Site des ressources théologiques

Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopaedia

샤프-헤르초크 종교백과

Encyclopédies Schaff et al. 1882 general

État des langues

EN KO1%

EN 6639/6639 source · KO 75/6639 traduits · 0 revus

6639 entrées

Vue parallèle coréen-anglais
LLORENTE, JUAN ANTONIO Llorente, Juan Antonio

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**LLORENTE, ** lyo-ren'tề, **JUAN ANTONIO: ** Historian of the Spanish Inquisition; b. at Rincon de Soto (90 m. n.w. of Saragossa) Mar. 30, 1765; d. in Madrid Feb. 5, 1823. He studied at Saragossa and became both doctor and priest before he had reached the canonical age. He was appointed a commissioner in 1785, and secretary general of the Inquisition in 1789. The opportunity that was thus presented for becoming acquainted with the functions and the archives of those in authority was well utilized by Llorente. His endeavor to make the procedure public throughout was frustrated on the fall of his like-minded patrons, the Grand Inquisitor Manuel Abad y la Sierra, and the Minister Jovellanos. Llorente became so far involved in the latter's fall that he, too, was subjected to prosecution, which resulted, however, in his acquittal. Upon the downfall of the Bourbon Government in 1808, Llorente took the side of the followers of King Joseph. As member from 1808 of the Council of State, Llorente assumed the supervision of the abrogation of the cloisters, at which time he began to write the history of the Spanish Inquisition. This highly important work was first published in French, *Histoire critique de l'Inquisition d'Espagne * (4 vols., Paris, 1817-18); then in Spanish (10 vols., Madrid, 1822); then in German, English (London, 1826), Dutch, and Italian. The reactionary Government succeeded in punishing the author, for his ecclesiastical functions were annulled, and at the university there was even issued an order forbidding him to give instruction in his mother tongue, and when the *Portrait politique des Papes *(2 vols., Paris, 1822) appeared, he was banished. But being included under the universal political amnesty of 1820, he returned to Spain; he had scarcely reached Madrid, however, when his death occurred. The value of his principal work lies in the fact that it supplies extracts from documents no longer accessible. K. BENRATH. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources for a biography are his own statements in the *Notice biographique,* Paris, 1818, and the life by his friend Mahul in *Revue encyclopédique,* xviii. (1823). Consult further: C. J. von Hefele, *Der Cardinal Ximenes,* Tübingen, 1851, Eng. transl., London, 1860; P. Gams, *Zur Geschichte der spanischen Inquisition,* Regensburg, 1878; idem, *Die Kirchengeschichte von Spanien,* iii., part 2, ib. 1879; *KL,* viii. 56-59. The German transl. of Llorente's history of the inquisition appeared in 4 vols., Gmünd, 1819, and after the 3d ed. of the original, Stuttgart, 1824. The 2d ed. of the Italian transl. appeared, 8 vols., Milan, 1854.
LLOYD, WILLIAM Lloyd, William

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**LLOYD, WILLIAM: ** Bishop of Worcester; b. at Tilehurst (18 m. w. of Windsor), Berkshire, Aug. 18, 1627; d. at Hartleburg Castle (4 m. s. of Kidderminster), Worcester, Aug. 30, 1717. He studied at Oriel and at Jesus College, Oxford (B.A., 1642; M.A., 1646; B.D. and D.D., 1667), becoming a fellow of the latter college. He became a royal chaplain (1666), prebendary of Salisbury Cathedral (1667), vicar of St. Mary's, Reading, and archdeacon of Merioneth (1668), dean of Bangor and prebendary of St. Paul's (1672), vicar of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields (1677) and bishop of St. Asaph (1680). He was translated to the see of Lichfield and Coventry in 1692, and to the see of Worcester in 1700. He was one of the most indefatigable opponents of Romanism under James II, and was one of the seven bishops who were imprisoned in the Tower June 8-15, 1688, for protesting against the Second Declaration of Indulgence. With the other bishops he was tried and acquitted June 29. He assisted at the crowning of William and Mary and shortly afterward became lord high almoner. He furnished material for Burnet's *History of the Reformation of the Church of England *(3 parts, London, 1679-1715), wrote many tracts, and also one valuable work, *An Historical Account of Church Governmeat as it was in Great Britain and Ireland when they first Received the Christian Religion *(London, 1684; reprinted in T. P. Pantin's edition of Stillingfleet's *Origines Britannicae, *vol. ii., Oxford, 1842). BIBLIOGRAPHY: A valuable list of sources is appended to the article in *DNB,* xxxiii. 436-439. Consult: N. Salmon, *Lives of the English Bishops,* pp. 147-158, London, 1733; F. B. Howell, *Complete Collection of State Trials,* xii. 183-254, xiv. 545-580, ib. 1812; E. H. Plumptre, *Life of Bishop Ken,* i. 66, 140, 145, 293-316, ii. 1-10, 302, London, 1888; J. H. Overton, *The Church in England, *ii. 161 sqq., ib. 1897; W. H. Hutton, *The English Church (1625-1714),* pp. 227 sqq., ib. 1903.
LOBO, JERONIMO Lobo, Jeronimo

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**LOBO,** lo'bo, **JERONIMO:** Portuguese Jesuit missionary; b. in Lisbon 1593; d. there Jan. 29, 1678. After teaching for a time in the Jesuit college at Coimbra he went as a missionary to India in 1621, arriving at Goa in 1622. In 1625 he settled in Abyssinia as superintendent of missions in the kingdom of Tigre, but some years later he was driven from the country, along with the patriarch and other Jesuit missionaries (see ABYSSINIA AND THE ABYSSINIAN CHURCH, '****
LOBSTEIN, PAUL Lobstein, Paul

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**LOBSTEIN, **lob'stain, **PAUL: **German Protestant; b. at Epinal (264 m. e.s.e. of Paris), Department of the Vosges, France, July 28, 1850. He was educated at the universities of Strasburg, Tübingen, and Göttingen, and in 1878 became privat-docent at the first-named institution. In the following year he was appointed associate professor of theology at the same university, where he has been full professor since 1884. In theology he is a disciple of Reuss, A. Sabatier, and Ritschl. He has been associate editor of the works of Calvin in the *Corpus Reformatorum, *xxiii.-xxxii., xlv., and has written *Die Ethik Calvin's in ihren Grundzugen entworfen *(Strasburg, 1877); *Petrus Ramus als Theolog *(1878); *La Notion de la preexistence du Fils de Dieu *(Paris, 1883); *Etudes christologiques *(5 parts, 1885-94; the second part, *La Doctrine de la naissance miraculeuse du Christ, * 1890, was translated into English by V. Leuliette under the title *The Virgin Birth of Christ, * London, 1903); *La Doctrine de la Sainte-Cene * (Lausanne, 1889); *Reflexions sur le baptême des enfants * (Paris, 1892); *Essai d'une introduction a la dogmatique protestante *(Paris, 1896; Eng. transl. *Introduction to Protestant Dogmatics, *Chicago, 1902); *Etudes sur la doctrine chrétienne de Dieu *(Lausanne, 1906).
LOBWASSER, AMBROSIUS Lobwasser, Ambrosius

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**LOBWASSER, **18b-v8s'ser, **AMBROSIUS: **Author of the well-known " Lobwasser Psalter "; b. at Schneeberg (20 m. s.s.w. of Chemnitz) Apr. 4, 1515; d. at Königsberg Nov. 27, 1585. He was educated at Leipsic, especially in jurisprudence (under his elder brother Paul, then professor of that subject); took his master's degree at twenty, and worked as a lecturer till 1550. During the next seven years he traveled as tutor to some young men of rank, and in 1557 became court councilor and chancellor at Meissen. At Bologna, in 1562, he attained the degree of doctor of laws. From 1563 to 1580, when he retired from active life, he was assessor and professor of law at Königsberg. He was a thorough and versatile scholar, and more than once filled the office of rector of the university. Although a Lutheran by conviction, he was vievwed askance by his coreligionista for the reason that he based his translation of the Psalter of Beza and Marot not on the original text, but on the Reformed French Psalter. His object was to popularize in Germany the melodies of the French Psalter, of the beauty of which he had received a deep impression during a long sojourn in Berry; and thus he adhered to the texts which served as channels for these melodies, in order that the meter and versification might accord with the French model. His work was primarily designed for private edification. Accidental circumstances, above all a pestilential epidemic, afforded him the requisite leisure for the undertaking; a " noble Frenchman," Gaurier, gave him encouragement, and thus the Psalter was completely rendered into German by 1562. Duke Albert of Prussia, on whose patronage Lobwasser had doubtless reckoned, died in 1568, and the publication was deferred till 1573. The title reads: *Der Psalter des konigliechen Prophden Davids, In deutsche reyme verstendiglich and deutlich gebracht, mit vorgehender anzeigung der reymen weiae, such einea jeden Psalmes inhalt: Durch den ehruesten Hochgelarten Hewn Ambrosium Lobwasser, der Rechten Dodorn and Fiirstlicher Durchlauchtigkeit in Preussen Rathe. Und hieriiber beg einem jeden Psalmen seine zegehdrige vier stimmen: Ynd taut der Paalmen arideclitige schne Gebet *(Leipsic, 1573). The prayers appended to every psalm are translations of the *Oraisons *of Augustin Marlorat, preacher at Rouen. The summary preceding each psalm and the appended prayer stamp the work as a manual of edification. Although but a mediocre performance in point of language and practical objectiveness, the Psalter enjoyed a success not much inferior to that of the Huguenot Psalter itself. For nearly two hundred years, Lobwasser had almost unlimited sway in the German Reformed Church; and to this day, he is not quite out of date. He owed this success distinctly to the verbally exact adaptation of his version to the French melodies. These melodies formed the common musical language of the Reformed of all tongues. The work was recast musically in 1607 by Landgrave Maurice of Hesse, who sought to bring it into harmony with the declamatory style of singing at that time coming into fashion, and again by Samuel Marschall (Basel, 1606); by Cruger (Berlin, 1656); by Sultzberger (Bern, 1675) and others. The teat was also rendered into other languages: Latin, by Andrews Spetke, 1596; Danish, 1682; Italian, by Planta, 1740, as well as earlier; by the daughter of Landgrave Maurice of Hesse, 1608; by Casimir, 1753; Nicolai, .1762, etc. The attempts of eighteenth-century taste to improve and expand the Lobwasser Psalter led gradually to its disuse. The appendix, which had at first comprised only the Decalogue Hymn (" Erheb' dein Herz, thu' auf dein Ohren ") and the Song of Simeon, and had then been enlarged by the addition of German hymns, many of them Lutheran, grew continually stouter and heavier, till at last the "appendix" swallowed up the Psalter, and new hymnals arose in which only selected psalms were retained. As the melodies lost their distinctive rhythm, their charm likewise vanished which the Lobwasser text, notwithstanding its stiff and far from poetic language, had possessed. The German hymns which had flourished, indeed, in the sixteenth century, although through the importance attached to Scriptural language and the charm of the French psalm melodies it had yielded to the latter, now gained the supremacy. Besides his Psalter, Lobwasser also published a collection of *Hymni patrum und anderer gottseliger Manner, welche durchs ganze Jahr in den Kirchen gesungen werden, aus dem Latein ins Deutsch mit gleichen Reimen gebracht *(Leipsic, 1578-79). Some of these translations found acceptance in the Lutheran Church. H. A. KOSTLIN BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are: J. C. Wetzel, *Hymnopoepraphia, * ii. 79 sqq., Herrnstadt, 1721; M. Adam, *Vitae Germanicorum jureconsultorum *pp. 267 sqq., Heidelberg, 1620; C. Hartlknoch, *Preussische Kirchenhistorie. *pp. 498 sqq., Frankfort 1866. Consult: P. Wackenagel, *Das deutsche Kirchenlied, *i. 509 eqq., iv. 844 sqq., Leipsic, 1863-76; G. Doring, *Choralkunde, *pp. 52-57, 234, Danzig, 1865; E. Hopfner, *Reformbestrebungen auf dem Gebiet der deutschen Dichtung, *Berlin, 1866; E. Koch, *Geschichte des Kirchenliedes, *ii, 594-597, Stuttgart, 1867; F. Bovet, *Hist. du psautier des eglises reformees, *Paris, 1872; O. Douen, *Clement Marot et le psautier huguenot, * ib. 1872; P. Wolfrum, *Die Entstehung und erste Entwickelung des deutschen evangelischen Kirchenliedes, *pp. 134 sqq., Leipsic, 1890: J. Zahn, *Die Melodien der deutschen Kirchenlieder, *vi. 56 sqq., Gütersloh, 1893; *ADB, *xix. 56-58; Julian, *Hymnology, *pp. 683-684.
LOCK, WALTER Lock, Walter

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**LOCK, WALTER: **Church of England; b. at Dorchester (8 m. n. of Weymouth), Dorsetshire, July 14, 1848. He was educated at Marlborough College and Corpus Christi, Oxford (B.A. 1869), and was fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, in 1869-72, where he has been honorary fellow since 1897. He was assistant to the professor of humanity at St. Andrews in 1889-70, and from the latter year to 1897 was tutor of Keble College, Oxford, as well as subwarden in 1880-97 and warden since 1897. Since 1895 he has been Dean Ireland's professor of the exegesis of Holy Scripture in the University of Oxford, and was also examining chaplain to the bishop of Lichfield in 1881-91 and to the archbishop of York since 1891, examiner in the Honour School of Theology in 1885-87, and select preacher to the university in 1889-90. He has edited Keble's *Christian Year *(London, 1895) and *Lyra Innocentium *(1899), and has written the essay on *The Church *in *Lux Mundi, *(London, 1890); and on *The Bible *and *The Old Testament *in *Oxford House Papers *(1886-97); *John Keble, a Biography *(1892); *St. Paul, the Master Builder *(1899); and *The Bible and Christian Life *(1905).
LOCKE, JOHN Locke, John

