forced them to enter his newly founded order of Augustinian hermits, thus terminating their independent existence. The efforts to canonize Giovanni Buono, originating chiefly from Mantua and begun as early as the middle of the thirteenth century, resulted only in his beatification by Sixtus IV. in 1483; nevertheless, he is the chief patron of Mantua, where his remains have reposed in the church of Santa Agnese Nuova since 1451. (O. ZÖCKLER†.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: The *Vita* of the founder, by A. Calepino, with commentary, is in *ASB*, Oct., ix. 693-886; Helyot, *Ordres monastiques*, iii. 8 sqq.

**JOHNS, CLAUDE HERMANN WALTER:** Church of England; b. at Banwell (22 m. s.w. of Bath), Somersetshire, Feb. 20, 1857. He was educated at Queen's College, Cambridge (B.A., 1880), and was second master successively at Horton College, Tasmania, in 1880-84 and Paston Grammar School, North Walsham, Norfolk, in 1884-86. He was ordered deacon in 1887 and ordained priest in the following year, and from 1887 until 1892 was tutor in St. Peter's Training College for Schoolmasters, Peterborough, as well as curate of St. Botolph's, Helpston (1887-88), and of St. John's, Peterborough (1888-91). Since 1892 he has been rector of St. Botolph's, Cambridge. He was also chaplain of Queen's College from 1893 to 1901, and since 1897 has been lecturer in Assyriology in Cambridge University, as well as in King's College, London, since 1902. He has likewise been Edwards fellow in the former university since 1900, and was honorary secretary of the Cambridge Pupil Teachers' Centre in 1894-1900. In theology he is a moderate Anglican. He has written *Assyrian Deeds and Documents* (3 vols., Cambridge, 1898-1902); *An Assyrian Doomsday-Book*, or *Liber Censualis of the District round Harran* (Leipsic, 1901); *The Oldest Code of Laws in the World, Promulgated by Hammurabi* (Edinburgh, 1903); and *Babylonian arid Assyrian Laws, Contracts, and Letters* (New York, 1904).

**JOHNS, JOHN:** Protestant Episcopal bishop of Virginia; b. at New Castle, Del., July 10, 1796; d. at Alexandria, Va., Apr. 5, 1876. He studied at Princeton (B.A., 1815), and subsequently spent two years in the theological seminary there. In both college and seminary he was a classmate of Charles Hodge, with whom he formed a lifelong intimacy. He was ordained deacon in 1819, and priest in 1820. His first parish was All Saints, Frederick Md., where he remained till 1829, when he became rector of Christ Church, Baltimore. This charge he held till he was elected assistant bishop of Virginia in 1842. He became bishop in 1862. He was for a number of years the head of the Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary of Virginia. He wrote *A Memoir of the Life of the Right Rev. William Meade* (Baltimore, 1867). BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. S. Perry, *The Episcopate in America*, p. 87, New York, 1895.

**JOHNSON, ELIAS HENRY:** Baptist; b. at Troy, N. Y., Oct. 15, 1841; d. at Chester, Pa., Mar. 10, 1908. He was educated at the University of Rochester (A.B., 1862), and from 1862 to 1864 continued his studies, a part of the time at Rochester Theological Seminary. After being acting assistant paymaster in the United States Navy in 1864-1866, he entered the Baptist ministry in the latter year, holding a pastorate at Le Sueur, Minn., in 1866-68. He then reentered Rochester Theological Seminary, from which he was graduated in 1871, spent two years in travel in Europe, the Holy Land, and Egypt, after which he was pastor at Ballston, N. Y., from 1873 to 1875 and at Providence, R. I., from 1875 to 1883. From the latter year until his death he was professor of systematic theology at Crozer Theological Seminary, Chester, Pa. He edited *Songs of Praise for Sunday Schools* (Philadelphia, 1882); *Our Sunday School Songs* (1885); and the hymnal *Sursum Corda* (1898); besides being associate editor of *The Baptist Hymnal* (Philadelphia, 1883). He also wrote *Uses and Abuses of Ordinances* (Philadelphia, 1890); *Outline of Systematic Theology* (1892); *Review of Ethical Monism* (New York, 1895); *Ezekiel Gilman Robinson* (1896); *Religious Use of Imagination* (1900); *The Highest Life* (1901); *The Holy Spirit Then and Now* (Philadelphia, 1904); and the posthumous *Christian Agnosticism as Related to Christian Knowledge, ed. with Biographical Sketch*, H. C. Vedder (1907).

**JOHNSON, FRANCIS:** English Separatist; b. at Richmond (42 m. n.w. of York), Yorkshire, 1562; d. at Amsterdam Jan. 10, 1618. He studied at Christ's College, Cambridge (B. A., 1581), and became fellow. In 1589 he was expelled from the university for preaching in favor of Presbyterian polity, went to Zealand, and became minister of the English Church at Middelburg. In 1591 he was instrumental in destroying the entire edition of a book by Barrow and Greenwood (*A Plain Refutation of M. Gifford's Book Entitled "A Short Treatise against the Donatists of England": wherein is discovered: (1) the forgery of the whole ministry; (2) the confusion; (3) false worship;* and *(4) anti-christian disorder of those parish assemblies called the Church of England;* reprinted Amsterdam, 1605), saving, however, two copies for his own use, and by reading them was converted. In 1592, with Greenwood, he organized a congregation in London and was imprisoned in consequence; in 1597 he settled in Amsterdam and became minister of the Separatists living there; because of disagreement with Henry Ainsworth concerning the authority of elders he went to Emden about 1612, but later returned to Amsterdam. He wrote several controversial treatises. BIBLIOGRAPHY: D. Neal, *Hist. of the Puritans*, ii. 40-41, London, 1822; B. Brooke, *Lives of the Puritans*, i. 396-397, ii. 89-90, ib. 1813; H. M. Dexter, *Congregationalism of the Last Three Hundred Years*, New York, 1880; W. Walker, *Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism*, p. 41. n. 4, New York, 1893; *DNB*, xxx. 9-11.

**JOHNSON, FRANKLIN:** Baptist; b. at Frankfort, O., Nov. 2, 1836. He was educated at Colgate University, but left before taking his degree, and at Colgate Theological Seminary, from which he was graduated in 1861. He held successive pastorates at the First Baptist Church, Bay City, Mich. (1862-64), Lambertville, N. J. (1864-66), Passaic, N. J. (1866-72), and the Old Cambridge Baptist Church, Cambridge, Mass. (1872-88), interrupted only by a year of study in Germany and travel in Egypt and Palestine in 1868-69. He was president of Ottawa University in 1890-92, and since the latter year has been professor of church history and homiletics in the University of Chicago. In addition to being associate editor of *The Watchman* in 1876, his writings include: *The Gospel According to Matthew, with Notes* (New York, 1873); *Moses and Israel* (1874); *Heroes and Judges from the Law-Givers to the King* (1875); *The Dies Irae* (Cambridge, Mass., 1880); *The Stabat Mater Dolorosa and the Stabat Mater Speciosa* (Boston, 1886); *The New Psychic Studies in their Relation to Christian Thought* (New York, 1886); *The Quotations of the New Testament from the Old Considered in the Light of General Literature* (Philadelphia, 1896); *The Home Missionaries* (Chicago, 1889); *Have We the Likeness of Christ?* (1902); and *The Christian's Relation to Evolution* (1904).

**JOHNSON, FREDERICK FOOTE:** Protestant Episcopal bishop coadjutor of South Dakota; b. at Newtown, Conn., Apr. 23, 1866. He was graduated at Trinity College, Hartford, Conn., in 1894, and at Berkeley Divinity School, Middletown, Conn., in 1897. After being minister at Glenwood Springs, Col., 1896-97, and curate of St. Stephen's, Colorado Springs, 1897-99, he was rector of Trinity, Redlands, Cal., 1899-1904. He was then diocesan missionary in Western Massachusetts for a year, and in 1905 was consecrated bishop coadjutor of South Dakota.

**JOHNSON, GISLE CHRISTIAN:** Norwegian theologian; b. at Fredrikshald (58 m. s.s.e. of Christiania) Sept. 10, 1822; d. at Christiania July 17, 1894. He was educated at the cathedral school of Christiansand and at the University of Christiania, after which a scholarship enabled him to travel and study in Berlin, Leipsic, Erlangen, Heidelberg, Tübingen, and Paris. He returned to Norway in the fall of 1847, and was appointed lecturer in theology at the university two years later, becoming professor in 1860. He lectured on systematic theology, history of doctrine, theological encyclopedia, and, after 1877, on church history. Johnson exercised an important influence on Christian life in general as well as on his students by his devotional lectures in Christiania and elsewhere. He spent many of his vacations in traveling through the country in search of health, and in these travels, which were generally on foot, he visited awakened Christian laymen. His theological standpoint was strict orthodoxy of the old Lutheran type, and he worked for the home missions in Christiania, the Norwegian Luther-foundation, the students' home, and similar institutions. Despite his thorough learning, he was not a prolific author, for his rigid self-criticism made him too timid, but when, in 1857, the pietistic preacher G. A. Lammers, of Skien, left the established Church and undertook to found a "free apostolic and Christian congregation," abolishing, among other things, infant baptism, Johnson published his *Nogle Ord om Barnedaaben*. He also collaborated with C. P. Caspari in translating the Old Testament until 1890, and with F. W. Bugge in making a version of the New Testament. With Caspari, furthermore, he edited *Tidsskrift for den evangelisklutherske kirke i Norge*. In 1863 he founded the *Luthersk Kirketidende*, which he edited till 1875, and to which he contributed many articles. In 1878-79 he published his *Grundrids af den systematiske Theologie*, while his *Forelœsninger over den christelige Ethik* and *Forelœsninger over Dogmehistorien* appeared posthumously in 1896. J. BELSHEIM†.

**JOHNSON, HERRICK:** Presbyterian; b. at Kaughnewaga, N. Y., Sept. 22, 1832. He was graduated at Hamilton College in 1857 and at Auburn Theological Seminary in 1860. After being associate pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, Troy, N. Y., in 1860-62, he was pastor of the Third Presbyterian Church, Pittsburg, Pa., in 1862-67 and the First Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, in 1868-73. He was then professor of homiletics and pastoral theology in Auburn Theological Seminary from 1874 to 1880, after which he was pastor of the Fourth Presbyterian Church, Chicago, until 1883. He taught sacred rhetoric and pastoral theology in McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago, 1880-1906. He was president of the Presbyterian Board of Ministerial Education in 1869-73 and of the Presbyterian Board of Aid for Colleges and Academies in 1883-1903, moderator of the General Assembly at Springfield, Ill., in 1882, and a member of the Presbyterian Board of Publication in 1868-73, and of two committees of the Presbyterian Church for the revision of the Confession of Faith in 1890 and 1900. In theology he is a liberal conservative, describing himself as "a thorough believer in both the doctrines and polity of the Presbyterian Church, as warranted by the Word of God and represented in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith and form of government." He has written: *Christianity's Challenge* (Chicago, 1880); *Plain Talks about the Theatre* (1882); *Revivals, their Place and Power* (1883); *Presbyterian Bulwarks* (New York, 1887); *Presbyterian Book of Forms* (Philadelphia, 1889); *From Love to Praise* (1903); and *Ideal Ministry* (1908).

**JOHNSON, JOSEPH HORSFALL:** Protestant Episcopal bishop of Los Angeles; b. at Schenectady, N. Y., June 7, 1847. He was educated at Williams College (A.B., 1870) and General Theological Seminary, from which he was graduated in 1873. He was ordered deacon in the same year and advanced to the priesthood in 1874. He was minister, curate, and rector of Holy Trinity, Highland, N. Y., in 1873-79, and rector of Trinity, Bristol, R. I., in 1879-81, St. Peter's, Westchester, N. Y., in 1881-86, and Christ Church, Detroit, Mich., in 1886-96. In the latter year he was consecrated bishop of Los Angeles.

**JOHNSON, SAMUEL:** **1.** First president of King's College, now Columbia University; b. at Guilford, Conn., Oct. 14, 1696; d. at Stratford, Conn., Jan. 6, 1772. He studied at Yale College (M.A., 1714), and became a tutor there in 1716, on the removal of the college from Saybrook to New Haven. He was ordained pastor of a Congregational church at West Haven in 1720, but became a convert to episcopacy in 1722, and was reordained in England in 1723. On his return to Connecticut he was assigned to the mission at Stratford, where he remained till 1754. Thereupon he was president of King's College, New York, till 1763, when he resigned this position and returned to Stratford. In 1764 he was reappointed to his old charge, which he retained till his death. He formed a close friendship with Bishop George Berkeley (q.v.) during the latter's visit to America, and accepted his teaching. For many years his pen was particularly active in the defense of episcopacy, an unpopular cause in the colonies, and his adoption of it created a profound sensation. He engaged in long controversies with Jonathan Dickinson, Thomas Foxcroft, and John Graham. His principal works are: *A Letter from a Minister of the Church of England to his Dissenting Parishioners* (New York, 1733); *A Second Letter* (Boston, 1734); *A Third Letter* (1737); *A System of Morality* (1746; 3d ed., London, 1754), which was published by Benjamin Franklin under the title *Elementa Philosophica* (Philadelphia, 1752); and *An English and Hebrew Grammar* (London, 1767). BIBLIOGRAPHY: T. B. Chandler, *The Life of S. Johnson . . . First President of King's College*, New York, 1805; W. B. Sprague, *Annals of the American Pulpit*, v. 52-61, ib. 1859; I. W. Riley, *American Philosophy; the Early Schools*, pp. 63-126, New York, 1907. **2.** Independent clergyman and reformer; b. at Salem, Mass., Oct. 10, 1822; d. at North Andover, Mass., Feb. 19, 1882. He was graduated from Harvard in 1842 and from the Harvard Divinity School in 1846. He entered the ministry without ordination and never associated himself with any denomination, though in his views he was closely related to the Unitarians. His first charge was the Unitarian Church at Dorchester, where he remained one year. From 1851 till 1870 he was pastor of the Free Church at Lynn. He took a prominent part in the antislavery agitation. His principal publications are: *A Book of Hymns* (Boston, 1846), in collaboration with Samuel Longfellow; *The Worship of Jesus* (1868); and *Oriental Religions, and their Relation to Universal Religion: India* (1872), *China* (1877), *Persia* (1885). Samuel Longfellow collected his *Lectures, Essays, and Sermons* (1883), to which he prefixed a *Memoir*.

**JOHNSON, THOMAS CARY:** Presbyterian; b. at Fishback Hill, Va., July 19, 1859. He was educated at Hampden-Sidney College (B.A., 1881), the University of Virginia (1883-84), Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, Va. (graduated in 1887), and the Yale Divinity School (1887-88). After being professor of Old- and New-Testament exegesis in Austin Theological School, Austin, Tex., in 1888-90, and pastor elect of the Third Presbyterian Church, Louisville, Ky., in 1890-91, he was appointed professor of the English Bible and pastoral theology in Union Theological Seminary, Richmond. In the following year (1892) he was appointed to his present position of professor of ecclesiastical history and polity in the same institution. Besides editing the collected writings of Rev. Prof. T. E. Peck (Richmond, Va., 1885-87), he has written: *The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney* (Richmond, 1893); *History of the Southern Presbyterian Church* (New York, 1894); *John Calvin and the Genevan Reformation* (Richmond, 1900); *Life and Letters of Benjamin Morgan Palmer* (1906); and *Virginia Presbyterianism and Religious Liberty in Colonial and Revolutionary Times* (1907).

**JOHNSON, WILLIAM ALLEN:** Protestant Episcopalian; b. at Hyde Park, N. Y., Aug. 4, 1833. He was educated at Columbia (A.B., 1853) and at the General Theological Seminary, from which he was graduated in 1857. He was ordered deacon in 1857 and ordained priest in 1858. He was minister and rector of St. Peter's, Bainbridge, N. Y., and of Christ Church, Guilford, N. Y., from 1857 to 1862, after which he was a missionary in upper Michigan for two years (1862-64). From 1864 to 1870 he was rector of St. Mary's, Burlington, N. J., and from 1871 to 1883 of St. John's, Salisbury, Conn. From the latter year until his retirement as professor emeritus in 1900 he was connected with the Berkeley Divinity School, Middletown, Conn., where he was successively professor of homiletics and Christian evidences from 1883 to 1886 and of ecclesiastical history from 1887 to 1900.

**JOHNSTON, HOWARD AGNEW:** Presbyterian; b. near Xenia, O., June 29, 1860. He was educated at the University of Cincinnati (B.A., 1882) and Lane Theological Seminary, Cincinnati, from which he was graduated in 1885. He was pastor successively of the Seventh Presbyterian Church, Cincinnati, in 1884-90, Central Church, Des Moines, Ia., in 1890-93; Forty-First Street Presbyterian Church, Chicago, in 1893-99; and Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church, New York City, in 1899-1905. In the latter year he resigned to be for a couple of years special representative of his denomination to its Asiatic missions, and in 1908 became pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, Colorado Springs, Col. He has written *Moses and the Pentateuch* (Cincinnati, 1893); *Studies in God's Methods of Training Workers* (New York, 1900); *Bible Criticism and the Average Man* (Chicago, 1902); *Studies for Personal Workers* (New York, 1903); *Scientific Faith* (Chicago, 1904); *The Beatitudes of Christ* (1905); *Brief Studies through the Bible* (New York, 1905); and *Famine and the Bread* (1908).

**JOHNSTON, JAMES STEPTOE:** Protestant Episcopal bishop of Western Texas; b. at Church Hill, Miss., June 9, 1843. He was educated at Oakland College, Miss., and the University of Virginia, but left in 1861, before graduation, to enter the Confederate Army. He served throughout the Civil War, first as a private in the Eleventh Mississippi Regiment, and later as a second lieutenant in Stuart's cavalry. After the end of the war, he studied law and was admitted to the bar in 1868. He soon turned, however, from the law to the Church, and, after pursuing his theological studies privately, was ordered deacon in 1869 and priested two years later. He was successively minister and curate at St. James', Port Gibson, Miss., in 1870-1876, and rector of the Church of the Ascension, Mount Sterling, Ky., in 1876-80, and of Trinity, Mobile, Ala., in 1880-88. In the latter year he was consecrated missionary bishop of Western Texas. Within his diocese he has enlarged St. Mary's Hall, a girls' college, and has founded the West Texas Military Academy, both at San Antonio.

**JOKTAN,** jok'tan: According to Gen. x. 25 sqq. a son of Eber, the grandson of Shem, brother of Peleg, and father of thirteen sons (twelve according to the LXX). According to this chapter the Semitic stock divided into two branches, a northern and a southern, long before the migrations of the Abrahamic family; and the names of the thirteen sons of Joktan point to southern Arabia, while Genesis is right in distinguishing between the Joktan peoples and the later Ishmaelites. The Arabic ethnographers make the same distinction between the sons of *Kahtan* (pure Arabs) and Ishmaelites. The location of the Joktan peoples as given in Gen. x. 30 is disputed. Mesha is placed by Delitzsch on the northwestern corner of the Persian Gulf, and by Knobel about fifty miles southeast of Mecca. In the first case Sephar is placed in the Himyaritic Zaphar in Yemen and the "mountain of the east" is the range in the east of Hadramaut. In the other case, Joktan's possessions were a triangle in southwest Arabia. But neither situation furnishes good locations for Ophir (q.v.) and Havilah (verse 29). See TABLE OF THE NATIONS. (E. KAUTZSCH.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: The commentaries on Genesis and the literature under TABLE OF THE NATIONS; E. C. A. Riehm, *Handwörterbuch des biblischen Altertums*, pp. 763-764, Leipsic, 1893; *DB*, ii. 743-744; *EB*, 12564; *JE*, vii. 225.

**JONAH:** Fifth of the Minor Prophets in the arrangement of the English version. He is called the son of Amittai, and, according to II Kings xiv. 25, uttered a prophecy concerning Jeroboam II. The book is distinguished from other prophetical books by the fact that it is not the prophecy, but the personal experiences of the man, in which the interest seems to center. To escape the divine summons to preach repentance to Nineveh, Jonah embarked from Joppa for Tarshish, but during a storm was, at his own advice and by the issue of a lot, thrown overboard, and swallowed by a great fish (i. 17). Three days afterward he was thrown up upon the land, and, after a second summons, began preaching to the Ninevites. When both king and people began to repent, Jonah became indignant at the divine compassion, but was convinced by God of his foolishness through a gourd (iv.). Many have regarded the book as an allegory or a poetic myth, while others hold that it was a national prophetic tradition designed to serve a didactic aim, and contained some elements of historic truth. Those who regard the book as history appeal to the geographical and historical notices in the prophecy; for example, the accuracy of the description of Nineveh and the fitness of Jonah's mission at that particular period, when Israel was coming into contact with Assyria. Those who deny the credibility make much of the abundance of the miraculous, especially of the story of the great fish; but this incident is consistent with our Lord's use of it ( Matt. xii. 39 sqq.) to illustrate his own resurrection by the use of material gathered from folk-lore. The central purpose of the book is to teach that the heathen world is called to the knowledge of Yahweh to take its place in his kingdom ( iv. 10-11). That the Jonah of II Kings xiv. 25 has set down in this book his experiences is nowhere indicated. The narrative at beginning and end is so abrupt that it has probably come out of a cycle of narratives like those which center about Elisha; indeed, an old Haggadah calls Jonah a prophet of Elisha's school. There is much difference about the date. Because of the use of the perfect tense in iii. 3b, the book must postdate the fall of Nineveh (606 B.C.); and linguistic indications agree with this, though it should not be brought below the fifth pre-Christian century. Attempts to find Jahvistic and Elohistic sources in the book are not a success. (W. VOLCK†.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: Commentaries are: Ephraem Syrus, *The Repentance of Nineveh*, Eng. transl., London, 1853; S. Mitchell, Philadelphia, 1875; M. Kalisch, in *Bible Studies*, part ii., London, 1878 (gives conspectus of earlier literature); A. E. O'Connor, Geneva, 1883; C. H. H. Wright, *Biblical Studies*, Edinburgh, 1886; H. Martin, Edinburgh, 1891; C. von Orelli, Munich, 1896, Eng. transl., New York, 1893; J. Kennedy, London, 1895; W. Nowack, Göttingen, 1897; G. A. Smith, *Book of the Twelve*, vol. ii., London, 1898 (best); F. Hitzig, ed. H. Steiner, Leipsic, 1904; E. B. Pussy, *Minor Prophets*, new issue, London, 1907. Special treatises are: J. Friedrichsen, *Uebersicht über die . . . Ansichtenüber Jona*, Leipsic, 1841; W. Drake, *Notes on Jonah and Hosea*, London, 1853; T. K. Cheyne, *Theological Review*, 1877, pp. 211-219; K. Vollers, in *ZATW*, iii (1883), 219 sqq., iv (1884), 1 sqq.; W. Böhme, in *ZATW*, vii (1887), 224 sqq. (on the literary composition); A. Merx, *Chrestomathia Targumica*, pp 132-139, Berlin, 1897 (gives the Targum on Jonah); H. Schmidt, Jona, *Eine Untersuchung zur vergleichenden Religionsgeschicte*, Göttingen, 1907; *DB*, ii. 744-753; *EB*, ii. 2565-2571; *JE*, vii. 225-230.

**JONAS OF BOBBIO:** Hagiographer of the seventh century; d. after 659. He was a native of Susa (the Roman Segusio), at the foot of Mt. Cenis (about 28 m. w. of Turin). In 618, still quite young, he entered the monastery at Bobbio, and was educated there. He accompanied Bertulf, the third abbot, to Rome in 627. Since he had a personal acquaintance with Eustasius, abbot of Luxeuil, who died in the spring of 629, he may have gone to Gaul (where he remained permanently) as early as 628. While temporarily visiting Bobbio at a later time he promised to write the life of Columban and his successors and disciples, and completed the work between 640 and 643. About this time he was engaged with St. Amandus in trying to convert the heathen Franks on the Scheldt and Scarpe. While staying in Arras he was induced to write the life of St. Vedastes. the first Frankish bishop of Arras, and in Nov., 659, having meanwhile obtained the dignity of abbot, he composed the life of St. John of Reomans. Of the last events of Jonas' life and of his death nothing is known. The *Vita Columbani*, Jonas' principal work, including also, in its second part, Eustasius, Attala, Bertulf, and Burgundofara (in *MPL*, lxxxvii. 1009-46; cf. Krusch in *Mittheilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung*, xiv. 385 sqq., Innsbruck, 1893; Eng. transl. by D. C. Munro in *Translations and Reprints* published by the department of history of the University of Pennsylvania, ii. 7, Philadelphia, 1895) has established his literary fame. In spite of its silence on important matters--like the Easter controversy and the first application of the rule of St. Benedict in Gaul--notwithstanding the preference for marvelous stories in accordance with the spirit of the times, it rises by a certain historical sense above many like works. The language, too, is peculiar and novel (cf. Krusch, 435), and proves identity of authorship for the *Vita Columbani* and the *Vitae* of Vedastes and St. John of Reomans. O. SEEBASS. BIBLIOGRAPHY: *Histoire littéraire de la France*, iii. 604 sqq.; Hertel, in *ZHT*, xxxix. 397 sqq.; Stöber, in *Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie*, 1885, pp. 319 sqq., Krusch, in *Mittheilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung*, xiv. 385 sqq., and in *MGM*, Script. rer. Merov., iv (1902), 30 sqq.; Wattenbach, *DGQ*, i (1893), 116, 118-119, ii. 1503.

**JONAS OF ORLEANS:** Bishop of Orléans from 821 till his death in 844. He was a native of Aquitania and succeeded Theodulf (d. Sept. 18, 821) as bishop of Orléans. He attended a synod called at Paris by Louis the Pious in Nov., 825, to consider the question of image-worship, and was sent to Rome to lay the resolutions adopted before Pope Eugenius II. He was also prominent in the synod at Paris in 829, called by the emperor to find remedies for abuses of the time. In 825 Jonas had written on the subject in his *De institutione laicali*, which gives in three books valuable descriptions of the prevalent moral corruption and urges renovation of the churchly spirit. Another topic of the synod's discussion, the duties of secular rulers, had also been anticipated by Jonas in 828 in a little work *De institutione regia*, which now was embodied in the resolutions of the synod. Jonas' remarks on the relation between the spiritual and secular authorities are interesting. The latter are dependent upon the former. The power of the keys has been entrusted to the spiritual office by the Lord so that even kings have to submit to it. Man can not.judge God; and therefore he can not judge the representatives of God (ecclesiastics). Louis again addressed himself to Jonas when the energetic measures of Claudius of Turin (q.v.) against image-worship became known in the Frankish realm; and sent him an excerpt from the doctrinal works of Claudius with the request to refute them. The death of Claudius induced Jonas to withhold his refutation at the time. But about 842 he laid his work before Charles the Bald, the son of Louis. Jonas still labored under the superstition of his time. He distinguishes a double adoration--one that is due to God alone, and one that is addressed to the holy images; he advocates the worship of martyrs and relics, believes in an effective intercession of the saints and the mother of God, and demands worship of the cross. (ALBERT FREYSTEDT†.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: His works are in *MPL*, cvi.; also partly in L. d'Achery, *Spicilegium*, i. 258-323, 324-336, Paris, 1665. Consult *Histoire littéraire de la France*, iv. 594-605, v. 20-31; A. Ebert, *Allgemeine Geschichte der Literatur des Mittelalters*, ii. 224-230, Leipsic, 1880; Potthast, Wegweiser, p. 682.

**JONAS, JUSTUS:** German Reformer, close friend and associate of Luther; b. at Nordhausen (38 m. w.n.w. of Erfurt), Saxony, June 5, 1493; d. in Eisfeld (40 m. s. of Erfurt), Saxe-Meiningen, Oct. 9, 1555. His real name was Jodocus Koch, but he adopted his father's Christian name as a surname during his university career. In 1506 he matriculated at Erfurt, where he entered into close friendship with Eobanus Hess, whom he emulated in his devotion to humanistic studies and the practise of verse-writing. Having chosen jurisprudence as his special field, he followed the celebrated teacher Henning Göde to Wittenberg in 1511, but returned about three years later to Erfurt, received ordination, and became prebend in the Church of St. Severus and professor in law at the university. A member of the circle of enthusiastic humanists who acknowledged Eobanus as their " king " and worshiped Erasmus as their idol, Jonas took advantage of a pilgrimage made by Eobanus in 1518 to enter into communication with the great scholar. In the following year he made his personal acquaintance, and Erasmus conceived a liking for his young admirer, and subsequently exerted himself to prevent his conversion to the party of Luther. Jonas in return spoke of Erasmus as his "father in Christ," his instructor and guide in the way of right living. In 1519, while absent in the Netherlands, Jonas was chosen rector of the university, and at the same time comprehensive reforms were enacted whereby the study of Hebrew and Greek together with the "true" philosophy and theology was made a part of the curriculum. On his return Jonas began a series of Bible-readings, in the spirit still of Erasmus and not of Luther. His adhesion to the cause of the great Reformer dates from about the time of the Leipsic Disputation, shortly before which event Luther, through Johann Lang, offered his friendship to Jonas; the latter's first letter bears the date of June, 1520. Upon the death of Henning Göde at Wittenberg in Jan., 1521, Spalatin recommended Jonas as his successor. The elector offered the vacant professorship to Mutianus, who declined, and likewise recommended Jonas. The latter received the appointment at Worms, whither he had accompanied Luther. In June of the same year he removed to Wittenberg, and, embracing with enthusiasm the doctrines of the theologians there, devoted himself to an active championship of the Protestant cause. With some difficulty he succeeded in obtaining his transfer to the theological faculty, in order more freely to devote himself to the religious propaganda. In the controversies concerning the reform of worship at the court church during Luther's sojourn at the Wartburg, Jonas was one of the most earnest advocates of Protestant innovations. From 1523 to 1533 he was dean of the theological faculty and delivered lectures on the Old and New Testaments, but gradually his professional duties were abandoned for literary labors in the great cause. For Luther he carried on a polemic against Jqhannes Faber over the celibacy of the clergy (1523) and later came into conflict with his fellow student at Erfurt, Georg Witzel. His gifts revealed themselves, especially, however, in his translations from the works of Luther and Melanchthon, from German into Latin and vice versa, gifts of which the two men gladly availed themselves, allowing him full liberty in the handling of their writings; among such translations were the German versions of Luther's *De servo arbitrio* and Melanchthon's *Loci*. At the same time Jonas played an active part in the great events of the Reformation, such as the Marburg Conference and the Diet of Augsburg. In 1532 he became adviser to the three Anhalt principalities and in 1538 drew up a set of church ordinances for the city of Zerbst. Preeminent, however, were his services as visitator during the introduction of the Protestant faith into the duchy of Saxony, and as author of the new church ordinances there enacted. In the establishment of the Reformation in Halle he also played a leading part. In 1541, while passing through that city, he was invited by some of the councilors to remain with them for some time and to instruct them in the Gospel. Jonas began his work under the protection of the elector of Saxony who made use of his long neglected power as burgrave of Halle to further the establishment of the Reformed faith in that town. In 1541-42 the new ritual was introduced into the various churches, and in the summer of the latter year Jonas was made superintendent. In 1543 he drew up the church ordinances for the town. With the aid of the Wittenberg jurist Kilian Goldstein, who had been summoned to Halle as syndic, Jonas carried on the organization of the Protestant Church with a resolute energy that left him little time for literary labors. In 1546 he accompanied Luther on his last journey to Eisleben, stood beside his death-bed, and delivered his funeral oration. Their friendship had never known any interruption and the "Table Talk" and correspondence of the Reformer testify to the intimate relations that prevailed between the two. Upon the outbreak of the Schmalkald War, Jonas vigorously assailed the emperor and Maurice of Saxony, and on the capture of Halle by the latter in November, 1546, he was compelled to flee. He returned in January, 1547, and made use of the situation to drive the monks and nuns from the city and to wipe out all traces of Roman practise in the church system. But Halle fell a second time into the hands of Maurice, and Jonas was once more a fugitive. His exile seems to have aged him rapidly and to have weakened his powers, but he longed nevertheless for active employment. Through petitions and the intercession of others he sought to appease the anger of Maurice, but it was not until 1548 and after a humiliating submission that he was permitted to return to Halle. There, however, disappointment awaited him; the town council, reluctant to place at the head of affairs a weak old man who numbered among his opponents the powerful elector and the new archbishop of Magdeburg, declined to restore him to his pulpit and restricted him to a lectureship in Latin. In 1550 he became court preacher at Coburg. His friendship with Melanchthon had cooled and on the subject of the Interim Jonas appears as his opponent. Melanchthon, in return, spoke of him as an old man unfit for the performance of active pastoral duties. After a short activity in Regensburg, in 1553 Jonas became superintendent at Eisfeld, where he remained till his death, occupied partially with his old labors as a translator. The picture of a zealous champion of the Reformation, devoting his great gifts and capacity for effort to the cause of the faith, is somewhat tarnished by the unsparing wrath of his polemic and an avarice that was notorious. (G. KAWERAU.) BIBLIOGRAPY: His letters were published by G. Kawerau, 2 vols., Halle, 1884-85; additions have been made, e.g., by C. A. H. Burkhardt, in *Zeitschrift für kirchliche Wissenschaft und Leben*, 1889, pp. 430 sqq. His life has been written by L. Reinhard, Altenburg, 1731; G. C. Knapp, Halle, 1817; H. G. Hasse, Leipsic, 1862; T. Pressel, Elberfeld, 1862; while the *Festschrift* of his four hundredth anniversary was edited by K. Meyer, Nordhausen, 1893. Different phases of his life are treated in: W. Beste, *Kanzelredner der lutherischen Kirche des Reformations-Zeitalters*, i. 149 sqq., Leipsic, 1856; K. Krause, *H. E. Hessus*, vol. i., Gotha, 1879; F. Kropatschek, *J. Dölsch aus Feldkirch*, Greifswald, 1898; G. Bauch, *Die Einführung der melanchthonischen Deklamationen*, Breslau, 1900. Consult also the literature on Luther and on the Reformation.

**JONCOURT,** jan"cur', **PIERRE DE:** French Protestant; b. at Clermont-en-Beauvoisis (16 m. s.s.e. of Beauvais) c. 1650; d. at The Hague 1715. In 1678 he went from France to Holland and became pastor at Middelburg. In 1686 he was elected secretary of the Walloon Synod of Rotterdam. He was pastor at The Hague from 1699 till his death. His most important work is *Entretiens sur les différentes méthodes d'expliquer l'Écriture* (Amsterdam, 1707), in which he violently attacked the allegorical interpretation, which Cocceius had carried to its extreme limits. In the heat of the ensuing controversy Joncourt said certain things about Cocceius which the Synod of Nimeguen compelled him to retract in 1708. BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Haag, *Hist. des dogmes*, Paris, 1862; Lichtenberger, *ESR*, vii. 427-428.

**JONES, JENKINS LLOYD:** Independent; b. at Llandyssil (44 m. n.w. of Swansea), Cardiganshire, Wales, Nov. 14, 1843. He emigrated to the United States in childhood and was a farm hand until the age of nineteen. He served in the Union Army for three years, and soon after the close of the Civil War entered Meadville Theological School, from which he was graduated in 1870. He then entered the Unitarian ministry and was pastor of All Souls' Unitarian Church, Janesville, Wis., until 1879, being at the same time secretary of the Western Unitarian Conference. He also organized the Western Unitarian Sunday School Society, of which he was secretary for fourteen years. After leaving Janesville for Chicago he organized All Souls' Church, of which he has been pastor since 1882. In 1894 this society formally withdrew from all denominational affiliations to emphasize its independency. In 1894 he was one of the founders of the World's Parliament of Religions held in connection with the Chicago Exposition, and was secretary of the meetings of that congress, while as early as 1878 he had been one of the founders of *Unity*, which he has edited since 1879 and which is now the organ of the Congress of Religion movement. He likewise established the Abraham Lincoln Center, of which he is now superintendent, as well as the Chicago Browning Society, and has been first president of the Illinois State Conference of Charities, lecturer in English in the university extension course of the University of Chicago, and president of the Tower Hill Summer School of Literature and Religion. He was one of the organizers of the Municipal Voters' League of Chicago, and takes an active interest in all movements for the advancement of civil service, independency in politics, and similar aims. In theology he was a member of the radical wing of the Unitarians and sympathized and cooperated with the Free Religious Association and kindred organizations. He has now, however, renounced all vestiges of denominationalism. He has written: *The Faith that makes Faithful* (Chicago, 1886; in collaboration with W. C. Gannett); *Practical Piety* (1890); *Word of the Spirit* (1897); *Bits of Wayside Gospel* (2 vols., New York, 1899-1901); and *Nuggets from a Welsh Mine* (Chicago, 1902).

**JONES, JEREMIAH:** Welsh Biblical critic and Independent minister; b. in Wales 1693; d. there 1724. He was a grandson of Samuel Jones (1628-1697, see JONES, SAMUEL, 1) and was educated by his uncle, Samuel Jones (1680-1719; see JONES, SAMUEL, 2), at Gloucester and Tewkesbury. Among his colleagues in his uncle's academy were Joseph Butler and Thomas Secker, afterward archbishop of Canterbury. After serving Independent congregations at Market Harborough, Leicestershire, and Cold Ashby, Northamptonshire, he became pastor of the Independent church at Nailsworth, in the parish of Avening, Gloucestershire, in 1719, and in the same year took charge of his deceased uncle's pupils. Jones is remembered for his admirable *New and Full Method of Settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament* (3 vols., London, 1726-1727; reprinted, 3 vols., Oxford, 1798, again 1827). He also published *A Vindication of the Former Part of St. Matthew's Gospel from Mr. Whiston's Charge of Dislocations* (London, 1719; reprinted, Salop, 1721, Oxford, 1803). BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. J[oulmin], in *Gentleman's Magazine*, June, 1803; *DNB*, xxx. 121-122.

**JONES, RUFUS MATTHEW:** Friend; b. at South China, Me., Jan. 25, 1863. He was educated at Haverford College, Haverford, Pa. (A.B., 1885), Heidelberg University (1887), and the University of Pennsylvania (1893-95), and was principal of Oak Grove Seminary, Vassalboro, Me., from 1889-1893. Since the latter year he has been professor of philosophy in Haverford College, and has also been editor of *The American Friend* since the same year. He has been a trustee of Bryn Mawr College since 1896 and is a member of the American Philosophical Society. In addition to editing *George Fox: An Autobiography* (Philadelphia, 1903) and *Social Law in the Spiritual World* (1904), he has written *Life of Eli and Sybil Jones* (Philadelphia, 1889); *Practical Christianity* (1899); *A Dynamic Faith* (London, 1900); and *A Boy's Religion from Memory* (Philadelphia, 1902).

**JONES, SAMUEL:** **1.** One of the founders of Welsh nonconformity; b. near Chirk Castle, Denbighshire, Wales, 1628; d. at Llangynwyd (15 m. w.n.w. of Cardiff), Glamorganshire, Sept. 7, 1697. He studied at Oxford (B.A., 1652; M.A., 1654), first at Merton College, from which he was expelled in 1648 for refusing to submit to the parliamentary board of visitors, and afterward at Jesus College, where he was elected fellow in 1652 and bursar in 1655. In 1657 he was given Presbyterian ordination and inducted to the living of Llangynwyd. On the passing of the Act of Uniformity in 1662 he was ejected from his living and subsequently imprisoned, but in 1672 he was licensed to preach in four private houses besides his own. About this time he established in his farmhouse the first non-conforming theological academy in Wales. In 1689 Jones' school was selected as one of the places for the education of the exhibitioners of the Presbyterian board. To this institution the present Carmarthen Presbyterian College traces its origin. Jones is described by Calamy as "a great philosopher, a considerable master of the Latin and Greek tongues, and a pretty good Orientalist." He was also a poet of some reputation. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Samuel Palmer, *Nonconformists' Memorial*, ii. 624, London, 1778; T. Rees, *Hist. of Protestant Nonconformity in Wales*, pp. 163, 177, 230-242, ib., 1883; *DNB*, xxx. 160-161. **2.** Non-conformist tutor in England; b., probably in Pennsylvania, c. 1680; d. in England 1719. He was the son of one Malachi Jones, a Welsh preacher who had emigrated to America. He studied under private tutors in England and in 1706 entered the University of Leyden, where he became the pupil of Herman Witsius and Jacob Perizonius. A few years later he opened an academy at Gloucester, which in 1712 he removed to Tewkesbury. By this time his school had attained considerable repute and numbered among its pupils Joseph Butler, Samuel Chandler, and Thomas Seeker. It was from here that Butler carried on his anonymous correspondence with Samuel Clarke (1675-1729). In 1714 the Presbyterian board began to send pupils to Jones. With the exception of two Latin disputations (Leyden, 1708) Jones published nothing. A manuscript copy of his Latin lectures on Jewish antiquities has been preserved. Samuel Clarke gave various transcripts of Jones' lectures to Philip Doddridge, for use in his academy. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Walter Wilson, in *Monthly Repository*, 1809, pp. 651-652; *DNB*, xxx. 161 (where other notices are indicated).

**JONES, SAMUEL PORTER:** Methodist Episcopal Church, South; b. in Chambers County, Ala., Oct. 16, 1847; d. near Memphis, Tenn., Oct. 15, 1900. He was educated by private tutors and in boarding-schools, and, after serving in the Confederate Army in the Civil War, was admitted to the Georgia bar in 1869. He became addicted to liquor, however, and his career as a lawyer was seriously affected. He was converted in 1872 and was admitted to the ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in the same year. He held various pastorates from 1872 to 1880, after which he was agent of the North Georgia Orphanage (1880-92). From that time until his death he was extremely active as a revivalist and advocate of total abstinence, and became one of the best-known Evangelists in the United States, attracting popular attention by his unconventional addresses, which abounded with witty and pregnant sayings. He wrote: *Sermons and Sayings* (Nashville, Tenn., 1883); *Music Hall Series* (Cincinnati, O., 1886); *Quit your Meanness* (1886); *Sam Jones' Own Book* (1887); St. Louis Series (1890); and *Thunderbolts* (1895).

**JONES, WILLIAM, OF NAYLAND:** English theologian; b. at Lowick (19 m. n.e. of Northampton), Northamptonshire, July 30, 1726; d. at Nayland (14 m. s.s.w. of Ipswich), Suffolk, Jan. 6, 1800. He studied at the Charterhouse and at University College, Oxford (B.A., 1749). Here, largely through the influence of his friend, George Home, he adopted the views of John Hutchinson (q.v.). After his graduation he was curate for a number of years, first at Finedon, afterward at Wadenhoe, Northamptonshire. In 1764 he was presented to the vicarage of Bethersden, and in 1765 to the rectory of Pluckley, both in Kent. On June 22, 1775, he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society. In 1777 he obtained the perpetual curacy of Nayland, Suffolk, and exchanged Pluckley for Paston, Northamptonshire. Thenceforth he resided at Nayland and came to be known as Jones of Nayland. In 1788 he became chaplain to George Horne (bishop of Norwich). He was the originator, though not the editor, of the *British Critic*, a theological quarterly, of which the first number appeared in London in May, 1793. In 1798 he was presented by Archbishop Moore to the sinecure rectory of Hollingbourne, Kent. Jones was a man of vast learning and sound piety, and one of the most prominent churchmen of his time. The school represented by him is regarded as forming a link between the non-jurors and the Oxford school. His works, some forty in number, are written from the Hutchinsonian point of view. The best-known are: *The Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity* (Oxford, 1756; ed. J. L. F. Russell, London, 1866; published by S.P.C.K., 1899); *An Essay on the First Principles of Natural Philosophy* (Oxford, 1762); *Physiological Disquisitions* (London, 1781); *Lectures on the Figurative Language of the Holy Scripture* (1786; new ed., 1863); *An Essay on the Church* (1787; new ed., 1863); and *Memoirs of . . . George Horne* (1795). William Stevens collected and edited his Works (12 vols., 1801; reprinted in 6 vols., 1810). Some of his tracts were reprinted under the title, *Tracts on the Church * (Oxford and London, 1850). BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. Stevens, *A Short Account of the Life and Writings of William Jones*, London, 1801; John Hunt, Hist. of Religious Thought in England, iii. 306-319, ib. 1873; L. Stephen, *Hist. of English Thought in the 18th Century*, viii. 18-20, xii. 89, 2 vols., New York, 1881; J. H. Overton, *The Church in England*, ii. 258, 290-91, London, 1897; J. H. Overton and F. Relton, *The English Church* (*1714-1800*), pp. 206-207 et passim, ib. 1906; *DNB*, xxx. 177-178.

**JONES, WILLIAM BASIL:** Bishop of St. Davids; b. at Cheltenham Jan. 2, 1822; d. at Abergwili (2 m. n.e. of Carmarthen), Wales, Jan. 14, 1897. From the Shrewsbury School, where he spent seven years, he passed to the University of Oxford (B.A., 1844; M.A., 1847). He was a scholar of Trinity College, 1840-45, fellow of Queen's College, 1848-51, fellow of University College 1851-57, tutor 1854-58, lecturer on modern history 1858-65, and select preacher 1860-62, 1866-67, 1876-78, as also select preacher at Cambridge in 1881. He took a prominent part in the formation of the Cambrian Archeological Association in 1846-47, was one of its general secretaries, 1848-51, and joint editor for the association in 1851. At Oxford he formed an intimate friendship with William Thompson, afterward archbishop of York, through whom he received many preferments. He was examining chaplain to Thompson 1861-74, prebendary of York Minster 1863-74, perpetual curate of Haxby 1863-65, vicar of Bishopthorpe 1865-74, archdeacon of York 1867-74, rural dean of Bishopthorpe 1869-74, chancellor of York 1871-74 and canon residentiary of York 1873-74. He was elevated to the see of St. David's in 1874. He was remarkably successful in advancing the work of education and missions in his diocese. His more important works are: *Vestiges of the Gael in Gwynedd* (London, 1851); *The History and Antiquities of St. David's* (4 parts, 1852-57), in collaboration with E. A. Freeman; *The New Testament Illustrated with a Plain Explanatory Commentary for Private Reading* (2 vols., 1865), in collaboration with Archdeacon Churton; *The Peace of God: Sermons on the Reconciliation of God and Man* (1869); and *Ordination Addresses* (Oxford, 1900), with a preface by Gregory Smith. BIBLIOGRAPHY: I. G. Smith, *HolyDays*, p. 67, London, 1900; *DNB*, supplement, iii. 47-49, where reference to scattered notices is given.

**JORAM** (**JEHORAM**; the two forms are used interchangeably in the sources): **1.** Fifth king of Judah, son and successor of Jehoshaphat. His dates according to the old chronology are 892-885 B.C.; according to Kamphausen, 851-844 B.C.; according to Duncker, 848-844 B.C.; according to Curtis (*DB*, i. 401), 851-843 B.C. The Chronicler (II Chron. xxi. 2-4) reports that on Joram's accession he put his brothers to death. No notice of this occurs in Kings, but the fact is not improbable since he had married Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and Jezebel of Israel, where assassination was not uncommon. Moreover, Athaliah's usurpation of the kingdom through assassination (see JOASH), together with her known influence over her husband, increases the probability. The notable event of Joram's reign was the revolt of Edom and his narrow escape from capture when he was trying to reduce the Edomites to subjection. The revolt of Edom is but the reflex of the prior revolt of the Moabites from the northern kingdom (see 2, below). The indications of a general revolt are increased by the Chronicler's narrative concerning a body of Arabs and Philistines who sacked Joram's palace and carried off all his sons but one. The Chronicler attributes his death to a loathsome disease (probably the same as that described in Acts xii. 23), and asserts that his burial was dishonorable (but cf. II Kings viii. 24). **2.** Ninth king of Israel, second son of Ahab and successor to his brother Ahaziah. His dates, according to the old chronology are 896-884 B.C.; according to Kamphausen, 854-843 B.C.; according to Duncker, 851-843 B.C.; according to Curtis, 852-842 B.C. One of the events of his reign was an unsuccessful attempt, in company with Jehoshaphat of Judah, to reduce to subjection the Moabites who, according to the Moabite stone (q.v.), had revolted from his brother. The army arrived before the fortress of Kir-hareseth and besieged it; and in the straits of the siege the "king of Moab" sacrificed his son on the wall in sight of the besiegers. This act dismayed the allies and they withdrew. It is not impossible that the "great wrath" of II Kings iii. 24 (R. V., margin) indicates a pestilence which attacked Israel and was attributed to the offended deity. A second event was the attempt to recover Ramoth-gilead from the Arameans, in which Joram was assisted by Ahaziah of Judah. He was wounded and obliged to retire to Jezreel, near which he fell at the hands of Jehu. It is an open question whether the events of II Kings iv.-viii. 15 belong to Joram's reign, as the king of Israel of that narrative is not named. It is clear from II Kings ix. 22 and x. 18-27 that the Baal cult had flourished in Joram's reign, while II Kings iii. 13-14 is emphatic as to the continuing influence of Jezebel. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The sources for 1 are: I Kings xxii. 50; II Kings viii. 16-24, 29; II Chron. xxi.; and for 2 are: II Kings i. 17, iii., viii. 28-ix. 26. The literature is given under AHAB. Consult also: C. F. Burney, *Notes on the Hebrew Text of . . . Kings*, Oxford, 1903; *DB*, ii. 559-560; *EB*, ii. 2350-2352.

**JORDAN.** See PALESTINE.

**JORDAN, HERMANN SIEGFRIED ARNOLD:** German Lutheran; b. at Sandau-an-der-Elbe (35 m. n.w. of Brandenburg) July 30, 1878. He was educated at the universities of Erlangen (1896-97) and Greifswald (1897-99; lic. theol., 1902), and after being a private tutor in Deyelsdorf, Pomerania, from 1899 to 1903, was connected with the cathedral-chapter of Berlin in 1903-04. Since the latter year he has been privat-docent for New-Testament exegesis and church history in the University of Greifswald. He has written: *Die Theologie der neuentdeckten Predigten Novatians* (Leipsic, 1902); *Rhythmische Prosa in der altchristlichen lateinischen Literatur* (1905); and *Rhythmische Prosatexte aus der ältesten Christenheit* (1905).

**JORDANIS** (originally perhaps **Jornandes**): The first and only Gothic historian whose works are extant; d. c. 560. He descended from a noble family related to the royal family of the Amali. His grandfather had been notary of the Alanic King Candac in Moesia. Jordanis was also notary until his conversion, which probably implies that he assumed an ecclesiastical position. He was probably bishop of Croton, in any case not an Arian, but a Catholic. Vigilius, to whom he dedicated one of his works, seems to have been the pope of that name (538-555), and they were both in Constantinople about 551. Jordanis left two works, a history of the Goths or rather of Moesia, which seems to have had the title *De origine et actibusque Getarum*, and a compendium of universal history, often called *De regnorum ac temporum successione*, also *De breviatione chronicorum*, by Mommsen *De summa temporum vel origine actibusque gentis Romanorum*. The former he dedicated to his otherwise unknown friend Castalius or Castulus, the latter to Vigilius. The history of the Goths, which extends to 551, was written probably in that year in Constantinople or in Chalcedon. The chronicle of the world had been begun between Apr., 550, and Apr., 551, before the other work, but is continued until 552. The history of the Goths shows little originality as it follows closely the lost work of Cassiodorus which seems to have had the same title. Toward the end Jordanis used also the annals of Marcellinus Comes. The style is obscure, artificial, and sententious, but this is undoubtedly due to the source used by Jordanis. The fundamental view of the identity of the Getae and Goths is probably also borrowed from Cassiodorus. The universal history is practically a history of Rome; for the rest Jordanis furnishes merely genealogies and names of kings. The work contains nothing but extracts from other historians. (WILHELM ALTMANN.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: His History of the Goths has been printed often, best ed., by A. Holder, Freiburg, 1882. Both his works are edited by T. Mommsen in *MGH, Auct. Ant.*, v. 1 (1882), 1-138, with prefatorial notes, pp. v.-lxxxiv. A very useful list of editions and literature is given by Potthast, *Wegweiser*, pp. 682-684. A useful article on his life and works is in *DCB*, iii. 431-438. Consult: L. von Ranke, *Weitgeschichte*, iv. 2 pp. 313-327, Leipsic, 1884; A. Ebert, *Allgemeine Geschichte der Literatur des Mittelalters*, i. 556-562, Leipsic, 1889; W. S. Teuffel, *Geschichte der römischen Literatur*, pp. 1256-1259, 1283, ib. 1890.

**JORIS** (or **JORISZOON,** "the son of George"), **JAN DAVID:** Dutch Anabaptist; b., probably at Ghent or Bruges, 1501 or 1502; d. at Basel Aug. 25, 1556. He was originally a glass-painter, but was of an adventurous disposition, and after long wanderings abroad settled in Delft and married. An ultra-enthusiast, he eagerly embraced the Reformation, circulated hymns and tracts, and violently assailed the priesthood and the mass. In 1528 he publicly insulted a religious procession, for which he was imprisoned, pilloried, flogged, and had his tongue burned through, in addition to being banished for three years. He then joined the Anabaptists, among whom he speedily became prominent, although he disapproved the Anabaptist insurrection at Münster (q.v.) and openly opposed Battenburg, the leader of the extreme radicals. After the fall of Münster, Joris sought to reunite the Anabaptist factions, but his success was only temporary, and he was attacked by sectaries of all shades. On the other hand, enthusiasts called him "the hallowed of the Lord," and proclaimed him a prophet and bringer of judgment, so that in 1536 he himself became convinced of his divine mission. At the same time he began to have visions, and gradually gathered about him a circle of followers (the "Davidists") who trusted him implicitly, even forming a distinct Anabaptist sect with a chiliastic basis. The chief centers of its activity were Oldenburg, eastern Friesland, and the Netherlands, but after 1538 the authorities sharply opposed it, and many of its adherents were executed. Joris himself, however, repeatedly escaped in such remarkable ways as to give rise to the belief that he could make himself invisible. Meanwhile he was untiring in his activity. He had already had much success among the followers of Battenburg, and for a time among the Anabaptists of Münster, but the adherents of Melchior Hoffmann in Strasburg, like Johannes a Lasso and Menno Simons, rejected his overtures. The Landgrave Philip of Hesse, on the other hand, granted him protection on condition of his accepting the Augsburg Confession. His unceasing personal propaganda was aided by his numerous writings, of which the most important was his *t'Wonderboeck, waerin dat van der wereldt aan, versloten gheopenbaert is* (Deventer [?], 1542), a jumbled mass of fantasy, mystery, and allegory. With the amassing of wealth from his adherents and the despair of gaining a great following, a new period began in the career of Joris. In Aug., 1544, he appeared at Basel under the name of John of Bruges, a rich and distinguished fugitive from Holland for the sake of the Gospel. He was accepted as a citizen, led an irreproachable religious life, was conspicuous for his charities, and acquired considerable property, including a small castle at Binningen. His propaganda was now restricted to writing mystic treatises and epistles to his followers, whom he urged to conform externally to the existing Church. On the other hand, he was in touch with opponents of the dominant Church, pleading for Servetus in an anonymous petition of 1553, writing to Schwenekfeld (though he opposed his deification of the humanity of Christ), and being acquainted with Castellio. The identity of "John of Bruges" with the Dutch Anabaptist Jan David Joris was not discovered until three years after his death and burial. In Apr., 1559, the University of Basel condemned Joris as a heretic and on May 13 his body was exhumed and burned, together with his books and portrait. His Basel adherents were obliged to do penance in the cathedral on June 6, but in Holstein and Holland the sect lingered, heresy-trials of the Davidists occurring as late as the end of the sixteenth century. (A. HEGLER†.) K. HOLL. BIBLIOGRAPHY: A favorably partizan account is given by G. Arnold, *Kirchen- und Ketzer-Historie*, 4 vols., Frankfort, 1700-15, corrected by the critical discussion of Nippold, in *ZHT*, 1863, 1864, 1868. Joris' biography was written by A. van der Linde, The Hague, 1867, cf. *Bibliophile Belge*, 1865, pp. 137, 158, 1866, pp. 129 sqq. On his teaching consult A. Jundt, *Histoire du panthéisme*, pp. 164 sqq., Strasburg, 1875.

**JORTIN, JOHN:** Archdeacon of London; b. in London Oct. 23, 1698; d. there Sept. 5, 1770. He was the son of a Huguenot exile from Brittany, who in 1691 became a gentleman of the privy chamber. He received his education at the Charterhouse School, and at Jesus College, Cambridge (B.A., 1719; M.A., 1721), where he held a fellowship 1721-28. He was ordained in 1724, and presented to the college living of Swavesey, Cambridgeshire, in Jan., 1727, which he resigned in Feb., 1731, to become preacher at a chapel in New Street, London. In 1731 he started a magazine entitled, *Miscellaneous Observations upon Authors*, Ancient and Modern, which continued for two years. In 1737 he was presented to the vicarage of Eastwell, Kent, which he soon resigned. In 1747 he resigned his position in New Street to accept an appointment to a chapel in Oxenden Street, where he preached till 1760. He was assistant to Warburton at Lincoln's Inn, 1747-50, and Boyle lecturer in 1749. In 1751 he was presented to the rectory of St. Dunstan's-in-the-East by Thomas Herring, archbishop of Canterbury, who gave him the Lambeth degree of D.D. in 1755. In 1762 he became chaplain to Thomas Osbaldeston, bishop of London, who gave him a prebend in St. Paul's and presented him to the vicarage of Kensington, which he held with St. Dunstan's. He was made archdeacon of London in 1764. Jortin was a scholar of liberal views, and wrote with an engaging lightness of style. His more important works are: *Discourses on the Truth of the Christian Religion* (London, 1746); *Remarks upon Ecclesiastical History* (5 vols., 1751-73); *Six Dissertations* (1755); *The Life of Erasmus* (2 vols., 1758-60); *Sermons* (7 vols., 1771-72); and *Tracts, Philological, Critical, and Miscellaneous* (2 vols., 1790). BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Disney, *Memoirs of the Life and Writings of John Jortin*, London, 1792; A *Memoir* by R. Heathcote to the 3d ed. of Jortin's *Sermons*, ed. R. Jortin, ib. 1787; another to the edition of the *Tracts*, ut sup.; while a *Life* is prefixed by W. Trollope to an edition of the *Remarks*, 2 vols., ib. 1846. Consult *DNB*, xxx. 201-203.

**JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA:** A wealthy and pious member of the Sanhedrin who begged the body of Jesus and laid it in his own tomb, which had not hitherto been used--a fact in which the Evangelists evidently see symbolic significance. The story is told in all four Gospels (Matt. xxvii. 57-60; Mark xv. 42-46; Luke xxiii. 50-54; John xix. 38-42), and the manner of telling betrays a warm interest in Joseph's personality, his courage, and his piety. Arimathea is probably to be identified with Ramah or Ramathaim (Josh. xviii. 25; I Sam. i. 1; I Macc. xi. 34), five miles north of Jerusalem. Won by the preaching of Jesus concerning the kingdom of God, Joseph openly joined himself to the disciples of Jesus, and he did not consent to the judgment of the Sanhedrin. The differences of the reports in the Gospels are probably to be solved as follows; Mark and Luke have in mind simply the fact that Joseph had prepared a worthy grave; how he had come to do it was not a question with which they concerned themselves. Matthew took this into account and explained that it had been prepared for Joseph himself. John, who appears to have had the other accounts before him, seems to have raised the question why Jesus was not laid in a grave of his own instead of in a stranger's, and answers it by reference to the nearness of the Sabbath, the consequent lack of time for preparations, and the handiness of the grave already prepared. (K. SCHMIDT.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: The subject is discussed in the sections devoted to the burial of Jesus in the principal lives cited under JESUS CHRIST, and in the Bible Dictionaries. Pertinent matter will be found in the discussions of the Gospel of Peter and the Acts of Pilate mentioned under APOCRYPHA, B, 7.

**JOSEPH AND ASENATH, STORY OF.** See PSEUDEPIGRAPHA, OLD TESTAMENT II., 36.

**JOSEPH BRYENNIOS:** Byzantine theologian of the fifteenth century; b., probably in Lacedaemon, about 1350; d. apparently in Crete about 1436. Bryennios, whose original name was Bladynteros, entered a Cretan monastery about 1375, but some twenty years later was obliged to leave the island on account of a conflict with the clergy. He then went to Constantinople, joined the Studites, and soon became the court chaplain of the Emperor Manuel Palæologus, thus gaining an important influence in ecclesiastical polity. In 1416 and 1418 he was imperial ambassador to the West, and at first enjoyed the favor of John Palæologus, but when the emperor, for reasons of state, favored union with the Latin Church, Joseph, a rigid antagonist of this measure, retired from public life, and apparently spent the last years of his life in Crete. He was primarily a theologian, although his writings (first edited by Eugenius Bulgaris, 3 vols., Leipsic, 1768-84) contain a mass of material on all branches of Byzantine learning, especially rhetoric, dialectics, geometry, astronomy, physics, and philosophy. He was the author of twenty-one addresses and three dialogues on the Trinity, while other sermons are devoted to the Virgin, redemption, eschatology, faith, the plan of salvation, Easter, the Transfiguration, and the Tabor-light. His attitude toward union is given in his "Speech of Counsel" and "On the Union of the Cretans," while his twenty-six letters contain many theological allusions. Bryennios was rigidly orthodox and had no sympathy with humanism or with western thought. The prime source of authority, in his opinion, was the Bible, which was supplemented by the Church Fathers, who had established the truth of the dogmas contained in the Scriptures, so that these principles required no further proof and were superior to human reason. God can be defined only negatively, and man was created as the end of creation. Seeking to gain his apotheosis by his own powers, however, he lost the fellowship of God, though he retained the freedom of the will. The mission of Christ was to enable man to attain the end for which he was created, the special agency being the manifestation of the person of the Lord. (PHILIPP MEYER.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fabricius-Harles, *Bibliotheca Graeca*, xi. 659-660, Hamburg, 1808; Krumbacher, *Geschichte*, p. 114; P. Meyer, in *TSK*, lxix (1896), 282-319; idem, in *Byzantinische Zeitschrift*, 1896, pp. 74-111; J. Dräsecke, in *NKZ*, 1896, pp. 208-228.

**JOSEPH THE CARPENTER, HISTORY OF.** See APOCRYPHA, B, I., 4.

**JOSEPH, THE HUSBAND OF MARY:** ### The Veneration of Joseph. In the primitive Church there are no historic records of a special cult in honor of Joseph, and the earliest monuments of Christian art represent him only in groups with Mary and the Christ-child. In this period he appears as a young man, and it is not until the fifth or sixth century that he is represented as aged, a concept borrowed from the apocryphal Gospels of the Infancy. According to the legend incorporated in these documents, Joseph, when he married Mary, was an aged widower, having as sons by his first marriage James, Joses, Judas, and Simon (cf. Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 1 sqq.). This tradition persisted throughout the Middle Ages, but is now disregarded by occidental Roman Catholicism, which regards Joseph, if not as a young man, at least in the prime of manhood. It is very possible that he died early, as mention of him disappears from the Gospels; and since the days of Ambrose and Jerome it has been a Roman dogma that his marriage with Mary was merely nominal, although this view receives no certain confirmation from the New Testament. Legend, followed by later medieval art, holds that Joseph died in 18 or 27 A.D., with Mary and Jesus by his side, and, according to some accounts, John the Evangelist. This tradition, combined with the fact that older legends occasionally speak of his grave, but never mention his remains, forms the kernel of the medieval legends and regulations for the Joseph cult. Jean Gerson, Bernardino of Siena, and Francis of Sales declared that he had been translated bodily to heaven. The cult of Joseph flourished in the West after the seventeenth century, and relics began to appear, although these were never corporal, but such objects as his ring of betrothal, or pieces of his garments. In the early Church Joseph possessed no special day, and until the medieval period the traditions on this subject were divergent. The Copts celebrated July 20, while among the Greeks his day was the Fourth Sunday in Advent, which was also dedicated to Mary, David, and James the Just. Another day, however, Mar. 19, said to have been brought to the West by a Syrian Carmelite of the fourteenth century, gradually found acceptation, and was finally confirmed by Gregory XV. in 1621. Pius IX., in 1870, made this feast one of the first class, and declared St. Joseph the patron saint of the entire Roman Catholic Church, and Leo XIII., in 1889, ordered a series of rosary prayers to St. Joseph for the whole of October. ### Joseph Orders. All orders founded in honor of St. Joseph and called by his name are modern in origin. The following orders of men, established under his protection as the Biblical ideal of obedience, may be mentioned: (1) The Secular Priests of St. Joseph were founded at Rome in 1620 by Paolo Motta, and their rule, partly based on that of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri, was confirmed by Innocent XI. in 1684. (2) The Crétenists, or Missionaries of St. Joseph (Josephites), were established about the middle of the seventeenth century by Jacques Crétenet, a surgeon of Lyons. They were chiefly mission-preachers and spread through many dioceses of France, but were overwhelmed by the Revolution, although they were later revived as heads of educational institutes in various places. (3) The Brethren of St. Joseph were founded at St. Suscien, near Amiens, by Bishop J. P. de Chabons in 1823, imitating an elder body of the eighteenth century, to conduct primary schools, assist the clergy in catechizing, promote singing, and similar purposes. (4) The Josephites, or Sons of St. Joseph, were established at Grammont, Belgium, by Canon Van Combrugghe in 1817 for the education of young men of the better classes. Besides the mother house at Grammont, they have daughter houses at Melle, Jouvain, Tillemont, and Brunelle, in Belgium, and St. George's College, at Weybridge, England; they are assisted by the Josephite nuns of Bruges. (5) The Josephite Brothers of the Holy Cross were founded in 1821 in the diocese of Le Mans by the priest Dujarrie. Until recently they possessed some forty houses in France, the French colonies, and North America, and devote themselves primarily to the training of artisans, although some conduct secondary schools. (6) The Brothers of St. Joseph, founded at Quillins (department of Rhône) by Abbé Rey in 1835 for the education of destitute children, had their chief center at Citeaux from 1848 to 1888, but are now suppressed. The majority of female orders of St. Joseph are French. The oldest and most widely extended is (1) the Congregation of St. Joseph at Bordeaux, founded in 1638 by Marie Delpech de l'Estang; it extended rapidly to other cities of northern and western France, forming at La Rochelle in 1672 a new branch called Religieuses de la Congrégation de Saint Joseph, dite de la Trinité (or, de Jesus, Marie, et Joseph). (2) The Hospital Sisters of St. Joseph of La Flèche (in Anjou) were established in 1642, while about 1650 the Jesuit Medaille founded (3) the Daughters of St. Joseph at Le Puy. These three orders in twenty years had over 9,000 members and 1,200 houses throughout all France. The order last named established at Clermont in 1666, through the advice of Canon Laborieux, (4) the Nuns of St. Joseph of the Good Shepherd to conduct refuges for fallen women. It survived the Revolution and still has its mother house at Clermont, with some sixty daughter houses. About 1800 Mother Javouhey founded (5) the Sisters of St. Joseph at Cluny, whence they spread to Senegambia, French Guiana, and other colonies of France, excepting Algiers and Cochin-China. (6) The Sisters of St. Joseph of the Visitation were founded at Marseilles about 1840 by Emilie Vialard, who, in 1834, had established a similar sisterhood at Alby for the instruction of the young and the care of the sick. Daughter houses of these two sisterhoods have spread to Algiers and Tunis (from Alby), as well as to Jerusalem (from Marseilles). (7) A North American order of Sisters of St. Joseph was founded at Emmitsburg, Md., in 1809 by Eliza Ann Seton, which in 1850 was united with the American Sisters of Mercy and as early as 1868 had ninety-one houses with some 1,100 sisters. (O. ZÖCKLER†.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: On the cult: *ASB*, 19 Mar., vol. iii.; Benedict XIV., *De servorum Dei beatificatione*, iv. 2, chap. 20, 7-58, Bononia, 1738; Primauté de S. Joseph d'après l'épiscopal catholique et la théologie, Paris, 1897; J. Seitz, *Die Verehrung des heiligen Joseph in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung*, Freiburg, 1908; *KL*, vi. 1878-1879. On the orders: Helyot, *Ordres monastiques*, iv. 405, 411 sqq., viii. 25 sqq., 186 sqq.; Heimbucher, *Orden und Kongregationen*, vol. iii. passim; *KL*, vi. 1874-1878. **JOSEPH OF METHONE:** Greek theologian of the fifteenth century. Of his life little is known, except that he lived in Crete and was a zealous advocate of the union between the Greek and Latin Churches, the majority of his writings, which are collected in *MPG*, clix., being devoted to this object. His most noteworthy work was his defense of the five chief theses of the Council of Florence, discussing at length the procession of the Holy Ghost, unleavened bread, purgatory, eternal life, and the supremacy of the pope. This treatise was at first erroneously ascribed to Gennadius Scholarius. Joseph also discussed the same council in the long dialogue first edited by Leo Allatius in his *Graecia orthodoxa*, i. 583-654 (Rome, 1652). (PHILIPP MEYER.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fabricius-Harles, *Bibliotheca Graeca*, xi. 458, Hamburg, 1808; Krumbacher, *Geschichte*, pp. 118-119.