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**LOCKE, JOHN: **English philosopher; b. at Wrington (10 m. s.w. of Bristol) Aug. 29, 1632; d. at Oates, Essex, Oct. 28, 1704. He studied at the College of Westminster (1646-52), and at Christ Church, Oxford (B.A., 1655-56; M.A., 1658), there making the acquaintance of a circle of eminent men which included Edward Pococke and Robert Boyle (qq.v.), and continuing his residence there for some years. The Aristotelian-scholastic philosophy then dominant at Oxford left him unsatisfied; meanwhile, he was teaching privately, became Greek lecturer in 1660, lecturer on rhetoric in 1682, and censor in moral philosophy in 1663. He had also pursued the study of medicine, and had become interested in physical science. In 1665 Locke went as secretary of the English mission to the elector of Brandenburg, but the next year settled as a physician at Oxford, through his profession becoming a friend of the first earl of Shaftesbury, to whom he was in large part indebted for political preferments which continued to come to him through life. Thus, in 1672 Locke was appointed to a secretaryship which was, for the times, moderately well compensated. His health was not good, however, and he resided in France 1675-79, not in idleness, however, but making investigations along scientific, political, and social lines. After that he was in England until 1684, principally at Oxford, and then he went to Holland, remaining abroad till 1688-89, when he returned and became commissioner of appeals, an office which he retained till death. The most important event in his life was the publication of the work which brought him lasting fame as a philosopher, his *Essay concerning Human Understanding *(London, 1690; five editions by 1706). The purpose was to investigate the origin, certainty, and extent of human knowledge. In this work Locke sought to prove that innate ideas do not exist, and that all knowledge comes through experience by sensation and reflection. He was thus the originator of the empirical philosophy of the eighteenth century which spread over England, France, and Germany and greatly influenced both the political and social theories of his times. His letters on *Toleration *(1689-90), *Two Treatises of Government *(1690), a work on the national currency (1692), and *Some Thoughts concerning Education* (1693) are further weighty productions of this period. Locke was a member of the council of trade (1696-1700), but because of failing health was obliged to decline other preferments. Locke's influence continued dominant until the spread of Kantian ideas, and he is called "the founder of the analytic philosophy of mind" (J. S. Mill, *Logic, *book I, chap. vi.). His principles were either so carried out or so misapplied in theology that he became the object of sharp attack; to which he as sharply replied. This was especially the case with Bishop Edward Stillingfleet (q.v.), whose *Discourse in Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity *(London, 1698) brought on a controversy with Locke which continued till 1699. Locke has sometimes been regarded as the father of late English skepticism (see DEISM, §§ 4-5; ENLIGHTENMENT, THE, § 7). While in early life he had deliberately turned away from theology as a vocation, his interest never died out, and this came to its fruitage in his *Reasonableness of Christianity *(1695), and in his *Paraphrase *of the epistles to the Galatians, I and II Corinthians, Romans, and Ephesians (posthumous, 1705-07). Of his *Works *many editions have appeared (3 vols., London, 1714; best ed. by E. Law, 4 vols., ib. 1777); and his *Posthumous Works *(ib. 1706). BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources of knowledge are: *Some Familiar Letters between Mr. Locke and Several of his Friends, *London, 3d ed., 1737; *Original Letters of Lock, Algernon Sidney and Anthony Lord Shaftesbury, *ib. 2d ed., 1847; *Shaftesbury. Life, Unpublished Letters, and Philosophical Regimen, *ed. E. Rand, ib: 1900; J. Le Clerc's *Eloge historique de feu Mr. Locks Amsterdam, *,i>Works, ut sup. Consult further: G. W. von Leibnitz, *Nouveaux essais sur l'entendement, *Amsterdam, 1765, Eng. transl., *New Essays concerning Human Understanding, *London, 1896; J. G. Buhle, *Geschichte der neuern Philosophie Critical Essays, *pp. I-32, Boston, 1842; A. H. Everett, *Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, *pp. 381-451, Boston 1846; J. D. Morell, *Historical and Critical Review of the Speculative Philosophy of Europe in the 19th Century, *i. 91-147, London, 1846; R. Vaughan, *Essays in History, Philosophy, and Theology, *ii. 59-120, ib. 1849; E. Tagart, *Locke's Writings and Philosophy historically Considered, *ib. 1855; T. E. Webb, *The Intellectualism of Locke, *Dublin, 1857; V. Cousin, *La Philosophie de Locke, *Paris, 1863; J. Tulloeh, *Rational Theology and Christian Philosophy in England in the 17th Century, *2 vols., London 1872; T. H. Green, *ATreatise on Human Nature by DavidHume *(Introduction), ib.1878; H.Marion, *J. Locke, sa vie et son aeuvre, *Paris, 1879; J. Brown, *Horae subsecivae, Locke and Sydenham, *Edinburgh, 1882; P. King, *Life and Letters of John Locke; with Extracts from his Commonplace Books, *new ed., New York, 1884; H. Winter, Darlegung und Kritik der lockeschen Lehre vom empirischen Ursprung der sittlichen Grundsatze, Bonn, 1884; R. Falekenberg, *Geschichte der neuren Philosophie, *pp. 111-133, Leipsic, 1886; J. Fowler, *Locke, *London 1887; M. M. Curtis, *An Outline of Locke's Ethical Theory, *Leipsic, 1890; W. L. Courtney, *Studies at Leisure, *London, 1892; G. F. von Hertling, *John Locke and die Schule von Cambridge, *Freiburg, 1892; P. Fischer, *Die Religionsphilosophie des John Locke, *Erlangen, 1893; J. McCosh, *Locke's " Theory of Knowledge," with a Notice of Berkeley, *New York, 1894; E. Fechtner, *John Locke, *Stuttgart. 1898; W. Graham, *English Political Philosophy, *London, 1899; E. E. Worcester, *The Religious Opinions of John Locke, *Geneva, N. Y., 1899; A. C. Fraser, *Locke, *Edinburgh, 1901; idem, *J. Locke as a Factor in Modern Thought, *London, 1905; J. Rickaby, *Free Will and Four English Philosophers, *London, 1906. Of importance, also, are the works on the history of philosophy, particularly those of J. E. Erdmann, Eng. transl., London, 1893; W. Windelband, Eng. transl., ib. 1893; A. Weber, Eng. transl., ib. 1896; and F. Ueberweg, Eng. transl., New York, 1874.
LOCUST Locust

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**LOCUST: **A common and familiar insect of the East. Locusts are counted among the small winged animals which "go upon all four" and were all regarded as unclean, with the exception of those which had two hind legs projecting above their feet "to leap withal upon the earth" (Lev. xi. 21-22). These legs for leaping are a characteristic of the locust, while other marks are a head set at right angles with the body, armed with strong mandibles and having two antennae, large eyes, and a body formed of nine annulets. The four wings are of nearly equal length, but the rear ones are considerably broader than those in front. The female with her ovipositor thrusts the eggs, after they are fertilized, into the loose earth. In the spring, when the sun warms the ground, the larvae creep out, greenish white or black, small as flies, in shape like the full-grown locusts, only without external sexual organs. They cast their skin four times; after the third casting the sexual parts appear and after the fourth the insects are able to fly. In Syria locusts begin to breed by the middle of April. The two species which are moat common in Syria (*Aeridium Peregrinum *and *(Edipoda migratoria) * are particularly dreaded on account of their voracity and their great numbers. When the desert winds drive the immense swarms through the air (Ex. x. 13; Prov. xxx. 27) they darken the sun like heavy clouds and the rattling of their wings sounds like the noise of chariots (Joel ii. 2, 5; Rev. ix. 9). Wherever they settle down, the verdure immediately disappears, even the Garden of Eden becomes a desert (Joel ii. 3). Those which are not yet winged crawl on the ground and no obstacle can stop them or divert them from the path they have chosen (Ex. x. 6; Joel ii. 7, 9). Broad ditches and large fires avail little to destroy the swarms, and even the red-hawk and the rosy grackle *(turdus *roseus), which fly along with them and devour many, scarcely lessen the swarms. Rain is their most dangerous enemy, as it destroys their eggs, and a severe storm does away with them altogether by sweeping them into the sea (Ex. x. 19; Joel ii. 20). Locusts were looked upon as clean according to Lev. xi. 22, and they were eaten by the poor as they are today by the Bedouins (cf. Matt. iii. 4; Mark i. 5). By the Assyrians they were regarded as a delicacy. They are often mentioned in the Old Testament as a type of an enormous multitude (Judges vi. 5; Jer. xlvi. 23; Nah. iii. 15; Eccles. xliii. 17); of littleness, unimportance, and transitoriness (Num, xiii. 33; Ps. cix. 23; Isa. xl. 22; Nah. iii. 17); of greed (Deut. xxviii. 38; Isa. xxxiii. 4), and of destruction (Amos vii. 1). Their advancing in bands is described in Prov. xxx. 27; in their leaping and in their appearance they are. compared to horses (Joel ii. 4; Rev. ix. 7). A plague of grasshoppers was one of the most dreadful judgments of God (Deut. xxviii. 38; I Kings viii. 37; Amos iv. 9). A highly poetical description of a swarm of locusts and the destruction and waste they left behind them is given by Joel (chaps. i.-ii). The Old Testament has many names to designate locusts. The one most generally used, *'arbeh,* is a generic name (cf. Ex. x. 4 sqq.) as well as the name of a particular species, probably the flying, migratory locust *(gryllus migratorius), *which is said to bear this name in Bagdad at the present day. In Lev. xi. 22, *sal'am, hargal, *and *haghabh * are named as different species; *haghabh, *however, seems to be also a common designation. The names in Joel (i. 4, ii. 25) are popular expressions (cf. *hasil, * " the devourer," Deut. xxviii. 38; Pa. lxxviii. 46) which serve everywhere as general designations (Jer. li. 27; Amos iv. 9; Nah. iii. 16). To these may be added *gebh *and *gobh * (Isa. xxxiii. 4; Amos vii. 1; Nah. iii. 17)--an exceptional wealth of synonyms easily understood from the great part the locust played everywhere in the land. Some of these synonyms may have had their origin in the various dialects of the country. I. BENZINGER. BIBLIOGRAPHY: S. Bochart, *Hierozoicore, *II, iv. 1, 3 vols., Leipsic, 1793-96; J. L. Burckhardt, *Notes on the Bedouins and Wahabis, *London, 1830; H. B. Tristram, *Natural Hist. of the Bible,* pp. 306 sqq., ib. 1880; A. Munro, *The Locust Plague and its Suppression, *ib. 1900; *DB,* iii. 130-131; *EB,* iii. 2807-10; *JE,* viii. 147; and the commentaries on Leviticus at xi. 22, and on Joel, particularly that by Driver, in the *Cambridge Bible, *containing an excursus on locusts and giving the literature.
LODENSTEIN, JODOCUS VAN Lodenstein, Jodocus Van

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**LODENSTEIN,** lo'den-stain, **JODOCUS VAN:** Reformed preacher and ascetic; b. at Delft Feb. 6, 1620; d. at Utrecht Aug. 6, 1677. He studied theology at Utrecht under Voetius, Schotanus and De Maets, and in 1642 went to Franeker in order to devote himself to the study of Oriental languages under the direction of Coccejus. In 1644 he became preacher at Zoetermeer near Delft, in 1650 at Sluis in Flanders, and in 1653 at Utrecht, where he labored until his death. He was the originator of a reformation of life and morals in the Netherlands, and was thus for the Dutch and German Reformed Church what Spener soon after became in the German Evangelical-Lutheran Church, and by the same analogy he was followed by a party of " Lodensteinians," who kept aloof from the external life of the Church without formally separating themselves, unlike the adherents of Labadie, who were outspoken dissenters. He was a reformer of practical life, not of doctrine. The Netherlands were at that time exceedingly prosperous, and the popular mind seemed to be entirely absorbed by secular pursuits. Lodenstein, however, made a wide-spread impression by his preaching, by his writings, and by his spiritual songs. Of his sermons many were published and often reprinted in various collections, such as *Geestelyke Opwekker * (Amsterdam, 1701); *Vervalle Christendom *(Utrecht, 1711); *Heerlijkheid van een waar Christelijk leven *(Amsterdam, 1711); *Boetpredikatien over Jerem. xlv *(Utrecht, 1779). Of his important ascetic works must be mentioned especially *Weegschale der onvolmaaktheden *(Utrecht, 1664) and *Beschouwinge van Zion *(ib. 1674-76). A collection of his spiritual songs is in *Uytspanningen en andere Gedigten * (ib. 1676). (S. D. VAN VEEN.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: P. I. Proost, *Jodocus van Lodenstein, *Amsterdam, 1880; M. Goebel, *Geschichte des christlichen Lebens in der rheinisch-westfälischen evangelischen Kirche, *ii. 160-180, Coblentz, 1852; H. L. J. Heppe, *Geschichte des Pietismus und der Mystik in der reformirten Kirche, *Leyden, 1879; A. Ritschl, *Geschichte des Pietismus, *i. 152 sqq., Bonn, 1880.
LOEHR, JOHANN KONRAD WILHELM Loehe, Johann Konrad Wilhelm

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**LOEHR, **lo'e, **JOHANN KONRAD WILHELM:** Lutheran theologian and philanthropist; b. in Furth (5 m. n.w. of Nuremberg) Feb. 21, 1808; d. at Neuendettelsau (12 m. s. of Nuremberg) Jan. 2, 1872. Descended from a pious middle-class family, he went from the gymnasium of Nuremberg to the University of Erlangen in 1826 to study theology. First the Reformed, then powerfully and inflexibly the Lutheran, view influenced him. In 1828 he spent a term at the University of Berlin, attracted not so much by the lectures of the professors as by the sermons of the famous preachers. In 1831 he became vicar at Kirchenlamitz where he drew large congregations by his original and fervent preaching. But the civil and ecclesiastical authorities on the charge of mysticism removed him after two years and he became assistant pastor of St. Giles in Nuremberg. Here his gift of preaching was fully developed. Like a prophet of old, Loehr denounced sin without fear, and thus set the magistracy of the city against him. He had, however, the support of the Church authorities. In 1837 he finally settled as preacher at Neuendettelsau, an inconsiderable and unattractive place, which after many a struggle he transformed into a busy Christian colony. From 1848 to 1852 the idea of leaving the Bavarian State Church frequently took hold of him, and his relations with its authorities became very strained. The reason for his dissatisfaction did not lie so much in actual conditions, but in the fact that Loehr measured these conditions by his ideal standards. It was the conflict between the ideal and the real that agitated him; he tried to identify the communion of saints with its visible organism. He planned originally not a reformation, but an entirely new formation of the Church. He addressed a petition signed by 330 people to the General Synod in which he demanded the withdrawal of secular supremacy over the Protestant Church, complete purification of confession, and the strictest adherence to the symbols of the Church. Although the synod tried to meet his demands as far as possible, Lohe was not satisfied and was several times actually on the point of secession; but his historical feeling and love for the traditions of the Church deterred him from the execution of his plan. As a strictly orthodox Lutheran, he was chiefly offended by the free intercourse between the Lutherans and the Reformed, and especially by their common celebration of the Lord's Supper, which threatened to eliminate the differences in doctrine, although no actual union existed. A proposition was made to suspend Lohe, but many voted against this measure, which, on account of his numerous following, would have led to an actual split within the Church of Bavaria. But these disagreeable conditions were changed when in 1852 the leadership of the consistory was entrusted to Harless, whose attitude toward Loehr was less hostile, and who effected a definite but peaceable separation between the Lutherans and Reformed. In his great work on the Church ( *Drei Bucher von der Kirche, * 1845) Lohe propounds the strictest Lutheran orthodoxy. Impurity of doctrine is for him as bad as immoral conduct, and Lutheran doctrines are complete and perfect, in no need of development. But his zeal for orthodoxy was at times so excessive that it brought him dangerously near to Roman Catholicism, as for instance in his doctrine of a visible Church and his ideas of church government, the efficacy of works, self-denial, and celibacy. But he was so firmly rooted in the doctrine of justification that it is impossible to speak of a conscious inclination toward the Roman Catholic Church. The personality of Loehr must, however, be judged in its entirety. He was not only a man of pure, although sometimes one-aided, orthodoxy, but a creative power in the field of charitable work. From 1840 he was active in educating spiritual workers for the German emigrants to America. He founded the Missouri Synod in union with the emigrant Lutherans of Saxony, the Franconian colonies in Michigan, and at a later time the Iowa Synod. Neuendettelsau possesses two stately buildings devoted to the education of missionaries for North America and Australia. In 1849 Lohe founded the Lutheran Society of Home Missions, and in 1853 an institution of deaconesses which was dedicated in the following year, the eighteenth in order of foundation, but the third or fourth in numbers of all Germany. Around this center there grew up with wonderful rapidity a number of institutions, such as asylums for idiots, a Magdalen asylum, hospitals for men and women, a chapel, industrial schools, etc. In 1865 a branch of the institution of deaconesses was founded at Polsingen near Oettingen, consisting of a department for male idiots, a district hospital, a reformatory, and an asylum for infants. The characteristic trait in Lohe's personality was a healthy combination of orthodoxy with originality of thinking. Sin and grace, justification and sanctification, were the central points of his theology. As a preacher, he was among the greatest of the century. Originality of conception, vivid imagination, and prophetic fervor, were his chief characteristics in the pulpit. Lohe also made a profound study of liturgics and laid down his views in *Agende fur christliche Gemeinden *(1848). He awakened everywhere the sense for liturgical order. But he was perhaps even greater as a pastor than as a preacher. Lohe was a man of striking appearance. His head was large, his forehead high; his mouth made the impression of great decision of character; his voice was powerful, and his eye bright and searching. He wrote not less than sixty works growing out of the experiences of his spiritual office and serving practical purposes. His earlier writings originated from his opposition to the State Church, *Unsere kirchliche Lage *(Nordlingen, 1850); *Aphorismen über die neutestamentlichen Aemter und ihr Verhaltniss zur Gemeinde *(Nuremberg, 1849); *Kirche und Amt, nette Aphorismen *(Erlangen, 1851); *Die bayerische Generalsynode vom Fruhjahr 1849 und das lutherische Bekenntnis * (Nuremberg, 1849). Of a permanent value are *Drei Bucher von der Kirche *(Stuttgart, 1845); *Rosenmonate heiliger Frauen * (1860); *Der evangelische Geistliche *(2 vols., 1852-58); *Sieben Predigten *(Nuremberg, 1836); *Predigten über das Vaterunser *(1837); *Sieben Vortrage über die Worte am Kreuze *(Stuttgart, 1859); *Erinnerungen aus der Reformationsgeschichte von Franken *(Nuremberg, 1847); *Haus-, Schul- und Kirchenbuch für Christen lutherischen Bekenntnisses *(Stuttgart, 1845); *Samenkörner * (Nordlingen, 1844). (A. HAUCK.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Deinzer, *W. Lohes Leben; *3 vols., 3d ed., Gütersloh, 1901; H. Back, *Die innere Mission in Bayern, *pp. 18 sqq., Hamburg, 1880; K. Eichner, *Wilhelm Lohe, ein Lebensbild, *Nuremberg, 1907.
LOENER, KASPAR Loener, Kaspar