**JOSEPH THE PATRIARCH:** Oldest son of Jacob and Rachel. The name "Joseph" (Hebr. *Yoseph*) was probably originally Joseph-el, "may God add" (Gen. xxx. 24; see JACOB). ### The Sources. The relation of the sources of the story of the patriarch as given in the Book of Genesis ( xxx. 22-24, xxxvii., xxxix. 1) is similar to that in the history of Jacob (q.v.). E and J predominate, P being used more extensively only toward the end ( Gen. xlvi. 1). The attempt to distinguish between E and J is without convincing success. It is asserted that J calls the traveling Arabian merchants Ishmaelites, while E calls them Midianites; that E ( Gen. xxxvii. 28) makes them take Joseph out of the pit without the complicity of his brothers and so "steal" him ( Gen. xl. 15) while, according to J, he was sold by his brothers (also according to Gen. xlv. 4); that for J Joseph's Egyptian master was a wealthy private citizen, for E, the captain of the guard and keeper of the prison. In all essential points, however, the story must have been told in the same way by both E and J. Joseph's character justifies Jacob's especial love. Its fundamental quality was his earnest fear of God ( Gen. xxxvii. 2, xxxix. 9, xli. 16, xlii. 18, xlv. 8, l. 19-20), who showed him grace both in his own sight and before men, making him appear the purest and the noblest of the sons of Jacob. ### Historicity of the Narrative. In considering the historical value of the tradition of Joseph, the references to Egypt, its customs, manners, etc., are of especial importance. Modern investigation of the monuments has explained and justified the recital. While formerly many scholars thought to find in Joseph's story erroneous statements of Egyptian conditions, Hengstenberg and the Egyptologists Ebers and Brugsch have shown that the story is almost entirely concordant with the monuments of Egypt. Caravan trade was carried on by the Arabs from the most remote times between Syria, Palestine, and the country of the Nile; precisely the three spices mentioned in Gen. xxxvii. 25 (cf. xliii. 11) were always staple articles of commerce between Gilead and Egypt; the caravan route, after crossing the Jordan at Beth-shan, passed by Dothan; there was a good market for young slaves in Egypt; Potiphar bears a genuine Egyptian name ("devoted to Ra"); such stewardships as that with which Joseph was entrusted by Potiphar appear frequently in the Egyptian inscriptions and on the monuments; the scene between Joseph and Potiphar's wife is practically duplicated in a story preserved in the D'Orbiney Papyrus ("The Tale of Two Brothers"), written down for Seti II. when he was crown prince (cf. H. Brugsch, *Aus dem Orient*, Berlin, 1864, pp. 7 sqq.; Eng. transl. in W. M. F. Petrie, *Egyptian Tales*, London, 1894-95; cf. A. H. Sayce, *Higher Criticism and the Monuments*, London, 1894); dreams were matters of intense interest in Egypt; the two court officials of Gen. xl. 1 appear as representatives of the court butlers and the court bakers, even the title "chief of the bakers" has been found; an illustration of the dream of the court baker is given in a representation of the court bakery of Rameses III. (J. G. Wilkinson, *Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians*, ii. 385, London, 1837), wherein a load of freshly baked bread on a board or mat (elsewhere a basket, Wilkinson, ii. 393) is borne away on the head; according to the Rosetta stone and the Decree of Canopus, Egyptian kings on their birthdays were accustomed to issue amnesties; the double dream of the Pharaoh (Gen. xli.) is thoroughly Egyptian; the very words *ye'or*, "stream" (=Nile) and *ahu*, "reed-grass," are Egyptian; the number seven was significant in the land; the kine, that is, the good and the lean years, quite properly come up out of the stream which was the object of divine honors as the fructifier of the entire country; the cow is symbolical of Isis-Hathor, the female principle of fertility, and therefore especially appropriate for the representation of the productivity of the land; the "magicians" of chap. xli. 8 correspond to the sacred scribes who, besides devoting themselves to the arts of writing, mensuration, and astronomy, were also entrusted with the task of explaining portents; the shaving of the hair and the changing of clothing on the occasion of an appearance before the Pharaoh (Gen. xli. 14) was required by ancient Egyptian custom, while among the Israelites baldness was regarded as an infirmity; the ceremonies accompanying the conferral of his new dignities upon Joseph (Gen. xli. 42) are all faithfully represented on the monuments; the cry *abrech* (Gen. xli. 43<.scripRef id="iii.lvii.cxxiv.p2.9">, E. V. margin) which was shouted by a runner appears, indeed, to have been an Assyrio-Babylonian title, but the names given in xli. 45 are clearly Egyptian. As master of the granaries, Joseph really held the place in the kingdom next after that of the Pharaoh; hence he properly calls himself (xlv. 8) Pharaoh's father, lord over his whole house, ruler of all the land of Egypt; in chap. xlii. 6 he is called "governor" over the land; the designation *adhon*, "lord," has even found its way into Egyptian and the title *ab-en-pira'o* in the sense of "counselor of the Pharaoh" occurs often in the papyri. The economic regulations promulgated by Joseph must be judged according to the standard of Egyptian conditions. The tax imposed (xli. 34) was, in the rich land of Egypt, neither hard to bear nor unusual, and the fact that the State assumed possession of all landed property, with the exception of that belonging to the priests, was a result of the centralizing tendency, more necessary and therefore more justifiable in that land than elsewhere. Two cases of this kind are given in H. Brugsch, *Geschichte Aegyptens*, Leipsic, 1877, pp. 130, 244 sqq., Eng. transl., London, 1879. The fact that Canaan suffered from a drought at the same time is also in accord with natural conditions, and the Amarna Tablets record that Canaan imported corn from Egypt (cf. H. Brugsch, *Die biblischen sieben Jahre der Hungersnot*, Leipsic, 1891; Sayce, ut sup., pp. 217-218). Since Egypt was the great producer of wheat, the Semitic tribes in times of scarcity naturally migrated thither, where they were not seldom received with justifiable suspicion (xlii. 9). The settlement of the Hebrews in the land of Goshen (q.v.) is in accord with the conditions, since this territory had for a long time been the resort of invading Semites and was adapted to the nomadic manner of life. Finally, the embalming of Joseph and the seventy days mourning for him (l. 1 sqq.) are thoroughly Egyptian. Taking all these facts together, it is impossible to escape the conviction which Ebers expresses: "The whole of Joseph's history, even in its smallest details, must be regarded as in accord with the actual conditions in Egypt." To be sure, this general agreement with Egyptian conditions and manners does not of itself positively establish the historic character of the recital; but the assertion that the author or compiler was not familiar with Egyptian conditions is equally pure assumption. It is true that several things, especially the mention of the "Land of Rameses" (Gen. xlvii. 11), a name which could scarcely have been used before the nineteenth dynasty, make it unlikely that Joseph's story is from a nearly contemporaneous source. It seems probable that the account was written about the time of the Exodus (A. H. Sayce, ut sup., pp. 212-213). ### The Date of Joseph. The determination of the period of Egyptian history to which the Hebrew immigration belongs depends upon the relations of the Hebrews with the Hyksos. Josephus' supposition (*Apion*, i. 14) that this nomadic people of Semitic race was identical with the Hebrews does not agree with the modest position the Hebrews occupied in the land according to the Biblical narrative. But Joseph's activity must have fallen in the Hyksos period. The 430 (or 400) years of the Egyp tian bondage (Ex. xii. 40; Gen. xv. 13), even if the Exodus took place under Merneptah and certainly if it took place earlier, point to that period. Georgius Syncellus gives Aphophis as the name of the Pharaoh of the Exodus, that is, the Apepi of the monuments, who, according to Brugsch, reigned shortly before the beginning of the eighteenth dynasty. To this time belongs also, in the opinion of Brugsch, the famine of many years mentioned in his *Geschichte Aegyptens*, pp. 243 sqq. The Hyksos kings may have been as anxious to attract Semitic settlers as the first rulers of the New Empire (eighteenth dynasty) were to hold them aloof or to oppress them. The darkness, however, which enshrouds the period of the Hyksos, especially the ruthless destruction of their monuments by a later dynasty, may have obliterated all definite information of Joseph and his family. In general, in the memory of the Egyptians, this tribe was confused with the other Semitic inhabitants of the Delta, and consequently separate features of the history of Joseph and Moses appear confusedly interwoven with other events in Egyptian tradition. Among Jews and Mohammedans the tale of Joseph's fate was especially fancied, and it has been embellished with much legendary matter, especially by the Mohammedans (cf. *Koran*, surah xii.). C. VON ORELLI. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The sources are: Gen. xxx. 22-24, xxxvii., xxxix. 1. The best condensed treatment of the subject is either the article by Driver in *DB*, ii. 767-775, or the article in *EB*, ii. 2583-2594. There is a monograph by H. G. Tomkins, *Life and Times of Joseph in the Light of Egyptian Lore*, London, 1891. Consult further, besides the literature mentioned in the text: E. W. Hengstenberg, *Die Bücher Moses und die Aegypter*, Berlin, 1841; C. von Lengerke, *Kanaan*, pp. 331 sqq., Königsberg, 1844; G. Ebers, *Die Aegypter und die Bücher Moses*, vol. i., Leipsic, 1868; A. H. Sayce, *Patriarchal Palestine*, pp. 200 sqq., London, 1895; W. Staerk, *Studien zur Religions- und Sprachgeschichte*, ii. 21 sqq., Berlin, 1899. For the bearing of research in Egypt on the Joseph story see the literature cited under Egypt. Some parallels to the story and to that of the "Two Brothers" are given in A. Lang, *Myth, Ritual and Religion*, ii. 303-308, London, 1887. On the general relations of archeology cf. the article by Driver in D. G. Hogarth, *Authority and Archaeology*, London, 1899.

### JOSEPH II. The Enlightenment. Political Reforms (§ 1). Governmental Control of the Church (§ 2). Position of the Clergy in the State (§ 3). Reforms Affecting the Cure of Souls (§ 4). Religious Toleration Established (§ 5). Successes and Failures of the Reforms (§ 6). ### 1. The Enlightenment. Political Reforms. Joseph II., Holy Roman Emperor 1765-90, son of Francis I. (grand duke of Tuscany, emperor, 1745-65) and Maria Theresa (queen of Bohemia and Hungary, archduchess of Austria, 1740-48), was born at Vienna Mar. 13, 1741, and died there Feb. 20, 1790. Austria stands in the front rank of strictly Roman Catholic countries which in the second half of the eighteenth century found themselves compelled to break with their antiquated system to find the way for a new existence. The defeats of Austria, especially in the Seven Years' War (1756-1763), had shown Maria Theresa the lack of centralization, of financial, intellectual, and moral power in her country and the necessity of reforms. Although a good Catholic and personally antagonistic to the Enlightenment, she permitted the leaders of this intellectual movement to expand the new views of Territorialism (q.v.) and Febronianism (see HONTHEIM, JOHANN NIKOLAUS VON). Archduke Joseph became one of the most prominent and fervent advocates of the new ideas, and when he became coregent after the death of Emperor Francis (Aug. 18, 1765), ecclesiastical reforms were carried out in a more thorough and independent manner, especially as popes like Clement XIV. (1769-74) and Pius VI. (1775-1799) tried to save the hierarchy by the most far-reaching concessions. On the death of the empress in 1780 Joseph became sole ruler, and now began an entirely new system, which was carried out within a few years. The old feudal order was to make room for the monarchical state of the Enlightenment, in which no privileged classes and estates existed. In the political sphere Joseph continued the centralization of the old Hapsburg countries; in the social sphere he attempted to raise the state of the peasants and of industry. Serfdom was abolished, taxes on landed property were equalized, and the industrial life was freed from its paralyzing fetters. ### 2. Governmental Control of the Church. Joseph was a pronounced territorialist. All external relations of the Church (i.e., everything outside of the dogmas in the proper sense), the administration of the sacraments, and inner discipline over the clergy, were to be placed under the regulating and supervising power of the State. He thought of the relation of the churches of his countries to Rome entirely in the Febronian sense. The peculiarity of his system of church polity has been styled Josephinism, a term which implies the union of Febronianism, Episcopalianism, and territorialism, with the political viewpoint dominating. He was in no way hostile to the Church; Roman Catholicism appeared to him the historically developed and therefore the natural form of churchdom in his countries; but he did not subject his government to merely ecclesiastical points of view. The Church appeared to him only as the organization of one of the spheres in which the life of the people develops, and which is therefore subordinated to the whole, the State. The ultimate aim of all his reforms was the supremacy of the State. The means was the introduction of the enlightenment to raise up new ethical and intellectual power. Accordfigly, the churches of the Hapsburg countries were to be de tached, as far as possible, from their legal connection with the papacy and consolidated into a uniform organization under the church government of the sovereign. Consequently the Placet (q.v.) for all kinds of papal bulls and briefs was renewed and strictly carried out. The bull *Unigenitus* was never to be mentioned, and the bull *In coena Domini* torn out of the books of liturgy. In 1781 all relations were broken off between the religious orders and their superiors and brethren in foreign countries. At the same time, the orders were subordinated to the disciplinary power of the bishops and arch-bishops. Similar ordinances were applied to the whole clergy. Communication with Rome was to be through Austrian ambassadors. Nobody was allowed to ask for papal titles in Rome, or to send money there. The bishops received the right to absolve and dispense, especially in matrimonial matters, and to institute new festivals, devotions, etc. Every appeal to Rome was forbidden. As at many points along the boundaries, Austrian dominions were under the authority of foreign bishops, a new circumscription of the dioceses was necessary. Moreover, the connection of the bishops with the secular ruler was made closer, closer even than that with the pope. There was demanded of them a new oath of subjection to the temporal ruler which preceded that to the pope. Nevertheless, there remained for the pope a certain privilege over the internal and external relations of the Austrian Church; and, when possible, the emperor tried to gain his consent to the ecclesiastical reforms. ### 3. Position of the Clergy in the State. The special jurisdiction of the clergy was abolished, the clergy was subjected to the legislative and judicial powers, bishops were to wait for the placet for their consecration and the State assumed matrimonial legislation (1783). As it was the aim of Joseph to bring the clergy into closer connection with the Austrian State and make its representatives more efficient in their profession than had been possible under the old system, he placed their education in the hands of the central authority of civil instruction, the imperial commission of schools. The theological students were forbidden to visit the Collegium Germanicum et Hungaricum in Rome (Nov. 18, 1781), which institution was replaced by a Collegium Germanicum et Hungaricum in Pavia. In 1783 the theological schools in the monasteries were closed, and "general seminaries" were opened as State institutions under the superintendence of the imperial commission. As the monasteries were regarded as the chief seats of all sentiments inimical to the State, and as they deprived the State of a great number of efficient men that were urgently needed for the multitude of new parishes, a law of Jan. 12, 1782, ordered the dissolution of all religious orders not engaged in preaching, teaching, or nursing the sick. In this way the number of monasteries in Austria and Hungary was reduced from 2,163 to 1,425. ### 4. Reforms Affecting the Cure of Souls. No less comprehensive, and evincing the same character, were the reforms relating to the internal life of the Church. The emperor made the greatest efforts to elevate the cure of souls and to adapt its organization to the needs of the changed conditions. Many of the monastic churches were transformed into parish churches. The emoluments of a religious State fund were used for the foundation of churches, pastorates, and chaplaincies; former monks were employed in pastoral work. At the same time Joseph deeply influenced the order of the church service. His aim was to do away with the merely external and mechanical practise of religion and further the ideal of the Enlightenment, the worship of God in spirit and in truth, and the practical love of fellow men. He paid special attention to preaching, to the instruction of youth, and to congregational singing. On Apr. 21, 1783, there was issued a new church order for Vienna, which served as a pattern for the whole country. All orders of service which went beyond the Roman ritual were done away. The Latin language was abolished, and the German introduced into the services. Rules were given with respect to the luxurious ornamentation of the churches, the magnificent proemiong, the brilliant illuminations, exhibition of relics, pilgrimages, etc. A rational and systematic care of the poor and sick was substituted for begging and the arbitrary giving of alms. ### 5. Religious Toleration Established. An edict of Oct. 13, 1781, established religious toleration for the whole Hapsburg monarchy, for the German and Bohemian countries, Hungary and her dependencies, Italy, and the Netherlands. The adherents of the Augsburg and Helvetic confessions, as well as members of the Greek Church, obtained a limited freedom of worship. Each group of a hundred families was permitted to build a meeting-house, but without bells, steeples, or street entrances, and a school and employ their own teachers and subordinate pastors, who were to be confirmed by the emperor. Civil disqualifications arising from denominational differences were abolished. In German countries, Bohemia, and Moravia the number of non-Catholics in 1782 was 73,722. By 1788 this number had increased to 156,865. The number of tolerated congregations in Hungary and Transylvania in 1783 was 272; in 1784 it was 758. By collections in Austria and Hungary, in the empire, in the Evangelical Netherlands, in Switzerland, Denmark, and Russia, considerable sums were raised for the organization of Evangelical congregations. The government itself made efforts to establish order and develop the inner conditions of the Protestant churches. A special consistory was formed for the Protestants in Germany, Bohemia, and Moravia. ### 6. Successes and Failures of the Reforms. It is self-evident that such an enormous revolution in all spheres met with the strongest opposition, especially from the Curia. On Mar. 22, 1782, Pius VI. paid a visit to Vienna to expostulate with the emperor; but he was received with cold politeness and returned without having accomplished his purpose. In the old countries of the Hapsburg crown the sentiment was very different. Among the bishops Joseph had friends and foes. The Febronian views of the Enlightenment (q.v.) were represented by the archbishop of Salzburg, as well as by the bishops of Königgrätz, Wiener Neustadt, Laibach, Seckau, etc., while the old ecclesiastical views were adhered to by the archbishop of Vienna and the Hungarian episcopate under the leadership of its primate. In the German and Bohemian countries the ecclesiastical reforms as a whole went through peacefully, though the changes in the cultus and in ecclesiastical ethics caused some bitterness. The political-social reforms pleased peasants and citizens, but aroused the opposition of the privileged classes. In Hungary the ecclesiastical reforms were carried out without opposition, but the political and social revolutions necessitated by the centralizing tendency of the emperor, as, for instance, the attempts to break the old constitution of Hungary and Transylvania, to govern the country in a despotic manner by State officers, to introduce German as the official language, and to abolish serfdom with the privileges of the nobility and the clergy, enraged the Magyar nobility in such a way that on Jan. 30, 1790, all political and social reforms had to be repealed. In the Netherlands the edict of toleration was promulgated November, 1781, and was carried out without difficulty, in spite of the opposition of the estates and the clergy. The other ecclesiastical provisions were opposed only by the clergy and the monastic orders. But here, too, the attempt to break the old feudal constitution, the self-government of the estates and the privileged position of the clergy and nobility in city and country, met in 1787 with the most violent opposition in all prominent circles. On Jan. 7, 1790, the provinces declared themselves independent, and the general political condition deprived the emperor of all hope of victory. Disappointed and defeated he died the following month. There is no doubt that the impatience and haste of his reforms greatly injured his work, and yet his reign became the starting-point for a new and higher development of Austria. The system of ecclesiastical legislation continued after his death, except that in the Netherlands his brother and successor Leopold was compelled to sacrifice all ecclesiastical innovations, even the edict of toleration, in order to regain his provinces. In Hungary and Transylvania the main bulk of the ecclesiastical reforms, and especially the edict of toleration, remained in force. In Austria most of the estates required the restitution of the old feudal conditions and the old domination of the Roman Catholic Church; but Leopold refused both. Of the ecclesiastical legislation only the "general seminaries" were discontinued. The bishops were allowed to erect their own institutions and to dispose of the order of church service. The great mass of reforms within the Church remained until 1848. At the time of Napoleon I. Josephinism extended over all the South German states, Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden, and Hesse. It was only in 1848 that it was entirely broken in Austria, as well as in the South German states. Only the edict of toleration remained in force in Austria, and was embodied in the constitution. (KARL MOLLER.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are: A. von Arneth, *Maria Theresia und Joseph II., ihre Korrespondenz*, 3 vols., Vienna, 1867; J. Kropatschek, *Handbuch . . . Verordnungen und Gesetze*, 19 vols., Vienna, 1785-91; *Codex juris ecclesiastici Josephini*, 2 vols., Presburg, 1788; *Sammlung der Verordnungen und Gesetze Kaisers Joseph II.*, 10 vols., Vienna, 1788. Consult: K. Ritter, *Kaiser Joseph und seine kirchlichen Reformen*, 2 vols., Regensburg, 1867; S. Brunner. *Die theologische Dienerschaft am Hofe Josephs II.*, Vienna, 1868; idem, *Die Mysterien der Aufklärung in Oesterreich 1770-1800*, ib. 1869; T. von Kern, *Die Reformen der Kaiserin Maria Theresia*, Leipsic, 1869; A. Wolf, *Die Aufhebung der Klöster in Innerösterreich*, Vienna, 1871; idem, *Oesterreich unter Maria Theresia, Joseph II., und Leopold II.*, Berlin, 1883; E. Friedberg, *Die Grenzen zwischen Staat und Kirche*, Tübingen, 1872; A. von Arneth, *Geschichte Maria Theresia*, ix. 1-260, Vienna, 1879; C. von Hock, *Der österreichische Staatsrath 1760-1848*, ib., 1879; E. Hubert, *La Condition des protestants en Belgique depuis Charles V. jusqu'à Joseph II.*, Brussels, 1882; G. Frank, *Das Toleranzpatent Kaisers Joseph II.*, Vienna, 1882; L. Leger, *Hist. of Austro-Hungary*, London, 1889; H. Schlitter, *Die Regierung Josefs II.*, vol. i., Vienna, 1900; F. Frisch, *Kaiser Joseph II.*, ib. 1903; J. Bryce, *The Holy Roman Empire*, New York, 1904; F. Geier, *Die Durchführung der kirchlichen Reformen Josephs II.*, Stuttgart, 1905; E. Gothein, *Der Breisgau unter Maria Theresia und Joseph II.*, Heidelberg, 1907; H. Franz, *Studien zur kirchlichen Reform Josephs II.*, 1908.

### JOSEPHUS, FLAVIUS. Life. Works. "Jewish War" and "Antiquities" (§ 1). Remaining Works (§ 2). Editions (§ 3). **I. Life:** Flavius Josephus, the Jewish historian, was born in the first year of the reign of Caligula, 37-38 A.D.; d. at Rome after 100 A.D. His father Matthias belonged to a respected family of priests in Jerusalem. Josephus reports proudly that at the age of sixteen he went through the three "philosophical schools" of the Jews, those of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, and that for the next three years he lived with a hermit named Banus. At the age of nineteen he publicly joined the Pharisees (*Vita*, i.-ii.). In 64 A.D. he undertook a journey to Rome to obtain the release of certain imprisoned priests. He had hardly returned to Palestine when the great insurrection against the Romans broke out (66 A.D.). In the beginning Josephus was without doubt opposed to the rebellion, but after the first victories of the Jews, he, too, joined it, more by force than by free will; he even became commander in Galilee. As such he organized in the winter of 66-67 the military forces of Galilee and made preparations for the campaign which began in the spring of 67. Activities centered around the fortress of Jotapata, which was for six weeks bravely and cleverly defended by Josephus against the army of Vespasian. After the capture of Jotapata he became a prisoner of the Romans; after the second year of his imprisonment he was released by Vespasian, who in 69 had become emperor. He then adopted the name of Flavius Josephus and devoted the remainder of his life to the interest of the Flavian emperors. He accompanied Vespasian to Alexandria, returned thence in the suite of Titus to Palestine and was in the army of the latter during the whole siege of Jerusalem in the year 70. After the capture of Jerusalem Titus took him to Rome, where he seems to have settled down to literary work. Vespasian gave him a dwelling-place in his own former residence, made him a Roman citizen, and presented him with an annual salary and a considerable tract of land in Judea. With the following emperors, Titus (79-81 A.D.) and Domitian (81-96 A.D.), Josephus enjoyed the same favor. It is not known how long he lived and in what relation he stood to the later emperors. He must have been living in the time of Trajan, since in his *Vita* he mentions King Agrippa II. as having already died (100 A.D.). ### II. Works: I. "Jewish War" and "Antiquities." The works of Josephus were all composed in the Greek language, with the exception of his first draft of the "Jewish War," which was in Aramaic. His principal purpose was to communicate to the Greco-Roman world the knowledge of the history of his people, whom he defends and glorifies in every possible way. The "History of the Jewish War," in seven books, is his earliest and most carefully written work. The first and second books gave a survey of Jewish history from the time of the Maccabees to the outbreak of the insurrection against the Romans. The rest of the work is a detailed account of the war from the beginning in 66 to the complete suppression in 73. It was written late in the reign of Vespasian (69 to 79 A.D.; cf. *War*, preface, chap. i.; *Ant*., preface, chap. i.). It was presented to Vespasian, Titus, and Agrippa II., and the author received commendation for the accuracy of his account. The "Antiquities" ("Jewish Archeology") is a comprehensive history of the Jewish people from the beginnings of Biblical history to the outbreak of the war in 66 **A.D.**, in twenty books, after the model of the *Romaike archaiologia* of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. It was completed in the thirteenth year of Domitian, 93-94 A.D. For the Biblical period (books I.-XI.) Josephus draws almost exclusively from the Bible in the Septuagint version, but he modifies the Biblical story and supplements it by legends, following current traditions. Here and there he seems to have employed also Hellenistic compilations of Biblical history, especially those of Demetrius and Artapanus. Finally, he inserted notices from Greek writers of profane history when he dealt, for instance, with the flood, with primitive man, with Phenician history, and the like. The post-Biblical period of Jewish history is treated by Josephus without any due sense of proportion according to the condition of his sources. He has little to say on the period from Alexander the Great to the time of the Maccabees, filling the gap with an extensive extract from Pseudo-Aristeas (see ARISTEAS) on the origin of the Greek translation of the Bible. For the history of the Maccabees (175-135 B.C.) he had an excellent source in I Maccabees (see APOCRYPRA, A, IV., 9), which he supplemented from the works of Polybius. The later history of the Hasmoneans seems to depend upon the more general works of Strabo and Nicolas of Damascus. The main source for the history of Herod (books XV.-XVII.) was Nicolaus Damascenus, who, as an intimate councilor of Herod, was acquainted with the internal history of the court and described in great detail the history of his land. The history from the death of Herod to the outbreak of the war (books XVIII.-XX.) is treated quite meagerly. For the last decades Josephus was able to draw from oral information or from his own experience. He inserted a number of documents--decrees of the Roman senate, letters of Roman magistrates, decrees of cities of Asia Minor under Roman influence, and the like--the majority of these dating from the time of Cæsar and Augustus and having high value. The genuineness of the passage on Jesus Christ (XVIII., iii. 3) is generally given up. ### 2. Remaining Works. The title affixed to the autobiography (*Vita*) of Josephus is misleading, since it recounts and justifies his activity in Galilee in the winter of 66-67 A.D. In this work Josephus attacks especially Justus of Tiberias, who, being a man of conservative tendencies, had, like Josephus, joined the insurrection more by force than by free will and had subsequently tried to exonerate himself for participation in the rebellion and to place the responsibility upon Josephus. The latter retaliated in his *Vita* by representing Justus as the chief agitator and himself as the real friend of the Romans. The work was written after the death of Agrippa II., therefore after 100 A.D. The *Contra Apionem* presents a well-written systematic apology for Judaism in reply to various attacks, especially in the literary world. The usual title *Contra Apionem* is misleading, since only a part of the work is occupied with the polemic against Apion. Porphyry (*De abstinentia*, iv. 11) quotes it under the title *Pros tous Hellenas*, the oldest Church Fathers under the title *Peri tes ton Joudaion archaiotetos*. Jerome was the first to use the title *Contra Apionem*. Since Josephus quotes in this work the "Antiquities" it must have been written later than 93 A.D. That IV Maccabees was wrongly ascribed by the Fathers to Josephus is now universally recognized. Similarly the work discussed in Photius, *Bibliotheca*, cod. 48, under the title *Peri tou pantos* or *Peri tes tou pantos aitias* or *Peri tes tou pantos ousias*, is of Christian origin and is quoted by the author of the *Philosophumena* as his own. The author of both is most probably Hippolytus, among whose works there is mentioned one entitled *Peri tou pantos*. A work projected by Josephus on theology seems never to have been written. ### 3. Editions. The first edition of the Greek text of the works of Josephus was published by Frobenius and Episcopius (Basel, 1544). It was followed by the Geneva editions of 1611 and 1634, and by the edition of Ittig (Leipsic, 1691). A text of the complete works, revised after manuscripts, was furnished by Hudson (2 vols., Oxford, 1720). Then came the editions of Havercamp (2 vols., Amsterdam, Leyden, Utrecht, 1726), of Oberthür (3 vols., Leipsic, 1782-1785), and of Richter (6 vols., Leipsic, 1826-27). On the basis of Havercamp's material the text was revised by Dindorf (2 vols., Paris, 1845-47). This was followed by the pocket edition of Bekker (6 vols., Leipsic, 1855-56). A comprehensive collation of all good manuscripts was made only in recent times by Niese; his efforts resulted in a critical edition which by the richness of the apparatus far excels all former editions (*Flavii Josephi opera edidit et apparatu critico instruxit Benedictus Niese*, 6 vols., Berlin, 1887-94; vol. vii. is a carefully compiled index, 1895). On the basis of Niese's apparatus appeared an edition by Naber (6 vols., Leipsic, 1888-96). There exists an early Latin translation of the complete works of Josephus, with the exception of the *Vita*. Cassiodorus seems to be the author of the Latin translation of the "Antiquities" and of the *Contra Apionem*. The first printed edition of the Latin Josephus was published by Johann Schüssler in Augsburg, 1470. Since then until the appearance of the first Greek edition it has been printed frequently, and the later editions were frequently corrected after the Greek. A critical edition of the Latin version, resting upon a comprehensive use of the sources, was begun by Boysen as vol. xxxvii. of the Vienna *CSEL* (Vienna, 1898). With the Latin translation of the *Bellum Judaicum* is not to be confounded a Latin condensation which is known under the name of Egesippus or Hegesippus. The name Egesippus is only a corruption from Josippus, a Latin form of "Josephus." The work has some original additions, dates from the second half of the fourth century A.D., and has been doubtfully ascribed to Ambrose. The first edition appeared in Paris, 1510; a critically revised text appeared under the title *Hegesippus qui dicitur sive Egesippus de bello Judaico ope codicis Casellani recognitus, ed. Weber, opus morte Weberi iuterruptum absolvit Caesar* (Marburg, 1864). Under the name Josippon or Joseph, son of Gorion, there exists a history of the Jewish people to the destruction of Jerusalem, in the form of a compendium written in Hebrew, which is in the main excerpted from Josephus but in many respects differs widely from him. There appeared an edition of it with a Latin translation, by J F. Breithaupt (Gotha, 1707, 1710). Since the sixteenth century the works of Josephus have been translated into almost all modern European languages. Among the English translations Traill's, giving the *Vita* and the *War*, are especially esteemed (London, 1862). [The standard English translation has long been that of W. Whiston (London, 1737, often reproduced, latest ed. by D. S. Margoliouth, 1906). Others were by T. Lodge (1602, and often); Sir R. L. l'Estrange (1702 and often); J. Court (1733, and often); E. Thompson and W. C. Price (2 vols., 1777-78); and T. Bradshaw (1792)]. (SCHÜRER.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: The best discussion is in Schürer, *Geschichte*, i. 74-106, 607-613, iii. 370, Eng. transl. I., i. 77-82, ii. 214-223, II. iii. 221-222; Schürer furnishes very abundant material in the original article in Hauck-Herzog, *RE*, ix. 377 sqq. A very full discussion is to be found in *DCB*, iii. 441-460. The older material is suggested in Fabricius-Harles, *Bibliotheca Graeca*, v. 49-56. Consult further: V. E. P. Chasles, *De l'autorité historique de Flavius Josèphe*, Paris, 1841; Creuzer, in *TSK*, xxvi (1853), 45-86, 906-928; Reuss, in *Revue de théologie*, 1859, pp. 253-319; W. A. Terwogt, *Het Leven van . . . Flavius Josephus*, Utrecht, 1863; R. Nicolai, *Griechische Literaturgeschichte*, ii. 2, pp. 553-559, Magdeburg, 1877; A. von Gutschmid, *Kleine Schriften*, iv. 336-384, Leipsic, 1893; C. Wachsmuth, *Einleitung in das Studium der alten Geschichte*, pp. 438-449, ib. 1895; Niese, in *Historische Zeitschrift*, lxxvi (1896), 193-237; Unger, in *SMA* philosophisch-philologische Klasse 1895, pp. 551-604, 1896, pp. 357-397, 1897, pp. 189-244; H. Peter, *Die geschichtliche Literatur über die römische Kaiserzeit*, i. 394-401, Leipsic, 1897; P. Krüger, *Philo und Josephus als Apologeten des Judentums*, ib. 1906; Ceillier, *Auteurs sacrés*, i. 314-327.

**JOSHUA,** jesh'yu-a: An Ephraimite, son of Nun, servant and helper of Moses (Ex. xxiv. 13), and his successor in the leadership of Israel (Num. xxvii. 18-23). On assuming the leadership, Joshua sent spies who were entertained by Rahab in Jericho, and on their return reported the situation in Canaan (Josh. i. 10-ii. 24). He then ordered preparations to be made for the invasion, which took place on the tenth day of the first month of the forty-first year after the exodus from Egypt. It has been said that Joshua used the fords of the Jordan; but the place and the season of the year are unfavorable to this supposition, since at that time the Jordan overflows its banks (Josh. iii. 15; I Chron. xii. 15). According to the narrative the upper waters of the river stayed as if dammed up, while the lower waters flowed off into the Dead Sea. The suggestion of Klostermann that the phenomenon may have been caused by a severe earthquake which raised the bed of the river or produced a landslide across the river bed, which was afterward carried away by the flood, offers a natural explanation of the way in which the river was crossed dry-footed. To preserve the memory of this crossing, the leader had twelve stones carried from the bed of the river and set up at Gilgal, midway between the river and Jericho (Josh. iv. 1-8, 20-24). The people were then circumcised and the feast of the Passover was celebrated. The promise made to Joshua that Yahweh, the leader of the host of the people which had become Yahweh's, would be his helper was fulfilled in the taking of Jericho, the walls of which were thrown down in an earthquake (Josh. v. 13-vi.), while of the inhabitants only Rahab and her family were saved alive. The punishment of Achan and the treaty secured by the Gibeonites' device followed. According to Deut. xxvii., after the capture of Ai Joshua led the people in a northerly direction to Ebal and Gerizim, and overcame a combination of Canaanites gathered to punish Gibeon for its treaty with Israel, on which occasion occurred what has been read as a miracle in the staying of the sun and the moon in their courses, to be interpreted probably as a subjective effect of the quickness and completeness of the victory ( Josh. x. 1-14). This was followed by the conquest of the southern part of the land as far as Kadesh-barnea and westward to Gaza ( Josh. x. 29 sqq.), succeeded by a third campaign in which the kings of the northern cities were subdued near Merom. While by these wars the country was won, with the exception of the Philistine and Phenician coast, not all was actually in the possession of the Hebrews; and several years after the ending of the campaigns Joshua's seat of government was still at Gilgal (Josh. xiv. 6). It was at this place that Joshua's second task was begun--the division of the land among the tribes. Judah, Ephraim, and Manasseh first received their allotments, and the ark was carried from Gilgal to Shiloh in Benjamin (Josh. xv.xviii. 1). This was followed by the allotment of the portions to the other tribes, and the permission to the East-Jordan tribes to return to their own district, having fulfilled their duty to the tribes west of the river (Josh. xviii.-xxii.). In anticipation of his death Joshua gathered first the elders and then the people at Shechem to receive his last instructions, which he commemorated by a pillar or stone under the terebinth at Shechem (Josh. xxiv. 26-27). He died at the age of one hundred and ten. (W. VOLCK†.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. H. Stähelin, in *TSK*, xxiv (1849), 394 sqq.; J. Sockel, *Die Eroberung des heiligen Landes durch Josua*, Gleiwitz, 1870; J. B. Meyer, *Joshua and the Land of Promise*, London, 1893; and the literature under JOSHUA, BOOK OF.

**JOSHUA, BOOK OF:** The sixth of the books of the Old Testament in the arrangement of the English Bible. ### Contents and Sources. According to the Hebrew canon, it is the first book of the second part, containing the prophetical-historical books. It was originally the conclusion of the Pentateuch. The conception of the Talmud ( *Baba bathra*, 14b) that Joshua was the author of the book is no longer tenable; nor is that of Keil, who regarded it as a unified book drawn up by an eye-witness of the events (cf. Josh. v. 1, R.V., margin). For contents see HEXATEUCH, § 2. The part which deals with the conquest bears the impress of those sections of the Pentateuch derived from *JE* (hardly to be distinguished in this book); the second part resembles more the style of the priestly writer, but with insertions of *JE* (xviii. 3-10). But throughout, these elements are more or less interwoven, with Deuteronomic portions also thrown in (especially in viii.; cf. viii. 30 sqq., with Deut. iv. 41-43, and note the Deuteronomic expressions in Josh. xxiii. 5, 11, 14). There are also expressions which linguistically belong neither to *JE* nor *P*, indicating that the redactor has employed other material: such are the combinations "the Lord, the God of Israel" (fourteen times, only elsewhere in the Hexateuch in Ex. v. 1, xxxii. 27), and the term "mighty men of valor" ( Josh. i. 14, etc.). Thus the work of several hands is distinguishable in the composition of the book. It appears from analysis that the parts belonging to P are later than those which are assigned to JE; and that JE and P lay before the Deuteronomist who composed the book found in the times of Josiah. It was he who closed the Pentateuch and made Joshua the beginning of the historical narrative, reediting it and working it over, but bestowing upon it no such care as he exercised upon the Pentateuch. There are indications that its text has had an independent history. In the book data are found which tend to fix the date of the sources out of which it was compiled or from which it was derived. Thus chap. viii. 28 must have been written long prior to Isa. x. 28; xvi. 10 must be earlier than the beginning of Solomon's reign (I Kings ix. 16); xv. 63 must precede the incident told in II Sam. v. 6; x. 13 can not be earlier than the time of David, since the book of Jasher contained David's elegy on Saul and Jonathan; vi. 25 and xiv. 14 do not imply that the source was contemporary with Rahab and Joshua, since the reference is to the descendants of Rahab and Caleb. That the part dealing with the division of the land rests on documents is in itself probable (cf. xviii. 9); and the absence of reports of strife over tribal boundaries implies that the boundaries were balled on an old decision. The list of kings, xii. 9 sqq., is regarded by Ewald as an old document. But variations in, e.g., the count of cities shows that the text has not remained unaltered (xv. 32, xix. 15, 38). This book with the first four books of the Pentateuch and parts of Deuteronomy was known to the prophets Hosea, Amos, and Micah. Thus the general scheme of history regarded by Micah se known to his contemporaries under Hezekiah agrees with that presented in Numbers and Joshua (Micah vi. 1 sqq., which recalls the narrative of JE). So in Amos there are reminiscences of the narrative of P (as in ii. 10, v. 25, vii. 4; cf. particularly ii. 7 with Lev. xx. 3, xxii. 2, 32). So Hos. xii. 4 may be compared with Gen. xxxv. 9 sqq., in which minutæ of agreement suggest that Hosea had the report of P before him. Historicity. The credibility of the narrative of the book has been assailed on the ground that it contains not history but legend. The chief occasion for this is comparison with Judges i. It is said that while Joshua implies the conquest of Canaan by the tribes in unison, Judges i. records the piecemeal occupation by individual tribes or aggregations. But Judges i. 1 professes to deal with what occurred after the death of Joshua, not with the events of his life. Moreover, while the general impression which the book of Joshua gives is that of a complete conquest, its individual expressions limit this (xxiii. 7, 12). Thus at Joshua's death no tribe had fully completed the conquest of the portion allotted to it, and especially the fortresses and plains remained in Canaanitic possession. Thus Judges i. appears as the story of the continuation of the subjugation of the land, and there is no contradiction between that chapter and the account in Joshua. The credibility is also attacked on the ground that the narrative concerning the East-Jordan tribes is unnatural. Similarly the narrative of the division is assailed, needlessly, since the prospective nature of the division is implied in the allotment of the Philistine and Phenician coastland, which was not conquered. The objection urged because of the miracles stands upon the same ground as objections to the super-natural in other books of Scripture. As Israel's origin is to be distinguished from that of other peoples, so is the shaping of its subsequent history. The relation of the book of Joshua to Judges is such that the latter appears in several cases to have borrowed from the former. The Septuagint has at the close of Joshua an addition, partly apocryphal and partly derived from the book of Judges, to the effect that the Israelites of that time changed the location of the ark, that Phinehas succeeded his father Eleazar in the priesthood and was buried in his father's grave, and that Israel worshiped the gods of the people who surrounded them and were under the dominion of Eglon, king of Moab, eighteen years. (W. VOLCK†.) For the Samaritan book of Joshua see SAMARIA, SAMARITANS. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Commentaries are: C. Steuernagel, Göttingen, 1900; F. J. B. Maurer, Stuttgart, 1831; C. F. Keil, Erlangen, 1847, 1874, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1857; A. Knobel, Leipsic, 1881; T. E. Espin, in *Bible Commentary*, London, 1872; H. Crosby, New York, 1875; G. A. McLeod, Cambridge, 1878; J. J. Lias, in *Pulpit Commentary*, London, 1881; C. F. A. Dillmann, Leipsic, 1886; J. Lloyd, London, 1886; J. S. Black, Cambridge, 1891; S. Oettli, Munich, 1893; W. H. Bennett, in *SBOT*, Baltimore, 1895; F. W. Spurling, London, 1901. Questions of criticism are discussed in: J. E. Carpenter and G. Harford-Battersby, *The Pentateuch*, London, 1900; L. König, *Alttestamentliche Studien*, vol. i., Meurs, 1836 (decides the book a unit and Joshua its author); J. W. Colenso, *The Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua critically Examined*, London, 1862-71; Himpel, in *TQS*, 1864-65; J. Hollenberg, in *TSK*, xlvii (1874), 462-506; idem, *Die alexandrinische Uebersetzung des Buches Josua*, Meurs, 1876; K. Budde, in *ZATW*, vii (1887), pp. 93 sqq.; E. Albers, *Die Quellenberichte in Josua i.-xii.*, Bonn, 1890; *DB*, ii. 779-788; *EB*, ii. 2600-2609; *JE*, vii. 284-288; and the various works cited under BIBLICAL INTRODUCTION, and the pertinent sections in works on the history of Israel given under AHAB.

**JOSIAH,** jo-sai'a: Fifteenth king of Judah, son and successor of Amon. His dates, according to the old chronology, are 641-610 B.C., according to Kautzsch, 640-609 B.C., and he became king at the age of eight years. The detailed accounts of his reign (II Kings xxii.-xxiii.; II Chron. xxxiv.-xxxv.) begin with his eighteenth year; the Chronicler's remark in II Chron. xxxiv. 3 probably depends upon II Kings xxiii. 4 sqq. According to II Kings xxii. 3 sqq., Josiah ordered the temple to be repaired, which had probably not been done since the reign of Joash (II Kings xii. 11 sqq.) and Hilkiah the priest then reported that he had found in the temple the book of the law. Its contents so overwhelmed the king with apprehensions of evil that he rent his clothes, and an oracle was sought from Huldah the prophetess, who reported that the threatenings were to be realized, since the book was true. The king then summoned to Jerusalem the elders of the people, the priests, and the prophets ("priests and Levites," II Chron. xxxiv. 30), and to them the book was read. There followed a thorough cleansing of the temple and city of the accessories to idolatrous worship, and to this was added abolition of the worship on the high places, while the priests of that service were brought to the capital, where, though excluded from service at the sanctuary, they received the emoluments of their order. Josiah then turned his attention to high places in what had been the northern kingdom, especially to that at Bethel, and they were defiled with the bones of the dead. The work was concluded by a notable observance of the Passover rendered memorable apparently by the numbers and unity of those celebrating. The historic value of the reports about the reform of the cultus is bound up with the question as to what the law book was which was discovered, and can be solved only in connection with criticism of the Pentateuch (see HEXATEUCH). In case this book was not one which had been lost to sight, but was an unknown and new codification having for its purpose the abolition of worship at the high places and concentration of worship at Jerusalem, the conclusion is forced that it was practically identical with Deuteronomy; but it does not follow that the transaction was due to Hilkiah and the prophets of that time, while priestly interests were not served by the publication of the book. The noteworthy fact is the forcible impression it made upon Josiah and his contemporaries and its bearing upon the Josianic reformation. The results were important for the history of Israel, since the unity of cult had symbolic relation to the monotheistic conception of deity. Josiah's reform created a new basis for the activity of the prophets, it affected worship in the second temple, and set forth the unity of God as the center of thought in the religion of Israel. The questions arise, with what right did Josiah extend his efforts in behalf of a pure cultus into the northern kingdom, and why did he throw himself across the path of Pharaoh Necho when the latter was on his way to the Euphrates. While the northern region was nominally under the rule of Assyria, that power was about to fall. The time would seem ripe for what had been foretold by the prophets, the unification of Israel and Judah, and religious unification was the first step toward political reunion. Such a plan he might hope to carry through as a loyal vassal of Babylonia, especially in withstanding the attempts of Egypt to gain new position as a world power. But the issue did not correspond to his hopes, and Josiah was defeated and killed, and brought back for burial to Jerusalem. Some debate has arisen over the place of the battle, since Herodotus (ii. 159) names instead of the Biblical Megiddo Magdolus, which corresponds to the modern al-Majdal, two miles west of Carmel or (Winckler, in Benzinger, *Die Bücher der Könige*, p. 207, Tübingen, 1899) Strato's Tower. Possibly Megiddo appears in the Biblical narrative because it was the place to which the wounded king was carried and where he died. Yet it hardly seems as though the Jews could have completely lost the correct tradition. Another and somewhat variant report appears in II Chron. xxxv. 22 sqq., according to which the remonstrance of Necho takes the form of an oracle from God, makes Josiah put on a disguise, and when wounded has him carried to Jerusalem with the implication that he died there (on holy ground?); the Chronicler tells also of a lament of Jeremiah for Josiah and a collection of dirges in his memory, with which Jer. xxii. 10 and Zech. xii. 11 may be brought into connection, perhaps as indicating a yearly memorial celebration. (E. KAUTZSCH.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: The pertinent sections in the literature mentioned under AHAB; the articles in the Bible dictionaries; the literature under HEXATEUCH, since the discussions of Deuteronomy and of the Pentateuch involve discussions of Josiah's reform and its legal basis.

**JOST,** yest, **ISAAK MARCUS:** German Jewish historian; b. at Bernburg (23 m. s. of Magdeburg) Feb. 22, 1793; d. at Frankfort Nov. 22, 1860. He studied at the Samson school at Wolfenbüttel, at the gymnasium at Brunswick, and at the universities of Göttingen and Berlin (Ph.D., 1816), became principal of the Bock school in Berlin in 1826, and in 1835 was called to the Jewish Realschule (Philanthropin) at Frankfort. His principal works are, *Geschichte der Israeliten seit der Zeit der Maccabäer bis auf unsere Tage* (10 vols., Berlin, 1820-47); *Allgemeine Geschichte des israelitischen Volkes* (2 vols., 1831-32); a German translation of the Mishnah, with Hebrew commentary (6 vols., 1832-34); and *Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Sekten* (3 vols., Leipsic, 1857-59). He also prepared school text-books, wrote political tracts in the interest of Judaism, made many contributions to the Jewish press, and to almanacs and year-books, edited the *Israelitische Annalen*, 1839-1841, and, in collaboration with Michael Creizenach, edited *Zion*, 1841-42. He holds high rank as historian, though he has been criticized for his rationalistic attitude toward the narratives in the Talmudic sources. BIBLIOGRAPHY: *JE*, vii, 296-297, where further literature is given.

**JOTHAM,** jo'tham: **1.** The youngest son of Gideon (Jerubbaal), who alone escaped the massacre of the Gideon family by his half-brother Abimelech, uttered his famous parable of the trees which sought a king, and then fled to Beer (Judges ix. 5-21). **2.** Tenth king of Judah, son and successor of Uzziah. His dates, according to the old chronology, are 756-740 B.C., according to Peake (*DB*, ii. 789) 751-735 B.C. Confusion in the chronology of Israel is marked about this period, since II Kings xv. 30 assigns to Jotham at least twenty years, while data from the Assyrian annals allow only twelve years for his reign and that of Ahaz. It is supposed that the regnal years accredited to Jotham include those of his regency during his father's disability. Of his reign little is reported in the Book of Kings except that he "built the higher gate of the house of the Lord." The Chronicler adds that he built much of the wall of Ophel, also cities and fortresses; and that he subdued the Ammonites and imposed a heavy tribute upon them. The Book of Kings notes also that in his days the coalition between Syria and Israel against Judah began to be effective, the object being apparently to force Judah into the combination against the Assyrians, who were beginning to press heavily upon the Mediterranean region. The time seemed ripe for such plans, since Tiglath-Pileser was at the time engaged in the East. The great prophet of the times was Isaiah, and the picture in Isa. ii. 5 indicates that, in spite of apparent prosperity in the land, the internal conditions were not favorable. (E. KAUTZSCH.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. The commentaries on Judges, particularly those by Moore and Budde. 2. Sources are: II Kings xv. 5, 32-38; II Chron. xxvii. Consult the pertinent sections in the literature given under AHAB, and the articles in the Bible dictionaries.

JOVIANUS, jo"vi-d'nus, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS: Roman emperor; b. at Singidunum (the modern Belgrade, Servia) about 331; d. at Dadastana, Bithynia (125 m. e.s.e. of Constantinople) in the night between Feb. 16 and 17, 364. Taking part in the campaign against the Persians, as ranking officer of the palace troops, in the crisis following the death of Julian he was hastily elected emperor by the army in sight of the enemy, June 27, 363. The fact that Jovian was a Christian and had withstood attempts during the reign of Julian to render him apostate seems to have played no part in his election. The newly elected emperor, in view of the military and political situation of the time, was induced to conclude an inglorious peace with the Persians, giving up to them the eastern outskirts of the empire, including the important city of Nisibis. On his return from the East at Antioch Jovian publicly stated his attitude in regard to the controversies in the Church. He took the side of the Nicene party and their leader Athanasius, urging the latter in a written appeal to resume his episcopal see at Alexandria and asking to be remembered in his prayers. He commanded Athanasius, who visited him at Antioch, to issue a new statement of the orthodox creed, and thus his authority certainly influenced the controversies regarding the nature of Christ, although he tried to hold aloof from them officially. His aim was to restore matters as they were before the reign of Julian, and so he replaced on the army standards and on the coins the monogram of Christ, recalled the bishops from exile, renewed the privileges of the Church and of the clergy, widows, and virgins, and restored the donations of corn. He imposed the death penalty on whosoever married a virgin or a widow who had taken the vows, even with the woman's consent, and forbade the inheritance of their parents' property by the children of such an union. Yet he also showed much tolerance toward pagans. VICTOR SCHULTZE. BIBLIOGRAPHY: V. Schultze, *Geschichte des Unterganges des griechisch-römischen Heidentums*, i. 176 sqq., Jena, 1887; H. Richter, *Das weströmische Reich*, pp. 168 sqq., Berlin, 1865; H. Schiller, *Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit*, ii. 344 sqq., 1887; Gibbon, *Decline and Fall*, ii. 506, 517 sqq.; Neander, *Christian Church*, ii. 87-89 et passim; Schaff, *Christian Church* iii. 60; the literature under JOVINIANUS, and De la Bleterie, *Hist. de l'empereur Jovien*, 2 vols., Amsterdam, 1740.

**JOVINIAN:** A "heretic" who became conspicuous in Rome after 385 as a polemical writer against undue valuation of the celibate and ascetic life. Prior to this time he had lived in celibacy as a strict ascetic, but coincidently with his appearance in public he modified his ascetic living, allowing himself indulgence in flesh food, wearing better clothing, visiting the baths, and by no means shunning association with youths and women. Nevertheless he stayed single, deeming this estate the one divinely enjoined for him. He lived quite after the manner of the pre-monastic, Western ascetics, and may be considered an advocate of the ancient ascetic régime, which waged a desperate battle in Rome against the new and intensified forms of Oriental monasticism. In this process he came to certain fundamental conclusions that stood opposed to theories which had long been shared by the Church. As a consequence of his agitation against monasticism, many men and women gave up the celibate life. That frivolous natures also attached themselves to Jovinian, considering him an advocate of relaxed Christian morality, may easily be believed on the testimony of Jerome. The Roman Bishop Siricius, in deference to denunciation by the monastic circle at Rome, excommunicated Jovinian and his followers in 390, and forwarded the decision to foreign bishops, in particular to Ambrose of Milan. Jovinian having betaken himself with his most loyal adherents to Milan, Ambrose made haste to excommunicate him in 391; and Jerome, about 392, by instigation of his Roman friends, wrote two books against him. Since these, however, were considered somewhat too polemical, Jerome sought to soften their tone without really yielding (*Epist*., xlviii.-li). The strife revived again at Milan, and Ambrose wrote a warning against Jovinian's heretical doctrines (*Epist*., lxxxiii.). Augustine wrote the tract *De bono conjugali* against the Jovinian heresy, but without expressly naming Jovinian. He was dead in 406 (Jerome, *Adv. Vigilantium*, i.). Jovinian's doctrinal views are known only through the writings of his opponents, who have transmitted some of his theses verbatim, but as regards the inner connection of thought, we are limited to hypothetical constructions. He wrote a work which Jerome calls *commentarioli*, seeking to adduce Scriptural evidences for his theses, but by no means excluding support from profane literature. His doctrines all converge upon opposition to monasticism. In the letters of Siricius two erroneous teachings of Jovinian are named. According to the first, virgins, widows, and married people, baptized in Christ, have equal merit, save in so far as otherwise they differ in respect to their works; and, secondly, fasting is nowise better, more meritorious and pleasing to God than the enjoyment of food, observed with thanksgiving. In the synodal decision of Ambrose at Milan, two other erroneous teachings are attributed to Jovinian; viz., that he denied the inviolate virginity of Mary, and a difference in the celestial reward of the righteous. In combating the growing dogma of the unimpaired virginity of Mary, wherein the monks were especially interested for the glorification of celibacy, Jovinian desired to deal a stinging blow on the followers of monasticism. He adhered to the virgin birth of Jesus, but affirmed that by bringing to birth, Mary ceased to be virgin. As a deduction from the parity of marriage and virginity, Jovinian appears to have advanced another proposition transmitted by Jerome; viz., that all the regenerate who have preserved their baptismal grace receive the same recompense in the kingdom of heaven, irrespectively of their having lived in the married estate or as virgins. In the light of these thoughts, the last and most difficult proposition of Jovinian becomes intelligible. He affirmed the essential sinlessness of the regenerate. How he expanded this proposition in detail is not known. On the strength of this tenet, Jerome related him theologically to Pelagius; Julian of Eclanum classed him with Augustine; and Augustine, in turn, associated him with Pelagianism. G. GRÜTZMACHER. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are: Jerome, *Adversus Jovinianum*, and *Epist*., xlviii.-l., Eng. transl. in *NPNF*, 2d ser., vi. 66-82, 334-345; Augustine, *Haer*., chap. lxxxii.; Siricius. *Epist. ii. ad diversos episcopos*, in Mansi, *Concilia*, iii. 663 sqq.; Ambrose, *Epist*., viii., lxxxiii., in Mansi, *Concilia*, i. 669 sqq., v. 554 sqq. Consult: G. B. Lindner, *De Joviniano et Vigilantio*, Leipsic, 1839; J. H. Blunt, *Dictionary of Sects and Heresies*, pp. 242-244, Philadelphia, 1874; W. Haller, *Jovinianus*, Leipsic, 1897; G. Grützmacher, *Hieronymus*, ii. 145-172, Berlin, 1906: *DCB*, iii. 465-466.

**JOWETT**, jau'et, **BENJAMIN:** English educator and author; b. in the parish of Camberwell, London, Apr. 15, 1817; d. at Headley Park, Liphook (22 m. e. of Winchester), Hampshire, Oct. 1, 1893. He studied at St. Paul's School, London, and at Balliol College, Oxford (B.A., 1839; M.A., 1842), where he was elected fellow in 1838. In 1837 he won the Hertford university scholarship for Latin, and in 1841 the chancellor's prize for the Latin essay. He was ordained deacon in 1842, priest in 1845. In 1842 he was appointed to a tutorship at Balliol, which he held till he became master of the college in 1870. He was public examiner in classics 1849-51, and 1853. At Oxford he had fallen into the very midst of the Tractarian movement, and his Evangelical views were shaken by daily intercourse with his friend William George Ward (q.v.). In after years he said, "But for the providence of God, I might have become a Roman Catholic." A more lasting influence, however, was that of A. P. Stanley, the leader of the Broad Church school, with whom Jowett traveled and studied in Germany in the summers of 1845 and 1846. On being defeated for the mastership of Balliol in 1854, Jowett, in his disappointment, took up with renewed energy a work that he and Stanley had projected on St. Paul, and published *The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians, arid Romans: with Critical Notes and Dissertations* (2 vols., London, 1855). This work brought forth a storm of protest from conservative quarters; and when, in the same year, Jowett was appointed regius professor of Greek at Oxford, those who condemned his views at once began to oppose him. He was denounced to the vice-chancellor, who required him to sign the Articles anew in his presence, Jowett's opponents kept up the agitation against him for ten years, preventing him from receiving the full emoluments of his chair till 1865. Meanwhile he had reiterated his objectionable views in a second edition of the *Epistles* (2 vols., 1859) and confirmed the suspicions of his heresy by his essay *On the Interpretation of Scripture*, published in 1860 in the famous *Essays and Reviews*. A prosecution begun against him in the vice-chancellor's court at Oxford, Feb. 20, 1863, was soon dropped (see E SSAYS AND R EVIEWS). Henceforth Jowett refrained from publishing anything of a theological nature. Though he preached frequently in the college chapel and in the university pulpit, and preached annually in Westminster Abbey from 1866 till the year of his death, he would not allow any of his sermons to be printed; nor would he permit a third edition of the *Epistles* to be issued during his lifetime (published after his death, condensed by Lewis Campbell, 2 vols., 1894). He was waiting to attain to greater clearness and certainty, hoping that these would come with time; but the exhausting labors which he took upon himself as master of Balliol after 1870, and as vice-chancellor of the university 1882-86, left him no leisure for elaborating his views. Jowett was an indefatigable worker. For years he made it a rule to see every undergraduate in the college once a week. He spared himself no efforts in tuition. Even as master of Balliol he continued the custom, begun in 1848, of taking a few pupils with him on the summer vacation. After 1866 his authority at Oxford was predominant in matters of university organization. He effected many needed reforms at Oxford, and exerted a large influence over the life and thought of his time. If he formed no school of philosophy or theology, by launching T. H. Green upon the study of Hegel he affected indirectly the whole development of recent speculation in England and America. As early as 1839 he had joined Stanley and Tait in the movement for university reform which led to the Commission of 1850 and the Act of 1854. He also took part in the educational reform which threw open the Indian civil service to competition and was a member of Lord Macaulay's committee, which reported in 1854. He was largely responsible for the University Tests Act of 1871, abolishing.the theological test, which had been required for the various degrees, and for college and university offices. The literary achievement that made Jowett famous was his translation of Plato's *Dialogues* (4 vols., London, 1871; 2d ed., 5 vols., 1875), which has become an English classic, and, with the introductory essay to the several dialogues, secures Jowett a permanent place in the history of English literature. He also translated Thucydides (2 vols., 1881), and Aristotle's *Politics* (2 vols., 1885), and spent many years on an edition of the Greek text of the "Republic" (completed by L. Campbell, 3 vols., Oxford, 1894). Though his work in theology was important, it was rather of a transitional nature. Three volumes of his sermons have been edited by W. H. Fremantle, viz., *College Sermons* (London, 1895) *Sermons, Biographical and Miscellaneous* (1899), and *Sermons on Faith and Doctrine* (1901). Evelyn Abbott and Lewis Campbell have edited his *Letters* (1899), and the latter a volume of *Theological Essays* (1906). The famous essay of *Essays and Reviews*, with the *Dissertations* from *The Epistles of St. Paul* and a sketch of Jowett's life by Sir Leslie Stephen from the National Review, 1897, is reprinted in *The Interpretation of Scripture and Other Essays* (1906) and also in *Scripture and Truth, Dissertations*, ed. Lewis Campbell (1907). Note also *Select Passages from the Theological Writings of B. Jowett*, ed. L. Campbell (1909). BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Abbott and L. Campbell, *Benjamin Jowett: Life and Letters of the Master of Balliol College, Oxford*, 3 vols., London, 1897-99; L. A. Tollemache, *Benjamin Jowett, Master of Balliol College*, ib. 1895; *DNB*, Supplement, iii. 49-56.

**JOWETT, JOHN HENRY:** English Congregationalist; b. at Halifax, Yorkshire, Aug. 25, 1864. He was educated in Hipperholme grammar-school and in the universities of Edinburgh (1883-87) and Oxford (1888-89). His first ministerial charge was as minister of St. James' Congregational Church in Newcastle-on-Tyne, where he was settled from 1889 till 1895, when he was called to succeed Robert William Dale (q.v.) as minister of Carr's Lane Congregational Church in Birmingham, and has ever since ministered to that people. In the summer of 1909 he visited the United States and was a prominent speaker in the Northfield Conference. His publications embrace: *From Strength to Strength* (London, 1898); *Meditations for Quiet Moments* (1899); *Brooks by the Traveller's Way: 26 Week-night Addresses* (1902); *Thirsting for Souls: 26 Week-night Meditations* (1902); Yet Another Day: a Prayer for Every Day in the Year (1904); *The Passion for Souls* (1905); *The Epistles of Peter* (1905); *The Silver Lining* (1907); *The High Calling: Meditations on St. Paul's Letter to the Philippians* (1909).

**JUAN DE TORQUEMADA** See TORQUEMADA, JUAN DE.

**JUBILEE, YEAR OF:** An institution of the Roman Catholic Church the origin of which is very closely connected with the tendency increasingly prevalent throughout the Middle Ages to make pilgrimages to the tombs of the apostles in Rome. Toward the end of the thirteenth century this tendency was stronger than ever, and the throng of pilgrims was increased by the rumor that on the first day of the new century a plenary indulgence might be obtained, and throughout the remainder of that year one valid for a hundred years. It was found impossible to trace the rumor to any authoritative source; but an aged peasant professed to remember that his father had gone to Rome a hundred years before to win a great indulgence, and had admonished him to look, if he were alive, for the recurrence of the opportunity a century later. Finally, Feb. 22, 1300, by the bull *Antiquorum habet fidem*, Boniface VIII. officially proclaimed a plenary indulgence that might be gained from Christmas throughout the next year, on condition of visits paid during thirty days by Romans, fifteen by strangers, to the basilicas of Saints Peter and Paul. Such indulgences had never previously been granted for more than seven years, and this liberal extension caused immense crowds to throng to Rome. If there had been no other cause for the maintenance of the institution, the large revenues which flowed from it into not only the papal coffers but the pockets of the townspeople would have been a reason to await eagerly the time of its recurrence. In 1342 the Romans sent a deputation to Clement VI. at Avignon to ask him to shorten the interval to fifty years. The request was supported by St. Bridget of Sweden and by Petrarch, and in response to it the pope proclaimed a similar indulgence for 1350. In spite of the Black Death and the obstacles offered by the Hundred Years' War, a greater multitude visited Rome than on the first occasion. The pilgrimage was rendered more desirable by the suspension for the year of all the ordinary indulgences, and easier by the permission given to all conditions of men to make it without obtaining the leave of their immediate superiors; while those who were lawfully hindered from taking the journey might gain the indulgence by proxy. An innovation to be later of great importance was the granting of the indulgence to certain royalties without pilgrimage; the same privilege was conceded to the Augustinians assembled in chapter at Basel, and to the archbishop of Brindisi for thirty persons, these latter paying a sum equivalent to the cost of the visit to Rome. Urban VI. in the bull *Salvator noster* (Apr. 8, 1389) altered the period to thirty-three years, in honor of the earthly life of Christ. The third jubilee was thus held in 1390, and the fourth in 1423 under Martin V., this time with diminished numbers and not without protests such as had been heard at the councils of Pisa and Constance against the impoverishment of the nations by the avarice of the Curia. Nicholas V., returning to the older period, proclaimed the fifth jubilee for 1450. Through the bull *Ineffabilis* (Apr. 19, 1470), having regard to the shortness of human life, Paul II. established the interval at twenty-five years. The sixth jubilee under Sixtus IV. in 1475 was comparatively poorly attended. The seventh, under Alexander VI. (1500), was more important, and in connection with it the ritual since in the main observed for the opening and closing of the "golden door" in the vestibule of St. Peter's was settled. The eighth, under Clement VII. (1525), was only notable for the sharp criticisms of Luther on the "bull of indiction." The ninth, proclaimed by Paul III. in 1549, shortly before his death, could not be inaugurated until the coronation of his successor Julius III., Feb. 22, 1550. The tenth, under Gregory XIII. (1575), was rendered notable by the lavish hospitality offered to the pilgrims by the Roman sodalities, and by the fact that the influence of the Reformation is seen in there being no mention of money payments. The succeeding jubilees, at regular intervals of twenty-five years from 1600 to 1775, present no special features. The troublous situation did not allow one to be held, in 1800, and the nineteenth, proclaimed by Leo XII. in 1825, found few participants from outside of Italy. After a break of seventy-five years, the twentieth was held with all the traditional ceremonies under Leo XIII. in 1900. For the Year of Jubilee among the Hebrews, see SABBATICAL YEAR AND YEAR OF JUBILEE. (T. KOLDE.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. C. Lea, *History of Auricular Confession and Indulgences*, vol. iii., Philadelphia, 1896: F. Beringer, *Die Ablasse, ihr Wesen und Gebrauch*, Paderborn, 1895; Creighton, *Papacy*, i. 30, 103, 113, 166-167, ii. 115, iv. 79, v. 8-9, vi. 68-75; V. Prinzivalli, *Gli anni santi*, Rome, 1899; A. de Waal, *Das heilige Jahr in Rom*, Frankfort, 1899; J. C. Hedley, *The Holy Year*, London, 1900; H. Thurston, *The Holy Year of Jubilee*, ib. 1900.

**JUBILEES, BOOK OF:** See PSEUDEPIGRAPHA, OLD TESTAMENT, IV., 33.

**JUD, LEO:** The most prominent associate of Zwingli and after him of Bullinger; b. at Gemar (30 m. s.w. of Strasburg), Alsace, 1482; d. at Zurich June 19, 1542. He received excellent humanistic instruction at Schlettstadt, and in 1499 entered the University of Basel where he first studied medicine. Influenced by the lectures of Thomas Wyttenbach on the Epistle to the Romans, he devoted himself to theology, together with Zwingli, whose intimate friend he became. In the second decade of the sixteenth century he was preacher at St. Pilt in Alsace. In 1518 he succeeded Zwingli in Einsiedeln, where he worked for the Reformation in the spirit of Zwingli. In 1523 he became pastor of St. Peter's in Zurich. On the occasion of Zwingli's first disputation with the papists, Jud openly expressed his determination to preach the pure Gospel, and in the autumn of 1523 he married a nun. He assisted Zwingli much as Melanchthon did Luther, supporting him in his struggle against the Anabaptists, in the controversy on the Lord's Supper, and in his literary labors by editing his expositions of Scripture and translating his published works into German or Latin. On the death of Zwingli after the battle of Cappel he stood temporarily at the head of the Zurich Church, but the opposition party turned against him as one of the chief instigators of the war. Heinrich Bullinger, the successor of Zwingli, was assisted by him in the same unselfish and successful manner as was Zwingli. Leo demanded the mutual independence of Church and State. The Church, he maintained, should not be hindered in the execution of its peculiar tasks, especially of discipline, to which, like Calvin, he attached great value. At the same time all compulsion in matters of faith should be abolished. In the efforts for union of the Lutherans and Reformed he defended Zwingli and Oecolampadius against Luther and warned the Strasburg theologians of the "new pope." He took a prominent part in the discussions on the formulation of the first Helvetic Confession, in Aarau and Basel, and his German translation of the Latin original was declared the authentic text. He laid the foundation of the Zurich liturgy by his compilation of a formula of baptism (1523) and other parts of the church service. He possessed extraordinary gifts as a translator and was the leading spirit in the translation of the Zurich Bible, which, beginning in 1538, he compared word by word with the original text, being assisted by Michael Adam, a converted Jew (see BIBLE VERSIONS, B, VII., § 5). Besides this German translation of the Bible Leo rendered great services by his famous and careful Latin translation of the Old Testament which may be considered the principal work of his life. He published also a larger (1534) and a smaller catechism (1534) in German and a Latin catechism (1538). He translated the "Imitation of Christ," Augustine's *De spiritu et littera*, and works of contemporaneous authors. (EMIL EGLI†.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: A *Vita* was written by his son Johannes, printed in *Miscellanea Tigurina*, Zurich, 1724; the later life is by C. Pestalozzi, Elberfeld, 1860. Consult also: *KL*, vi. 1911-14; J. J. Mezger, *Geschichte der deutschen Uebersetzungen*, pp. 67 sqq., Basel, 1876; S. M. Jackson, *Huldreich Zwingli*, New York, 1903.

**JUDAH** (Hebr. *Yehudhah*; **LXX,** *Ioudas*, "praise," originally combined with the name of a deity, later a very common name among the Jews): Fourth son of Jacob and Leah, coming, however, to occupy the place of the first-born; also the leading tribe of the Hebrews, tracing descent from him. His character, in the combined narratives of J and E, while not without its faults, is on the whole noble, energetic and trustworthy, in spite of Gen. xxxviii., which is regarded as Ephraimitic in origin and consequently written with a bias. Later writers incline to the view that the name is not that of an individual but of a clan, and explain the Hirah of xxxviii. 1 as also that of a clan, extending the same notion to the names Er, Onan; Shelah, Pharez, and Zarah. But the narratives suggest rather the traits of an individual from whom the tribe inherited its energy and faithful adherence to law. Jacob's blessing (Gen. xlix. 8-12) transfers the birthright of Reuben to Judah, passing over Simeon and Levi, and describes the lion-hearted tribe of the future in its land of wine and milk. In Egypt the tribe became the largest in numbers, including three principal clans and two lesser clans (Num. xxvi. 20-21; cf. I Chron. iv. 1), while in Caleb (q.v.) there is seen a non-Israelitic tribe which coalesced with Judah. The genealogy in I Chron. ii. 3 sqq., is given with especial reference to the descent of David through Nahshon (verse 10, cf. Num. i. 7). The two censuses in the wandering give respectively 74,600 and 76,500 men (Num. i. 27, xxvi. 22), and the arrangement of the camp gives the primacy to Judah (Num. ii. 3), which the energetic Caleb led (Num. xiii. 6). After Joshua's death, the tribe took the leadership in the conflict with the Canaanites (Judges i., cf. xx. 18), though confining its operations to its own territory and that of Simeon, in the south. The tribal possessions, described in Josh. xv. 1-12, were divided into four parts: the mountains of Judah, the eastern declivity down to the Dead Sea, the southern slope toward Edom, and the plain toward the Mediterranean, which last, however, remained in the hand of the Philistines (see JUDEA). During the period of the Judges, the tribe took little part in the conflicts of its northern neighbors (Judges iii. 9, xii. 8, cf. x. 9, xv. 9 sqq.). It had no share in the campaign against Sisera or in Gideon's struggle with Midian; in the former case because it was politically isolated from the Joseph tribes, though not to the extent asserted by Stade. Even in Saul's time it was not prominent in the army (I Sam. xi. 8, xv. 4), but with the accession of David its eminence began (II Sam. ii. 4). The capture of Jerusalem gave it increased prestige through its possession of a center of strength. Its fidelity was constant, and even in the return the greater number of the returning exiles belonged to this tribe. Its greatest honor, however, consisted in its giving to the world the Messiah who, as the "lion of the tribe of Juda" (Rev. v. 5), overcame the world and established an eternal kingdom. For the history of the kingdom of Judah, see ISRAEL, HISTORY OF. (C. VON ORELLI.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: In addition to the literature given under AHAB; ISRAEL, HISTORY OF; and JUDEA, consult: L. B. Paton, *Early History of Syria and Palestine*, New York, 1901; G. A. Barton, *Semitic Origins*, pp. 271-286, ib. 1902; *DB*, ii. 792-794; *EB*, ii. 2617-2623; *JE*, vii. 326-330.