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**LOENER, **lon'er, **KASPAR: **German reformer and poet; b. at Markt Erlbach, near Baireuth, 1493; d. at Nordlingen (39 mi. n.w. of Augsburg) Jan. 6, 1546: He received his early education in the monastery of Heilsbronn, and in 1508 entered the University of Erfurt; while in 1520 he was assistant priest at Nesselbach, combining this office with pastoral functions at the Cistercian monastery of Birkenfeld (near Neustadt-on-the-Aisch). There is reason to believe that he was already cautiously active in the cause of the Reformation, and the two conservative imitations of Luther's baptismal ordinal-- *Ordnung der Tauff nach wirtzburgischer Rubricken von wort zu wort verteutscht *and *Ordnung der Tauff nach bambergischer Rubricken von wort zu wort verteutscht * (both subsequent to 1523)--are very plausibly ascribed to him. In 1524 the Margrave Frederick of Brandenburg transferred him to Hof, as his representative in the incumbency of St. Michael's. His Evangelical attitude, however, caused his speedy removal, and after.preaching for a short time in the Franciscan church, he was obliged to leave Brandenburg and went to Wittenberg, where he matriculated at the university in 1526. After a brief visit to Markt Erlbach in Jan., 1527, and a short incumbency in Oelsnitz, the secession of Margrave George permitted him to return to Hof late in 1527 or early in.1528. Here he introduced Evangelical worship and also prepared an agenda, a hymnal, and a catechism for his congregation, the first-named forming the basis of the Naumburg agenda of Nikolaus Medler (1537-38) and Widmann's agenda of 1592. Loner was. equally independent as a hymnologist; and in 1527 twenty-six of his compositions were printed anonymously under the title *Gantz newe geystliche teutsche Hymnus vnd gesang; *while as late as 1561 hymns written by him, but hitherto unpublished, were still printed, so that their entire number, amounts to something more than thirty seven. In like manner his *Vnterricht des glaubens oder Christlicher kinderzucht in LXXII. Fragen vnd Antwortt verfast * (Nuremberg, 1529) is an independent work, despite its indebtedness to Althamer'a catechism and the earlier catechetical writings of Luther. >p> Loner took an active part in the preparation of the Brandenburg-Nuremberg agenda, but in May, 1531, his position became intolerable through the opposition which he had aroused, intensified by his attacks on the papacy, and in July he was expelled from Hof and retired to Oelsnitz. There, after a brief period of poverty with his wife and children, he resumed his pastorate through Melanchthon's influence, and there he published, under the title *GeistLiche gesang, aus heiliger Schrift mit vleis zu samen gebracht, Vnd auffs new zu gericht * (Wittenberg, 1538), a collection of twenty of his hymns, three of them new. In 1539 he preached in Leipsic, but failed to secure the call he desired and contemplated retiring from pastoral work, declining a call to Oschatz. In 1542, however, he became preacher at the Naumburg cathedral, al though the opposition of the canons gave him little scope for activity. In Jan., 1544, he became pastor of St. George's, Nordlingen, where he remained until his death, and where, as first superintendent, he organized ecclesiastical affairs as he would; sometimes with an excess of zeal, and prepared a new agenda, catechism, and hymnal. The agenda is essentially the same as the one he had prepared for Hof, while the catechism, despite its dependence on Luther's *Enchiridion, *is noteworthy for its division into six conversations with 128 questions and answers, its abundant meditations, and its seven original catechismal hymns. The hymnal, moreover, is of liturgical interest in its distribution of the hymns according to individual services and the seasons of the Christian year. BIBLIOGRAPHY: His *Briefbuch *is in *Beitrage zur bayerischen Kirchengeschichte, *ed. T. Kolde, vols. i.-iii., Erlangen, 1895-97. Other sources are the letters of Melanchthon in *CR, *v.-vi. passim, and of Luther in De Wette's ed. of Luther's letters, vols. iv-v.; V. L. von Seckendorf, *Commentarius criticus . . .de Lutheranismo, *i. 241, iii. 186, 219, 221, Leipsic, 1692. Modern treatment of the subject will be found in G. W. A. Fikenscher, *Gelehrtes Furstenturn Baireut, *v. 305-318, Nuremberg, 1803; P. Wackernagel, *Das deutsche Kirchenlied, *i. 388 sqq., 392, 408-409, 421-422, iii. 618-643, Leipsic, 1862 sqq.; G. Kawerau, in *ZKW,* x (1889), 487 sqq. 519-525; F. Cobra, in *Monumenta Germaniae paedagogica, *xxii. 463-480, Berlin, 1901; C. Geyer, *Aus der Reformationsgeschichte Nordlingens, *pp. 18-23, Nordlingen, 1901; *ADB, *xix. 152 sqq.
LOWDER, CHARLES FUGE Lowder, Charles Fuge

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

LOWDER, CHARLES FUGE: London mission preacher; b. at Bath June 22, 1820; d. at Zell-am-See (40 m. s.s.w. of Salzburg), Austria, Sept. 9, 1880. He studied at King's College School, London, and at Exeter College, Oxford (B.A., 1843; M.A., 1845), and took orders in 1843. He was curate at Walton, near Glastonbury, 1843-44, chaplain of the Axbridge workhouse 1844-45, curate of Tetbury, Gloucestershire, 1845-51, then curate at St. Barnabas' Church, Pimlico, 1851-56. In 1856 he entered upon his life-work as head of the mission at St. George's-in-the-East. The scene of his labors was in East London, among the lowest classes. Through his efforts was erected St. Peter's Church, London Docks, which was consecrated in 1866. Lowder became vicar of the new church and remained in this charge till his death. He held High-church views, was a strict ritualist, and resembled a Roman Catholic priest in his celibacy and his general mode of life. He published, besides some pamphlets, *Ten Years in St. George's Mission * (London, 1867); and *Twenty-one Years in St. George's Mission * (1877). BIBLIOGRAPHY: *Charles Lowder, a Biography, *London, 1882; *DNB,* xxxiv. 187.
LOWS WILLIAM Lows, William Henry

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

LOWS, WILLIAM HENRY: Church of England; b. at Whaplode Drove (42 m. s.s.e. of Lincoln), Lincolnshire, Apr. 10, 1848. He was educated at Christ College, Cambridge (B.A., 1871; M.A., 1874). He was Hebrew lecturer in his college (1874-91), and chaplain there (1874-81). He was curate of Fen Ditton, Cambridgeshire (1873-75); Milton (1880-82); Willingham (1886-90); and vicar of Fen Drayton (1890-91); and since 1891 at Brisley, Norfolk. He has edited: *The Psalms, with Introductions and critical Notes * (in conjunction with A. C. Jennings; 2 vols., London, 1877); has written: *The Hebrew Student's Commentary on Zechariah * (1884); the commentaries on Zechariah and Malachi in Ellicott's *Bible for English Readers* (1884); and *A Hebrew Grammar * (1887); and translated: *Twelve Odes of Hafiz * (Cambridge, 1877); and *Muntakhab-i-Tawarikh* (Calcutta, 1884).
LYTTELTON, GEORGE, FIRST BARON LYTTELTON Lyttelton, George, first Baron Lyttelton

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**LYTTELTON, GEORGE, ** first **BARON LYTTELTON: ** English author and statesman; b. at Hagley (6 m. n.e. of Kidderminster), Worcestershire, Jan. 17, 1709; d. there Aug. 22, 1773. He studied at Eton and Christ Church, Oxford, but took no degree. He entered parliament in 1735 as member for Okehampton, Devonshire, and continued to represent this borough till 1756, when he was elevated to the peerage. He was lord commissioner of the treasury 1744-54, and chancellor of the exchequer 1755-56. Though he was a good debater, he became prominent in parliament chiefly because of his influential political connection. With Lord Cobham, his uncle, William Pitt, a relation by affinity, and the Grenvilles, his first cousins, Lyttelton formed the powerful political clique known at first as the "Cobhamites," then, after Lord Cobham's death, as the "Grenville Cousins." He was a liberal patron of literature and enjoyed the friendship of Pope, Thomson, Shenstone, Fielding, and others. His principal works are, *Observations on .the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul * (London, 1747; new ed., 1879), which Dr. Johnson characterized as "a treatise to which infidelity has never bin able to fabricate a special answer"; *Dialogues of the Dead * (1760; 4th ed., enlarged, 1765; new ed., 1889); and *The History of the Life of Henry II.* (4 vols., .1767; 3d ed., 6 vols., 1769-73), a work of much careful research, which has, however, been superseded. His verse, which is inferior to his prose, was chiefly included in *Poems* (Glasgow, 1773), and in his *Poetical Works* (London, 1785). His nephew, G. E. Ayscough, collected his *Works * (London, 1774; 3d ed., 3 vols., 1776), including both verse and prose. Sir Robert Phillimore edited his *Memoirs and Correspondence* (2 vols., 1845). BIBLIOGRAPHY: An excellent list of authorities is given at the end of the sketch in *DNB,* xxxiv. 369-374, and a *Life* is found in A. Chalmers, *Works of the English Poets*, vol. xiv., London, 1810. Consult also: E. S. Creasy, *Memoirs of Celebrated Etonians, * ib. 1876; and the works on the history of the times.
MAAS, ANTHONY JOHN Maas, Anthony John

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**MAAS, ** mas, **ANTHONY JOHN: ** American Jesuit; b. at Bainkhausen, a village of Westphalia, Germany, Aug. 23, 1858. He was educated at the gymnasium of Arnsberg from 1874 to 1877, when he entered the Society of Jesus. He then left Germany for the United States, and after studying at Manresa, N. Y., from 1877 to 1880, studied philosophy at Woodstock College, Woodstock, Md., until 1883. He was then professor of classics at Frederick, Md., for a year, after which he returned to Woodstock and studied theology until 1888. Except for the year 1893-94, spent in Manresa, Spain, he has been connected with Woodstock College since 1885, where he has been professor of Hebrew since 1885, librarian since 1888, professor of Scripture since 1891, prefect of studies since 1897 and president since 1907. In addition to numerous minor contributions, he has written: *Life of Jesus Christ according to the Gospel History * (St. Louis, 1891); *Day in the Temple * (ib., 1892); *Christ in Type and Prophecy * (2 vols., New York, 1893-96); and *Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew * (Boston, 1898), and has prepared the fourth edition of Z. Zitelli Natali's *Enchiridion ad sacrarum disciplinarum cultores accomodatum * (Baltimore, 1892).
MABILLON, JEAN Mabillon, Jean

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**MABILLON, ** ma"bi"lyen, **JEAN: ** French Roman Catholic; b. at St. Pierremont in Champagne Nov. 23, 1632; d. in Paris Dec. 27, 1707. He entered the Congregation of St. Maur in 1653, and was professed in the following year. After some years spent in different houses of the order, he was at Saint-Denis in 1663, and the next year at the abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Pres in Paris, the literary headquarters of the congregation, where he assisted D'Achery (see ACHERY, JEAN LUC D') in the compilation of the last six volumes of the *Spicilegium. * In 1667 appeared two folio volumes of the works of St. Bernard, edited from the oldest and best manuscripts, the beginning and the model of the editions of the Fathers which the congregation was to issue thenceforth in rapid succession. Mabillon's most important life-work, however, was the history of the Benedictine order, for which D'Achery had collected a mass of materials. In 1668 appeared the first volume of the *Acta sanctorum ordinis sancti Benedicti, * relating to the sixth century. After thirty-four years of work, nine folio volumes had appeared, bringing the work down to 1100, and the material for a tenth was in shape. On this foundation Mabillon began to work at his most mature production, the *Annales ordinis sancti Benedicti*, (6 vols., Paris, 1703-39), of which four volumes had been published before his death; the fifth was published by R. Massuet (1713), and the sixth, to the year 1137, by E. Martene (1739). He won perhaps even greater fame in another department of scholarship, owing to a controversy with the Jesuits, brought on by a dissertation of the Bollandist Papebroch in the second volume of the *Acta sanctorum * for April (1675). Papebroch set down most of the early documents conveying monastic privileges, and especially the Merovingian archives of Saint-Denis, as forgeries. The Benedictines, in whose possession most of these were, regarded this as an attack on themselves, and Mabillon answered it in his De re diplomatica (1681).
MANDE, HENDRICK Mande, Hendrik