**JUDAS**, ju'das: One of the twelve Apostles. The name occurs in the New Testament only in the lists of the Apostles, yet, including the matter of the reading of the text, it raises several knotty problems. This Judas is to be distinguished from Judas Iscariot on the basis of John xiv. 22; and from Jude (Judas, Juda), the brother of our Lord (Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3; Luke vi. 16 and Acts i. 13 ("*the brother* [better, *the son*] of James "). The chief difficulty is raised by the fact that in two of the lists of Apostles the name of this Judas is omitted and apparently in its place is found either "Lebbeus, whose surname was Thaddeus" (Matt. x. 3 A. V., a conflated reading, cf. R. V., which, following the leading textual critics, omits "Lebbeus, whose surname was"), or "Thaddeus" (Mark iii. 18). Accordingly most scholars accept the identification of this Judas with Lebbeus and Thaddeus, though some have supposed that James had died and that his place was taken by Lebbeus-Thaddeus. Of the career of Judas nothing is known except that he asked the question recorded in John xiv. 22. Yet a considerable mass of legend grew up (cf. *Acta Thaddaei*; see APOCRYPHA, B, II., 12) in connection with his mission (as Thaddeus) to Abgar (q.v.), in which confusion is apparent as to his relation to Jesus or perhaps as to his identity. Eusebius (*Hist. eccl*., I., xii., *NPNF*, 1 ser., i. 99) makes him one of the Seventy (not of the Twelve), while Jerome (on Matt. x. 4, *MPL*, xxvi. 61) calls him an apostle. The later accounts professing to tell the story of his life and work have no historical value. GEO. W. GILMORE.

**JUDAS:** A chronographer mentioned by Eusebius (*Hist. eccl*., vi. 7, *NPNF*, 2 ser., i. 254). In this passage Eusebius speaks of a certain Judas, otherwise unknown, who, in a tract on the "Seventy Weeks of Daniel," put forth some chronological reckonings on the basis of Daniel's prophecies, coming down to the tenth year of Septimius Severus (202), and predicting the speedy return of the Lord. Closer identification of the author is impossible. G. KRÜGER. BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. Schlatter in *TU*, xii. 1 (1894); K. Erbes, in *TLZ*, 1895, pp. 415-418.

**JUDAS OF GALILEE:** The leader of a Jewish insurrection against the Romans, mentioned in Acts v. 37. According to Josephus (Ant., XVIII., i 6; *War*, II., viii. 1; cf. *Ant*. XX, v. 2; *War*, II., xvii. 8), when the taxing of the Jewish people in the governorship of Quirinius (q.v.) under Augustus aroused strong opposition, a certain Judas, born in Gamala but generally called "the Galilean," with a Pharisee named Zadok, organized an insurrection which was based on religious motives. The taxation emphasized the loss of Jewish independence under Roman rule and of their theocracy. The two sources (Gamaliel in Acts, and Josephus) agree in viewing the insurrection from a religious standpoint, though differences of another sort appear. Gamaliel reports the destruction of Judas and of his following, of which Josephus says nothing. The latter connects the outbreak with the fermenting zealotism manifested later, in the outbreak under Gessius Florus, and he is corroborated in this by the prominent part taken by the sons of Judas in that outbreak. Of this nothing is manifest in the speech of Gamaliel. The chronological datum is the relation of the insurrection to the taxing, put by Zahn in 4-3 B.C. *(Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift*, iv. 1893, 633-654, and *Einleitung in das Neue Testament*, ii., Leipsic, 1900, 395 sqq.). The differences in the two accounts prove that the author of Acts was here independent of Josephus and drew from other sources. (K. SCHMIDT.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: *DB*, ii. 795-796; *EB*, ii. 2628-30; *JE*, vii. 370-371; Schürer, *Geschichte*, i. 420-421, et passim, Eng. transl., I., ii. 4, et passim.

**JUDAS ISCARIOT,** is-car'i-et: One of the twelve disciples, and the betrayer of Jesus. The references to Judas in the New Testament are: (1) Mention in the list of the disciples, Matt. x. 4; Mark iii. 19; Luke vi. 16. (2) Occasional allusions, John vi. 70, 71, xii. 4, xvii. 12. (3) History of the betrayal, Matt. xxvi. 14-16, 21-25, 46-50; Mark xiv. 10, 11, 18-21, 42-46; Luke xxii. 3-6, 21-23, 47-48; John xiii. 2-11, 18, 21-30, xviii. 2-9. (4) Account of his death, Matt. xxvii. 3-10; Acts i. 16-25. Only John writes the full name, "Judas Iscariot the son of Simon." The ordinary surname is Iscariot (Hebr. *Ishkeriyyoth*), "Man of [the village] Keriyyoth" (Kerioth, Josh. xv. 25), a place in northern Judea, the modern al-Karyatain, south of Hebron. The synoptic tradition is limited to a few chief details. It gives nothing from the earlier life of Judas, but begins about the time when the authorities in Jerusalem had determined to kill Jesus, and Judas engaged to betray him into their hands. Matthew and Luke do not imply that the betrayal was induced by anything more than the money offered or that opposition to Jesus was Judas' motive; indeed Judas appears as the instrument of higher powers--notice the words of Luke, "Satan entered into Judas." The event was not unexpected to Jesus, since at the Last Supper he announced his coming betrayal by one of the twelve. While to the twelve this event seemed at the time most improbable, to Jesus it was not so and indeed was in keeping, in his view, with the divine purpose as expressed in the Scriptures and was a necessary means for the accomplishment of the divine plan. Consequently results followed not without the assistance of Jesus himself. While the leaders out of fear of a popular uprising would have let the feast go by, immediately after the Last Supper, at which Jesus had predicted the betrayal, Judas appeared at the head of a force furnished by the authorities. As Judas' question at the supper had been answered with a categorical "yes," it appeared that Judas was fearful that his purpose was fully known to Jesus and, might be thwarted; the action of Judas was therefore hastened, while Jesus went to the place where he would be expected to go (1) . It was then by the cooperation of Jesus that he was delivered to his enemies. The mildness with which Jesus received the betraying kiss suggests that the method of betrayal proceeded not from shameless effrontery, but from fear of an outbreak from Judas' codisciples. Even here Judas appears not as a consummate villain but as one who in consequence of an unhappy frailty was constrained to accomplish a revolting deed. Compared with the synoptic narrative, the Johannine report seems to have been intended to supplement and add coloring; thus John does not report how Judas came to put himself at the disposal of the enemies of Jesus, but in the account of the anointing of Jesus (x. 1 sqq.) remarks that Judas was a thief. John (xiii. 27) and Luke (xxii. 3) both testify to the entrance of Satan into Judas, but John (xiii. 2) teaches that the way had been prepared though the height of evil conception had not been reached till the supper, that Judas was already predisposed to evil before the actual reception of the Satanic influence. John notes also that when, at the betrayal, Jesus met the force sent against him, Judas stood with that force and was affected as they were at the words of Jesus. John brings out into strong relief the thought that Jesus foreknew the treachery of Judas, that indeed in the choice of Judas as a disciple the fulfilment of Scripture by this means had been in mind, that the loss of this one from those whom the Father had given Jesus was also a matter of fulfilment of prophecy (xvii. 12), and that all this was but the carrying out of the will of God. Similarly John emphasizes the self-surrender of Jesus in his cooperation with the plans of Judas. The Gospel of Matthew in its interest in Messianic prediction carries the history of Judas further, but fully in accord with the supposition that Judas was not animated with hostility to Jesus, so that he attempted to return the price of the betrayal, and when it was not received, threw it on the ground and went away and hanged himself. This relation is to be brought into connection with the narrative in II Sam. xvii. and with another Old-Testament passage regarded as Messianic. A variant account of the end of Judas is given in Acts i. 18-19, which furnishes one of the problems of New-Testament criticism to be solved by recalling that the central point in the speech of Peter was that a vacancy had occurred in the apostolic college which was to be filled. The essential difference in the two accounts is that in one case the purchase of the field is attributed to Judas, in the other case to the authorities. The narration by Papias of the story of the end of Judas (cf. Zahn in *TSK*, 1866, pp. 680-689) had as its purpose the reconciliation of the two accounts. (K. SCHMIDT.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: Excellent critical discussions are found in *DB*, ii. 796 sqq.; *EB*, ii. 2623-2628. The older literature is given in G. B. Winer, *Biblisches Realwörterbuch*, i. 635, Leipsic, 1847-48. Consult further: Abraham a Sancta Clara, *Judas der Erzschelm*, in his *Werke*, Passau, 1835-1837; Zandt, *Commentatio de Juda proditore*, Leipsic, 1769; E. Daub, *Judas Ischariot*, Heidelberg, 1816-18; *JE*, vii. 371; and the literature on the life and passion of Jesus and commentaries on the Gospels and Acts.

**JUDAS MACCABEUS.** See HASMONEANS.

**JUDE, EPISTLE OF:** One of the seven General Epistles. The title ascribes it to Jude the brother of James, and nowhere does the epistle claim to be by an apostle; on the contrary, verse 17 gives the impression that the author was not of the Twelve. The James who is mentioned can hardly be any other than James the brother of the Lord, one of the three pillars of the Jewish-Christian Church, while the Jude must be the Judas (Jude) of Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3, a son of Mary and therefore not an apostle. It is noticeable that neither Jude nor his brother James in their epistles claims other than a spiritual relationship to Christ ("servant of Jesus Christ "--and in a subordinate sense solely the mark of a becoming modesty). Between the epistles of James and of Jude there are many points of contact. The titles are so similar that the first verse of Jude seems a reminiscence of Jas. i. 1; both lack personal greetings and neither is directed to a local community, but rather each is meant for a wide circle of the Church and has the character of an encyclical, though of the two the epistle of Jude seems to have the larger scope, not being directed to "the twelve tribes" (Jas. i. 1). With this large circle of readers ("them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ") everything in the epistle agrees. The matters discussed are those in which the whole Church has interest; while the occasion might he local, the theme is general--salvation (verse 3). The epistle, like that of James, is directed against a form of worldliness which might arise either from Jewish or heathen surroundings, and may have in mind a developed form of antinomianism. Jude has also in mind actual moral depravity against which he gives warning. The persons addressed live in carnal impurity, perhaps in unnatural sin, are sensual, behave unseemly at the love feasts, and are guided by their own lusts (verses 8, 10, 12, 16). While these are practical irregularities of life, false teaching is in view, and the hearers are exhorted to hold the faith (verses 3-4), against those who turn grace into lasciviousness and deny God and Jesus Christ. The evils are also of a speculative nature ("dreamers," verse 8), out of which ethical evils arise. The teaching here guarded against is neither the Gnosticism of the second century nor Carpocratianism, though a sort of dualism is evidently put forward (verse 19), but evidently of the same sort as that in Paul's mind in the distinction between spiritual and carnal expressed in I Cor. ii. 14-15. It is to be noted that the errors against which the writer speaks appear in the communities; they do not constitute a separate movement. They may be regarded as the incipient stages of what became types of Gnosticiam. The reports of Hegesippus of error which arose in the Christian Communities of Palestine, the heresy of the Epistle to the Colossians, of the pastoral letters, and the teaching of Cerinthus, having a tinge of libertinism with its spiritualistic-dualistic Jewish Christianity, all suggest a relationship with the errant teaching against which Jude speaks. While, then, error of a Jewish origin is suggested, there is also a reminder of a characteristically heathen form of sin as shown in the Corinthian libertinism denounced by Paul. And, once more, the error of the Nicolaitans (q.v.) is recalled by the deeds of the people against whom Jude gives warning. Such manifestations were a danger to the whole Church, and the epistle directs itself to this peril. After the greeting (Jude 1-2) and the preface (Jude 3-4), follows the argument, which condemns teachers of error (5-19); three examples of gross sin are cited from history and the punishment recalled (5-7), the similarity of these historic cases with the present error is asserted (8), an example of moderation is given (910-13); punishment was predicted as long ago as Enoch's period and later by the Apostles (14-19). An exhortation follows and then a magnificent doxology (20-25). For the date of the epistle the employment of the Assumption of Moses (44 A.D.) and acquaintance with the Epistle to the Romans (cf. 24-25 with Rom. xvi. 25-27) set the higher limit. The *terminus ad quem* is not so easily fixed, but the time just prior to Domitian is the latest date to which it can be postponed, since according to Hegesippus Jude was not alive during Domitian's reign (Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.*, III., xx.). This assumes the genuineness of the letter, which is not strongly attested. The Muratorian Canon names the epistle, but not as written by Jude; Origen knows that it has been questioned; the early Peschito did not receive it and Eusebius reckons it among the *Antilegomena*; Jerome notes that it was rejected by most on account of its citation of apocryphal books. Yet it is difficult to account for an ungenuine letter being put forth in the name of a man whose repute was so small as that of Jude, the brother of our Lord, and it is noteworthy that the writer makes no pretension of being an apostle. (F. SIEFFERT.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: Possibly the best commentaries are by J, B. Mayor (with II Peter), London, 1907; and H. von Soden, Göttingen, 1899. Others are by: W. Jenkyn (1612-85), ed. J. Sherman, London, 1839; R. Stier, Berlin, 1850; M. F. Rampf, Sulzbach, 1854; F. Gardiner, Boston, 1856; J. T. Demarest (on the Catholic Epistles), New York, 1879; E. H. Plumptre (on Peter and Jude), in *Cambridge Bible*, Cambridge, 1879; K. F. Keil (Peter and Jude). Leipsic, 1883; F. Spitta (on Peter and Jude), Halle, 1885; A. F. Manoury (on the Catholic Epistles), Bar-le-Duc, 1888; A. Plummer, in *Expositor's Bible*, London, 1891; C. Bigg (on Peter and Jude), Edinburgh, 1901. Questions of introduction are treated in the works on Biblical Introduction (q.v.) and on N. T. theology (e.g., W. Beyschlag, Edinburgh, 1896). Consult further: F. Maier, *Des Judasbrief, seine Echtheit, Abfassungszeit und Leser*, Freiburg, 1906; E. Arnaud, *Recherches critiques sur l'epître de Jude*, Strasburg, 1851; P. J. Gloag, *Introduction to the Catholic Epistles*, Edinburgh, 1887; A. C. McGiffert, *Hist. of Christianity in the Apostolic Age*, pp. 585-588, New York, 1897; Harnack, *Litteratur*, ii. 1, pp. 465-469; *DB*, ii. 799-806 (minute and searching); *EB*, ii. 2630-32.

### JUDGES. The Office. General Concept (§ 1). Character of the Period (§ 2). History of the Period (§ 3). Chronology of the Judges (§ 4). The Book. Conservative View. Divisions; the Narrative (§ 1). Critical View Rejected (§ 2). Critical View. Analysis (§ 1). Idealizing (§ 2). The History (§ 3). ### I. The Office: 1. General Concept. Judges (Hebr. *shophetim*) was the name applied to the rulers of Israel at the time described in the book of Judges (see II. below). They find their analogues in the "judges" of the Tyrians (Josephus, *Apion*, i. 21) and in the Carthaginian *sufetes* (Livy, xxviii. 37, xxx. 7); they must not be regarded, however, as heads of regularly organized states, but rather as dictators who, having first evidenced their capabilities by their prowess, naturally became the leaders of a tribe or group of tribes. In time of peace their function was primarily the decision of cases which could not be settled by the "elders"; and some of them, such as Deborah ( Judges iv. 4) and Samuel ( I Sam. vii. 6), were judges by virtue of their prophetic gifts even before they became the liberators of their countrymen; while others, as Samson, seem never to have delivered judgment. The name, however, was borne by the rulers of the Israelites from the conquest of Canaan by Joshua to the establishment of the kingdom, with the exception of Abimelech, the son of Gideon, who seems to have had the title of king ( Judges ix.). ### 2. Character of the Period. The character of the period of the Judges is outlined in the introduction to the book of Judges, especially ii. 10 sqq. After the subjection of the chief Canaanitic Peoples, the Israelites had relaxed their energies, and had entered into friendly relations in many cases with their former foes. The result was an oppressive subjugation of the Israelites, until they remembered God, who raised up judges to deliver them. Nevertheless, as soon as a judge passed away, his influence vanished, and the people returned to their coquetry with the surrounding nations, again falling into political and spiritual bondage. The period was also characterized by a centrifugal tendency both in national and religious life. It was the time when the tribes enjoyed the greatest freedom, and only when mutual perils united them did they recollect their common origin and invoke their common God. The tendencies of the time thus powerfully favored the confusion of the worship of Yahweh and Baal, as well as of other gods whose symbols, oracles, and cult were openly adopted; but, on the other hand, the horrors resulting from gentile immorality were washed out in blood (Judges xix.-xx.), and faith prompted the vows of mighty sacrifices (Judges xi. 31; I Sam. i. 11). In like manner, low though the culture of the Israelites sank during this period of storm and stress, the power of the nation was still strong and unbroken. It was an age of heroes, not only physical but moral, finding exemplification in the Song of Deborah, the fable of Jotham, and the humor of Samson. Nor was the disunion of the Israelites at this period, as some maintain, a preliminary to their development as a nation, for the Song of Deborah itself clearly shows a strong consciousness of the religious and national homogeneity of the tribes. ### 3. History of the Period. The period of the Judges was opened by an eight years' subjugation of Israel by Chushan-rishathaim of Aram-naharaim (Judges iii. 8), apparently a king of the Mitanni (A. H. Sayee, *The Higher Criticism and the Monuments*, pp. 297, 304, London, 1894) who repeatedly sought to establish themselves in Canaan against Egypt. The Israelites were delivered from this yoke by Othniel, the son of Kenaz, who dwelt in the south (Judges i. 12-13), after which there followed forty years of peace (Judges iii. 9-11). During this period of repose, two events happened which, although related at the end of the book of Judges, can not have taken place long after Joshua's death: the migration of a portion of the tribe of Dan, prevented by the hostile Amorites from occupying their territory along the sea (Judges i. 34), to the north, where they founded the city of Laiah, or Dan (the modern Tell al-Kadi, west of Banias), and introduced an idolatrous cult (Judges xviii.); and the war of revenge on Benjamin for the outrage committed in Gibeah (Judges xix.-xx.). Others, however, place both these events before the Mesopotamian invasion (cf. Josephus, *Ant*. V., ii. 8 sqq., iii. 1); but there is no ground for the view that these episodes are later interpolations. After the death of Othniel at the expiration of the forty years' peace, the Israelites were again subjugated for eighteen years by the combined Moabites, Ammonites, and Amalekites, until the Benjamite Ehud killed the Moabite King Eglon (Judges iii. 12 sqq.). Eighty years of peace followed, after which the Israelites were subject for twenty years to the Canaanitic Jabin and Sisera, to which period belongs the heroic deed of Shamgar, which freed a portion of the land from the oppression of the Philistines ( Judges iii. 31; cf. v. 6). Relief from their bondage, which by some is held to be Hittite, was brought to Israel, especially in the north, by the prophetess and judge Deborah, who roused Barak to war against Jabin and Sisera ( Judges iv. 2 sqq.); though the tribes east of the Jordan, as well as Dan and some on the sea, took no part in the struggle for freedom ( Judges v. 15 sqq.); while Judah seems to have been prevented from cooperating by its own war with the Philistines. Another forty years of peace ensued; but then the Midianites and other nomadic tribes invaded the plain of Jezreel, oppressing the Israelites for seven years, until they were driven out by Gideon ( Judges vi.-vii.). Gideon piously declined the proffered kingship ( Judges viii. 22 sqq.; but after his death his unworthy son Abimelech brought misfortune on his house ( Judges ix.). Abimelech was followed by Tola, of the tribe of Issachar, who ruled twenty-three years (Judges x. 1 sqq.), and by Jair, a Gileadite, who was judge twenty-two years (x. 3-5). With the death of Jair, Israel was oppressed on the east by the Ammonites and on the west by the Philistines. The former, after oppressing Israel eighteen years, were conquered by Jephthah (Judges x.-xi.), who was also later involved in a civil war with the tribe of Ephraim (Judges xii. 1 sqq.). He ruled in peace only seven years, and was succeeded by Izban of Bethlehem (seven years), Elon, a Zebulonite (ten years), and Abdon, an Ephmimite (eight years; Judges xii. 8 sqq.). After their rule, the Philistines oppressed Israel forty years (Judges xiii. 1), their deliverer being the hero Samson (Judges xiii-.xvi.). The power of the Philistines revived, however, in the latter part of the judgeship of Eli, who ruled forty years (I Sam. iv. 18), and they were crushed only by Samuel and the kings anointed by him. The thread of the book of Judges breaks off with the death of Samson, and, although Eli is said to have "judged" Israel, and the same is stated concerning Samuel (I Sam. vii. 6, viii. 1 sqq., xii. 1 sqq.), they form the transition from the judges to the kings. 4. Chronology of the Judges. The chronology of this period is difficult. The period given by the book of Judges from the subjugation by Chushan-rishathaim (Judges iii. 8) to the death of Samson (xvi. 31) is 410 years; but this is far too long when compared with I Kings vi. 1, which gives only 480 years for the time from the Exodus to the commencement of the Temple in the fourth year of the reign of Solomon, including the forty years in the wilderness, the equal length of David's reign, and the unknown duration of the rule of Samuel, Saul, etc. The best explanation of these conflicting data seems to be the synchronization of Judges x. 8 sqq. with xiii. 1 sqq., thus placing the oppression by the Philistines at the same time as that by the Ammonites, and regarding Samson as the contemporary of Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon; with a resultant reduction of the 140 years to about 360 (cf. Judges x. 6 sqq.; the figures in Judges xi. 26 would then be round numbers). It is also tempting to assume a further synchronism between the forty years' oppression by the Philistines (Judges xiii. 1) and the rule of Eli and the early part of Samuel's judgeship, thus reducing the period to about 340 years. See TIME, BIBLICAL RECKONING OF. II. The Book: 1. Conservative View: 1. Divisions; the Narrative. In its present form this book is relatively late, although its oldest sources date from the events they describe. It falls into three parts: an introduction (i.-iii. 6); the main portion, a unified narrative (iii. 7-xvi.); and two additions (xvii.-xxi.). The introduction treats of the general condition of Israel after the death of Joshua and gives the underlying relation of the stormy events of the period, together with the occupation of the land by the tribes (i.) and their impious toleration of the former inhabitants (ii. 1-5). In ii. 6 the thread of the narrative is taken up, with a preliminary prophetic descrip tion of the period (). A list of the peoples still unsubdued is given in iii. 1-6, this passage being by another hand. Nevertheless, it is clear that the redactor deliberately planned the introduction in its present form, and that he interwove fragments of other historical writings wherever he thought best, doubtless drawing from some source common to Judges and Joshua (cf. Judges i. 10-15 with Josh. xv. 14-19; Judges i. 20 with Josh. xv. 13; Judges i. 21 with Josh. xv. 63; Judges i. 27-28 with Josh. xvii. 11 sqq.; Judges i. 29 with Josh. xvi. 10). The main portion narrates six great events, the heroes of which are Othniel, the conqueror of the Arameans (iii. 7 sqq.); Ehud, the liberator from the Moabites (iii. 12 sqq.); the victory of Deborah and Barak over Jabin and Sisera (iv.-v.); Gideon and his sons (vi.-ix.); Jephthah's victory over the Ammonites (x. 6 sqq., xi.-xii.); and Samson, the hero against the Philistines (xiii-xvi.). Six other judges are also briefly mentioned. The two additions on the sanctuary at Dan (xvii.-xviii.) and the war against Benjamin (xix.-xxi.) seem to have been written by one who lived in the flourishing period of the kings (cf. xviii. 1, xix. 1, xxi. 25). 2. Critical View Rejected. It is assumed by the majority of modern scholars that the redactor of the book of Judges had two systems of chronology before him: one of generations of forty years each; and the other of smaller, but more accurate, figures. These two systems were then interwoven, the smaller being assumed to refer to the periods of subjugation, and the larger to the rules of the judges. But the problem is still unsolved, although it would seem that the apparently over-long period arose from the addition of contemporaneous periods, and that the number forty is only approximate. The critical school has assailed not only the chronology, but also the historicity of the book of Judges. Thus Othniel, Ehud, Tola, Jair, and Elon are resolved into "eponymous heroes"; but in no case is the evidence favorable to the theories of this school. On the contrary, the book gives an impression of relative unity and independence; nor is it to be regarded as an extract from some larger work, extending from Joshua's death (or from the Creation) to the Exile. Equally untenable is a derivation of the book from J and E, and their combination into JE. Since, on the other hand, the Deuteronemic redactor was not the first to combine the accounts given in the book, the question of its date admits of no single answer. The redactor doubtless lived in the period of the later kings; but there is no evidence to show that the book belongs to the exilic or post-exilic period. Textually the book of Judges is one of the best preserved of all the historical writings. Nevertheless, a comparison with the versions, especially the Septuagint, shows noteworthy variants, especially in proper names. So ancient a fragment as the Song of Deborah naturally gives more scope to textual criticism, although here also great caution is necessary. C. VON ORELLl. 2. Critical View: 1. Analysis. A cursory reading of the book of Judges shows that it consists of two main elements, one of these containing stories and historical notices without comment, and the other comprising detailed narratives with an explicit or implicit commentary on the events described. The latter, comprising most of the book, extends from iii. 7 to xvi. 31, and has a prefatory note containing the moral of the history (ii. 6-iii. 6). It is this main portion which not only gives character to the book as a whole but also explains its aim and motive. It is written to show, in the Deuteronomic spirit, the course of Israel's history before the movement began which ended in the founding of the kingdom-how fidelity to Yahweh and his commandments was invariably attended by prosperity, and how calamity, especially by the inroads and oppressions of national enemies, surely followed false worship and impiety, according to the principles laid down in Deut. xxviii. All the lives of the "Judges" are narrated in this principal section. The introduction (i. 1-ii. 5) is quite different in character and style, not only running parallel to portions of the book of Joshua (see JOSHUA, BOOK OF) but actually giving a divergent account of the conquest of the Canaanites. Quite different also, and falling as clearly without the sphere of the Deuteronomistic compiler, are the last five chapters (xvii.-xxi.) which, narrate important events belonging to the early period of the occupation of Canaan, and therefore out of the chronological order followed by the author of the main part of the book. Both the introduction and the conclusion are lacking in the religious and homiletic comments which dominate chaps. iii. 7-xvi. 31. 2. Idealizing The most important question for the Bible student is the amount and degree of the idealizing of history which are employed in the book in its present form. The introduction (i. 1-ii. 5) contains a plain narrative of facts of the highest value; only the fact must be noted that the words in i. 1 "after the death of Joshua" are a late gloss due to a misunderstanding of the historical situation, for, as ii. 6-9 shows, the events described here took place during the life of Joshua. Chaps. xvii.-xviii. are also of great importance for the early political and religious condition of Israel and contain merely a statement of facts, which set forth the causes and incidents connected with the migration northward of the tribe of Dan and the founding of the city of that name at the point which became the northerly limit of Israel and the seat of a famous sanctuary. Chaps. xix.-xxi. are a highly embellished account of some incidents which occurred in the early days of the settlement, an outrage perpetrated by some members of the tribe of Benjamin (chap. xix.) and avenged by the other tribes (xx., xxi.). Chap. xix. would appear to rest on a considerable basis of fact, but the last two chapters are full of numerical exaggerations; they represent Israel as forming a political and religious unit at a very early date, and they give other evidences of a priestly authorship. Thus it must be assumed that certain old traditions were worked over in them at a late date in conformity with the spirit of the priest code. 3. The History. The stories which make the main part of the book so readable are at the same time the source of nearly all direct knowledge of the period between the settlement and the founding of the kingdom. They belong in their original form to some of the earliest collections of prose compositions in the literature of Israel. Beginning with the deliverances effected by Othniel (iii. 7-11) and Ehud (iii. 12-30), the motive of the collection comes out more clearly in the story of the final suppression of the Canaanites under Deborah and Barak. This is given in its original form in the oldest long poem of the Bible (chap. v.), the prose version which was of course later being found in chap. iv. The poem is our best authority for the condition and activity of the tribes of Israel about 1130 B.C. Of equal importance is the great story of Gideon and his deliverance of his tribesmen from the oppression of the Midianites (chaps. vi.-viii.). The sequel of their expulsion is specially instructive since it shows how the tribes felt themselves helpless in their disunion and were conscious of their need of hereditary "judges" or kings. The fact that here as elsewhere in the book more than one version of the original tradition was drawn upon is illustrated by the variations of vii. 24-viii. 3 and viii. 4-21, the latter being the briefer or earlier account. The history of Samson (xiii. xvi.) dealing as it does with the period of Philistine domination over western Judah brings the account one step nearer to the epoch of the monarchy; but the subject lent itself so much to romance and legend that it is more difficult to learn the real facts behind this story than elsewhere in the book. In any case. the Samson episodes form, from the historical point of view, merely a preparation to the history of Eli and Samuel, who carried on the contest with the Philistines till the crowning of King Saul. Thus the closing of the original book of Judges was really the beginning of a history which began with Samson (cf. xiii. 5) and ended with I Sam. xii. It was then a Deuteronomistic editor who compiled the first edition of the book, beginning with ii. 6 and unifying the whole by his "pragmatic" treatment of the stories and his assumption of the solidarity of "Israel" under the régime of the successive judges, each of whom actually "judged" only a portion of the country occupied by the disunited tribes. The post-exilic priestly redactor prefixed chaps. i. 1-ii. 5, added chaps. xvii.-xxi., and the allusions to the minor judges, six in number (iii. 31, x. 1-5, xii. 8-15). These with the six judges of the original work (Othniel, Ehud, Barak, Gideon, Samson, Jephthah) make up the ideal number twelve. The story of Abimelech (chap. ix.), which is an episode in the history of the old Canaanitic city of Shechem, lies without the general scheme of the book and is probably a later addition. It is valuable as showing how readily the idea of kingship was embraced by the common people, and still more valuable for the parable of Jothann (verses 8-15) which shows that despotic rule was estimated at its real worth even in those early times. As to the chronology of the book it is hopeless to attempt to reduce the given numbers. of years to any reasonable scheme (see TIME, BIBLICAL RECKONING OF). The best that can be done is to take the probable date of the eastern invasion (about 1170 B.C.) and the accession of David (about 1000 B.C.) as two working extremes, within which approximation to the facts may be reached by placing Deborah and Barak about 1130, Gideon about 1100, Jephthah about 1080, Samuel about 1050, Saul about 1030 B.C. J. F. MCCURDY. BIBLIOGRAPHY: On the history of the Judges consult the literature under AHAB: the commentaries named below; C. Piepenbring, *Hist. du peuple d'Israel*, Paris, 1898. The three indispensable commentaries are: G. F. Moore, New York, 1895 (high-water mark in critical exegesis); K. Budde, Tübingen, 1897 (thorough); and W. Nowack, Göttingen,1900 (also excellent). Other commentaries are: G. L. Studer. Bern, 1842; C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Edinburgh, 1865; J. Bachmann, Berlin, 1868-69; Hervey, in *Bible Commentary*, London, 1872; P. Cassel, in Lange, New York, 1875; E. Reuse, Paris, 1877; J. J. Lias, in *Cambridge Bible*, Cambridge, 1882; E. Bertheau, Leipsic, 1883; A. R. Fausset, London, 1885; S. Oettli, Munich, 1893; G. H. S. Walpole, London, 1901; M. J. Lagrange, Paris, 1903. On questions of introduction consult the works mentioned in and under BIBLICAL INTRODUCTION; T. Nöldeke, *Untersuchungen zur Kritik des A. T.*, pp. 173-198, Kiel, 1869; E. Meyer, in *ZATW*, i (1881), 117-146; J. C. A. Kessler, *Chronologia judicum et primorum regum*, Leipsic, 1885; S. R. Driver, in *JQR*, i (1889), pp. 258-270; G. A. Cooke, *Hist. and Song of Deborah*, London, 1892; R. Kittel, in *TSK*, lxv (1892), 44-71; P. de Lagarde, *Septuagintastudien*, pp. 1-72, Göttingen, 1892; W. Frankenberg, *Die Composition des . . . Richterbuchs*, Marburg, 1895; F. Perles, *Analekten zur Textkritik des A. T.*, Munich, 1895; C. Bruston, *Le Cantique de Deborah*, Paris, 1901; *DB*, ii. 807-820; *EB*, ii. 2633-42; *JE*, vii. 375-381.

**JUDGMENT, DIVINE:** The final expression of God's will respecting man's future destiny. ### Scriptural Idea. The idea of judgment in the Old Testament presupposes a transcendent God and a divine interest in the moral order of the world, and was drawn from the analogy of human justice. The divine judgment which precedes the Messianic kingdom is concerned with guilty angels, with Gentiles to be destroyed or to become subject to Israel, with Israel and Judah as nations for which their enemies were to be employed as instruments of retribution, and with individuals of whom a remnant would be saved. The scene is the earthly life. To this judgment evils of various kinds were referred (cf. Job; also Luke xiii. 1 sqq.). Later the judgment was conceived of as following the Messianic kingdom (cf. Psalms of Solomon, i.-xviii., Eng. tranal. in *Presbyterian Review*, iv. 1883, 775 sqq.): In Alexandrian Judaism no distant final judgment is taught--each soul goes at death to its true place. In the New Testament the final judgment is connected with the parousia of Christ, yet the judgment is there both present and future. The judge is represented as either God or Christ, and judgment is according to works as expressive of character. In the teachings of Jesus this note is repeatedly struck especially in the parables, and apostolic preaching resounds with it. All men appear to be the subjects of it, and not those only who have known Christ ( II Cor v. 10; Matt. xxv. 31 sqq.). One aspect of the judgment is that it creates nothing but only discloses what already exists, i.e., the relation of the person and his deeds to the divine moral order. There are particular judgments which, however overwhelming in themselves--the flood, the downfall of Sodom and of Jerusalem--are not final but only prefigurations of the last judgment. The New Testament knows of no gradation through imperceptible stages of judgment from highest to lowest; all men are either within or without the kingdom of God. One is warned against self-deception and against hasty judgment respecting others ( Matt. vii.; Rom. xiv. 7-12). A person may be unconscious of his real actions or character, but these will come to light and receive retribution. The full realization may be long delayed, but no stage of the process is indifferent and the end will surely come. There is no evidence of a private judgment at death. ### The Nature of Judgement. The central idea embodied in the various pictures of judgment is that of human responsibility and of infallible retribution. This rests upon the conviction of an indestructible moral order, of laws as expressive of a personal divine will, and of Christ in such essential relation to mankind that God will have no one reach his final destiny apart from Christ. Yet according to the Scriptures the judgment is not final in the sense that ethical development has reached its limit, but only so far as this is conceived as related to the consummation of the kingdom of God. This is a teleological view of man's life in which he is lifted above the necessitated causal order, offered a divine goal, albeit a flying one, as the aim of ethical endeavor, and bidden to rely only upon an all-seeing, righteous God for recompense. The process is essentially teleological, so that, as Schiller declared, the history of the world is the judgment of the world. ### Theories of Judgment. Two general theories of judgment have been proposed: (1) The common view, which is set forth in the following positions. (a) It takes place at a definite moment-immediately after the general resurrection (see RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD). (b) It will be universal; the whole human race is to appear, each one in the completeness of personal life, "body, soul, and spirit." (c) It will be public--the grounds of it open and evident to all; whether sins of the saints will be disclosed may be left in question. (d) The decision will be based on the deeds done in the body; probation has ended at death. (e) The law of judgment will be the will of God as it has been severally revealed to all men: to those under the written law, by that law; to those without that law, by the law in their hearts; to those under the Christian revelation, by what they have known of it. (f) It will be final and thus fix the changeless state of all-the good in felicity, the wicked in wo. (g) The hour when this is to occur is unknown, but is purposely retained within the secret counsel of God. A modification of this view, while conceiving of the parousia of Christ as a spiritual process and the resurrection as the rising of each man to life after death, holds that there is no other judgment than that which occurs at death. (2) The other idea of judgment presents it as a process which endures as long as law and moral being endure. It involves experience of good and evil results of choice, and the revelation of the nature of these within the moral consciousness. The conscience is the seat of this solemn process. By means of it all that opposes the will of God is gradually disclosed, condemned, and separated from the good, so that the good progressively triumphs. The results of this process of judging abide in the blessed or baleful conditions and character of personal and social life. C. A. BECKWITH. BIBLIOGRAPHY: For the idea in the Bible the reader will consult works on Biblical theology, such as those by Schultz and Beyschlag (see BIBLICAL THEOLOGY); for the theological content, the appropriate sections of treatises on systematic theology such as the works by Hodge, Shedd, and others (see DOGMA, DOGMATICS); also the literature under ESCHATOLOGY. Special treatment is given by: J. B. Mosley, *University Sermons*, pp. 72-96, London, 1883; T. T. Munger, *The Freedom of Faith*, pp. 337-356, Edinburgh, 1884; J. M. Whiton, *Beyond the Shadow*, pp. 141-192, ib. 1885; W. N. Clarke, *Outline of Christian Theology*, pp. 459-466, New York, 1898; C. A. Beckwith, *Realities of Christian Theology*, pp. 361-366, Boston, 1906. Consult also A. Jukes, *The Second Death and Restitution of All Things*, London, 1878.