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**MANDE,** mdn'de, HENDRIK: Dutch mystic of the Windesheim community; b. at Dort c. 1360; d. in the monastery of Sion, near Beverwijk, 1431.
MARROW CONTROVERSY, THE Marrow Controversy, The

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

MARROW CONTROVERSY, THE: A Scotch ecclesiastical dispute occasioned by the republication in 1718 by James Hog of Carnock of The Marrow of Modern Divinity, . . . by E. F. (2 parts, London, 1645-19), possibly wrongly ascribed to Edward Fisher, an English Calvinist of the seventeenth century noted for spirituality and learning (cf. *DNB, *xix. 55-56). The work consists of religious dialogues of an original and sprightly kind, discusses the doctrine of the atonement, and aims to guide the reader safely between Antinomianism (q.v.) and Neonomianism. A copy of it was brought into Scotland by an English Puritan soldier, and years afterward found by Thomas Boston (q.v.), who was much pleased with it, and spoke of it to several; and so it was republished with a commendatory preface by James Hog. The book displeased the Neonomians, and they were the leading men in the Church of Scotland. One of their number, Principal Haddow of St. Andrews, assailed it in his opening sermon at the Synod of Fife, Apr., 1719; and a " committee for preserving the purity of dootrine " was chosen at the Assembly that year, the business of which was to discredit the book. This was attempted by garbled extracts. In their report in 1720 the committee condemned the book as Antinomian, and the Assembly approved. Then the friends of the book rallied to its defense. Twelve men, who were called " the Representers," formally called the attention of the Assembly to the anomaly that it had condemned, because taught in the book, propositions which were couched in Scripture language, and others which were expressly taught in their symbolical books. The Neonomians, however, gained a moderate victory, and in the Assembly of 1722 the twelve Representers were solemnly rebuked; subsequently every effort was made by the Neonomians to prevent the settlement of ministers holding the Marrow doctrines. No action was taken against the Representers, and the controversy in the church courts ended. But the irritation lasted, and ultimately led to the formation of the Secession Church (see PRESBYTERIANS). BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. M. Hetherington, *Hist. * of *the Church * of *Scotland, chap. ix., pp. 342, 344-347, * New York, 1881; C. A. Briggs, *American Presbyterianism, pp. 254 sqq., ib. * 1885.
MARSAY, CHARLES HECTOR DE ST. GEORGE, MARQUIS, DE Marsay, Charles Hector De St. George, Marquis De

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

MARSAY, mdr"sv, CHARLES HECTOR DE ST. GEORGE, MARQUIS DE: Quietist and mystic; b. at Paris 1688; d. at Ambleden (an estate near Wolfenbüttel), Brunswick, Feb. 3, 1753. He was a descendant of a noble family of Reformed faith, which had emigrated from France to Germany and Switzerland, and from childhood he was acquainted with such books of devotion as those of Thomas à Kempis and Jurieu. He served as an ensign in an Anglo-Hanoverian regiment in Belgium during the Spanish War of Succession. During a severe illness he was urged by two friends to resign his commission and withdraw entirely from the world. The three retired in 1711 to Schwarzenau, in the county of Wittgenstein, where they lived as hermits, practising self-castigation, observing silence so far as possible, and toiling diligently. Not receiving from this mode of life the edification which he sought, De Marsay withdrew from his companions and in 1712 entered into a marriage of absolute continence with Clara Elisabeth von Callenberg. The pair lived in a small house near Gersdorf, suffering the extremes of poverty and distressed by fears concerning their spiritual welfare. After 1713 De Marsay and his wife made repeated visits to his kinsmen in Geneva in the hope of reconciling his mother, who was displeased with her son's course of life. In Switzerland they came in frequent contact with the " awakened," and De Marsay learned of the writings of Madame Guyon, which were henceforth to control him. Gradually withdrawing from ascetic extremes, De Marsay and his wife devoted themselves more to practical work, became partially reconciled with his family, and accepted a pension from his father's estate. Now all his former struggles seemed to him self-righteousness, and he regarded himself as a child with neither light nor certainty.
MATTHEW THEOBALD Mathew, Theobald

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

MATHEW, THEOBALD ("Father Mathew"): Irish temperance advocate; b. at Thomastown (5 m. w. of Cashel), Tipperary, Oct. 10, 1790; d. at Queenstown Dec. 8, 1856. He studied for a year at Maynooth, 1807-08; passed through the novitiate of the Capuchin order and was ordained in 1814. He was then sent to Cork to take charge of a chapel in the destitute portion of the city, where his high personal character and gentle spirit won confidence and affection. He aided in philanthropic and educational enterprises for the uplift of the poorer classes. In 1838 he was impressed with the evils of intemperance and was asked to conduct the total-abstinence crusade. On Apr. 10 of that year, Father Mathew, who was then in his forty-eighth year, definitely committed himself to the work. His success was phenomenal. By January of the next year, two hundred thousand persons, most of whom lived in Cork and its vicinity, had embraced the new gospel. Father Mathew extended his labors over all Ireland, visited Scotland and England (1842-1843), and spent two years in America (1849-51), going as far west as St. Louis, everywhere making converts by the hundreds. His success was due to his exhaustless flow of animal spirits, his humor and wit, his downright earnestness, and above all, to his ability, courage, and high character. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The principal life *is * by J. F. Maguire, London, 1864, abridged ed., 1890. Others are S. R. Wells, New York, 1867; F. J. Mathew, London, 1890; and Katharine Tynan, ib. 1908. Consult also S. H. Burke, *Rise and Progress * of *Father Mathew's Temperance Mission, ib. *1885.
MATINS Matins

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

MATINS: The office which, with its complement Lauds (q.v.), forms the nocturnal part of the Breviary (q.v.), and in length amounts to about one-half of that for the whole day. On ordinary week-days and simple feasts it has only one division or nocturn; on Sundays and all feasts above the rank of simple, it has three, corresponding to the ancient Roman division of the night into three watches. After the silent recitation of the Lord's Prayer, Hail Mary, and Creed, it begins with the introductory versicles and responses, and Ps. xcv., interspersed with repetitions of the invitatory, a versicle referring to the day or season; then a hymn, varying with the day, and the psalms, twelve on ordinary week-days, on festivals three to each nocturn. Each psalm or group of psalms has its Antiphon (q.v.) to bring out a special meaning for the day. The psalms are followed by the lessons, each with a short responsory. Those of the first (or on week-days the only) nocturn are taken from the Old Testament; those of the second from the lives of the saints or the writings of the Fathers; those of the third from some patristic exposition of the Gospel for the day. After the last lesson the place of the responsory is taken on Sundays (except in Advent and from Septuagesima to Easter), festivals, and week-days in the Paschal season, by the *Te Deum.* Before the Reformation, matins, like vespers, was frequently a public service attended by the laity, so that some account was early taken of it in the reorganization of worship. In the *Deutsches Kirchenamt,* probably as early as 1523, there is a reformed vernacular office based upon it. Luther wished to retain matins and vespers, and saw no need of making radical changes in them, since they were mainly taken from Scripture. He wished to shorten matins, and to read the whole Psalter and the rest of the Bible consecutively, adding exposition on Sundays. In the *Formula Missae* of 1523 and the *Deutsche Messe* of 1526, he sets forth his arrangement at some length. It was not at all universally followed, especially in South Germany. The Reformed Churches knew nothing of it, and even where it was retained among the Lutherans there was no uniformity. In some places it was recited daily, in others on Sundays, and in others again only on great festivals; and the order of the service varied. In the nature of the case it was to be expected that this ancient service should gradually disappear; the last traces of it in Germany were retained on the three great festivals, especially Christmas; but none of the modern *Agenda * make any attempt to reproduce it. [In the Church of England Prayer-book (see COMMON PRAYER, BOOK OF) the vernacular office entitled "Morning Prayer," and colloquially designated as matins to this day, is a fusion of various features of the ancient matins, lauds, and prime.] (P. DREWS.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bingham, *Origines, * XIII., ix., 10; A. J. Binterim, *Denkwürdigkeiten, * iv., 1, pp. 357 sqq., Mainz, 1827; W. Palmer, *Origines liturgicae, *, i. 213, Oxford, 1832; F. Armknecht, *Die alte Matutin- und Vesperordnung in der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, * Göttingen, 1856; T. Kliefoth, *Liturgische Abhandlungen, * vi. 185 sqq., vii. 438 sqq., 489 sqq., viii. 164 sqq., Halle, 1859-61; F. Kraus, *Real-Encyklopädie des christlichen Altertums, * ii. 530 sqq., Freiburg, 1886; V. Thalhofer, *Handbuch der katholischen Liturgik, * ii. 358, 434 sqq., 450, Freiburg, 1893; *KL, * viii. 1042 sqq.; and much of the literature under BREVIARY.
MATTHEW Matthew

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

MATTHEW. I. The Apostle. II. The Gospel. External Testimony (§ 1). Criticism versus Tradition (§ 2). The Sources (§ 3). Content, Structure, and Purpose (§ 4). Date and Value (§ 5). I. The Apostle: In all the lists of the apostles in the New Testament Matthew appears as one of the Twelve, in Mark and Luke occupying the seventh place, in Matthew and the Acts the eighth. By the appellative "publican" (Matt. x. 3) he is to be identified with the Matthew of ix. 9 sqq. and doubtless with the Levi of Mark ii. 14 and Luke v. 27 sqq., Mark adding that his father was Alpheus; possibly Mark and Luke used his earlier name, Matthew being his name after he became a disciple. He was doubtless a Jew, as his name indicates, contrary to the statement of Julius Africanus. Nothing further regarding his life is told in Matthew or the Acts. In tradition his story developed. Thus Clement of Alexandria calls him a vegetarian ("The Instructor," II., i.; *ANF, * ii. 241) and places him in the list of those saints who did not suffer martyrdom; later tradition made him a martyr by fire, beheading, or stoning; he is said to have preached first to his own people, afterward in foreign lands (Eusebius, *Hist. eccl., * III., xxiv. 6; *NPNF, * 2 ser., i. 152). The stories concerning his grave and his relics may be found in R. A. Lipsius, *Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten, * p. 217, Brunswick, 1890. II. The Gospel: In the early Church the authorship of the first Gospel was universally ascribed to Matthew. The tradition of apostolical authorship arose very early, and that Gospel was the chief source used by the Apostolic Fathers, I. External while Papias is expressly quoted as Testimony. asserting the Matthean origin ("So then Matthew wrote the *logia* in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able," Eusebius, *Hist. eccl., * III., xxxix. 16; *NPNF, * 2 ser., i. 173). By the assertion that the logia were in the Hebrew was meant not the classical Hebrew of the Old Testament, but the dialect of Syriac which was the mother tongue of Matthew and of Jesus, and he implies that the translations (into Greek) are more numerous than could be desired because inaccurate. With this sentence of Papias, then, begins the external testimony to the authorship of the first Gospel. Later writers never contradict Papias but rather copy or corroborate him (Eusebius, *Hist. eccl., * III., xxiv. 6, V., viii. 2, VI., xxv. 4). The fact of a Hebrew Matthew receives confirmation from still another source.
MELANCTHON, PHILIPP Melanchthon, Philipp