**JUDITH.** See APOCRYPHA, A, IV., 8.

**JUDSON, ADONIRAM:** The Apostle of Burma and one of the first and most devoted of the foreign missionaries of the American churches; b. at Malden, Mass., Aug. 9, 1788; d. on board of a vessel off the coast of Burma Apr. 12, 1850. ### Early Life and Work. He graduated first in his class at Brown University in 1807. After teaching school for a year at Plymouth, he entered Andover Seminary in the autumn of 1808, although "not a professor of religion, or a candidate for the ministry, but as a person deeply in earnest on the subject, and desirous of arriving at the truth" (Wayland). The following May he made a profession of his faith in the Third Congregational Church at Plymouth, of which his father was then pastor. His attention was first drawn to the subject of missionary effort in heathen lands by the perusal, in 1809 of Buchanan's *Star in the East;* and in Feb., 1810, he devoted himself to that work. About this time he entered into intimate relations with that illustrious band of young men--Mills, Nott, Newell, and Richards, and joined the first three in submitting a statement to the General Association of Ministers at Bradford, Mass., which led to the organization of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. In Jan., 1811, he was sent to England, by the American Board, to promote measures of affiliation and co-operation between it and the London Missionary Society. He returned unsuccessful in the immediate design of his journey, but was appointed, with Nott, Newell, Hall, and Rice, a missionary to India. He was ordained, with these four men, on Feb. 6, 1812, at Salem, Mass. Judson sailed on the 19th, from New York, with Mrs. Judson and Mr. and Mrs. Newell, for Calcutta, where he arrived June 17. On the voyage his views on the mode of baptism underwent a change; and, after his arrival in India, he and Mrs. Judson were baptized by immersion in the Baptist Church of Calcutta. In consequence of this change of views, he passed under the care of the American Baptist Missionary Union at its formation in 1814. The East India Company forbade his prosecution of missionary labors in India; and, after various vicissitudes, he landed in July, 1813, at Rangoon, Burma, taking up his residence at the Mission House of Felix Carey. Judson devoted himself to the acquisition of the language, in which he afterward became a proficient scholar. After six years of labor, the first convert, Moung Nau, was baptized at Rangoon, June 27, 1819. He was the first Burman accession to the Church of Christ. From 1824 to 1826, during the war of England with Burma, Judson suffered almost incredible hardships. He was imprisoned for seventeen months in the jails of Ava and Oung-pen-la, being bound during nine months of this period, with three, and during two months with no less than five, pairs of fetters. His sufferings from fever, exeruciating heat, hunger, repeated disappointments, and the cruelty of his keepers, form one of the most thrilling narratives in the annals of modern missionary trial. ### Mrs. Judson. Mrs. Ann Hasseltine Judson suffered no less than her husband, though she was not subjected to imprisonment. Her heroic efforts to relieve the sufferings of the English prisoners received the tributes of warmest gratitude and praise at the time. She was born in Bradford, Mass., Dec. 22, 1789, and had been married on Feb. 5, 1812. She entered with great enthusiasm into missionary effort, and established a school at Rangoon for girls. In 1821 she paid a visit to America. Her health was never robust; but she combined with strong intellectual powers a remarkable heroism and fortitude. During the imprisonment of her husband she was unremitting in her self-sacrifice, and walked fearless and respected from palace to prison among the excited Burman population. She died Oct. 24, 1826. Hers is one of the immortal names in missionary biography. ### Later Work. Visit to America. In 1826 Judson transferred the headquarters of his mission to Amherst, in Tenasserim, Lower Burma; and in 1830 he began preaching to the Karens. In 1835 he completed the revision of the Old Testament in the Burmese language, and in 1837 that of the New Testament. In the latter year there were 1,144 baptized converts in Burma. After an absence of more than thirty years, he returned, in 1845, for a visit to his native land. On the voyage his second wife (Sarah Hall Boardman) died (Sept. 1) at St. Helena. She was the widow of the missionary, Dr. Boardman, and was married to Judson in 1834. Judson's arrival in the United States was the signal for an enthusiastic outburst of admiration for the missionary, and interest in the cause he represented. Everywhere crowded assemblies gathered to see and hear him. He, however, shunned the public gaze, and was diffident as a speaker. In 1823 Brown University had honored him with the degree of D.D. On July 11, 1846, he again set sail for Burma, having married, a few days before, Miss Emily Chubbuck of Eaton, N. Y., who was already well known under the name of "Fanny Forester." He arrived safely at Rangoon, and spent much of the remaining period of his life in revising his English-Burmese dictionary (ed. E. A. Stevens, Maulmain, 1852). His health, however, was shattered; and he died while on a voyage to the Isle of Bourbon. His body was buried in the ocean. Judson was a man of medium height and slender person. He was endowed with strong intellectual powers, and sought in his Christian life, by the perusal of the works of Mme. Guyon and others, a fervent type of piety. His confidence in the success of missionary effort never wavered. Being asked, on his visit to America, whether the prospects were bright for the conversion of the world, he immediately replied, "As bright, Sir, as the promises of God." Adoniram Judson's name will always have a place in the very first rank of American missionaries to heathen lands. He belongs to the first band of those missionaries, and his heroism, wise judgment, and diligent labor have not been excelled if equaled by any who have followed him. D. S. SCHAFF. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Biographies of Adoniram Judson have been written by F. Wayland, 2 vols., Boston, 1853; H. Bonar, London, 1871; and E. Judson (his son), New York, 1883. The lives of his three wives were written by W. Wyeth, 3 vols., New York, 1892; A. W. Stuart, Auburn, 1851; A. W. Wilson, New York, 1853; and by C. B. Hartley, ib. n. d.

**JUDSON, EDWARD:** Baptist; b. at Maulmain (95 m. s.e. of Rangoon), Burma, Dec. 27, 1844. He was brought to the United States while still an infant, and was educated at Madison (now Colgate) University and Brown University (A.B., 1865), after which he was principal of the academy at Townshend, Vt., for two years (1865-67). He was then professor of Latin in Madison University from 1867-74, and, after a year of travel and study in Europe in 1874-75, accepted a call to the pastorate of the Baptist church at Orange, N. J., where he remained until 1881. In the latter year he became pastor of the Berean Baptist Church, New York City, where he engaged actively in educational and philanthropic work among the poorer classes. The church becoming too small for the congregation which he gathered, he raised funds for the erection of the Judson Memorial Church, New York City, which is one of the leading "institutional" churches of the city. He has since been pastor of this church, which is named in honor of his father, Adoniram Judson (q.v.). He was president of the American Baptist Missionary Union in 1885-87 and has been a trustee of Brown University, Vassar College, and Colgate University. He has written: *Life of Adoniram Judson* (New York, 1883); and *The Institutional Church: Primer in Pastoral Theology* (1899).

**JUELICHER,** yü'lih-er, **GUSTAV ADOLF:** German Protestant; b. at Falkenberg (a suburb of Berlin) Jan. 26, 1857. He was educated at the University of Berlin (Ph.D., 1880), and was chaplain of the orphan asylum at Rummelsberg, a suburb of Berlin, from 1882 to 1888. In 1887 he became privat-docent at the university of the same city for New-Testament history and church history, and in the following year was appointed associate professor of the same subjects at Marburg, where he has been full professor since 1889. He is a member of the committee on Church Fathers of the Royal Prussian Academy of Berlin and in this capacity is engaged in the preparation of a *Prosopographia imperii Romani* from the reign of Diocletian to Justinian. In theology his position is that of a rigid limitation to strict historical investigation. He has written: *Die Gleichnisreden Jesu* (2 vols., Freiburg, 1888-99), *Einleitung in das Neue Testament* (1894; Eng. transl., *Introduction to the New Testament*, London, 1904); and *Paulus und Jesus* (Tübingen, 1907).

**JULIAN:** The Emperor Julian (Flavius Claudius Julianus), frequently known as "the Apostate," was born at Constantinople in 331, some time after June 26, the son of Julius Constantius, a younger stepbrother of Constantine the Great, by Basilina, his second wife; d. in Persia June 26, 363. ### Authorities for his Life. Among the authorities for his life and policy, his own works take the first place, although their history is obscure and their text defective. They include eight orations; a long treatise addressed to Themistius and another to the Athenians; the "Symposium"; the "Beardhater" (Gk. *Misopogon*); more than eighty letters, some decrees, and some fragments contained almost wholly in Cyril's ten books against Julian. In the "Symposium" (also called *Kaisares*) he criticizes his predecessors in the empire, assembled at a feast on Olympus, chastises their vices, and ends with a panegyric of Marcus Aurelius. The " Beard-hater " is a satirical treatise written at Antioch in the beginning of 363, containing a witty characterization of himself and of the Christian population of Antioch. The letters, of which a few are spurious or doubtful, were almost all written during his reign, and are the best source for his philosophic and political standpoint. Unfortunately the work "Against the Christians," with the composition of which he was busy in the last months of his life, is only partially extant. Next in importance come the pagan historians, especially Ammianus Marcellinus, Eutropius and Zosimus. The first-named is the main authority for the external events of Julian's reign; he was a writer of great impartiality, and, like Eutropius, a contemporary if not an eyewitness. Zosimus writes with unconcealed sympathy for the restorer of Hellenism. Aurelius Victor tells little. Among the orators and men of letters, Libanius is the most important; seven of his orations refer directly to Julian and offer valuable material. The statements of Eunapius in his lives of the sophists and of the panegyrist Mamertinus are to be received with caution. As to the Christian writers, their hatred of the emperor led them sometimes into distortions of fact or malicious lies, or at least made them willing to lend an ear to calumny, except during the short period when Julian's recall of the orthodox bishops won a favorable judgment from some, such as Hilary. The two orations in which Gregory Nazianzen denounced the emperor, his contemporary and acquaintance, form a strong contrast to Eusebius' life of Constantine. Among the historians, even Socrates here lays aside his usual impartiality. Rufinus, as a contemporary, deserves most attention; then follow Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, with some fragments of Philostorgius. Isolated notices occur in most of the Fathers, and there are four poems against Julian by Ephraem Syrus written in 363 and containing legendary material mingled with valuable notes. In spite of their prejudice, the ecclesiastical writers are not to be undervalued, as they complete the material of the pagan historians in some important particulars, and demonstrably rest in not a few places upon documentary evidence. Modern historians have learned only in the last two centuries to take a broad and abstract view of Julian's career, and to see with increasing clearness that his admirable qualities were his own, while his obvious and by no means insignificant defects were the product of his education and environment. ### Sketch of His Life. When the sons of Constantine secured the empire in 337 by the slaughter of their male relations (see CONSTANTINE THE GREAT AND HIS SONS), Julian was spared on account of his tender age, and remained in Constantinople under the charge of his distant kinsman, Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, and of the eunuch Mardonius, who was a professing Christian, though his ideals seem to have been Hellenistic. It is possible that he laid the foundation for Julian's later attitude; but he also awakened in him the enthusiasm for what was noble and good that distinguished his manhood. In 342 Eusebius died, and the suspicious Constantius confined Julian and his sickly half-brother Gallus in the fortress of Macellum in Cappadocia for the next six years, surrounded by Christian clerics. The lad read the Bible, copied religious books, built a chapel to St. Mamas, and is said to have officiated as a lector in public worship, which presupposes (unless there was some departure from the ordinary practise) that he had been baptized, as indeed Cyril positively asserts, though neither Julian nor any of his contemporaries speak of his baptism. At any rate, there is no reason to suppose that Julian's religious views were at this time hostile to the Christian Church. About 350 the brothers were allowed to leave Macellum, and Julian, returning to Constantinople, devoted himself to study. The emperor objected, however, to his presence in the capital, and he went to Nicomedia, promising not to attend the lectures which Libanius was then delivering there. But he read them; and here at this time, later in Pergamum, and finally in Ephesus he was introduced by the foremost Hellenistic teachers of the day to the Neoplatonic philosophy and mysticism. In 351 he formally, though unobtrusively, became a convert to paganism. The dreams of poets and the speculations of philosophers were to him the living truth; in Neoplatonism he found the revelation of all the wealth of the highest ideals of antiquity and of Greek civilization. His feelings, principles, and aims were, however, not those of the ancient masters whom he thought to follow, but modern, and such as might nearly all have been justified from the teachings of Christian leaders of his day. The fortunes of his life, his imagination and his education inclined him to Greek mythology and learning, as similar elements had brought thousands of others to Christianity. The great task of reforming Hellenism and abolishing the system of his predecessor seems to have been put before him by his philosophic friends in Nicomedia and Ephesus. Whether he was already longing for the throne is not definitely known, but it is likely that he was; and the teachers, who never lost their hold over him, seem to have exacted promises as to his conduct in the event of his accession. In 354 Constantius put Gallus to death, and kept Julian practically in confinement at Milan for six months. Then he was allowed to return to Bithynia, and in the summer of 355 to go to Athens, where he associated with the most prominent Hellenic leaders and was initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries. In October he was recalled to northern Italy, where the emperor needed an heir-apparent and a leader against the Germanic inroads in Gaul. He played a valiant part for four years of military activity amid great difficulties, carrying the war into the enemy's own country and winning the respect and confidence of the army. He was in Paris in the winter of 359-360. There he received the command to send his best soldiers to the East to Constantius. They answered by hailing Julian as Augustus, apparently without any suggestion from him, if not against his will. After some hesitation he allowed them to crown him, and notified Conatantius of what had happened, without assuming the imperial title. Constantius answered with the sword; but Julian was ready to meet him. During the winter of 360-361 he was making his preparations at Vienne. He celebrated the feast of the Epiphany with Christian rites; then he threw off the mask, and went south by forced marches, opening the closed pagan temples wherever he passed. Constantius came from Syria to meet him but died Nov. 3 in Cilicia; and on Dec. 11, 361, Julian entered Constantinople as undisputed emperor. He remained there the rest of that winter, occupied with plans for far-reaching reforms, but at the same time making preparations for a campaign against the Persians. In the summer of 362 he went through Asia Minor, receiving discouraging reports of the results of his policy, to Antioch, where the excitable and vivacious populace received him with open scorn of his views and plans, and the Christian portion indulged in ominous demonstrations. On Mar. 4, 363, he started out for his campaign, pressing forward boldly to meet his Persian enemies, sharing all the fatigues and privations of his soldiers, and busily occupied at the same time with his studies and his great reform plans. After several successful skirmishes, he received a spear-wound in the battle of June 26, and died a few hours afterward. The famous narrative of Theodoret, according to which he cried out just before he died, "Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!" is apparently an outgrowth of the account written by Ephraem Syrus in the same year, which relates how "he turned aside, groaning, and thought of the threats which at his departure he had made by letter against the Church." It is significant that the Persians, according to Ammianus (XXV., vi. 6), on the following day mocked the Romans as traitors to their own emperor, since it was a Roman spear that had pierced his side. The rumor soon spread in the empire, and Libanius in his funeral oration put into words the suspicion that a Christian had been responsible for his death. Gregory Nazianzen, Rufinus, and Socrates treat the question as indifferent, and Sozomen shows that the Christians were capable of the deed by claiming it for one of them and lauding it. But Libanius did not offer the slightest evidence in support of his accusation, and several considerations may be urged against it. Similar rumors have often arisen in the case of a sudden death; Julian was a bold and reckless soldier, who had often exposed himself to great danger; he himself gave utterance to no suspicion--according to Ammianus he thanked the gods that he had fallen by "no clandestine ambush"; Eutropius says espressly that he was wounded by one of the enemy, and Ephraem knows nothing different; and Ammianus says that no offers of reward produced the Persian who had given the wound--he may have been dead--which gave rise to their reproach of the Romans, and thus to the growth of the legend. Julian was buried at Tarsus, leaving no heir; and his wife, Helena, the sister of Constantius, had died at Vienne in the winter of 360-361. ### His Policy and Character. The restoration of Hellenism was the great aim of Julian's reign. On his arrival in Constantinople he made a clean sweep of the old court, and the Neoplatonic philosophers, with Maximus at their head, hastened to appear there in support of one who was an emperor after their own heart. The worship of the ancient gods in its traditional form was declared the privileged religion; the temples were ordered to be opened or rebuilt, and their property restored. Julian was especially anxious to restore the complete sacrificial system; and the way in which he went to work shows that the ideas underlying the old public worship were not his, but that he designed to bring about the restoration of the old paganism under the forms of certain mystic cults, and to unite all the older religions into a sort of pagan imperial church. It is from the mysteries that all the determining lines of his policy are taken. If the whole of public life was to be ordered according to the piety prescribed in the mysteries, the plan would not have been a reaction but a reform in the highest sense. The return to the ancient gods is the only reactionary feature of it; the ascetic-pietistic and mystic-hierarchical ordering of the worship, with its organized associations and priesthood, would have been an unheard-of innovation. To change paganism into a State religion, and thus to modify the whole relation between religion and the State as it had been understood in antiquity, was a thing which could be done only by force. The remnant of the pagan population showed itself indifferent or actually hostile to the plans which Julian promulgated in a series of edicts which combined, so to speak, imperial and papal characteristics. The reforming tendencies of his plans were displayed especially in his provisions for the ceremonial reception of converts to paganism, who were to be admitted to draw near to the gods only after spiritual and bodily purification, and for the creation of a definitely graduated and strictly organized hierarchy, with the emperor as *pontifex maximus*, and high priests (answering to metropolitans) for the provinces. In yet other particulars the imitation of the Church's discipline is obvious. It is most direct in regard to the care of the poor, as to which Julian made no secret of his admiration for the Christian model; other resemblances are indirect, coming through the influence which the mysteries had already exercised upon the Christian system. In discussing the question of Julian's actual relations to the Christian Church, it is necessary to distinguish between what was in his mind and what he actually did, and even between the different parts of his short reign--since, though his policy did not essentially change, there are traces of increasing irritation in his mind, which influenced his edicts. In principle, however, he rejected the use of force as an aid to conversion. Christianity, which he regarded as a pitiable superstition of weak-minded people, a distorted form of worship suited to barbarians with no knowledge of history, an assemblage of discordant elements held together only by an ambitious clergy, was to be allowed to fall to decay of itself. In the army the cross was to be replaced by pagan emblems, and the pretorian guard was to be purged of Christians. Christian officials were to be removed from the government. All privileges were withdrawn from the clergy and the Church, including support from State funds and such rights of jurisdiction as had been conceded. The restoration of pagan temples at the cost of those who had destroyed them imposed this burden upon the Christians. All Christian factions were to be treated alike, including the Donatists, and this involved the recall of the banished orthodox bishops. The old idea that he did this with the purpose of fostering discord among his antagonists, while in view of the short-sightedness of his policy it is possible, is not probable; and the result was actually beneficial to the Church. His school law of June 17, 362, which required candidates for teachers' positions, to obtain the license of the local authorities or of the emperor, while apparently not affecting religious questions, really excluded the Christians from such positions. The assertion that he forbade them to attend the schools is apparently based on a misunderstanding. Another weapon in his religious campaign was his treatise "Against the Christians," which he circulated not long before his death. The whole first book is extant, some fragments of the second, and scarcely any of the third. For knowledge and acuteness it is not to be compared with the works of Celsus and Porphyry. It tells much of the religious and historical attitude of Julian and his partizans, but little of his relations with the Church, whose real weak points are seldom touched upon. If it were possible positively to decide as to the truth of the statements that he threatened severe repressive measures against his return from the Persian campaign, it would be easier to arrive at a final judgment of the man; but sober history will at least regard him most truly as a belated son of a great bygone age, deceived in his ideals but noble in nature, and deserving of honor as a man who attempted to do justice to his fellows at a time when this was a rare virtue. (A. HARNACK.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: The best edition of the works of Julian in the original Greek is by F. C. Hertlein, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1875-76; the fragments of his Books against the Christians were edited by K. J. Neumann (ib. 1880), who also translated them into German, *Kaiser Julians Bucher gegen die Christen*, ib. 1880. In English translation are Gregory Nazianzen's two invectives against, and Libanius' funeral oration upon Julian; and Julian's essays "Upon the Sovereign Sun," and "Upon the Mother of the Gods" (transl. by C. W. King, *Julian the Emperor*, London, 1888). In French there is a complete translation of Julian's works and letters, by Eugène Talbot, Œuvres complètes de l'empereur Julièn, Paris, 1863, The most elaborate biography of Julian is by Gætano Negri, transl. from the 2d ed. of the original Italian, 2 vols., London and New York, 1905; other noteworthy biographies are by Neander, Eng. transl., London, 1850; F. J. Holgwarth, Freiburg, 1874; A. Naville, Neuchâtel, 1877; G. H. Rendall, Cambridge, 1877; Alice Gardner, London and New York, 1895; W. Koch, Leipsic, 1899; E. Müller, Hanover, 1901; P. Allard, 3 vols., Paris, 1902. Special treatises are: F. Rode, *Geschichte der Reaktion Kaiser Julians gegen die christliche Kirche*, Jena, 1877; E. J. Chinnock, *A Few Notes on Julian and a Translation of his Public Letters*, London, 1901. Consult also Tillemont, *Mémoires*, vi.; Ceillier, *Auteurs sacrés*, iii. 398-412; Gibbon, *Decline and Fall*, chaps. xxii.-xxiv.; Schaff, *Christian Church*, iii. 41-59; *DCB*, iii. 484-525.

**JULIAN CESARINI, CARDINAL.** See CESARINI, GIULIANO.

**JULIAN OF ECLANUM:** The most gifted and consistent champion of Pelagianism; b. in Apulia between 380 and 390; d., according to Gennadius, under Valentinian III. (425-455). Well educated in classical literature, he learned from Aristotle the art of dialectics which he used so cleverly in later times. While still a youth, he became bishop of Eclanum near Beneventum and seems to have been greatly respected. It is not known how he was won over to Pelagianism, but this doctrine corresponded to his whole disposition, which was not religious, but intellectual. By an edict of the Emperor Honorius and the *Epistola tractatoria* of the Roman Bishop Zosirnus (see PELAGIUS), Julian with seventeen other bishops was crowded out of his episcopal position in 418 and expelled from his native country. Entrusted with the defense of his associates, he assumed the leadership in the struggle against Augustinianism, and attacked it first in a letter to Bishop Rufus of Thessalonica, wherein he laid down his views concerning the divine creation of each individual man, concerning marriage, law, the freedom of the will, and baptism against Augustine and his adherents, whom he regarded as Manicheans. In connection with this letter there was issued a circular letter to the adherents of Pelagius in Italy, which, however, was probably not written by Julian himself. Against Augustine's *De nuptiis et concupiscentia* he directed the four books of his work *Ad Turbantium* (419); its main thought is the natural goodness of man vouch-safed by God's creation. Augustine wrote a second treatise *De nuptiis et concupiscentia* and Julian answered by addressing eight books to Florus (*Libri viii ad Florum contra Augustine librum secundum de nuptiis*). This is Julian's most important writing, full of personal, passionate, and spiteful polemics against Augustine, but also fraught with dialectical acuteness and logical sequence of thoughts; it forms the proper source for the knowledge of Julian's theology. The efforts of himself and his associates at the court of the Byzantine Emperor Theodosius II. (d. 450) to be restored to their positions were without success, and Marius Mercator especially caused his expulsion from Constantinople. At the Council of Ephesus in 431 he was expressly condemned. The fundamental presupposition of Julian's doctrines is that sin is a matter of the will and not of nature. Will again presupposes the freedom of choice, and this consists in the possibility of admitting or rejecting sin. In virtue of this liberty of will man bears the image of God within himself and is akin to him just as according to his sensual nature he is related to the animal. In free will man possesses such a perpetual possibility of willing and not willing that Julian denies even the force of motives. From this conception of free will it follows that it is a possession which can not be lost and can not be restrained or limited by sin. The conception of sin as a work of the will implies that it can arise only under an entirely free choice. Therefore Julian found himself in entire opposition to Augustine's doctrine of hereditary sin. It is a *contradictio in adjecto* since sin and guilt can exist only where there is freedom of decision. Children can not sin because they have no will. It is perfect nonsense to deny the virtue of pagans. Augustine's doctrine is altogether Manichean since only the devil can be the creator and lord of an evil nature. Augustine is even worse than Mani, since he makes God the author and multiplier of sin. Since God creates the nature of each individual man, it must be good. If man were evil by nature he would not be capable of redemption; disgrace of nature would therefore imply the denial of grace. The doctrine of original sin contradicts also the justice of God, since according to it he recompenses and punishes that which is not a matter of liberty and not due to one's own fault. Justice, however, is a generally acknowledged and fundamental law, and a contradiction to this law suffices for the refutation of the doctrine of hereditary sin. Death is not evil; it is natural for a creature to die. The doctrine of hereditary sin destroys also the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is pleasing to God as the sexual impulse is his work. Even Christ possessed concupiscence, and if there was no *naturale peccatum* in him, it is also not in our nature. At the same time Julian does not deny the importance of God's grace. Our bodily and especially our spiritual endowments are works of divine grace. He does not deny the loss of the *meritum innocentiae*. In baptism we receive forgiveness of sin and incitement to good works. Thus the good will of man is aided by God. The increase of divine benefactions is useful and necessary although virtue and sin remain always a matter of free will. Julian always tried to prove his position from Scripture, but he did not consider this his last and highest authority; for him reason was higher than Scripture and tradition. Scripture can never contradict what reason teaches. No one ever understood how to use the art of dialectics more cleverly than Julian, and he tried to decide all questions by logical conclusions. (N. BONWETSCH.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: The chief sources are: Notices in Augustine (who had known Julian's parents and took an interest in him), vols. ii. and x, of the Benedictine edition of his works and *MPL*, xxxiii., xliv., xlv.; cf. xlv. 1736 sqq. For further notices: Marius Mercator, *MPL*, xlviii.; Vincent of Lerins; Prosper; and Gennadius. Consult A. Bruckner, *Julian von Eklanum, sein Leben und seine Lehre*, in *TU*, xv. 3, Leipsic, 1897; C. T. G. Schönemann, *Bibliotheca . . . patrum Latinorum*, ii., § 18, ib. 1794 (condensed account, but valuable); W. Smith, *Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology*, ii. 643-644, London, 1890; Harnack, *Dogma*, v. 171 sqq. 186 sqq., 203, 235, 236, vi. 303; Ceillier, *Auteurs sacrés*, ix. 483 538, consult Index; Neander, *Christian Church*, ii. 650-655 et passim; Schaff, *Christian Church*, iii. 800, 837-838, 937; *DCB*, iii. 469-473; Von Schubert, in *TU*, xxiv. 4 (1903).

**JULIAN OF HALICARNASSUS:** Bishop of Halicarnassus. Little is known of Julian's life and personality. As bishop of Halicarnassus in Caria, he took part with the later patriarch of Antioch, Severus, (q.v.) in the intrigue which led to the downfall of the Patriarch Macedonius of Constantinople in 511. After his banishment at the beginning of the reign of Justin I. in 518 (see MONOPHYSITES), he took up his abode in the cloister of Enaton, before the gates of Alexandria. Here he became involved with Severus, likewise in exile, in a dispute over the question whether Christ's body during his life on earth was incorruptible or corruptible (see below). At Alexandria the dispute led to a division of the Monophysite party which continued till the seventh century. Julian's later destinies are unknown; at all events, he did not return to Halicarnassus. His doctrine circulated as far as Arabia, and also found acceptance in the Armenian Church. There are extant the following works of Julian: his correspondence with Severus, in the Syriac translation of Bishop Paul of Callinicus; ten anathemas; and a commentary on Job printed among Origen's works, and only lately recognized by Usener as a work of Julian's. The expressions "incorruptible," "corruptible," or "imperishable," "perishable," do not correctly reproduce the debated meaning of *aphthartos*, *phthartos*, as understood by Julian and Severus. The controversy hinges not upon *phthora*, as indicating total dissolution of the body into so many atoms, but on the *phthora* existing in the natural infirmities of the body; such as hunger, thirst, weariness, sweat, tears, bleeding, etc. So, as Julian conceived it, the body of Christ was not subject to this manner of "corruption," which is a characteristic of human nature in consequence of Adam's sin. When Christ hungered and thirsted, he did so because he willed it, not of necessity; and he willed so, because only in that way could he free us from corruption. But Julian did not admit that, in order to redeem us, Christ must have possessed a body subjected to corruption through-out. He could not believe that one and the same being was both "corruptible" and "incorruptible." With singular inconsistency, however, he did not believe himself compelled to deny the doctrine of the like nature of Christ's body to that of ours; on the contrary, he expressly rejected the opposite doctrine, that of Eutyches. The Julian party reproached their opponents for being "corruption worshipers"; whereas these retorted with the reproach of docetism, insomuch that the epithets "aphthartodocetics" and "phantasiasts," or illusionists, ever afterward stayed attached to the Julianists. In this matter, the orthodox and the Severians made common cause, although there were some "aphthartodocetics" among the orthodox themselves. For the fact that Emperor Justinian himself was open to this line of argument see JUSTINIAN; and for the significance of the controverted question generally, as a phase of Monophysitism, see MONOPHYSITES. G. KROGER. BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. W. F. Walch, *Historie der Ketzereien*, viii. 550 sqq., 886 sqq., Leipsic, 1778; J. C. L. Gieseler: *Commentatio, qua Monophysitarum . . . variae de Christi persona opiniones . . . illustrantur*, 2 parts, Göttingen, 1835; J. P. N. Land, *Anecdota Syriaca*, iii. 263-271, Leyden, 1870; H. Usener, in H. Lietzmann, *Catenen*, pp. 28-34, Freiburg, 1897; idem, in *Rheinisches Museum*, Iv (1900), 321-340; E. Ter-Minasaiantz, in *TU*, xxvi. 4 (1904), passim; Krumbacher, *Geschichte*, pp. 52-53; Ceillier, *Auteurs sacrés*, viii. 364, xi. 109, 344; *DCB*, iii. 475-476.

**JULIAN OF TOLEDO.** See POMERIUS, JULIANUS.

**Julius I:** Pope 337-352. According to tradition he was the son of Rusticus, a Roman, and elected after a long interregnum Feb. 6, 337. Little is known of his pontificate, except in regard to his spiritual care for the rapidly growing Roman community--he built no less than five new churches--and to his position in the Arian controversy, which had scarcely affected Rome before his time. He took part in it only when both parties sought a decision from him. The request came first from the Eusebians, who sent three Eastern clerics in 338 to ask his approval of their deposition of Athanasius and putting Pistus in his place. Soon afterward an embassy appeared from Athanasius, who so successfully presented their case that the Eusebians themselves, so Athanasius asserts, proposed the reference of the matter to a new council. Presently, however, the Eusebians got the ear of the Emperor Constantius, and by Easter, 339, Athanasius himself was seeking refuge in Rome, to be followed by other banished orthodox prelates. The friendly reception which they received in Rome gave the Eusebians an excuse for rudely refusing Julius' invitation to the proposed council. It met at Rome in 340, and absolved Athanasius and Marcellus of Ancyra from the charges brought against them. Julius communicated the result to the Orientals in his famous epistle to Flacillus, a masterpiece of diplomacy. He considers the question from the standpoint of ecclesiastical law, asserting that the Council of Nicæa had permitted the revision of the acts of one synod by another, though no foundation is known for this statement, and justifies his reopening of the case of Athanasius by the assertion that the custom of the Church requires the bishop of Rome to be notified of charges against bishops (or against the bishop of Alexandria) and to lay down the law. This does not apparently cover the later claim to a supreme judicial function; and it did not even attain the result which Julius hoped. The relations between Rome and the East were more strained than ever, and it was not Julius but Hosius of Cordova that determined Constans to summon the Council of Sardica in 343. This council recognized the pope as the strongest support of the Nicene party, and passed canons which really allowed him a more limited authority than the Council of Chalcedon gave in similar cases to the exarchs and the patriarchs of Constantinople, although their importance lies in the use which later popes made of them, interpolating them among those of Nicæa and deducing from them a final judicial authority over the whole Church. Julius seems to have had no opportunity to act on these provisions, since the change in the emperor's attitude toward the Nicene party left him no longer the central figure in the strife. He welcomed Athanasius in Rome on his homeward journey in 346, and shortly after, at the request of a synod in Milan, he investigated the orthodoxy of Ursacius and Valens, and received them both again into communion. He died Apr. 12, 352, and was early honored in Rome as a saint, while the number of forgeries passing under his name shows the impression which his clever policy made on succeeding generations and the extent to which it was held to have strengthened the papal authority. (H. BÖHMER.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are: *Liber pontificalis*, ed. Duchesne, i. 205, Paris, 1886, ed. Mommsen in *MGH, Gest. Pont. Rom*., i (1898), 75-76; *Catalogus Liberianus*, ed. Mommsen in *MGH, Auct. ant*., ix (1892), 76; *Epist.* in *MPL*, viii. Consult: B. Jungmann *Dissertationes selectae*, ii. 7-31, Regensburg, 1881; L. Rivington, *Primitive Church and the See of St. Peter*, pp. 173 sqq, 467 sqq., London, 1894; W. Bright, *Roman See and the Early Church*, pp. 81 sqq., ib. 1896; Milman, *Latin Christianity*, i. 100-101; Bower, *Popes*, i. 54-59; *KL*, vi. 1997-98.

**Julius II.** (Giuliano Rovere-he was not connected with the highly aristocratic Della Rovere family): Pope 1503-13. He was born at Albizzola, near Savona (25 m. s.w. of Genoa), 1443. When his uncle Francesco (later Pope Sixtus IV.), became cardinal, he turned to the spiritual career, likewise becoming cardinal by 1471; and in 1480-1481, he was legate to the French King Louis XI. He exerted only a moderate influence over his uncle, Sixtus IV. (d. 1484), who stood under the sway of another nephew, Cardinal Riario; but he determined the policy of his successor, Innocent VIII. (q.v.). However, when Borgia (Alexander VI.) ascended the papal throne, Julius was compelled to secure his life by flight to France (1494). It was not until 1498, when the growing power of the pope drew the second successor of Louis XI. to his side, that Julius became ostensibly reconciled with Alexander, and now wrought for the conclusion of a compact between the two rulers which occasioned fresh war over Italy. He did not venture back to Rome till after the death of Alexander VI. (Aug. 18, 1503). On Oct. 31, 1503, after the sudden end of the pontificate of Pius III., lasting less than a month, he was chosen pope. He had gained the Spanish cardinals by the degrading promise not to contest the Romagna against Borgia's son Cesare. Nevertheless, in the first year of his pontificate, he demanded the delivery of the fortresses in that region and made Cesare captive. Then the Venetians interposed, and occupied the Romagna; but, owing to a league of the pope with France and Germany in 1504, they were compelled to surrender all the occupied points except Rimini and Faenza. Julius then at the head of an army wrested these cities from the Venetians and united the entire district with the Papal States. The enmity toward Venice continued, and in 1508 Julius again contrived, in the League of Cambrai, to combine the mightiest sovereigns of the West-Spain, France, and Germany-against the republic. The Curia now began a system of deceitful and opportunist seesaw statecraft whereby it maintained its position among the nations. Hardly were the districts that had been occupied by Venice won back by the help of France, when Julius arrayed himself against France on the side of Venice. The French king's resentment went so far that in 1510 he assembled a national synod against the pope at Tours, and sought an alliance with Emperor Maximilian, with a view to depose the pope from his dignity. Maximilian actually thought of crowning his own head with the tiara. Meanwhile, Julius in person waged war on the duke of Ferrara, who had remained on the side of France, hoping to unite his city and territory with the States of the Church; and he succeeded, in the winter of 1511; but France retaliated by occupying Bologna, and an antipapal council was convened at Pisa. In Opposition, Julius convened the Fifth Lateran Council in 1512, and, by founding the "Holy League," he secured the retreat of the French across the Alps in the same year. He still managed to add Parma and Piacenza to the States of the Church; but all the results of his war-lust and of his statecraft continued insecure, since the States of the Church, being subject to a policy of constant vacillation, lacked the conditions of independent existence. He died Feb. 21, 1513. K. BENRATH. BIBLIOGRAPHY: For sources consult his bulls in A. M. Cherubini, *Magnum bullarium Romanum*, i. 477 sqq., Lyons, 1655, and in Turin ed., v. 399 sqq.; R. Brown, *Calendar of State Papers*, vols. i.-ii., London, 1864 sqq.; *Pauli Jovii Historia sui temporisa*, Basel, 1517; O. Raynaldus, *Annales ecclesiastici*, Cologne, 1694-1727. Consult further: A. von Reumont, *Geschichte der Stadt Rom*, iii. 10 sqq., Berlin, 1870; G. Balbi, *Julius II.*, Berlin, 1877; J. Burckhardt, *Die Cultur der Renaissance in Italien*, i. 112, 231 sqq., Leipsic, 1877; idem, *Geschichte der Renaissance in Italien*, pp. 11 sqq., ib. 1877; M. Brosch, *Papst Julius II. und die Gründung des Kirchenstaates*, Gotha, 1878; F. Gregorovius, *Geschichte der Stadt Rom*, vol. viii., Stuttgart, 1881; Creighton, *Papacy*, v. 68-202; Ranke, *Popes*, i. 39 sqq., iii. 11-14; Bower, *Popes*, iii. 283-290; *KL*, vi. 1998-2002.

**Julius III.** (Giovanni Maria del Monte): Pope 1550-55. He was born of a distinguished Roman family, being nephew of Cardinal Antonio del Monte, in Rome in 1487. By favor of Julius II. he succeeded his uncle as archbishop of Siponto, and in 1536 became cardinal under Paul III. As papal legate at the opening of the Council of Trent in 1545, he managed to thwart all the plans of the emperor. In spite of the opposition of the cardinals with imperial sympathies, he was elected pope after the death of Paul III. in 1550. Henceforth he thoroughly reversed his policy toward the emperor, inviting him to reopen the council after its suspension, and turned away from Henry II. of France, whereupon the latter sided with the Farnese nephews and tried to constitute them proprietors of the contested possessions in southern Italy which heretofore they had held from the Church as retainers. The pope was again obliged to suspend the council when Maurice of Saxony, in 1552, turned unexpectedly against the emperor, and almost captured him at Innsbruck. The most momentous event during the pontificate of Julius III. was the death of Edward VI. of England, and the return of England to the Roman obedience. Julius despatched Cardinal Pole (see POLE, REGINALD) as plenipotentiary legate to Queen Mary Tudor, and he brought it to pass that Parliament again recognized the papal supremacy, though subject to acceptance of the consummated transfer of church property to state or private possession. He then achieved the bloody realization of the Counter-Reformation in England. The pontificate of Julius III. occurred at a time when in Italy, too, the nullification of the reforming movement was prosecuted with every instrument of force and cunning. He assured free play and advancement to the Inquisition, even though his indolent nature did not so energetically and personally interest him in this matter as proved true of his successors. That his moral life before and after his elevation to the papal throne bears no strict scrutiny, is attested by the utterances of many contemporaries. The avowed favorite Innocent, originally a street urchin of Parma, was not the only unworthy recipient on whom he bestowed church dignities and goods. He likewise endowed his relatives in this way; but the full time of political nepotism was past. Julius died May 23, 1555, shortly after sending Cardinal Morone to Germany, with the purpose of giving such a turn to the religious peace at the impending Diet of Augsburg, that Germany should be led back to the bosom of the Roman Church after the precedent of England. The same aim was to be promoted also by the Collegium Germanicum in Rome, founded by Ignatius Loyola, and formally opened in 1552, where the élite of the Jesuit order were to be educated for the battle against German Protestantism. K. BENRATH. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The bulls of Julius are in A. M. Cherubini, *Magnum bullarium Romanum*, i. 778 sqq., Turin ed., vi. 401 sqq. Consult: *Des faitz et gestes du pape Jules III*, Geneva (?), 1551; O. Raynaldus, *Annales ecclesiastici*, Cologne, 1694-1727; Paolo Sarpi, *The Historie of the Councell of Trent*, pp. 298-303, 371, 376, 382-389, London, 1629; C. Weiss, *Papiers de l'état du cardinal de Granvelle*, vol. iii., Paris, 1841; W. G. Soldan, *Geschichte des Protestantismus in Frankreich*, i. 226 sqq., Leipsic, 1855; Petrucelli della Gattina, *Hist. diplomatique des conclaves*, ii. 23 sqq., Paris, 1864; A. von Reumont, *Geschichte der Stadt Rom*, iii. 2, pp. 503 sqq., Berlin, 1870; L. Maynier, *Étude historique sur le concile de Trente*, pp. 586 sqq., Paris, 1874; M. Brosch, *Geschichte des Kirchenstaats*, i. 189 sqq., Gotha, 1880; De Leva, in *Rivista storica Italiana*, 1884, pp. 632 sqq.; Ranke, *Popes*, i. 206-210 et passim; Bower, *Popes*, iii. 317; *KL*, vi. 2002-05; and literature under TRENT, COUNCIL OF.

**JULIUS AFRICANUS, SEXTUS:** One of the most learned ecclesiastical writers of the third century; b. probably about 160 in Africa, perhaps in Libya; d. probably soon after 240. In early life he may have been an officer, but after the expedition of Septimius Severus against Osrhoene (195) he settled at Emmaus (Nicopolis) in Palestine. About 215 he spent some time in Alexandria studying under Heraclas, and later, in the reign of Elagabalus or Alexander Severus, went to Rome on behalf of his fellow citizens. He published his "Chronography" in the fourth year of Elágabalus, and his heterogeneous work entitled *Kestoi* ("Embroiderings") under Alexander, to whom it was dedicated. His extant letter to Origen, whom he calls "son," was written in his old age. That he was ordained in later life is doubtful. He is one of the few ancient Greek Fathers who were in relation with Rome, and this was an advantage to his "Chronography." Divided into five books, and beginning with an apologetic purpose, it develops a scientific aim and shows a good knowledge of earlier pagan and Jewish sources. The whole work was practically incorporated into the chronographies of later writers, especially Eusebius, and deserves to be considered not only as the basis of Christian chronography, but as relatively better executed than the attempts of Julius' successors. Critical study of the *Kestoi* has made so little progress that it is scarcely worth while to summarize its conclusions. It appears to have been intended as a sort of encyclopedia of the material sciences with the cognate mathematical and technical branches, but to have contained a large proportion of merely curious, trifling, or miraculous matters, on which account the authorship of Julius has been questioned. Among the parts published are sections on agriculture, liturgiology, tactics, and medicine (including veterinary practise). The two letters, that to Aristides on the genealogies of Christ, of which only fragments are preserved, and that to Origen on the story of Susanna, are admirable bits of critical historical work. (A. HARNACK.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: Incomplete collections of the fragments are in A. Gallandi, *Bibliotheca veterum patrum*, ii. 337-376, 14 vols., Venice, 1765-81, and in M. J. Routh, *Reliquiae sacrae*, vol. ii., 5 vols., Oxford, 1846-48. The best ed. of the "Chronography" is in Gelzer, see below; for the Keatoi consult *Veterum mathematicorum opera*, ed. M. Thevenot and J. Boivin, Paris, 1693; and for the Letter to Aristides, F. Spitta, *Der Brief des Julius Africanus an Aristides*, Halle, 1877. An Eng. transl. of the fragments is in *ANF*, vi. 123 sqq.; and a list of literature is given in *ANF*, Bibliography, pp. 68-69. Consult: Jerome, *De vir. ill.*, lxii.; H. Gelzer, *Sextus Julius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronographie*, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1880-98; Schaff, *Christian Church*, iii. 803-805; Krüger, *History*, pp. 248-253; Harnack, *Litteratur*, i. 507-513, ii. 1, pp. 124 sqq., ii. part ii., passim; *DCB*, i. 53-57.

**JULIUS ECHTER:** Bishop of Würzburg 1573-1617; b. at the castle of Mespelbrunn in the Spessart (northwestern Bavaria) Mar. 18, 1545; d. at Würzburg Sept. 13, 1617. ### Early Activity. The circumstances under which his work was begun were as follows: Not till after 1540, after the death of Bishop Conrad II., did the Reformation prosper in the diocese of Würzburg. Then almost all citizens and noblemen separated from the old church and inaugurated Lutheran preachers. Roman Catholic institutions decayed and the secular clergy was without means and protection, so that many of its members adopted the new doctrine. Bishop Friedrich of Würzberg (1558-73) did not possess the necessary energy to stem the tide of the new movement, although he sought a very close political union with Bavaria and in 1567, against the opposition of the cathedral chapter, realized the foundation of a Jesuit college in Würzburg. On Dec. 1, 1573, Julius Echter was elected bishop. He had been educated in the Roman Catholic spirit from 1560 to 1569 at Mainz, Louvain, Douai, Paris, Angers, Pavia and Rome. As a licentiate of law and with a fund of knowledge often praised in later times he came in 1569 to Wurzburg where he was received as an active member of the cathedral chapter. In 1570 he became dean of the cathedral and in his twenty-eighth year was elected bishop, to the great satisfaction of Rome. In spite of contrary statements, it has been proved that he never had Protestant inclinations. He represented the interests of the Roman Catholic estates of the realm at the diet of Regensburg in 1576 and of Augsburg in 1582. Continuing the policy of his predecessor, he kept in the closest touch with Bavaria. He was thought to be secretly inclined toward Protestantism because of his cooperation in the deposition of Balthasar of Dernbach, abbot of Fulda, in 1576 at Hammelburg, but this action was due to a youthful ambition to incorporate the abbacy of Fulda and to become the successor of Balthasar. His act caused general indignation among Roman Catholics, and the abbot was reinstituted in 1602. ### His Timidity. It was only with great hesitancy that Julius undertook the work of counteracting the Reformation in his diocese. Although he had been urged by Rome in 1575 and 1577, he did not convoke a diocesan synod because he dreaded the hatred of the Protestant princes. Moreover, he feared to prod against heretical ecclesiastics lest whole regions should be deprived of ecclesiastics for whom there were no substitutes. From the noble families he did not dare to demand the oath of adherence to the Roman confession of faith because he suspected that none of them had remained faithful. In 1582 he still asked for a papal brief that should censure him on account of the conditions in his diocese and impose upon him a visitation and examination of all ecclesiastics, and a second similar brief to be directed to the chapter. The Curia, granted both of them. His implication in the affair of Fulda also hampered his attempts against the Reformation, but, on the other hand, it required him to give clear proof of his fidelity to Roman Catholicism. But the weakness of the Protestant princes became so evident at the diets of 1576 and 1582 and on other occasions that Julius lost his fear. ### His Achievements in Counter-Reform. Nevertheless, even in the early years of his administration he had made some important changes. In 1575 all concubines, even those of the canons, were forced to leave the city of Würzburg; in 1577 fourteen preachers were expelled from the chapter; in 1581 Julius rejected the interference of the nobility with religious affairs. In 1578 the seminary of priests was newly organized, and in 1582 there was established again the University of Würzburg as an institution of the Counter-Reformation, under the dominating influence of the Jesuits. A new church order (1584 in Latin, 1589 in a remodeled form in German) impressively reminded the clergy of their duties in the spirit of the Council of Trent and enforced a stricter ecclesiastical organization. All Lutheran preachers (about 170) were deprived of their offices; Protestant officers were dismissed. A visitation of the whole diocese (1585 to 1587) was directed against all Protestant members of the population. In 1587 all who did not become Catholic were compelled to emigrate; in the course of three years about 100,000 had been converted. Only a few hundred remained true to their convictions and preferred to emigrate in spite of the fact that they had to leave one-third of their possessions to the bishop. Julius preserved an attitude of calm amid the resentment of the Protestants. Pamphlets were published against him, and the electors of Saxony, Palatinate and Brandenburg, the landgrave of Hesse, the margraves of Brandenburg and Baden, the prince of Anhalt protested, some addressing themselves to the emperor with complaints about the violation of the religious peace; but Julius no longer overestimated the importance of these Protestant admonitione, feeling himself secure under the protection of Duke Wilhelm of Bavaria and of the pope and assured of the favor of the emperor. The reform of ecclesiastical institutions went hand in hand with the suppression of Protestantism. The new church order contained, beside regulations for the conduct of the clergyt instructions concerning the church service, claimed possession of the churches, and ordered observance of the decrees of councils. There appeared revised editions of books for the church service, of breviaries, Psalters, and missals. The book-trade was so controlled that only unobjectionable books were circulated. The monasteries too, felt the reforming influence of the bishop--the possessions of those that were hopelessly ruined were used for other purposes (university, hospital), the others were restored and subjected to rigorous visitations; in the same way the chapter was reformed. A few of the nobility opposed the new state of affairs, and remnants of the Reformation were still found at the beginning of the nineteenth century; but on the whole Wurzburg had become thoroughly Catholic, and the generation following that of Julius was devoted to the church and the Jesuits. See BALTHAZAR OF DERNBACH AND THE COUNTER-REFORMATION IN FULDA. (W. GOETZ.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. N. Buchinger, *Julius Echter von Mespelbrunn*, Würzburg, 1843; H. L. J. Heppe, *Restauration des Katholicismus in . . . Würzburg*, Marburg, 1850; F. X. Wegele, *Geschichte der Universität Würzburg*, 2 vols., Würzburg, 1882; Lossen, in *Forschungen der deutschen Geschichte*, vol. xxiii.; M. Ritter, *Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Gegenreformation*, i. 624 sqq., Stuttgart, 1887; J. Janssen, *Hist. of the German People*, viii. 335, 366, London, 1905; *KL*, vi. 2009-16.

**JUMPERS:** A name applied in derision to the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists (see PRESBYTERIANS) since they not only expressed their emotion in the outcries frequent in Methodist meetings, but also "leaped and sprang for joy." These ecstatic manifestations first appeared about 1760 in circles of Welsh Methodists, and spread with such contagion that they were for a time regarded as a characteristic of the sect. Justification for the practise was sought from I Sam. vi. 16; Luke vi. 23; and Acts iii. 8. The custom later became obsolete. (C. SCHOELL†.)

**JUNCKER**, yunk'er, A**LFRED**: German Protestant; b. at Ida- und Marienhütte, Silesia, July 4, 1865. He was educated at the universities of Breslau, Berlin, Leipsic, and Halle from 1884 to 1888 (lic. theol., Halle, 1891). From 1892 to 1895 he was pastor at Bunzlau, after which he was appointed inspector of the Sedlnitzkysches Johanneum, Breslau. In 1896 he became privat-docent at the University of Breslau, where he was appointed to his present position of associate professor of New-Testament exegesis in 1904. He has written *Das Ich und die Motivation des Willens im Christentum, ein Beitrag zur Lösung des eudämonistischen Problems* (Halle, 1891); *Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus*, vol. i. (Halle, 1904); and *Das Gebet bei Paulus* (Gross-Lichterfelde, 1905).

**JUNILIUS:** Ecclesiastical writer; b. in Africa; d. about 550. He was a contemporary of Cassiodorus and lived at Constantinople under Justinian, where he held some high civil office (according to Procopius, *Historia arcana*, xx., that of Quaestor sacri palatii). According to his own statement, his work entitled: *Instituta regularia divinæ legis*, which he dedicated to Bishop Primasius of Hadrumetum at the time of the Three Chapter Controversy (q.v.), is based on the communications of a Persian Paulus. In the form of question and answer, this work, in two books, contains a methodical introduction into the sacred Scriptures. The first part (book i. 1-10) treats of the various rhetorical styles, of the varied authority and authorship of the Scriptures, distinction between poetry and prose, of the proper sequence between the two Testaments. The books of Chronicles, Job, Ezra with Nehemiah and Esther, and also Canticles, James, II Peter, Jude, II and III John, and Revelation are not reckoned among the canonical Scriptures. The second part (book i. 11-ii. 27) presents a synopsis of the doctrinal content of Scripture: of God, his being, the persons of the Trinity, God's modes of operation, and his relation to his creatures; of the present world, creation, divine government, nature, free will; and of the world to come, the story of salvation, election and calling; of types and prophecies, and their fulfilment both in time and in eternity. In conclusion, there are some hermeneutical rules (ii. 28), grounds for the credibility of Scripture (ii. 29), and an explanation of the relation between reason and faith. G. KRÜGER. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The work of Junilius was edited by J. Gast, Basel, 1545, reproduced Paris, 1644, and reprinted in *MPL*, lxviii. 15-42; also by H. Kihn, Freiburg, 1880, and in pp. 465-528 of Kihn's *Theodor von Mopsuestia und Junilius Africanus*, ib. 1880. Consult: A. Rahlfs, in *Nachrichten der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften . . . zu Göttingen*, 1890, pp. 242-246; *DCB*, iii. 534-535.

**JUNIUS, FRANCISCUS (FRANÇOIS DU JON):** Reformed theologian; b. at Bourges May 1, 1545; d. at Leyden Oct. 13, 1602. At the age of thirteen he began the study of law, but soon gave it up in order to repair the deficiencies of his earlier education at the school of Lyons, where he succumbed for a time to the temptations of atheism, but soon was converted and then studied theology at Geneva. In 1565 he was called as preacher to the Walloon congregation of Antwerp, whence he had to flee in 1567, owing to intrigues of Roman Catholic and Anabaptist opponents. He accompanied Prince William of Orange on his campaign to Champagne, then he became pastor of the Walloon congregation at Schönau in the Palatinate. In 1573 Elector Frederick III. called him to Heidelberg to assist in a Latin translation of the Old Testament. After the death of the elector, Count Palatine John Casimir called him to the newly established Casimirianum at Neustadt-on-the-Haardt. Soon afterward he became preacher of the Walloon congregation in Otterberg. In 1582 he returned to his professorship at Neustadt and in 1584 removed to the University of Heidelberg. In 1592 he followed a call to Leyden. In his theological convictions he was always a genuine pupil of Calvin. His *Ecclesiastici sive de natura et administratione ecclesiae Dei libri tres* (Heidelberg, 1581) had great influence upon the development of synods and presbyteries. His *Parallela sacra* (1588), a treatise on Old-Testament quotations in the New, was epoch-making for Biblical exegesis. In his *Animadversiones* (1602), against Bellarmine, he defended Protestantism against Romanism, and in *Defensio catholicae doctrinae* (1592) he attacked the Antitrinitarians. *Le Plaisible Chrestien ou de la paix de l'église catholique*, written a few months before the renunciation of Protestantism by Henry IV., is a defense of an independent Gallico-Catholic Church. He also made several translations, and wrote works of philological and historical interest. His contemporaries esteemed him very highly. (F. W. CUNO†.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: The early *Vita* by P. Merula appeared Leyden, 1595, and Esslingen, 1769, also reprinted in the *Opera* of Junius, Geneva, 1607, 1613. The best modern life is by F. W. Cuno, Amsterdam, 1891; others are by J. Reitsma, Groningen, 1864, and A. Davaine, Paris, 1882. Consult also Niceron, *Mémoires*, vol. xvi.; P. Bayle, *Dictionary Historical and Critical*, iii. 623-628, London, 1736.

**JUNKIN,** jun'kin, **GEORGE:** Presbyterian; b. near Carlisle, Pa., Nov. 1, 1790; d. in Philadelphia May 20, 1868. He was graduated at Jefferson College, Pa., in 1813, studied theology under John M. Mason in New York, and in 1819 became pastor of the Associate Reformed Church at Milton, Penn. In 1822 he went over to the Presbyterian Church. He was principal of the Pennsylvania Manual Labor Academy, Germantown, Pa., 1830-1832, president of Lafayette College, Easton, Pa., 1832-41 and again 1844-48, and president of Miami University, Ohio, 1841-44. In 1848 he became president of Washington College (now Washington and Lee University), Lexington, Va. On the secession of Virginia in 1861, which he had strongly opposed, he removed to Philadelphia. He was one of the leaders of the Old School Presbyterians, and was moderator of the General Assembly in 1844. The more important of his publications are: *The Vindication: A Reply to the Defence of Robert Barnes* (Philadelphia, 1836); *A Treatise on Justification* (1839); *Lectures on the Prophecies* (1844); *Political Fallacies* (New York, 1863); *A Treatise on Sanctification* (Philadelphia, 1864); *The Two Missions, the Apostolical and the Evangelical* (1864); *The Tabernacle* (1865); and *A Commentary upon the Epistle to the Hebrews *(1873). BIBLIOGRAPHY: His *Life* was written by his brother, D. X. Junkin, Philadelphia, 1871. Consult: E. H. Gillett, *History of the Presbyterian Church*, ii. 473-475 et passim, Philadelphia, 1864; R. E. Thompson, *American Church History Series*, vi. 109-111 et passim, New York, 1895; J. H. Patton, *Popular Hist. of the Presbyterian Church, * U. S. A., pp. 402-404, 422, ib. 1900.

**JURIEU,** zhü"rî-u', **PIERRE:** With the possible exception of Pierre Bayle (q.v.), the most important theologian and strongest controversialist of the French Calvinists at the close of the seventeenth century; b. at Mer (11 m. n.e. of Blois), where his father was pastor, Dec. 24, 1637; d. at Rotterdam Jan. 11, 1713. He studied philosophy at the Academy of Saumur and divinity at Sedan 1656-58, then traveled through the Netherlands and England. In 1671 he succeeded to his father's curacy at Mer, was ordained, and remained there till 1674, when the Academy of Sedan elected him lecturer in Hebrew and soon after preacher. He filled both offices with such ability that Bayle, who had obtained through him a lectureship in philosophy in 1675, designated him "one of the first men of this century, the first of our communion." During the ten years spent at Sedan, Jurieu zealously defended the Reformation against the attacks of Bossuet and others. In July, 1681, when the Academy of Sedan was dissolved by Louis XIV., as his stay in France had become dangerous, he went to Rotterdam, where, besides a pastorship, he received a lectureship founded specially for him. There he worked hard to promote the cause of the French Reformed Church by his writings, and caring for the exiled French pastors. Like Comenius and others he had to pass through sad experiences, having become too sanguine of the immediate restoration of the French Church through his interpretation of the prophecies in the Apocalypse, and later on by expecting too much from the fanatical prophets of Dauphiné. Meanwhile advancing age warned him to bring to completion a work on which he had long been busy, his *Histoire critique des dogmes et des cultes*, published in two parts at Amsterdam, 1704--05 (Eng. transl., 2 vols., London, 1705). Thenceforth ill health kept him from work. Jurieu, like Calvin, held that the true Church is known by two signs: the preaching of the pure word of God and the right dispensation of the sacraments. It should be governed by the representatives of the Christian congregation, and has the right to exclude all those who do not accept the confession of faith. However, later on, to refute Bossuet and to satisfy new conceptions of his own mind, he came to a broader view'of the Church. In his *Histoire du calvinisme et du papisme* (2 vols., Rotterdam, 1683) he makes a distinction between the temporal and the spiritual power. In the name of the latter, he demands full liberty of conscience. But the church service must be approved by the majority of the nation because the sovereign is only the representative of the nation. When, in 1685, the Edict of Nantes was revoked by Louis XIV., many Protestants besides Jurieu began to doubt the divine right of kings and stood for the rights of the people. As in Bayle's writings many of Voltaire's ideas are to be found, so in Jurieu's works is the germ of Rousseau's *Contrat social.* Since many of the controversial works of the time were published anonymously, it is not always possible to determine their authorship with certainty. The principal works undoubtedly by Jurieu are: on dogma and controversy, against the Roman Catholics, *La Politique du clergé de France* (Amsterdam, 1680); *Reflexions sur la cruelle persécution que souffre l'église réformée en France* (1685); *Préjugés légitimes contre le papisme* (1685); *Le Vrai Système de l'église et la véritable analyse de la foi* (Dort, 1686); *Lettres pastorales addressées aux fidèles de France* (Rotterdam, 1686; Eng. transl., London, 1689); concerning the Lutherans or the Reformed, *Des droits des deux souverains en matière de religion* (1687); *Unité del'église et points fondamentaux* (1688); on history and politics, *Histoire du calvinisme et du papisme unis en parallèle* (2 vols., 1683); edifying and apocalyptic, *L'Accomplissement des prophéties ou la délivrance de l'église* (2 vols., 1686; Eng. transl., London, 1687); *Traité de l'amour divin* (1700). G. BONET-MAURY. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The biographies by C. van Oordt, Geneva, 1879 (best); and C. E. Mégnin, Strasburg, 1854. Consult also: J. C. F. Hoefer *Nouvelle biographie générale*, xxxvii. 267 sqq., 46 vols., Paris, 1852-66; F. Puaux, *Les Précurseurs français de la tolérance*, Dôle, 1880; J. B. Kan, in *Bulletin de la commission de l'histoire des églises Wallones*, Paris, 1890; H. M. Baird, *Huguenots and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes*, 2 vols., New York, 1895; Lichtenberger, *ESR*, vi. 551-559.

**JUSTICE, ETHICAL, AND EQUITY:** Justice (in the ethical sense) in itself is the maintenance of positive legal order, assuring the peaceful and thriving existence of human society, the supreme political virtue--*justitia regnorum fundamentum*. Aristotle distinguishes *justitia distributiva et correctiva*. The first distributes riches, power, and honor according to desert; the other compensates for inequalities and balances the loss and gain in the transactions of life. Justice provides the exact proportion of duties and rights, and punishes every violation of positive legal order. Justice establishes general lines of direction by laws, which prove themselves emanations of justice whenever they correspond to the original conception of right and reveal it in the decisions and ordinances based upon them. Equity (Lat. *aequitas*, Gk. *isotes*) is to be associated with justice. What the latter establishes in a general way, sometimes appears insufficient when applied to the individual case--*summum jus, summa injuria*. What is just in general and what is individually just may diverge considerably. In such a case equity regards and vindicates rationality of natural right and corrects positive law in its too wide or too narrow comprehension. Justice as a personal quality is the demeanor of man in accordance with the legal order, his rectitude. Its principle is exact compensation--*suum cuique*. Benevolence can not stand in its place. Rectitude obliges us to conscientious practising of the law, even when thereby evil may arise to our neighbor. It is wrong and contrary to our duty to spare him out of fear or weakness. In actual practise rectitude becomes probity or honesty. Here also equity forms the morally indispensable complement of rectitude (Col. iv. 1). In our conduct toward our neighbor equity consists in yielding up and desisting from our just claims, where, relentlessly pursuing them, we should damage the neighbor in a degree detrimental to charity; and, on the other hand, in acknowledging and fulfilling claims of our neighbor on us which are not founded on strict legality, if they are of true profit to him and if we do not neglect other duties by complying with them. In the union of rectitude and equity alone true justice of moral conduct is achieved. (KARL BURGER†.) In theology justice has been given many significations. In the doctrine of the divine attributes it has been regarded as an inviolable characteristic of holiness, and as such has been set over against love as its opposite (see HOLINESS). It has, however, been most important in relation to theories of the atonement. On the one band, justice has been defined as "general" or "rectoral" and "distributive", where "general" justice refers to the wellbeing and "distributive" to what is due the individual. In the atonement the latter was conceived as suspended in favor of the former (cf. E. A. Park, *The Atonement, Discourses*, etc., Boston, 1859). On the other hand, it has been maintained that justice (righteousness) must be satisfied before love could offer pardon to the sinner (see SATISFACTION). The word has been employed also to designate the original state of man as one of integrity, obedience to God, and harmony of all personal powers. Moreover, it represents that renewed condition in which man as forgiven stands toward God and his law--a putative position to the unmerited favor of God. In its deepest sense justice and love in God are identical, while in man justice pertains to character and voluntary actions.

**JUSTIN:** A Gnostic writer refuted by Hippolytus (*Haer*., v. 18-22, x. 11; *ANF*, v. 69-73, 145). According to him there are three principles in the universe. two male--the Good and the Father of all things, also called Elohim--and one female, called Eden and Israel, who had the form of a snake from her waist downward. From the intercourse of Elohim and Eden arose twelve paternal and twelve maternal angels; through whose mediation men were formed from the noble parts of Eden, and from the ignoble parts animals. Men were provided with a soul by Eden and with a spirit by Elohim. Eden was deserted by Elohim, who went aloft to sit at the right hand of the Good. Eden now filled the world with sin and evil, and fought with Elohim, having the maternal angels on her side. Elohim sent Baruch, the third paternal angel, to aid the spirit of man which had been overcome by Naas, "the serpent," the third maternal angel. Baruch found Hercules who performed his twelve labors against Eden, but at last was overcome by Eden by means of Omphale. Finally Baruch found Jesus who withstood the serpent, which brought about his crucifixion, when his spirit returned to Elohim, but his body and soul to Eden. The initiated, who faithfully keep the oath of Elohim to keep the mysteries and not to turn from the Good to the creature, enter into the Good and drink of the water of life. To understand more fully the relation of Justin to the other Gnostics see O PHITES. (G. KRÜGER.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. Möller, *Geschichte der Kosmologie in der griechischen Kirche*, pp. 241-248, Halle, 1860; A. Hilgenfeld, in *ZWT*, v (1862), 446-452; idem. *Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums*, pp. 64, 67, 270, 277, Leipsic, 1884; G. Salmon, in *DCB*, iii. 587-589; idem, in *Hermathena*, xi (1885), 389-402; H. Stähelin, in *TU*, vi. 3 (1891).