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

### MELANCHTHON, PHILIPP. I. Life. Education (§ 1). Professor at Wittenberg (§ 2). Theological Disputes (§ 3). Augsburg Confession (§ 4). Discussions on Lord's Supper and Justification (§ 5). Relations with Luther (§ 6). Controversies with Flacius (§ 7). Disputes with Osiander and Flacius (§ 8). Death (§ 9). II. Estimate of His Works and Character. Luther and Melanchthon (§ 1). His Work as Reformer (§ 2). As Scholar (§ 3). As Theologian (§ 4). As Moralist (§ 5). As Exegete (§ 6). As Historian and Preacher (§ 7). As Professor and Philosopher (§ 8). Personal Appearance and Character (§ 9). His Fame (§ 10). ### I. Life ### 1. Education. Philipp Melanchthon, the German humanist and Reformer, was born at Bretten (13 m. e.n.e. of Carlsruhe) Feb. 16, 1497, and died at Wittenberg Apr. 19, 1560. His father, Georg Schwarzerd, was armorer to Count Palatine Philip. Melanchthon received his first instruction in the school of his native city; he then had a private tutor, Johann Unger, in the house of his grandfather. In 1507 he was sent to the Latin school at Pforzheim, the rector of which, Georg Simler of Wimpfen, introduced him to the study of the Latin and Greek poets and of the philosophy of Aristotle. But he was chiefly influenced by his great-uncle, Johann Reuchlin, the great representative of humanism, who advised him to change his family name, Schwarzerd, into the Greek equivalent Melanchthon. Not yet thirteen years old, he entered in 1509 the University of Heidelberg where he studied philosophy, rhetoric, and astronomy, and was known as a good Greek scholar. As the lectures of the university did not satisfy him, he diligently read in private grammar, rhetoric, dialectics, and the ancient poets and historians. Being refused the degree of master in 1512 on account of his youth, he went to Tubingen, where he pursued humanistic and philosophical studies, but devoted himself also to the study of jurisprudence, mathematics, astronomy, and even of medicine. When, having completed his philosophical course, he had taken the degree of master in 1516, he began to study theology. Under the influence of men like Reuchlin and Erasmus he became convinced that true Christianity was something quite different from scholastic theology as it was taught at the university. But at that time he had not yet formed fixed opinions on theology, since later he often called Luther his spiritual father. He became *conventor (repetent) * in the *contubernium * and had to instruct younger scholars. He also lectured on oratory, on Vergil and Livy. His first publications were an edition of Terence (1516) and his Greek grammar (1518), but he had written previously the preface to the *Epistolae clarorum virorum * of Reuchlin (1514). ### 2. Professor at Wittenberg. The more strongly he felt the opposition of the scholastic party to the reforms instituted by him at the University of Tubingen, the more willingly he followed a call to Wittenberg as professor of Greek, where he aroused great admiration by his inaugural *De corrigendis adolescentiae studiis. * He lectured before five to six hundred students, afterward to fifteen hundred. He was highly esteemed by Luther, whose influence brought him to the study of Scripture, especially of Paul, and so to a more living knowledge of the Evangelical doctrine of salvation. He was present at the disputation of Leipsic (1519) as a spectator, but influenced the discussion by his comments and suggestions, so that he gave Eck an excuse for an attack. In his *Defensio contra Johannem Eckium * ([Wittenberg,] 1519) he had already clearly developed the principles of the authority of Scripture and its interpretation. On account of the interest in theology shown in his lectures on Matthew and Romans, together with his investigations into the doctrines of Paul, he was granted the degree of bachelor of theology, and was transferred to the theological faculty. Soon he was bound closer than ever to Wittenberg by his marriage to Katharina Krapp, the mayor's daughter, a marriage contracted at his friends' urgent request, and especially Luther's (Nov. 25, 1520). ### 3. Theological Disputes. In the beginning of 1521 in his *Didymi Faventini versus Thomam Placentinum pro M. Luthero oratio * (Wittenberg, n.d.), he defended Luther by proving that Luther rejected only papal and ecclesiastical practises which were at variance with Scripture, but not true philosophy and true Christianity. But while Luther was absent at the Wartburg, during the disturbances caused by the Zwickau Prophets (q.v.), there appeared for the first time the limitations of Melanchthon's nature, his lack of firmness and his diffidence, and had it not been for the energetic interference of Luther, the prophets would not have been silenced. The appearance of Melanchthon's *Loci communes rerum theologicarum seu hypotyposes theologicae * (Wittenberg and Basel, 1521) was of great importance for the confirmation and expansion of the reformatory ideas. In close adherence to Luther Melanchthon presented the new doctrine of Christianity under the form of a discussion of the "leading thoughts" of the Epistle to the Romans. His purpose was not to give a systematic exposition of Christian faith, but a key to the right understanding of Scripture. Nevertheless, he continued to lecture on the classics, and, after Luther's return, would have given up his theological work altogether, if it had not been for Luther's urging. On a journey in 1524 to his native town, he was led to treat with the papal legate Campegi who tried to draw him from Luther's cause, but without success both at that time and afterward. In his *Unterricht der Visitatorn an die Pfarherrn im Kurfurstenthumb zu Sachssen * (1528) Melanchthon by establishing a basis for the reform of doctrines as well as regulations for churches and schools, without any direct attack upon the errors of the Roman Church, presented clearly the Evangelical doctrine of salvation. In 1529 he accompanied the elector to the Diet of Speyer (see SPEYER, DIET OF) to represent the Evangelical cause. His hopes of inducing the imperial party to a peaceable recognition of the Reformation were not fulfilled. He later repented of the friendly attitude shown by him toward the Swiss at the diet, calling Zwingli's doctrine of the Lord's Supper "an impious dogma" and confirming Luther in his attitude of non-acceptance. ### 4. Augsburg Confession. Although based on the Marburg and Schwabach articles of Luther, the Augsburg Confession (q.v.), which was laid before the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, was mainly the work of Melanchthon. It is true, Luther did not conceal the fact that the irenical attitude of the confession was not what he had wished, but neither he nor Melanchthon were conscious of any difference in doctrine, and so the most important Protestant symbol is a monument of the harmony of the two Reformers on Gospel teachings. But at the diet Melanchthon did not show that dignified and firm attitude which faith in the truth and the justice of his cause should have inspired in him, although it is true that he had not sought the part of a political leader, since he lacked the necessary knowledge of human nature, as well as energy and decision. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession, likewise the work of Melanchthon, was also a clear exposition of the disputed doctrines, drawn immediately from experience and Scripture. Now in comparative quiet Melanchthon could devote himself to his academical and literary labors. The most important theological work of this period was the *Commentarii in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos* (Wittenberg, 1532), a noteworthy book, as it for the first time established the doctrine that "to be justified" means "to be accounted just," while the Apology still placed side by side the two meanings of "to be made just" and "to be accounted just." Melanchthon's increasing fame gave occasion for several honorable calls to Tubingen (Sept., 1534), to France, and ba England, but consideration of the elector induced him to refuse them. ### 5. Discussions on Lord's Supper and Justification. He took an important part in the discussions concerning the Lord's Supper which began in 1531. He approved fully of the Formula of Concord sent by Butzer to Wittenberg, and at the instigation of the Landgrave of Hesse discussed the question with Butzer in Cassel, at the end of 1534. He eagerly labored for an agreement, for his patristic studies and the Dialogue (1530) of OEcolampadius had made him doubt the correctness of Luther's doctrine. Moreover, after the death of Zwingli and the change of the political situation his earlier scruples in regard to a union lost their weight. Butzer did not go so far as to believe with Luther that the true body of Christ in the Lord's Supper is bitten by the teeth, but admitted the offering of the body and blood in the symbols of bread and wine (see WITTENBERG, CONCORD OF). Melanchthon discussed Butzer's views with the most prominent adherents of Luther; but Luther himself would not agree to a mere veiling of the dispute. Melanchthon's relation to Luther was not disturbed by his work as a mediator, although Luther for a time suspected that Melanchthon was "almost of the opinion of Zwingli"; nevertheless he desired to "share his heart with him." During his sojourn in Tubingen in 1536 Melanchthon was severely attacked by Cordatus, preacher in Niemeck, because he had taught that works are necessary for salvation. In the second edition of his Loci (1535) he abandoned his earlier strict doctrine of determinism which went even beyond that of Augustine, and in its place taught more clearly his so-called Synergism (q.v.). He repulsed the attack of Cordatus in a letter to Luther and his other colleagues by stating that he had never departed from their common teachings on this subject, and in the antinomian controversy of 1537 Melanchthon was in harmony with Luther. ### 6. Relations with Luther. It is true, the personal relation of the two great Reformers had to stand many a test in those years, for Amsdorf and others tried to stir up Luther against Melanchthon so that his stay at Wittenberg seemed to Melanchthon at times almost unbearable, and he compared himself to "Prometheus chained to the Caucasus." About this time occurred the notorious case of the second marriage of Philip of Hesse (See LUTHER, MARTIN, ~ 21). Melanchthon, who, as well as Luther, regarded this as an exceptional case was present at the marriage, but urged Philip to keep the matter a secret. The publication of the fact so affected Melanchthon, then at Weimar, that he became exceedingly ill. In Oct., 1540, Melanchthon took an important part in the religious colloquy of Worms, where he defended clearly and firmly the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession. It is to be noted that Melanchthon used as a basis of the discussion an edition of the Augsburg Confession which had been revised by him (1540), and later was called Variata. Although Eck pointed out the not unessential change of Article X. regarding the Lord's Supper, the Protestants did not then take any offense. The colloquy failed, not because of the obstinacy and irritability of Melanchthon, as has been asserted, but because of the impossibility of making further concessions to the Roman Catholics. The conference at Regensburg in May, 1541, was also fruitless, owing to Melanchthon's firm adherence to the articles on the Church, the sacraments, and auricular confession. His views concerning the Lord's Supper, developed in union with Butzer on the occasion of drawing a draft of reformation for the electorate of Cologne (1543), aroused severe criticism on the part of Luther who wished a clear statement as to "whether the true body and blood were received physically." Luther gave free vent to his displeasure from the pulpit, and Melanchthon expected to be banished from Wittenberg. Further outbreaks of his anger were warded off only by the efforts of Chancellor Bruck and the elector; but from that time Melanchthon had to suffer from the ill-temper of Luther, and was besides afflicted by various domestic troubles. The death of Luther, on Feb. 18, 1546, affected him in the most painful manner, not only because of the common course of their lives and struggles, but also because of the great loss that he believed was suffered by the Protestant Church. ### **7. Controversies with Flacius.** The last eventful and sorrowful period of his life began with controversies over the Interim (q.v.) and the Adiaphora (q.v.; 1547). It is true, Melanchthon rejected the Augsburg Interim, which the emperor tried to force upon the defeated Protestants; but in the negotiations concerning the so-called Leipsic Interim he made concessions which can in no way be justified, even if one considers his difficult position, opposed as he was to the elector and the emperor. In agreeing to various Roman usages, Melanchthon started from the opinion that they are adiaphora if nothing is changed in the pure doctrine and the sacraments which Christ instituted, but he ignored the fact that concessions made under such circumstances have to be regarded as a denial of Evangelical convictions. Melanchthon himself perceived his faults in the course of time and repented of them, having to suffer more than was just in the displeasure of his friends and the hatred of his enemies. From now on until his death he was full of trouble and suffering. After Luther's death he became the "theological leader of the German Reformation," not indisputably, however; for the real Lutherans with Flacius Illyricus at their head accused him and his followers of heresy and apostasy. Melanchthon bore all accusations and calumnies with admirable patience, dignity, and self-control. ### **8. Disputes with Osiander and Flacius.** It can not be denied, on the one hand, that the Lutherans defended themselves against not only supposed but actual deviations from their beliefs, although their zeal sometimes carried them to extremes, nor on the other hand that Melanchthon and his followers represented a justifiable point of view, though they could not always express it within proper limits. In his controversy on justification with Andrew Osiander (q.v.) Melanchthon satisfied all parties. Melanchthon took part also in a controversy with Stancari, who held that Christ was our justification only according to his human nature. He was also still a strong opponent of the Roman Catholics, for it was by his advice that the elector of Saxony declared himself ready to send deputies to a council to be convened at Trent, but only under the condition that the Protestants should have a share in the discussions, and that the pope should not be considered as the presiding officer and judge. As it was agreed upon to send a confession to Trent, Melanchthon drew up the *Confessio Saxonica* which is a repetition of the Augsburg Confession, discussing, however, in greater detail, but with moderation, the points of controversy with Rome. Melanchthon on his way to Trent at Dresden saw the military preparations of Maurice of Saxony, and after proceeding as far as Nuremberg, returned to Wittenberg (March, 1552); for Maurice had turned against the emperor. Owing to his act, the condition of the Protestants became more favorable and was still more so at the peace of Augsburg (1555), but Melanchthon's labors and sufferings increased from that time. The last years of his life were embittered by the disputes over the Interim and the freshly started controversy on the Lord's Supper. As the statement "good works are necessary for salvation" appeared in the Leipsic Interim, its Lutheran opponents attacked in 1551 Georg Major (q.v.), the friend and disciple of Melanchthon, so Melanchthon dropped the formula altogether, seeing how easily it could be misunderstood. But all his caution and reservation did not hinder his opponents from continually working against him, accusing him of synergism and Zwinglianism. At the conference in Worms in 1557 which he attended only reluctantly, the adherents of Flacius and the Saxon theologians tried to avenge themselves by thoroughly humiliating Melanchthon, in agreement with the malicious desire of the Roman Catholics to condemn all heretics, especially those who had departed from the Augsburg Confession, before the beginning of the conference. As this was directed against Melanchthon himself, he protested, so that his opponents left, greatly to the satisfaction of the Roman Catholics who now broke off the colloquy, throwing all blame upon the Protestants. The Reformation in the sixteenth century did not experience a greater insult, as Nitzsch says. Nevertheless, Melanchthon persevered in his efforts for the peace of the Church, suggesting a synod of the Evangelical party and drawing up for the same purpose the Frankfort Recess (q.v.) which he defended later against the attacks of his enemies. More than anything else the controversies on the Lord's Supper embittered the last years of his life. The renewal of this dispute was due to the victory in the Reformed Church of the Calvinistic doctrine and its influence upon Germany. To its tenets Melanchthon never gave his assent, nor did he use its characteristic formulas. The personal presence and self-impartation of Christ in the Lord's Supper were especially important for Melanchthon; but he did not definitely state how body and blood are related to this. Although rejecting the physical act of mastication, he nevertheless assumed the real presence of the body of Christ and therefore also a real self-impartation. Melanchthon differed from Calvin also in emphasizing the relation of the Lord's Supper to justification. ### **9. Death.** But before these and other theological dissensions were ended, he was at last freed by his death; a few days before this event he committed to writing his reasons for not fearing it. On the left were the words,"Thou shalt be delivered from sins, and be freed from the acrimony and fury of theologians"; on the right, "Thou shalt go to the light, see God, look upon his Son, learn those wonderful mysteries which thou hast not been able to understand in this life." The immediate cause of death was a severe cold which he had contracted on a journey to Leipsic in March, 1560, followed by a fever that consumed his strength, weakened by many sufferings. The only care that occupied him until his last moment, was the desolate condition of the Church. He strengthened himself in almost uninterrupted prayer, and in listening to passages of Scripture. Especially significant did the words seem to him, "His own received him not; but as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God." When Caspar Peucer (q.v.), his son in-law, asked him if he wanted anything, he replied, "Nothing but heaven." His body was laid beside Luther's in the Schlosakirche in Wittenberg. ### **II. Estimate of his Works and Character** ### **1. Luther and Melanchthon.** Melanchthon's importance for the Reformation lay essentially in the fact that he systematized Luther's ideas, defended them in public, and made them the basis of a religious education. These two, by complementing each other, harmoniously achieved the great results of the Reformation. Only the heroism and creative power of a Luther were able to break with the reigning church. Melanchthon was impelled by Luther to work for the Reformation; his own inclinations would have kept him a student. Without Luther's influence Melanchthon would have been "a second Erasmus," although his heart was filled with a deeper religious interest in the Reformation. While Luther scattered the sparks among the people, Melanchthon by his humanistic studies won the sympathy of educated people and scholars for the Reformation. Beside Luther's heroism of faith, Melanchthon's many sidedness and calmness, his temperance and love of peace, had a share in the success of the movement. Both men had a clear consciousness of their mutual position and the divine necessity of their common calling. Melanchthon wrote in 1520, "I would rather die than be separated from Luther," whom he afterward compared to Elijah, and called "the man full of the Holy Ghost." In spite of the strained relations between them in the last years of Luther's life, Melanchthon exclaimed at Luther's death, "Dead is the horseman and chariot of Israel who ruled the Church in this last age of the world!" On the other hand, Luther wrote of Melanchthon, in the preface to Melanchthon's Commentary on the Colossians (1529), "I had to fight with rabble and devils, for which reason my books are very warlike. I am the rough pioneer who must break the road; but Master Philipp comes along softly and gently, sows and waters heartily, since God has richly endowed him with gifts." Luther also did justice to Melanchthon's teachings, praising one year before his death in the preface to his own writings Melanchthon's revised *Loci* above them and calling Melanchthon "a divine instrument which has achieved the very best in the department of theology to the great rage of the devil and his scabby tribe." It is remarkable that Luther, who vehemently attacked men like Erasmus and Butzer, when he thought that truth was at stake, never spoke directly against Melanchthon, and even during his melancholy last years conquered his temper. The strained relation between these two men never came from external things, such as human rank and fame, much less from other advantages, but always from matters of Church and doctrine, and chiefly from the fundamental difference of their individualities; they repelled and attracted each other "because nature had not formed out of them one man." However, it can not be denied that Luther was the more magnanimous, for however much he was at times dissatisfied with Melanchthon's actions, he never uttered a word against his private character; but Melanchthon, on the other hand, sometimes evinced a lack of confidence in Luther. In a letter to Carlowitz he complained that Luther on account of his polemical nature exercised a personally humiliating pressure upon him. Luther certainly never intended to exercise such a pressure, and if it existed at all, it was Melanchthon's own fault. ### 2. His Work as Reformer. As a Reformer Melanchthon was characterized by moderation, conscientiousness, caution, and love of peace; but these qualities were sometimes only lack of decision, consistence, and courage. Often, however, his actions showed not anxiety for his own safety, but regard for the welfare of the community, and for the quiet development of the Church. Melanchthon did not lack personal courage; but it was less of an aggressive than of a passive nature. When he was reminded how much power and strength Luther drew from his trust in God, he answered, "If I myself do not do my part, I can not expect anything from God in prayer." His nature was inclined rather to suffer with faith in God that he would be released from every evil than to act valiantly with his aid. The distinction between Luther and Melanchthon is well brought out in Luther's letters to the latter (June, 1530): "To your great anxiety by which you are made weak, I am a cordial foe; for the cause is not ours. It is your philosophy, and not your theology, which tortures you so,-- as though you could accomplish anything by your useless anxieties. So far as the public cause is concerned, I am well content and satisfied; for I know that it is right and true, and, what is more, it is the cause of Christ and God himself. For that reason, I am merely a spectator. If we fall, Christ will likewise fall; and if he fall, I would rather fall with Christ than stand with the emperor." Another trait of his character was his love of peace. He had an innate aversion to quarrels and discord; yet, often he was very irritable. His irenical character often led him to adapt himself to the views of others, as may be seen from his correspondence with Erasmus and from his public attitude from the Diet of Augsburg to the Interim. It was, however, not merely a personal desire for peace, but his conservative religious nature, that guided him in his acts of conciliation. He never could forget that his father on his death-bed had besought his family "never to leave the Church." He stood toward the past history of the Church in an attitude of piety and reverence that made it much more difficult for him than for Luther to be content with the thought of the impossibility of a reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church. He laid stress upon the authority of the Fathers, not only of Augustine, but also of the Greeks. His attitude in matters of worship was conservative, in the Leipsic Interim even too conservative, though not a Crypto-Catholic, as Cordatus and Schenk said. He never strove for a reconciliation with Roman Catholicism at the price of pure doctrine. He attributed more value to the external appearance and organization of the Church than Luther did, as can be seen from his whole treatment of the "doctrine of the Church." The ideal conception of the Church, which the Reformers opposed to the organization of the Roman Church, which was expressed in his *Loci* of 1535, lost for him after 1537 its former prominence, when he began to emphasize the conception of the true visible Church as it may be found among the Evangelicals. The relation of the Church to God he found in the divinely ordered office, the ministry of the Gospel. The upiversal priesthood was for Melanchthon as for Luther no principle of an ecclesiastical constitution, but a purely religious principle. In accordance with this idea Melanchthon tried to keep the traditional church constitution and government, including the bishops. He did not want, however, a church altogether independent of the State, but rather, in agreement with Luther, he believed it the duty of the secular authorities to protect religion and the Church. He looked upon the consistories as ecclesiastical courts which therefore should be composed of spiritual and secular judges, for to him the official authority of the Church did not lie in a special class of priests, but rather in the whole congregation, to be represented therefore not only by ecclesiastics, but also by laymen. Melanchthon in advocating church union did not overlook differences in doctrine for the sake of common practical tasks. The older he grew, the less he distinguished between the Gospel as the announcement of the will of God, and right doctrine as the human knowledge of it. Therefore he took pains to safeguard unity in doctrine by theological formulas of union, but these were made as broad as possible and were restricted to the needs of practical religion. ### 3. As Scholar. As a scholar Melanchthon embodied the entire spiritual culture of his age. At the same time he found the simplest, clearest, and most suitable form for his knowledge; therefore his manuals, even if they were not always original, were quickly introduced into schools and kept their place for more than a century. Knowledge had for him no purpose of its own; it existed only for the service of moral and religious education, and so the teacher of Germany prepared the way for the religious thoughts of the Reformation. He is the father of Christian Humanism, which has exerted a lasting influence upon scientific life in Germany. His works were not always new and original, but they were clear, intelligible, and answered their purpose. His style is natural and plain, better, however, in Latin and. Greek than in German. He was not without natural eloquence, although his voice was weak. ### 4. As Theologian. As a theologian, Melanchthon did not show so much creative ability as a genius for collecting and systematizing the ideas of others, especially of Luther, for the purpose of instruction. He kept to the practical, and cared little for connection of the parts, so his *Loci* were in the form of isolated paragraphs. The fundamental difference between Luther and Melanchthon lies not so much in the latter's ethical conception, as in his humanistic mode of thought which formed the basis of his theology and made him ready not only to acknowledge moral and religious truths outside of Christianity, but also to bring Christian truth into closer contact with them, and thus to mediate between Christian revelation and ancient philosophy. Melanchthon's views differed from Luther's only in some modifications of ideas. Melanchthon looked upon the law as not only the correlate of the Gospel, by which its effect of salvation is prepared, but as the unchangeable order of the spiritual world which has its basis in God himself. He furthermore reduced Luther's much richer view of redemption to that of legal satisfaction. He did not draw from the vein of mysticism running through Luther's theology, but emphasized the ethical and intellectual elements. After giving up determinism and absolute predestination and ascribing to man a certain moral freedom, he tried to ascertain the share of free will in conversion, naming three causes as concurring in the work of conversion, the Word, the Spirit, and the human will, not passive, but resisting its own weakness. Since 1548 he used the definition of freedom formulated by Erasmus, "the capability of applying oneself to grace." He was certainly right in thinking it impossible to change one's character without surrender of the will; but by correlating the divine and the human will he lost sight of the fundamental religious experience that the desire and realization of good actions is a gift of divine grace. His definition of faith lacks the mystical depth of Luther. In dividing faith into knowledge, assent, and trust, he made the participation of the heart subsequent to that of the intellect, and so gave rise to the view of the later orthodoxy that the establishment and acceptation of pure doctrine should precede the personal attitude of faith. To his intellectual conception of faith corresponded also his view that the Church also is only the communion of those who adhere to the true belief and that her visible existence depends upon the consent of her unregenerated members to her teachings. Finally, Melanchthon's doctrine of the Lord's Supper, lacking the profound mysticism of faith by which Luther united the sensual elements and supersensual realities, demanded at least their formal distinction. The development of Melanchthon's beliefs may be seen from the history of the *Loci. * In the beginning Melanchthon intended only a development of the leading ideas representing the Evangelical conception of salvation, while the later editions approach more and more the plan of a text-book of dogma. At first he uncompromisingly insisted on the necessity of every event, energetically rejected the philosophy of Aristotle, and had not fully developed his doctrine of the sacraments. In 1535 he treated for the first time the doctrine of God and that of the Trinity; rejected the doctrine of the necessity of every event and named free will as a concurring cause in conversion. The doctrine of justification received its forensic form and the necessity of good works was emphasized in the interest of moral discipline. The last editions are distinguished from the earlier ones by the prominence given to the theoretical and rational element. ### 5. As Moralist. In ethics Melanchthon preserved and renewed the tradition of ancient morality and represented the Evangelical conception of life. His books bearing directly on morals were chiefly drawn from the classics, and were influenced not so much by Aristotle as by Cicero. His principal works in this line were *Prolegomena * to Cicero's *De officiis * (1525); *Enarrationes librorum Ethicorum Aristotelis * (1529); *Epitome philosophiae moralis * (1538); and *Ethicae doctrinae elementa * (1550). In his *Epitome philosophiae moralis * Melanchthon treats first the relation of philosophy to the law of God and the Gospel. Moral philosophy, it is true, does not know anything of the promise of grace as revealed in the Gospel, but it is the development of the natural law implanted by God in the heart of man, and therefore representing a part of the divine law. The revealed law, necessitated because of sin, is distinguished from natural law only by its greater completeness and clearness. The fundamental order of moral life can be grasped also by reason; therefore the development of moral philosophy from natural principles must not be neglected. Melanchthon therefore made no sharp distinction between natural and revealed morals. His contribution to Christian ethics in the proper sense must be sought in the Augsburg Confession and its Apology as well as in his *Loci, * where he followed Luther in depicting the Evangelical ideal of life, the free realization of the divine law by a personality blessed in faith and filled with the spirit of God. ### 6. As Exegete. Melanchthon's formulation of the authority of Scripture became the norm for the following time. The principle of his hermeneutics is expressed in his words: "Every theologian and faithful interpreter of the heavenly doctrine must necessarily be first a grammarian, then a dialectician, and finally a witness." By "grammarian" he meant the philologist in the modern sense who is master of history, archeology, and ancient geography. As to the method of interpretation, he insisted with great emphasis upon the unity of the sense, upon the literal sense in contrast to the four senses of the scholastics. He further stated that whatever is looked for in the words of Scripture, outside of the literal sense, is only dogmatic or practical application. His commentaries, however, are not grammatical, but are full of theological and practical matter, confirming the doctrines of the Reformation, and edifying believers. The most important of them are those on Genesis, Proverbs, Daniel, the Psalms, and especially those on the New Testament, on Romans (edited in 1522 against his will by Luther), Colossians (1527), and John (1523). Melanchthon was the constant assistant of Luther in his translation of the Bible, and both the books of the Maccabees in Luther's Bible are ascribed to him. A Latin Bible published in 1529 at Wittenberg is designated as a common work of Melanchthon and Luther. ### 7. As Historian and Preacher. In the sphere of historical theology the influence of Melanchthon may be traced until the seventeenth century, especially in the method of treating church history in connection with political history. His was the first Protestant attempt at a history of dogma, *Sententiae veterum aliquot patrum de caena domini* (1530) and especially *De ecclesia et auctoritate verbi Dei * (1539). Melanchthon exerted a wide influence in the department of homiletics, and has been regarded as the author, in the Protestant Church, of the methodical style of preaching. He himself keeps entirely aloof from all mere dogmatizing or rhetoric in the *Annotationes in Evangelia* (1544), the *Conciones in Evangelium Matthaei* (1558), and in his German sermons prepared for George of Anhalt. He never preached from the pulpit; and his Latin sermons *(Postilla)* were prepared for the Hungarian students at Wittenberg who did not understand German. In this connection may be mentioned also his *Catechesis puerilis* (1532), a religious manual for younger students, and a German catechism (1549), following closely Luther's arrangement. From Melanchthon came also the first Protestant work on the method of theological study, so that it may safely be said that by his influence every department of theology was advanced even if he was not always a pioneer. Rothe did not exaggerate when he said: "Whatever was done in the time of the Reformation for the upbuilding of Evangelical theology in Germany, was his work." ### 8. As Professor and Philosopher. As a philologist and pedagogue Melanchthon was the spiritual heir of the South German Humanists, of men like Reuchlin, Wimpheling, and Rudolf Agricola, who represented an ethical conception of the humanities. The liberal arts and a classical education were for him only a means to an ethical and religious end. The ancient classics were for him in the first place the sources of a purer knowledge, but they were also the best means of educating youth both by their beauty of form and by their ethical content. By his organizing activity in the sphere of educational institutions and by his compilations of Latin and Greek grammars and commentaries, Melanchthon became the founder of the learned schools of Evangelical Germany, a combination of humanistic and Christian ideals. In philosophy also Melanchthon was the teacher of the whole German Protestant world. The influence of his philosophical compendia ended only with the rule of the Leibnitz-Wolff school. He started from scholasticism; but with the contempt of an enthusiastic Humanist he turned away from it and came to Wittenberg with the plan of editing the complete works of Aristotle. Under the dominating religious influence of Luther his interest abated for a time, but in 1519 he edited the "Rhetoric" and in 1520 the "Dialectic." The relation of philosophy to theology is characterized, according to him, by the distinction between law and Gospel. The former, as a light of nature, is innate; it also contains the elements of the natural knowledge of God which, however, have been obscured and weakened by sin. Therefore, renewed promulgation of the law by revelation became necessary and was furnished in the Decalogue; and all law, including that in the scientific form of philosophy, contains only demands, shadowings; its fulfilment is given only in the Gospel, the object of certainty in theology, by which also the philosophical elements of knowledge-- experience, principles of reason, and syllogism-- receive only their final confirmation. As the law is a divinely ordered pedagogue that leads to Christ, philosophy, its interpreter, is subject to revealed truth as the principal standard of opinions and life. Besides Aristotle's "Rhetoric" and "Dialectic" he published *De dialecta libri iv* (1528); *Erotemata dialectices* (1547); *Liber de anima * (1540); *Initia doctrinae physicae * (1549); and *Ethicae doctrinae elementa* (1550). ### 9. Personal Appearance and Character. There have been preserved original portraits of Melanchthon by three famous painters of his time-- by Holbein in the Royal Gallery of Hannover (said to be the best), by Durer (made in 1526), and by Lukas Cranach. Cranach represented the Melanchthon of later years, worn out, thin, and unsightly, but with a mild and peaceful expression on a highly intellectual face. Melanchthon was small and slight, and but of good proportions, and had a bright and sparkling eye, which kept its color till the day of his death. He was never in perfectly sound health, and managed to perform as much work as he did only by reason of the extraordinary regularity of his habits and his great temperance. He set no great value on money and possessions; his liberality and hospitality were often misused in such a way that his old faithful Swabian servant had sometimes difficulty in managing the household. His domestic life was happy. He called his home "a little church of God," always found peace there, and showed a tender solicitude for his wife and children. To his great astonishment a French scholar found him rocking the cradle with one hand, and holding a book in the other. His noble soul showed itself also in his friendship for many of his contemporaries; "there is nothing sweeter nor lovelier than mutual intercourse with friends," he used to say. His most intimate friend was Camerarius, whom he called the half of his soul. His extensive correspondence was for him not only a duty, but a need and an enjoyment. His letters form a valuable commentary on his whole life, as he spoke out his mind in them more unreservedly than he was wont to do in public life. A peculiar example of his sacrificing friendship is furnished by the fact that he wrote speeches and scientific treatises for others, permitting them to use their own signature. But in the kindness of his heart he was ready to serve and assist not only his friends, but everybody. He was as enemy to jealousy, envy, slander, and sarcasm. His whole nature adapted him especially to the intercourse with scholars and men of higher rank, while it was more difficult for him to deal with the people of lower station. He never allowed himself or others to exceed the bounds of nobility, honesty, and decency. He was very sincere in the judgment of his own person, acknowledging his faults even to opponents like Flacius, and was open to the criticism even of such as stood far below him. In his public career he sought not honor or fame, but earnestly endeavored to serve the Church and the cause of truth. His humility and modesty had their root in his personal piety. He laid great stress upon prayer, daily meditation on the Word, and attendance of public service. In Melanchthon is found not a great, impressive personality, winning its way by massive strength of resolution and energy, but a noble character which we can not study without loving and respecting. ### 10. His Fame. Estimates of Melanchthon's character and work have undergone radical changes since his death, according to the theological standpoint of those seeking in the representative figures of Luther and Melanchthon their champion or at least their spiritual associate. It is said that Leonhard Hutter (q.v.), the head of the Wittenberg theologians in the beginning of the seventeenth century, on the occasion of a public disputation, when the authority of Melanchthon was invoked, tore down his picture from the wall, and in sight of all trampled it under foot. For more than a hundred years after that, few voices spoke a word in his favor. In 1760 the anniversary of his death was for the first time celebrated, and from that time he began to be regarded in a different light. After this change there was revived not only the interest in his person and works, but even the defects of his rationalism and unionism were defended. Recently, however, these defects have been looked upon again in their true light. The celebration of his four hundredth anniversary in 1897 referred on the whole more to the humanist than to the theologian; but a just opinion will not ignore that Melanchthon rendered great services both to the Church and to theology by his reform of humanistic education. For later followers and their doctrines see Philippists. (O. KIEN.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: The *Opera* of Melanchthon, incomplete, appeared in 4 parts, Basel, 1541; ed. C. Peucer, 4 parts.
MELDENIUS, RUPERTUS Meldenius, Rupertus

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**MELDENIUS, RUPERTUS:** The pseudonym of a German Lutheran theologian who, at the time of the Thirty Years' War, wrote a small tract in Latin, admonishing theologians in their disputes not to forget moderation and love. His tract bore the title: *Paraenesis votiva pro pace ecclesiae ad theologos Augustanae confessionis auctore Ruperto Meldenio Theologo* [Rottenburg, 1626]. The contents indicate that it was written after the death of Johann Arndt (q.v.; d. 1621), when there was a renewal of controversy over his orthodoxy. From the tenor of the closing words: "In a word, were we to observe unity in essentials, liberty in incidentals, and in all things charity, our affairs would be certainly in a most happy situation," Lucke (see bibliography) inferred the author to be the originator of the celebrated phrase *In necessariis unitas, in non necessariis libertas, in utrisque * (or, *in omnibus) caritas. * The pseudonym "Rupertus Meldenius" resulted from transposing the letters of Petrus Meuderlinus, the Latinized name of Peter Meiderlin (b. at Oberacker, near Maulbronn, 26 m. n.w. of Heidelberg, in 1582; d. at Augsburg, 1651), ephor of St. Anne's in Augsburg, 1612-50. Meiderlin, in F. A. Veith's *Bibliotheca Augustana * (12 vols., Augsburg, 1785-96), is mentioned as author of the *Paraenesis, * hence Meiderlin is to be regarded as the originator of the phrase in question, since so far as is known it occurs nowhere any earlier than in his tract. All else known of him is eminently in accord with that utterance, as with the sentiments manifested in the *Paraenesis. * Richard Baxter (q.v.) refers to the phrase in his treatise: *The True and Only Way of Concord of all the Christian Churches * (1680), and speaks of the same as "the Pacificator's old and despised words." CARL BERTHEAU. BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. Lucke, Ueber das Alter, den Verfasser, die ursprüngliche Form und den wahren Sinn des *kirchlichen Friedensspruches In necessariis unitas, etc., Göttingen, 1850; idem; in TSK, 1851, pp. 905-938; L. Bauer, M. Peter *Meiderlin, Augsburg, * 1906; *ADB, * xxi. 293.
MELETIUS OF ANTIOCH Meletius of Antioch