### JUSTIN MARTYR. Life and Writings (§ 1). The "Apology" (§ 2). The "Dialogue" and "Resurrection" (§ 3). Justin's Theology (§ 4). His Conversion and Teachings (§ 5). His Doctrine of the Logos (§ 6). ### 1. Life and Writings [The facts of the life of Justin Martyr, the famous Christian apologist of the second century, so far as they are known, are gathered chiefly from his own writings. He was born at Flavia Neapolis (the ancient Shechem and modern Nablus) in Palestine probably about 114. He suffered martyrdom at Rome under Marcus Aurelius when Rusticus was prefect of the city (i.e., between 162 and 168). He calls himself a Samaritan, but his father and grandfather were doubtless Greek or Roman, and he was brought up in heathen customs. It seems that he had property, studied philosophy diligently, became converted to Christianity (see below, § 5), and thenceforth devoted his life to teaching what he considered the true philosophy, still wearing his philosopher's gown to indicate that he had attained to the truth. He probably traveled widely and ultimately settled in Rome as a Christian teacher.] The earliest mention of Justin is found in Tatian (*Oratio ad Graecos*, xviii., xix.), who calls him "the most admirable Justin," quotes a saying of his, and says that the Cynic Crescens laid snares for him. Irenaeus (*Haer.* I., xxviii. 1) speaks of his martyrdom, and of Tatian as his disciple; he quotes him twice (IV., vi. 2, V., xxvi. 2), and shows his influence in other places. Tertullian (*Adversus Valentinianos*, v.) calls him a philosopher and martyr, and the earliest antagonist of heretics. Hippolytus and Methodius also mention or quote him. Eusebius deals with him at some length (*Hist. eccl.*, iv. 18), and names the following works: (1) The "Apology" addressed to Antoninus Pius, his sons, and the senate; (2) a second "Apology" addressed to Marcus Aurelius and Verus; (3) the "Discourse to the Greeks," a discussion with Greek philosophers on the character of their gods; (4) a "Hortatory Address to the Greeks "; (5) a treatise "On the Sovereignty of God," in which he makes use of pagan authorities as well as Christian; (6) a work entitled "The Psalmist"; (7) a treatise in scholastic form "On the Soul "; (8) the " Dialogue with Trypho." He implies that a number of other works were in circulation; from Irenaeus he knows of the apology "Against Marcion," and from Justin's "Apology" (i. 26) of a "Refutation of all Heresies " (*Hist. eccl.*, IV., xi. 10). Epiphanius (*Haer.*, xlvi. 1) and Jerome (*De vir. ill.*, ix.) mention Justin. Rufinus borrows from him the Latin original of Hadrian's letter. After Rufinus Justin was not known in the West for a long time, and the Eastern writers got their knowledge of him mainly from Irenaeus and Eusebius, or from spurious works. The *Chronicon Paschale* is possibly independent in assigning his martyrdom to the year 165. A considerable number of other works are given as Justin's by Arethas, Photius, and other writers; but their spuriousness is now generally admitted. The *Expositio rectae fidei* has been assigned by Dräseke to Apollinaris of Laodicea, but it is probably a work of as late as the sixth century. The *Cohortatio ad Graecos* has been attributed to Apollinaris of Laodicea, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, and others. The *Epistola ad Zenam et Serenum*, an exhortation to Christian living, is dependent upon Clement of Alexandria, and is assigned by Batiffol to the Novatian Bishop Sisinnius (c. 400). The extant work under the title "On the Sovereignty of God" does not correspond with Eusebius' description of it, though Harnack regards it as still possibly Justin's, and at least of the second century. The author of the smaller treatise "To the Greeks " can not be Justin, because he is dependent on Tatian; Hanack places it between 180 and 240. For another work wrongly attributed to Justin, see DIOGNETUS, EPISTLE TO. On the other hand, the authenticity of the two "Apologies" and the "Dialogue with Trypho" is universally admitted. They are preserved only in the *Sacra parallela*; but, besides that they were known by Tatian, Methodius, and Eusebius, their influence is traceable in Athenagoras, Theophilus, the pseudo-Melito, and especially Tertullian. Eusebius speaks of two "Apologies," but he quotes them both as one, which indeed they are in substance. The identity of authorship is shown not only by the reference in the "Dialogue," cxx., to the "Apology," but by the unity of treatment. Zahn has shown that the "Dialogue" was originally divided into two books, that there is a considerable lacuna at chap. lxxiv., as well as at the beginning, and that it is probably based on an actual occurrence at Ephesus, the personality of the Rabbi Tarphon being employed, though in a Hellenized form. The treatise "On the Resurrection," of which extensive fragments are preserved in the *Sacra parallela*, is not so generally accepted. Even earlier than this collection, it is referred to by Procopius of Gaza (c. 465-528), and Methodius appeals to Justin in support of his interpretation of I Cor. xv. 50 in a way which makes it natural to assume the existence of a treatise on the subject, to say nothing of other traces of a connection in thought both here, in Irenaeus (V., ii.-xiii. 5), and also in Tertullian, where it is too close to be anything but a conscious following of the Greek. The "Against Marcion" is lost, as is the "Refutation of all Heresies" to which Justin himself refers in "Apology," i. 26; Hegesippus, besides perhaps Irenaeus and Tertullian, seems to have used it. ### 2. The "Apology." Of the date of the "Dialogue" it can only be said that it was later than the "Apology"; the time of composition of the latter, however, can be determined with comparative closeness. From the fact that it was addressed to Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, and Verus, its composition must fall between 147 and 161. The reference to Felix as governor of Egypt, since this can only be the Lucius Munatius Felix whom the Oxyrhynchus papyri give as prefect Sept. 13, 151, fixes the date still more exactly. Its occasion is evidently a recent occurrence, and the *Chronicon* of Eusebius gives 152-153 as the date of the attacks of Crescens. What is designated as the "Second Apology" was written as a supplement to the first, on account of certain proceedings which had in the mean time taken place in Rome before Lollius Urbicus as prefect of the city, which must have been between 150 and 157. The purpose of the "Apology" is to prove to the emperors, renowned as upright and philosophical men, the injustice of the persecution of the Christians, who are really the representatives of true philosophy. Chaps. i.-xii. give the preliminary negative proof; chap. xiii. begins a positive exposition of what Christianity really is. Christians are the true worshipers of God, the Creator of all things; they offer him the only sacrifices worthy of him, those of prayer and thanksgiving, and are taught by his Son, to whom they assign a place next in honor to him. This teaching leads them to perfect morality, as shown in their teacher's words and their own lives, and founded on their belief in the resurrection. The doctrine of the Logos made flesh is specially emphasized in xxi., xxii. What interferes with belief in this fact is the deceitful work of demons (xxiii-xxvi.), in contrast with which Christian righteousness is still further described (xxvii-xxix.). Then follows the proof that Christ is the Son of God from Old-Testament prophecy, fulfilled in every detail (xxx.-l.), no matter what evil spirits may pretend (liv.-lvii.); even Plato learned from Moses (lviii.-lx.). The remaining chapters (lxi.-lxvii.) give a glimpse of the daily life of Christians at the time--baptism, communion, and Sunday worship. The supplementary or "Second Apology" depicts the behavior of the Christians under persecution, of which the demons are again set forth as the instigators. ### 3. The "Dialogue" and "Resurrection". In the "Dialogue," after an introductory section (i.-ix.), Justin undertakes to show that Christianity is the new law for all men (x.-xxx.), and to prove from Scripture that Jesus is the Christ (xxxi.-cviii.). The concluding section (cix.-cxlii.) demonstrates that the Christians are the true people of God. The fragments of the work "On the Resurrection" begin with the assertion that the truth, and God the author of truth, need no witness, but that as a concession to the weakness of men it is necessary to give arguments to convince those who gainsay it. It is then shown, after a denial of unfounded deductions, that the resurrection of the body is neither impossible nor unworthy of God, and that the evidence of prophecy is not lacking for it. Another fragment takes up the positive proof of the resurrection, adducing that of Christ and of those whom he recalled to life. In another the resurrection is shown to be that of what has gone down, i.e., the body; the knowledge concerning it is the new doctrine in contrast with that of the old philosophers; the doctrine follows from the command to keep the body in moral purity. ### 4. Justin's Theology. Flacius discovered "blemishes" in Justin's theology, which he attributed to the influence of pagan philosophers; and in modern times Semler and S. G. Lange have made him out a thorough Hellene, while Semisch and Otto defend him from this charge. In opposition to the school of Baur, who considered him a Jewish Christian, A. Ritschl has pointed out that it was precisely because he was a Gentile Christian that he did not fully understand the Old-Testament foundation of Paul's teaching, and explained in this way the modified character of his Paulinism and his legal mode of thought. M. von Engelhardt has attempted to extend this line of treatment to Justin's entire theology, and to show that his conceptions of God, of free will and righteousness, of redemption, grace, and merit prove the influence of the cultivated Greek pagan world of the second century, dominated by the Platonic and Stoic philosophy. But he admits that Justin is a Christian in his unquestioning adherence to the Church and its faith, his unqualified recognition of the Old Testament, and his faith in Christ as the Son of God the Creator, made manifest in the flesh, crucified, and risen, through which belief he succeeds in getting away from the dualism of pagan and also of Gnostic philosophy. ### 5. His Conversion and Teachings. In the opening of the "Dialogue," Justin relates his vain search among the Stoics, Peripatetics, and Pythagoreans for a satisfying knowledge of God; his finding in the ideas of Plato wings for his soul, by the aid of which he hoped to attain the contemplation of the God-head; and his meeting on the sea-shore with an aged man who told him that by no human endeavor but only by divine revelation could this blessedness be attained, that the prophets had conveyed this revelation to man, and that their words had been fulfilled. Of the truth of this he assured himself by his own investigation; and the daily life of the Christians and the courage of the martyrs convinced him that the charges against them were unfounded. So he sought to spread the knowledge of Christianity as the true philosophy. He had, like others, the idea that the Greek philosophers had derived, if not borrowed, the most essential elements of truth found in their teaching from the Old Testament. But at the same time he adopted the Stoic doctrine of the "seminal word," and so philosophy was to him an operation of the Word-- in fact, through his identification of the Word with Christ, it was brought into immediate connection with him. Thus he does not scruple to declare that Socrates and Heraclitus were Christians ( *Apol.*, i. 46, ii. 10). His aim, of course, is to emphasize the absolute significance of Christ, so that all that ever existed of virtue and truth may be referred to him. The old philosophers and law-givers had only a part of the Logos, while the whole appears in Christ. While the heathen, seduced by demons, had deserted the true God for idols, the Jews and Samaritans possessed the revelation given through the prophets and awaited the Messiah. The law, however, while containing commandments intended to promote the true fear of God, had other prescriptions of a purely pedagogic nature, which necessarily ceased when Christ, their end, appeared; of such temporary and merely relative regulations were circumcision, animal sacrifices, the Sabbath, and the laws as to food. Through Christ the abiding law of God has been fully proclaimed. In his character as the teacher of the new doctrine and promulgator of the new law lies the essential nature of his redeeming work. The idea of an economy of grace, of a restoration of the union with God which had been destroyed by sin, is not foreign to him. It is noteworthy that in the "Dialogue" he no longer speaks of a "seed of the Word" in every man, and in his non-apologetic works the emphasis is laid upon the redeeming acts of the life of Christ rather than upon the demonstration of the reasonableness and moral value of Christianity, though the fragmentary character of the latter works makes it difficult to determine exactly to what extent this is true and how far the teaching of Irenaeus on redemption is derived from him. Still, it is safe to say that Justin's theology is characterized throughout by an ethical strain. Faith does not justify but is a preliminary to justification, which is accomplished by repentance, change of heart, and a sinless life according to God's commandments. Baptism confers the remission only of previous sins; the Christian must there after show himself worthy of union with God by a life without sin. In the Eucharist he shows his devotion by offering bread and wine and by prayer, receiving in return the food consecrated by a formula of Christ's institution, which is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus, and by which our flesh and blood are nourished through a kind of transformation *(kata metabolen).* Justin is confident that his teaching is that of the Church at large. He knows of a division among the orthodox only on the question of the millennium and on the attitude toward the milder Jewish Christianity, which he personally is willing to tolerate as long as its professors in their turn do not interfere with the liberty of the Gentile converts; his millenarianism seems to have no connection with Judaism, but he believes firmly in a millennium, and generally in the primitive Christian eschatology. ### 6. His Doctrine of the Logos. His use of the idea of the Logos has always attracted attention. It is probably too much to assume a direct connection with Philo in this particular. The idea of the Logos was widely familiar to educated men, and the designation of the Son of God as the Logos was not new to Christian theology. The significance is clear, however, of the manner in which Justin identifies the historical Christ with the rational force operative in the universe, which leads up to the claim of all truth and virtue for the Christians and to the demonstration of the adoration of Christ, which aroused so much opposition, as the only reasonable attitude. It is mainly for this justification of the worship of Christ that Justin employs the Logos-idea, though where he explicitly deals with the divinity of the Redeemer and his relation to the Father, he makes use of the Old Testament, not of the Logos-idea, which thus can not be said to form an essential part of his Christology. The importance which he attaches to the evidence of prophecy shows his estimate of the Old Testament Scriptures, which are to Christians absolutely the word of God, spoken by the Holy Ghost, and confirmed by the fulfilment of the prophecies. Not less divine, however, is the teaching of the apostles, which is read in the assembly every Lord's Day-- though he can not use this in his "Dialogue" as he uses the Old Testament. The word of the apostles is the teaching of the Divine Logos, and reproduces the sayings of Christ authentically. As a rule he uses the synoptic Gospels, but has a few unmistakable references to John. He quotes the Apocalypse as inspired because prophetic, naming its author. The opposition of Marcion prepares us for an attitude toward the Pauline epistles corresponding to that of the later Church. Distinct references are found to Romans, I Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and II Thessalonians, and possible ones to Philippians, Titus, and I Timothy. It seems likely that he also knew Hebrews and I John. The apologetic character of Justin's habit of thought appears again in the Acts of his martyrdom (*ASB*, Apr., ii. 108 sqq.; Ruinart, *Acta martyrum*, Regensburg, 1859, 105 sqq.), the genuineness of which is attested by internal evidence. (N. BONWETSCH.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lists of literature are given in *ANF*, Bibliography, pp. 21-26 and in J. M. Baldwin, *Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology*, iii. 1, pp. 285-286. The best edition of the *Opera* is by J. C. T. Otto, 2 vols., Jena, 1843, reproduced by W. Trollope, 3 vols., London, 1845-1847, and in *Corpus apologetarum christianorum*, 3 vols., Jena, 1876-81, and in *MPG*, vi. 227-800, 1571-1600, cf. 1181-1564. The *editio princeps* was by R. Stephanus, Paris, 1551 (Greek), followed by one by F. Sylburg, Heidelberg, 1593 and often (Greek and Latin); and that by P. Maranus, Paris, 1742 (the best before Otto, critical). There have been many editions of the single works. The best Eng. translations are in the *Library of the Fathers*, ed. E. B. Pusey, J. Keble, and J. H. Newman, Oxford, 1861, and in *ANF*, i. 163-302. On the life and works of Justin consult: K. Semisch, *Justin der Märtyrer*, 2 vols., Breslau, 1840-42, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1844; idem, *Die apostolischen Denkwürdigkeiten des Märtyrers Justinus*, Hamburg, 1848; J. C. T. von Otto, *De Justini Martyris scriptis et doctrina*, Jena, 1841; A. Hilgenfeld, *Kritische Untersuchungen über die Evangelien Justins*, Halle, 1850; J. Kaye, *Some Account of the Life and Writings of Justin Martyr*, Cambridge, 1853; G. Volkmar, *Ueber Justin . . . und sein Verhältniss zu unsern Evangelien*, Zurich, 1853; C. G. Seibert, *Justinus der Vertheidiger des Christenthums vor dem Thron der Caesaren*, Elberfeld, 1859; C. E. Freppel, *Les Apologistes chrétiens au ll. siècle; S. Justin*, Paris, 1860; W. Möller, *Die Kosmologie in der griechischen Kirche bis auf Origenes*, pp. 112-188, Halle, 1860; D. H. de Puiseau, *De Christologie van Justin Martyr*, Leyden, 1864; J. Donaldson, *Critical Hist. of Christian Literature and Doctrine*, ii. 62-344, London, 1866; L. Aubé, *S. Justin, philosophe et martyr*, Paris, 1875; J. Drummond, in *Theological Review*, xii (1875), 471 sqq., xiv (1877), 155 sqq., xvi (1879), 360 sqq.; [W. R. Cassel,] *Supernatural Religion*, i. 283-428, ii. 271-316, iii. 15-17, London, 1875 (brilliant but criticized as rationalistic); B. F. Westcott, *Hist. of the Canon of the N. T.*, pp. 59-177, ib. 1875; M. von Engelhardt, *Das Christentum Justins des Märtyrers*, Erlangen, 1878 (reviews previous discussions); A. Stählin, *Justin der Märtyrer und sein neuester Beurtheiler*, Leipsic, 1880 (opposes Engelhardt); T. Zahn in *ZKG*, viii (1885), 1-84; F. W. Farrar, *Lives of the Fathers*, i. 93-117, New York, 1889; G. T. Purves, *The Testimony of Justin Martyr to Early Christianity*, ib. 1889; Mrs. M. E. Martin, *Life of Justin Martyr*, London, 1890; W. Smith, *Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology*, ii. 682-687, ib. 1890; C. Clemen, *Die religionsphilosophische Bedeutung des stoisch-christlichen Eudamonismus in Justin's Apologie*, Leipsic, 1891; E. Huth, *Justin Martyr*, Paris, 1894; L. Waterman, *The Post-Apostolic Age*, pp. 141-156 et passim, New York, 1898; *S. Justin et les apologistes du 2. siècle*, Paris, 1907; A. L. Feder, *Justin des Märtyrers Lehre von Jesus Christus*, Freiburg, 1908; W. Walker, *Greatest Men of the Christian Church*, Chicago, 1908; Krüger, *History*, pp. 105-117; Harnack, *Litteratur*, passim, consult Index; idem, *Dogma*, vols. i.-iv., passim; idem in *TU*, i. 130-195, Leipsic, 1882; Ceillier, *Auteurs sacrés*, i. 408-448; Neander, *Christian Church*, i. 661-771 et passim; Schaff, *Christian Church*, ii. 710-726 et passim; Moeller, *Christian Church*, i. 172-175; *DCB*, iii. 560-587 (should not be overlooked). The subject is treated at greater or less length in the works on the church history of the period, one phase appears in the discussions on the Fourth Gospel, another in the treatises on the History of Doctrine, while the works on the Introduction to the N. T. are also to be consulted.

### JUSTINIAN I., EMPEROR OF THE EAST. Life (§ 1). Religious Policy (§ 2). Ecclesiastical Policy (§ 3). Relations with Rome (§ 4). Writings (§ 5). ### 1. Life. Flavius Anicius Julianus Justinianus was born, probably May 11, 483, at Tauresium (120 m. n.w. of Saloniki); d. at Constantinople Nov. 13 [14], 565. Coming to Constantinople during his youth, he completed the usual course of education, busying himself mainly with jurisprudence and philosophy. His mother being a sister to the highly esteemed General Justin, Justinian's military career was one of rapid advancement, and a great future was opened up for him when, in 518, Justin assumed the government. Consul in 521, later in command of the army of the east, he was virtual regent a long time before Justin made him associate emperor, on Apr. 1, 527. Four months later he became the sole sovereign. His administration was of world-wide moment, constituting a distinct epoch in the history of the Byzantine Empire and the Eastern Church. He was a man of unusual capacity for work, temperate, affable, lively; but also unscrupulous, and crafty. He was the last of the emperors who attempted to restore the Roman Empire to its former glory. For this end were his great wars and his colossal activity in building directed. Starting from the premise that the existence of a commonwealth rested upon arms and laws, he paid particular attention to legislation, and wrought a lasting memorial for himself by codifying the Roman law (*Codex Justinianus, Novellae Constitutiones*). In this article, however, there will be considered only his participation in religious and ecclesiastical movements, by means of statecraft and legislation. ### 2. Religious Policy Justinian's religious policy was upheld by the imperial conviction that the unity of the empire unconditionally presupposed unity of faith; and with him it was a matter of course that this faith could be only the orthodox. Those of a different belief had to recognize that the process which had been begun by imperial legislation from Constantius down was now to be vigorously continued. The Codex contained two statutes (*Cod.*, I., xi. 9 and 10) which decreed the total destruction of Hellenism, even in the civil life; nor were the appertaining provisions to stand merely on paper. The sources (Malalas, Theophanes, John of Ephesus) tell of severe persecutions, even of men in high positions. But what proved of universal historic account, was the ruling whereby the emperor, in 529, abrogated philosophical and juridical instruction at the University of Athens, thus putting an end to this training-school for Hellenism. And the Christian propaganda went hand in hand with the suppression of paganism. In Asia Minor alone, John of Ephesus claimed to have converted 70,000 pagans (cf. F. Nau, in *Revue de l'orient chrétien*, ii., 1897, 482). Christianity was also accepted by the Heruli (Procopius, *Bellum Gothicum*, ii. 14; Evagrius, *Hist. eccl.*, iv. 20), the Huns dwelling near the Don (Procopius, iv. 4; Evagrius, iv. 23), the Abasgi (Procopius, iv. 3; Evagrius, iv. 22) and the Tzani (Procopius, *Bellum Persicum*, i. 15) in Caucasia. The worship of Ammon at Augila in the Libyan desert (Procopius, *De Aedificiis*, vi. 2) was abolished; and so were the remnants of the worship of Isis on the island of Philae, at the first cataract of the Nile (Procopius, *Bellum Persicum*, i. 19). The Presbyter Julian (*DCB*, iii. 482) and the Bishop Longinus (John of Ephesus, *Hist. eccl.*, iv. 5 sqq.) conducted a mission among the Nabatæans, and Justinian attempted to strengthen Christianity in Yeman by despatching thither an ecclesiastic of Egypt (Procopius, *Bellum Persicum*, i. 20; Malalas, ed. Niebuhr, Bonn, 1831, pp. 433 sqq.). The Jews, too, had to suffer; for not only were their civil rights restricted (*Cod.*, I., v. 12), and their religious privileges threatened (Procopius, *Historia Arcana*, 28); but the emperor interfered too in the internal affairs of the synagogue (*Nov.*, cxlvi., Feb. 8, 553), and forbade, for instance, the use of the Hebrew language in divine worship. The recalcitrant were menaced with corporal penalties, exile and loss of property. The Jews at Borium, not far from Syrtis Major, who resisted Belisarius in his Vandal campaign, had to embrace Christianity; and their synagogue was changed into a church. (Procopius, *De Aedificiis*, vi. 2). The emperor had much trouble with the Samaritans; refractory to Christianity, as they were, and repeatedly in insurrection. He opposed them with rigorous edicts, but yet could not prevent a fresh outbreak against the Christians from taking place in Samaria toward the close of his reign. It was no less consistent with his policy, that the Manicheans, too, were persecuted severely, both with exile and threat of capital punishment ( *Cod.*, I., v. 12). At Constantinople, on one occasion, not a few Manicheans, after strict inquisition, were executed in the emperor's very presence: some by burning, others by drowning (F. Nau, in *Revue de l'orient*, ii., 1897, p. 481). ### 3. Ecclesiastical Policy. The like despotism was also shown in the emperor's ecclesiastical policy. He regulated everything, both in religion and in law. At the very beginning of his reign, he deemed it proper to promulgate by law his belief in the Trinity and the incarnation; and to threaten all heretics with the becoming penalties (*Cod.*, I., i. 5); whereas he subsequently declared that he designed to deprive all disturbers of orthodoxy of the opportunity for such offense by due process of law (*MPG*, lxxxvi. 1, p. 993). He made the Nicæno-Constantinopolitan creed the sole symbol of the Church (*Cod.*, I., i. 7), and accorded legal force to the canons of the four ecumenical councils (*Novellae*, cxxxi.). The bishops in attendance at the Synod of Constantinople in 536 recognized that nothing could be done in the Church contrary to the emperor's will and command (Mansi, *Concilia*, viii. 970B); while, on his side, the emperor, in the case of the Patriarch Anthimus, reinforced the ban of the Church with temporal proscription (*Novellae*, xlii.). Bishops without number had to feel the tyrant's wrath. On the other hand, it is true, he neglected no opportunity for securing the rights of the Church and clergy, for protecting and extending monasticism. Indeed, were not the despotic character of his measures so glaring, one might be tempted to call him a father of the Church. Both the Codex and the Novellae contain many enactments regarding donations, foundations, and administration of ecclesiastical property; election and rights of bishops, priests and abbots; monastic life, residential obligations of the clergy, conduct of divine service, episcopal jurisdiction, etc. ### 4. Relations with Rome. From the middle of the fifth century onward increasingly arduous tasks confronted the emperors of the East in the province of ecclesiastical polity. For one thing, the radicals on all sides felt themselves constantly repelled by the creed which had been adopted by the Council of Chalcedon with the design of mediating between the dogmatic parties. The letter of Leo I. to Flavian of Constantinople passed far and wide, in the East, for a document of Satan; so that, here such was the case, nobody cared to hear aught of the Church of Rome. The emperors, however, had to wrestle with a twofold problem. In the first place, the unity between East and West, between Byzantium and Rome, was to be preserved; and this was possible only if they swerved not from the line defined at Chalcedon. In the next place, the factions in the East which had been stirred up and disaffected on account of Chalcedon must be restrained and pacified. This problem was the more difficult because the dissenting groups in the East excelled the party for Chalcedon in the East both in numerical strength and in intellectual ability; and so the course of events showed the two aims to be incompatible: whoever chose Rome and the West must renounce the East, and vice versa. For the progress of affairs under Zeno and Anastasius see MONOPHYSITES. Justinian entered the arena of ecclesiastical statecraft shortly after his uncle's accession in 518, and put an end to the schism that had prevailed between Rome and Byzantium since 483. The recognition of the Roman see as the highest ecclesiastical authority (cf. *Novellae*, cxxxi.) remained the cornerstone of his policy in relation to the West, although he thus grievously offended those of the East, and though he felt himself entirely free to show a despotic front toward the pope (witness his behavior toward Silverius and Vigilius). But the controversies in the East were alone sufficient to keep the emperor busy all through his reign; and he plainly paid much more attention to them than to the external affairs of the realm. Yet his policy bore marks of greatness, and strove with large understanding to satisfy the religious instincts of the devout in the East, a signal proof of which was his attitude in the Theopaschite controversy (see THEOPASCHITES). At the outset he was of the opinion that the question turned on a quibble of words. By degrees, however, he came to understand that the formula at issue was not only orthodox, but might also be used as a conciliatory measure toward the Monophysites, and made a vain attempt to do this in the religious conference with the Severians, in 533. Again, he reviewed the same approvingly in the religious edict of Mar. 15, 533 (*Cod.*, L, i. 6), and congratulated himself that Pope John II. admitted the orthodoxy of the imperial confession (*Cod.*, I., i. 8). The serious blunder that he had made at the beginning by abetting after Justin's accession a severe persecution of the Monophysite bishops and monks and thereby embittering the population of vast regions and provinces, he remedied eventually. His constant aim now was to win the Monophysites, yet not to surrender the Chalcedonian faith. For many at court, he did not go far enough: the Empress Theodora especially would have been glad to see the Monophysites favored unreservedly. Justinian, however, was restrained in that policy by the complications that would have ensued with the West. Neither, for that matter, could he escape these issues; for instance, the Three Chapter Controversy (q.v.; see also VIGILIUS). In the condemnation of the Three Chapters Justinian tried to satisfy both the East and the West, but succeeded in satisfying neither. Although the pope assented to the condemnation, the West believed that the emperor was acting contrary to the decrees of Chalcedon; and though many delegates were found in the East subservient to Justinian, yet there were many, especially the Monophysites, left unsatisfied. So the emperor's efforts were wasted on an impossible task; the more bitter for him because during his last years he took greater interest in theological matters. ### 5. Writings. It can not be doubted that Justinian also took an actual, personal hand in the theological manifestoes which he put forth as emperor; although, in view of the author's exalted position, it is a difficult matter to ascertain whether the documents current under his name are the direct product of his pen. Apart from letters to the Popes Hormisdas, John II., Agapetus I., and Vigilius, and sundry other compositions (collected in *MPL*, lxiii., lxvi. and lxix.), the following documents may be noted (all to be found in *MPG*, lxxxvi. 1, pp. 945-1152): (1) the edict on Origen's heterodoxies, in 543 or 544; (2) summons to the bishops assembled at Constantinople on occasion of the council of 553, with reference to their sitting in judgment on errors in circulation among the monastic followers of Origen at Jerusalem; (3) an edict on the Three Chapters, probably framed in 551; (4) an address to the council of 553, concerning the Antiochian theology; (5) a document probably antedating 550, addressed to some unnamed defenders (perhaps Scythians) of the Three Chapters; (6) writ of excommunication against Anthimus, Severus and companions; (7) an address to some Egyptian monks, with a refutation of Monophysite errors; (8) fragment of a document, mentioned in (7), to the Patriarch Zoilus of Alexandria. The theology upheld in these writings agreed, in general, with that of Leontius of Byzantium (q.v.); that is, it aims at the final solution of the problem by interpreting the Chalcedonian symbol in terms of the theology of Cyril of Alexandria. Two points are worth noting in this connection. First, the clever way in which the emperor, or his representative, contrives to defend the reputation and the theology of Cyril; secondly, his antagonism to Origen: a clear sign of the characteristic disinclination of that age for independent thinking; at least among personages of weight and influence. A word or two should be subjoined on the subject of Aphthartodocetism; a doctrine professed by the emperor toward the close of his life. Evagrius reports (*Hist. eccl.*, iv. 39), and other sources confirm the point, that Justinian promulgated an edict in which he declared Christ's body to be incorruptible and not susceptible to natural suffering, and commanded bishops everywhere to accept this doctrine. The fall of the Patriarch Eutychius (q.v.) is associated with this final phase of the imperial policy. The sources saw a lamentable decline from the right faith in Justinian's latter conduct. The train of thought underlying Aphthartodocetism, however, is not necessarily unorthodox (see JULIAN OF HALICARNASSUS); because it need not be opposed to the acceptance of the essential identity of Christ's nature with human nature. Hence it is not necessary to regard Justinian's final theological views as those of an old man, to be disregarded in surveying the aims of his full-bodied activity. G. KRÜGER. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Gibbon, *Decline and Fall*, chaps. xl.-xliv.: C. W. F. Walch, *Historie der Ketzereien*, vols. vi.-viii., Leipsic, 1773-78; J. B. Bury, *Hist. of the Later Roman Empire*, 2 vols., London, 1889; A. Knecht, *Die Religionspolitik Kaiser Justinians I.*, Würzburg, 1896; idem, *System des justinianischen Kirchenvermögensrechtes*, Stuttgart, 1905; W. H. Hutton, *The Church of the Sixth Century*, London, 1897; C. Diehl, *Justinien. et la culture byzantine*, Paris, 1901; G. Pfannmüller, *Die kirchliche Gesetzgebung Justinians, Berlin, 1902; W. Norden, *Das Papsttum und Byzanz*, ib. 1903; J. Pargoire, *L'Église byzantine, 527-847*, Paris, 1905; W. G. Holmes, *The Age of Justinian and Theodora*, 2 vols., London, 1905-07; Hefele, *Conciliengeschichte*, vol. ii., Eng. transl., vol. iv.; *DCB*, iii. 538-559 (elaborate discussion); Neander, *Christian Church*, vol. iii. passim; Schaff, *Christian Church*, iii. 768 sqq. et passim; the literature under the articles referred to in the text. Consult further: F. A. Biener, *Geschichte der Novellen Justinians*, Berlin, 1824; J. Cauvet, *L'Empereur Justinien et son æuvre législative*, Caen, 1880.

**JUSTUS:** First bishop of Rochester and fourth archbishop of Canterbury; d. at Canterbury Nov. 10, 627. He was sent to England with Mellitus (q.v.) and others in 601. Augustine (q.v.) consecrated him bishop for West Kent in 604 and Ethelbert, king of Kent, built him a church at Rochester. In 617 during the heathen reaction under Eadbald, with Mellitus he fled into Gaul, but was recalled after a year and restored to his bishopric (see LAURENCE OF CANTERBURY; MELLITUS). He succeeded Mellitus as archbishop in 624, consecrated Romanus as his successor at Rochester, and sent Paulinus (q.v.) to Northumbria. He received the pallium from Boniface V. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bede, *Hist. eccl.*, i. 29, ii. 3, 4, 8, 18; Haddan and Stubbs, *Councils*, iii. 72-81; W. F. Hook, *Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury*, i. 99-109, London, 1860; W. Bright, *Chapters of Early English Church Hist.*, passim, Oxford, 1897; *DCB*, iii. 592-593.

**JUVENAL,** ju've-nal: First patriarch of Jerusalem; d. c. 458. Of his life little is known, and the date and place of his birth, consecration, and death are also uncertain. The aim of his life was to make Jerusalem one of the important sees of Christendom, and the Council of Nicæa had, as a matter of fact, accorded the bishop of Jerusalem special rank and honor, though it placed him under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of Cæsarea, Juvenal endeavored to realize the concession, and took the first step in this direction by transcending his authority in consecrating in the neighborhood a certain Peter bishop of a newly converted tribe of Saracens and attaching him as so-Called bishop "of Tarembolae" (i.e., "of the camp") to the see of Jerusalem, most probably in 425. This was considered a distinct breach of canon law by the metropolitan of Cæsarea. The resulting difficulties came to a head at the Council of Ephesus in 431. The conditions of the time favored Juvenal. Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, was accused of heresy; Cyril of Alexandria was temporarily imprisoned; John of Antioch held a separate council; and the see of Rome was represented only by legates. To Juvenal, therefore, in Cyril's absence fell the right of precedence in signing the resolutions; or, in case Cyril was present, Juvenal's name came second. Juvenal did not hesitate to make the most of these conditions. He summoned John of Antioch to proceed at once to Ephesus, ranked the see of Jerusalem as on a par with that of Rome and gave it the title "apostolic," which he denied to Antioch. These indications show plainly that Juvenal aspired not only after an independent see within the archbishopric of Cæsarea, but after superiority over, or at least, equality with, that of Antioch. He aimed to have the three bishoprics of Palestine attached to Jerusalem, and also, if possible, those of Phenicia and Arabia. The result would be to make the holy city the principal see in the Orient. Several bishops who had been ordained by Juvenal and were present at Ephesus, supported his claims; this fact, and the absence of the above-mentioned bishops from the principal sees were extremely favorable to his ambitions. Cyril of Alexandria appeared, however, at the fourth session of the council, and at once took charge of the proceedings. He saw the danger not only for the see of Antioch but for that of Alexandria in the existence of a masterful bishop of Jerusalem. He therefore opposed every plan of Juvenal. Neither did the idea of a new competitor for supremacy in Christendom please the fancy of the legates of the Roman see. It could not be foreseen what complications might arise in favor of Jerusalem, particularly since pilgrimages to the holy city were be coming more frequent every year. But Juvenal had gained an advantage of which he made the most. He ordained several new bishops in Palestine without having any stipulated right by canon law. His influence was growing constantly, and Maximus of Antioch at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 acknowledged Juvenal's claims to the three sees Of Palestine on condition that the latter abandon his claims to the sees of Phenicia and Arabia. The council confirmed the agreement. Juvenal had numerous difficulties with the monophysitic monks of Palestine; and even his life was threatened. He introduced the celebration of Christmas on Dec. 25, possibly to win the favor of Rome. See JERUSALEM, PATRIARCHATE OF; and MONOPHYSITES, § 2. (F. KATTENBUSCH.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are: The acts of the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon given in Hefele, *Conciliengeschichte*, vol. ii. passim, Eng. transl., vol. iii. passim; the letters of Leo the Great, Eng. transl. in *NPNF*, 2 ser., vol. xii., cf. pp. 66, 82, 86, 97; Evagrius, *Hist. eccl*., ii., in *MPG*, lxxxvi. 2. Consult: M. Le Quien, *Oriens Christianus*, iii. 110 sqq., 164 sqq., Paris, 1740; Vailhe, in *Revue de l'orient*, iv (1899), 44 sqq.; *DCB*, iii. 595 sqq.; Neander, *Christian Church*, vol. ii. passim.

**JUVENCUS,** ju-ven'cus, **CAIUS VETTIUS AQUILINUS** (or **AQUILIUS**)**:** Spanish presbyter and religious poet, in the reign of Constantine the Great, to whom he refers at the close of his principal poem. This is a rendering of the Gospels into Latin dactylic hexameters, with a close adherence to the original text, and contains 3,210 lines. The prologue speaks of earlier poets such as Homer and Vergil, whose names are well-nigh immortal though their subjects were only the deeds of men, and their narratives fictitious; places on a much higher plane the acts of Christ; and hopes, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to create a work that shall worthily set them forth, last beyond the conflagration of the world, and save the author himself from the fire. The events of the life of Christ are narrated now from one Evangelist and now from another, in what seemed to the author chronological order. Matthew is throughout his main source, and Mark does not seem to be used at all. The division into four books seems to have been an afterthought, intended to correspond with the number of the Evangelists. Juvencus adheres closely to the scriptural account, and is apparently withheld by reverence from any attempt to enlarge upon it. He was evidently at home in classical literature, and his diction is full of Vergilian echoes; the verse is flowing and for its period strikingly correct. This first Christian epic, although it made no pretense to be a complete narrative or a scientific harmony of the Gospels, and although it does not offer much help in the way of exegesis, of the history of dogma, or of textual criticism (it is based on the Itala as a text), was yet highly regarded in the early Church and continued to be prized throughout the Middle Ages, being frequently used as a text-book in schools. Its popularity is attested by the large number of manuscripts in which it is preserved. A work by Juvencus on the sacraments mentioned by Jerome has been lost. Some of the later manuscripts give under the name of Juvencus two other poems, *De laudibus Domini* and *Trumphus Christi*, of 148 and 108 verses. The former is probably older than Juvencus and the work of a rhetorician from Augustodunum (Autun). The 6,000 verses on the Old-Testament history which Cardinal Pitra discovered and attributed to Juvencus are now thought to have been written by a fifth-century Gallic Cyprian (not the famous Carthaginian bishop). The style is dry and jejune, and the poetical execution far inferior to that of Juvencus. Nor is it possible now to attribute to him the *Liber in Genesim* (1441 verses) which Martène published in 1723 from a Codex Corbeiensis, and which Galland, Arevolo, Gebser, Bähr, Teuffel and others believed to be his. (K. LEIMBACH†.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: The poem has often been edited and printed since the editio princeps of Paris, 1449, is in *MPL*, xix.; ed. C. Marold, Leipsic, 1886; and, ed. J. Huemer, in *CSEL*, xxiv., Vienna, 1891. Consult: J. Huemer in *Wiener Studien*, ii. 81-112, Vienna, 1880; A. R. Gebser, *Dissertatio de . . . Juvenci vita et scriptis*, Jena, 1827; A. Ebert *Allgemeine Geschichte der Literatur des Mittelalters*, i. 109 sqq., Leipsic, 1889; J. T. Hatfield, *A Study of Juvencus*, Bonn, 1890; Ceillier, *Auteurs sacrés*, iii. 116-118; *DCB*, iii. 598-599.

**JUXON, WILLIAM:** Archbishop of Canterbury; b. at Chichester (57 m. s.w. of London), baptized in Oct., 1582; d. in London June 4, 1663. He received his education at St. John's College, Oxford; became vicar of St. Giles, Oxford, 1609; rector of Somerton, Oxfordshire, 1615; head of St. John's, 1622, and vice-chancellor 1626-27, and in 1626, dean of Worcester; became bishop of London in 1633; on Mar. 6, 1635-36, he became lord high treasurer, a difficult post; he attended Charles I. to the scaffold as his most faithful servant; was deprived of his see in 1649; and in 1660 was recognized as the only eligible candidate for the primacy, and was elected. He left a well-deserved reputation for strict honesty, loyalty to Church and king, and great charity to the poor. BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. H. Marah, *Memoirs of Archbishop Juxon*, London, 1869; *DNB*, xxx. 233-237.