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

### MELETIUS, me-li'shi-us, OF ANTIOCH AND THE MELETIAN SCHISM. Personal History of Meletius (§ 1). Origin of the Schism (§ 2). Strengthening of Meletius' Position (§ 3). Continuance of Schism after his Death (§ 4). ### 1. Personal History of Meletius. In his personal history Meletius forms a curious complement to Eustathius of Sebaste (q.v.), having come into possession of a large part of the esteem which has been withdrawn from Eustathius. He was spoken of in Rome as an Arian as late as 377, and his first deposition was inflicted on him, according to Philostorgius (v. 5), after conviction of perjury, according to the *Chronicon paschale* (362 A.D.) "for godlessness and other evil deeds"; while to-day he is reckoned as a saint by both the Roman and the Greek Churches. It might be thought that this reversal of judgment was due merely to ecclesiastical policy, if our knowledge of his virtues were confined to the letters of Basil and the pulpit rhetoric of Gregory of Nyssa ("Funeral Oration on Meletius," *NPNF, * 2 ser., v. 514 sqq.) and Chrysostom (*Hom. in S. Meletium*). But fortunately this hypothesis is ruled out by the honorable acknowledgment made by Epiphanius about 376 (*Haer. * lxxiii. 35) in favor of Meletius, with whom he had little dogmatic or partizan sympathy. It is clear that Meletius must have been a man of ascetic strictness of life and generally upright and amiable character, and honored as such widely. He was born at Melitene in the province of Armenia Minor, held property in the northern part of this province at Getasa, and had a good secular education. He makes his first appearance in history soon after 357 as an adherent of the compromise policy of Acacius, with whom he opposed the Homoiousians Basil of Ancyra, George of Laodicea, and Eustathius of Sebaste; and when the last-named was deposed at a synod held in Melitene (probably 358) he became his successor. Possibly on account of the opposition of the followers of Eustathius, he resigned his bishopric and retired to Beroea, then, according to Socrates (*Hist. eccl.* II., xliv., *NPNF, * 2 ser., ii. 73), attended the synod of Seleucia in the autumn of 359 and subscribed an Acacian confession. Even after the synod of Constantinople in the spring of 360, unfavorable as it was to the Homoiousians, he still possessed the confidence of the court party; and when Eudoxius of Antioch was translated to the see of Constantinople (Jan. 27, 360) he was chosen for the vacant bishopric. He was received with enthusiasm in Antioch when he took possession of his new see at the end of the year; but he had occupied it only a month when he lost it. The cause is not certain, but the old tradition asserts that his theological attitude disappointed the party with which he had been acting: Epiphanius indicates, and the orthodox historians of the fifth century say positively, that the special cause was a sermon, the orthodoxy of which embittered the opposite party. It was preached in the emperor's presence and by his command on Prov. viii. 22, after Acacius and a certain George, probably George of Alexandria, not of Laodicea, had already discoursed on the same text. But this was scarcely the cause of his deposition; the most decisive evidence against the tradition is the sermon itself, still extant (in Epiphanius, *Haer*. lxxiii. 29-33), which, while not Arian, is certainly not Homoousian nor even Homoiousian, but just what might have been expected from a Homoian court bishop who was not a crypto-Arian. The conclusion which best satisfies the conflicting authorities is that the first expulsion of Meletius was not on dogmatic grounds, but caused rather by some action of his which embittered opponents could construe as illegal.
MENOLOGION Menologion

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

MENOLOGION: The equivalent in the Greek Church of the *Calendarium * and *Martyrologium * of the Latin Church. It contains a list of the festivals in honor of the saints and martyrs, together with short notices of the life and death of the saint or martyr celebrated. It is not to be confused with the Menaion (q.v.), which contains the offices for the day as well as the " Acts " of the saint. The basis of the present Menologion was laid in 886 under the Emperor Basil. See ACTA MARTYRuM, ACTA SANCTORUM, II., § 1.
METHODISTS Methodists

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

METHODISTS. 8. Bible Christians. 9. The United Methodist Church. II. In Australasia. History (§ 1). Agencies and Activities (§ 2). III. In Japan. IV. In America. 1. Methodist Episcopal Church. Beginnings (§ 1). Dimensions; Wesley's Device (§ 2). The New Organization (§ 3). The General Conference (¢ 4)· Slavery and the Church in the South (¢ 5). Lay Representation f§ 8)· Female Representation f § 7). Government (¢ 8). Missions (§ 9). Brotherhoods (§ 10). Other Agencies (§ 11). Notable Representatives (§ 12). 2· The Methodist Episcopal Church South. Organization (§ 1). Property and Development (§ 2). In England. 1. Wesleyan Methodists: John Wesley, in his Short *History of Methodism, * gives the names of four Oxford students who, in Nov., 1729, began to spend certain evenings in a week in reading together, chiefly the New Testament in Greek. The number slowly increased and, in 1735, George Whitefield affiliated with them. " The exact regularity of their lives and studies occasioned s gen- Government and Activities (¢ 3). Representatives and Results (§ 4). 3. The Methodist Protestant Church. 4. Wesleyan Methodist Connection or Church of America. b. The Free Methodist Church. 8. The African Methodist Episcopal Church. 7. The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. 8· The Colored Methodist Episcopal Church. 9. Minor Methodist Churches. 10· In Canada end the Maritime Provinces. Beginnings (§ 1). Division sad Denominations (§ 2). Unification (¢ 3). V. The Doctrinal Standards of Methodism. Doctrinal Bases (6 1). Distinctive Doctrinal Features American Position (¢ 3). Purpose and Results (§ 4). tleman of Christ Church to say, ` Here is spnmg up a new sect of Methodists.' " **1. John Wesley Early Life.** The undisputed founder of Wesleyan Methodism, John Wesley (q.v.), was the great-grandson of Bartholomew Wesley, a clergyman educated at Oxford, and one of 2,000 ministers ejected from their pulpits in 1662 under the Act of Uniformity (see UNl>rox>afi'x, ACTS or). His son John also studied in Oxford, became a clergyman, and, like his father, for being true to his principles, was expelled from his parish. He was the father of Samuel Wesley, also an Oxford scholar, and the father of a large and Early Life. notable family, including John and Charles Wesley. Their mother came of an intellectual, devout, and non-conformist ancestry. The spirit of independence was hereditary, and the environment was favorable to its expression. During the childhood and youth of John Wesley everything relating to religion " except morals " received attention in England, and from early manhood his life was a continual protest against the prevailing religious laxity and immorality. He took his master's degree Feb. 14, 1727; and from August of that year to Nov., 1729, having been ordained deacon and priest, officiated as his father's curate at Epworth. Soon after his father's death Wesley became a missionary to Georgia, and, accompanied by his brother Charles, who was secretary to James Oglethorpe, founder of the colony, arrived Feb. 5, 1736, expecting to be pastor to the English and missionary to the Indians. Upon the ship were certain devout Moraviana, who, during a fearsome storm, manifested a degree of calmness and faith in the face of death beyond that possessed by Wesley, and he ever after acknowledged his indebtedness to them. In Georgia he met a Moravian, Peter Bohler, who told him to preach faith until he experienced it. His career in Georgia was disappointing. The whites in that colony would not endure his asceticism. His government of the parish was imperious, though none impeached his motives. Social relations impeded his work; a combination was formed to drive him from the colony; the civil law was invoked against him, and he determined to return to London and submit his grievances to the authorities. On the voyage homeward his mind was wholly occupied in -the search for a self-sustaining faith, fortified by the witness of the Spirit. After his return to England he spoke frequently in small societies, consisting chiefly of members of the Established Church seeking for clearer spiritual life. The crisis came on the evening of May 24, 1738, while he was listening to the reading of Luther's preface to the epistle to the Romans. His own account is: "I felt my heart strangely warmed, I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me that he had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death." In that moment Evangelical Methodism was born. **2. Early Associations.** When George Whitefield (q.v.) returned from America he promptly visited Wesley. The reputation of Whitefield as the greatest of pulpit orators had spread on both continents; and as no building could contain the number who desired to hear him he resorted to the fields. Wesley found it difficult to approve this; but as he continued to preach with the terrible energy and unction of a first believer, he was not usually allowed to speak a second time in the churches: on this account and because of the crowds, he also was led to preach in the open sir. For doing the same thing the archbishop of Canterbury threatened Charles Wesley with excommunication. Wesley's Arminianism caused an estrangement from the uncompromising Calvinist Whitefield. When controversy had become intense, Wesley summed up by saying that "those who believed in universal redemption had no desire to separate, but that those who held particular redemption would not hear of any accommodation, being determined to have no fellowship with men who were in such dangerous errors; so there were now two sorts of Methodists-those for particular and those for general redemption." The break between Wesley and Whitefield lasted but a short time, but the result was the formation of two sorts of organized Methodists, "Wesleyan Methodists" and "Calvinistic Methodists." Before this separation numerous societies had been formed, but, not having proper supervision, most of them dissolved. Peter Bohler suggested to Wesley the formation of another in London, and it was established in Fetter Lane, conducted in connection with the Moravian Church. In the summer of the same year, several small companies in Bristol united under the name of the Methodist society; a similar union took place in Kingswood, and another in Bath. These received the name of " United Societies." Wesley places the time when the first of these was formed toward the close of the year 1739.*1 Dissensions arose in the Fetter Lane society. Errors were so strongly advocated that on Sunday, July 6, 1740, Wesley read to the society his objections to them. The principal heresies were "denunciation of the Christian ministry as an institution"; "opposition to all ordinances"; and the affirmation that " silence is the best substitute for the means of grace." Wesley repelled these views, and he and about seventy-five seceding members met at the Foundry instead of at Fetter Lane; and thus, on July 23, 1740, " the Methodist Society in London " was founded. **3. Bands; Class Meetings.** While affiliating with the Moravians, Wesley's followers had instituted " Men's Bands" and "Women's Bands," which were to meet at least once a week to sing, pray, and exhort. They were expected to reveal the true state of their souls as they understood it, and confess their faults one to another. Wesley met the men every Wednesday evening, and the women on Sunday. Some objected on the ground that the Bands were "man-made." Wesley replied: "They are prudential helps, grounded on reason and experience, in order to apply the general rules given in Scripture according to particular circumstances." Others stigmatized them as "mere popery." Wesley answered: " Do they not yet know that the only popish confession is the confession made by a single person to a priest? ... Whereas what we practise is the confession of several conjointly, not to a priest, but to each other." Members of the "Bands " were selected from the united societies. The united societies consisted of the awakened, but the " Bands " of those only who were supposed to have received remission of sins. Later there were select societies composed of those who were believed to walk in the light of God's countenance. Members were bound "to abstain from evil, especially buying or selling on the sabbath; tasting spirituous liquors; pawning; backbiting; wearing needless ornaments, as rings, earrings, necklaces, laces and ruffles; taking snuff or tobacco; to maintain good works, especially alms-giving and reproving sin, to attend the service at church, to receive the sacrament once a week, and to observe Fridays as days of fasting or abstinence." Wesley had built a meeting-house in Bristol, but though subscriptions and collections were made to pay the debt, a large amount remained due. On Feb. 15, 1742, the principal members of the Bristol Society met to devise measures whereby the debt might be discharged. One said: " Put eleven of the poorest with me, and if they can give nothing, well; I will give for them as well as for myself. And each of you call on eleven of your neighbors weekly, and do the same." This was done. Wesley had instructed the collectors to inquire into the conduct of the members, and after a while some of these informed him that " such and such did not live as he ought." It struck him immediately, " this is the thing, the very thing, we wanted so long." From this sprung the classmeeting. Six weeks afterward Wesley instituted it in London, where it had long been difficult to become acquainted with the members personally. They divided the society into classes like those at Bristol, Wesley appointing as leaders those in whom he could confide. In process of time the classmeeting incorporated all the elements in the Bands found to be useful, and the Bands were discontinued. **4. Love Feasts, Prayer-Meetings, Lay Preaching.** Love Feasts originated in the proposal that, on one evening in the quarter, the men, and on the next, the women, in the Bands should meet, and on a third day they should meet together. The latter Wesley called a Love Feast. In these assemblies bread Prayer- and water, partaken of by all present, are the symbols of fellowship. Prayer, singing of hymns, and testifying to experimental religion succeed each other, and in the early period of Methodism developed the greatest enthusiasm. Public prayer-meetings were established in 1763 by two young men who introduced them in places where there was no Methodist preaching. They soon became general, for it was found that they exercised the talents of young men, training them in the various services of the church. When Wesley visited the Germans he heard Christian David (see UNITY OF THE BRETHREN) preach, was deeply impressed, and was prepared by David's career to establish lay preaching, when a suitable person should appear. John Cennick, a spiritual, and intellectually capable man was invited to hear a brother read a sermon to the colliers, but, the reader not arriving, Cennick was requested to speak to the people; he reluctantly complied, and "the Lord bore witness with his words in so much that many believed in that hour." When Wesley came many desired him to forbid Cennick to preach, instead of which he gave encouragement, and for the next eighteen months Cennick preached constantly, sometimes supplying Wesley's place in Bristol. Writers before Tyerman assumed that Thomas Maxfield was the first lay preacher; Tyerman maintains that John Cennick preceded him. **5. Origin of Conference: George Bell.** As unity, direction, and instruction of the lay preachers and actively sympathizing clergymen who affiliated with Wesleyan Methodism were essential to the integrity and spirit of the movement, they were assembled for consultation. The first conference was in the Foundry in London on June 25, 1744. John and Charles Wesley, John Hodges, Henry Piers, Samuel Taylor and John Meriton, clergymen of the Church of England, were present; and four lay preachers, Thomas Rogers, Thomas Maxfield, John Bennett, and John Downs. They evolved a system of doctrine, discipline, and practise. At the third conference the country was divided into seven circuits. Copies of the minutes of the conference were to be given to those who were present, but were ordered read to the stewards and leaders of Bands the Sunday and Thursday following each confer ence. At the conferences the preachers were stationed at the various circuits: the result of their systematic and energetic labors amazed the United Kingdom. The most distinguished clergyman in sympathy with the work of Wesley, and for many years the most useful to him next to his own brother Charles, was John Fletcher (q.v.), vicar of Madeley. A Swiss by birth, a man of culture and rare gifts in speech and literary composition, he had been converted by Methodists. As in the apostolic era and in every religious movement since, excess of enthusiasm turned the heads of some, so George Bell, one of Wesley's local preachers, became a fanatic, believing that he could work miraculous cures. He became almost if not actually insane. Wesley bore with him long, Methodism suffering in reputation thereby. To the grief and astonishment of Wesley, Bell secured the support of Thomas Maxfield, who had been converted under Wesley's preaching during his first visit to Bristol, and had been ordained by the bishop of Londonderry who, in laying hands upon him, said, "Sir, I ordain you to assist that good man, John Wesley, that he may not work himself to death." Bell, whose fanaticism daily intensified, caused a panic by prophesying that the world would end on a given day, and Wesley was obliged to expel him. Many in London withdrew from the societies, exclaiming, "Blind John is incapable of teaching us; we will keep to Mr. Maxfield." Subsequently Bell lost his religious ardor, became a skeptic, and then a politician, "as ultra in his political opinions as he bad been in religion." Maxfield opened an independent chapel (A. Stevens, *History of Methodism*, i. 409, New York, 1858). It was not wonderful that thousands flocked to Wesley's standard, that many societies were established and chapels reared, since he was apparently ubiquitous, traveling constantly and preaching often ten times in a week, inspiring the people by his sermons, the immortal hymns of his brother Charles, and his ability to converse in the German, Spanish, and Italian tongues. Many clergymen of the Church of England secretly, and not a few openly, sympathized with the apostolic brothers. The growth by the year 1767 is shown by the following table. These had endured the scrutiny and discipline of Wesley. As Wesley advanced in years the necessity for measures to prevent the dissolution of the societies became obvious, not only to the magician who had wrought such marvelous results, but to leading minds among the clergymen who affiliated with him, lay preachers, and the more astute members of the society. **6. The Deed of Declaration.** To meet the emergency, in the year 1784 Wesley gave to the conference " a legal settlement." From an early period the deeds of chapels and preachers' houses or parsonages had conveyed the said buildings to trustees for the use of such the preachers as John or Charles Wesley should send, and, after their death, as the conference should appoint. Thomas Coke, a wealthy clergyman, educated for the bar, who had devoted his time and possessions to Methodism, advised Wesley to consult the civil authorities; and he ascertained that the conference could not be recognized unless more precisely defined, and that, as things then were, it could not claim control over the pulpits. Wesley reported this to the conference, which requested him to "draw up a definition of its character and powers." Under the guidance of the best legal counsel he executed a deed of declaration, in which the names of one hundred preachers were recorded, to constitute a legal conference after his death. He deemed this number sufficient to secure the property and insure the unity of the body, and also as many as could wisely be withdrawn annually for a week or more from pastoral work. Wesley recorded that "in naming these preachers, as he had no advisers he had no respect to persons, but simply set down those which according to the best of his judgment were most proper." The deed provides that the conference meet once a year at London, Bristol, Leeds, or any other place which the members should select. The sessions were never to last over three weeks, nor less than five days, and the conference was empowered to fill vacancies. To give validity to any act or vote, forty members must be present, with the exception that if the legal hundred should by death or other cause be reduced, those present might conduct business. In order to secure attendance, any member who should remain away from two successive annual sessions forfeited membership, unless he appeared on the first day of the third session, or was voted exemption. It was forbidden to appoint to any of the chapels a preacher not a member of the Methodist connection. "No appointment could be made for a longer term than three years, except in the cases of ordained clergymen of the Church of England." The conference had power to commission members of the body to represent it in any part of the earth, their "official acts being recognized as acts of the conference." The life estate of John and Charles Wesley in the houses and chapels of the connection was not to be affected by this deed. As there were 191 members of conference, the names of ninety-one were not included in the deed and they were not allowed to participate in the conference on equal terms with their brethren. Controversy ensued, and several preachers left the connection. Those who remained were permitted to vote, and such as had been members a given number of years were allowed to vote for the president in nomination, for the confirmation of the legal hundred. **7. Events after Wesley's Death.** After the death of Wesley serious contests arose and continued for several years. Influential laymen and ministers proposed to adhere to the Church of England, and a few attached themselves to various dissenting bodies. The conference of 1791 expressed its views equivocally, and that of 1792 cast lots to determine whether the sacraments should be administered in the ensuing year. Eventually the following rules were enacted: "No ordination shall take place in the Methodist Conneotion without the consent of the Conference. "If any brother break the above-mentioned rule by ordaining or being ordained without the consent of the conference, the brother so breaking the rule does thereby exclude himself. The Lord's Supper shall not be administered by any person among our societies in England and Ireland for the ensuing year on any consideration whatever except in London." In 1793 the conference resolved that: "Where the Societies desired it they should have it, and that there should no longer be any distinction between ordained and unordained preachers, that no gowns, cassocks, bands nor surplices, nor the title of Reverend should be used." Neither party was satisfied. The substance of the plan adopted in 1795 was that where the sacraments were being peaceably administered they should be continued; but that they should not be administered elsewhere unless a majority of the trustees and of the leaders and stewards concurred in desiring it; not for many years was the practise of laying-on of hands in ordination adopted. **8. Polity.** Wesleyan Methodism is a form of Presbyterianism, yet, "strictly speaking, it is neither Episcopal, Presbyterian, nor Congregational," but has characteristics of each. Wesleyan Methodism denies a radical distinction between teaching and ruling presbyters, but reserves for the presbyters or pastors the determination of questions of doctrine and discipline. When the society developed into a church, the leaders and stewards became the local church council. There is a distinct local preachers' quarterly meet ing, over which the superintendent minister of each circuit presides. There are also lay officials, formerly called general, but now circuit stewards; these receive the moneys from stewards of the societies in the circuit. Such society and circuit officers are appointed to office by the ministers, and chosen by the members of the meeting into which they are to be introduced. The administration of the spiritual affairs of each society or local church is vested in the leaders' meeting; and that of the general business of the circuit in the quarterly meeting or collective assembly of the lay officers of the circuit. These invite ministers, determine their allowances, review all interests of the circuit, and send resolutions to the district synod or memorials to conference. A peculiar feature of the polity of Wesleyan Methodism is that in case of the enactment of a new law intended to be binding in the circuits and societies, each quarterly meeting has the right to suspend the operation of the law for one year, until reconsidered by the conference. Subject to the conditions laid down in the deed of declaration as constituted and defined by Wesley, the conference rules the whole body. At the present time it is an annual assembly of copastors, meeting to exercise mutual discipline and take mutual counsel in regard to specifically pastoral subjects; and in part it is a conjoint assembly of ministers and lay brethren convened to receive reports, deliberate and determine in regard to the general interests of the connection. At the close the "Legal Conference" "as a matter of necessary legal form and solemnity" adopts what has been done in the sessions of the general conference. Between the conference and circuits are district meetings, which are practically provincial "synods," so called since 1893. These were originally organized as committees of the conference. During the transaction of pastoral business they are assemblies of pastors only; for other business, they are lay and clerical assemblies; the circuit stewards, the specially elected representatives of the circuit quarterly meetings, district treasurers of connectional funds, lay members of district committees of "Sunday and day school affairs" and of the district organization of the Foreign Missionary Society. At the pastoral sessions of the synod ministers exercise discipline, counsel concerning spiritual interests, candidates for the ministry, and the like. The conference receives recommendations from the synod, and remits questions to it. The synod is also a court of appeal; nor can legislation adopted by the conference become binding law till it has been ratified by a majority of the synod. **9. Eminent Officers and Representatives.** The conference confers great power on its president; but, in general, the presidents have been both defenders and guides. The most dominating ruler was Jabez Bunting (q.v.), four times president, and, whether in or out of that office, for more than a third of a century the controlling spirit. Robert Newton, a chaste orator, was also four times president. and Adam Clarke (q.v.), oriental scholar, vigorous preacher and Biblical commentator, three times; and Thomas Coke (q.v.), Joseph Bradford, John Pawson, Thomas Taylor, Thomas Jackson, historical and connectional book editor; John Hannah, John Scott, Richard Reece, Joseph Entwisle, Henry Moore, one of the appointed biographers of Wesley; John Barber, James Wood, George Marsden, John Farrar, George Osborne, and James Harrison Rigg (q.v.) each twice filled the chair. The last-named was one of the most eminent in the list, in force of character and clearness of mind, who was long connected officially with public education. There is one living ex-president, who has served twice, Charles H. Kelly, beloved as a personality, and useful in high connectional offices. Several of the most notable men in the presidency served but once. Of these, perhaps the greatest was William Arthur (q.v.), conspicuous for fifty years throughout the religious world. Hugh Price Hughes (q.v.), of the modern type, was known as an evangelist and promoter of enterprises for uplifting the submerged classes and popularizing the Christian religion and church. Among the noteworthy men that Wesleyan Methodism has produced are Richard Watson, William B. Pope, theologians, and William Morley Punahon (qq.v.), the orator; from the beginning laymen have increased in influence, many being as well known and as useful as the most distinguished of the clergy. **10. Education and Missionary.** Wesleyan Methodism has always placed a high estimate upon education. The views of Wesley on this subject were in some particulars unendurably ascetic, but mingled with these were principles of permanent value. In 1836 the conference took up the subject of education in general and a Wesleyan Educational Committee was appointed. Week-day and infant schools were established in 1843. In 1851 a training-college at Westminster was opened, and in 1872 a second training-college for female teachers. Houses for the Wesleyan schools are held in trust for the connection. The conference of 1875 approved the Education Committee's plan for establishing middleclass schools, of which there are ten or more. The first great movement in the direction of higher education was the establishment of Wesley College, Sheffield; the next, the institution now known as Queen's College, Taunton. A theological institution was established in 1834, and there are four branches, situated respectively at Richmond, Didsbury, Headingley, and Handaworth. Besides these are the Methodist College at Belfast, Ireland, the Westminster Training School and the Leys School at Cambridge. Missions to the heathen were not undertaken until 1786, when Thomas Coke started a mission to negro slaves in the British West Indies. At his instigation a mission to West Africa was begun in 1811, and in 1813 another in Ceylon. In 1815 missions were opened in Australasia, in Germany in 1830, in Switzerland in 1839, in Italy in 1860. Many of the missions established are now independent. The missions under the immediate direction of the British conference are: in Europe: Italy, Spain, Portugal, Gibraltar, and Malta; in Africa, Cairo; in South Africa, Transvaal, Swaziland, Rhodesia; in West Africa, Sierre Leone, Gold Coast, Lagos; in Asia, Ceylon, India (north and south), and China; in the western hemisphere, the Bahamas, Honduras, and the West Indies. In general, Wesleyan Methodist foreign missions have prospered greatly. Home missions are reduced to a most efficient system. The Wesleyan Methodists report for 1909 in Great Britain, 520,868 communicants; foreign missions, 143,467; French conference, 1,675; South African, including English and native, 117,146. **11. Wesleyan Methodism in Ireland** Methodism was introduced into Ireland in 1747 by Thomas Williams. In the same year Wesley visited that country, and on his return to England sent back his brother Charles and Charles Perronet, who remained six months preaching and organizing societies. As Methodism increased so did the efforts of the Roman Catholic Church to crush it. Mobs attacked the " Swaddlers," as Methodists were called, but Wesleyan Methodism gained many converts from the Roman Catholics, as well as from the unattached peasantry, whatever their belief or non-belief. Wesley visited Ireland more than twenty times, and after his death Coke became the apostle of Ireland, visiting it twenty-five times, at his own charge, giving freely to needy preachers and for the erection of chapels. In 1782, when he presided at the Irish conference, there were fifteen circuits and 6,000 members. In 1813 there were fifty-six circuits and 28,770 members. Among the untiring laborers Gideon Ouseley was foremost. Disputes arose concerning the sacraments, which, after the death of Coke, the people received from Presbyterians or the Established Church, according to the tendency of the Methodist preacher. In 1816 a large number seceded, claiming to be members of the Established Church of Ireland, and organized the Primitive Methodist Society of Ireland; but in 1878, after serious vicissitudes, they reunited with the Wesleyan Church of Ireland. A permanent difficulty in the way of retaining a large number of Methodist communicants in the Emerald Isle has been the constant emigration to America; by this means the church for years lost more than 1,000 members per annum. Yet in the centennial year 1839, the 26,000 members contributed $75,000 to the fund, established schools in Dublin and Cork, and, with the aid of friends in the United States and Canada, founded in 1868, and have since maintained, a college of high repute in Belfast. Prominent laymen and ministers have been converted and developed in the Irish Wesleyan Methodist Church; among the ministers, William Arthur, Adam Clarke and Henry Moore, the more distinguished. In 1877 laymen were admitted to the conference. The acts of the Wesleyan conference in Ireland, in accordance with the provision in the conference deed-poll, are made valid byrthe official concurrence with the said acts of a delegate from the British conference, which concurrence is to the Irish conference what the legal hundred is to the British conference. Ten ministers of the Irish conference are members of the legal hundred of the British, and the ex-president of the British conference presides in the sessions of the Irish conference. The report for 1909 is 246 ministers, 621 lay preachers, 421 church buildings, 1,606 other preaching-places, 25,969 communicants. **2. Calvinistic Methodists**: After the death of Whitefield, the Calvinistic Methodists divided into three sects. The first, known as Lady Huntingdon's Connection (see HUNTINGDON, SELINA HASTINGS, COUNTESS of), observed strictly the liturgical forms of the Church of England, and instead of an itinerant ministry instituted a settled pastorate. As practically a congregational .polity was adopted, many of the congregations became associated with the collection of Congregational churches. The second division was the Tabernacle Connection, or Whitefield Methodists. As each society considered itself independent, they soon disappeared as a distinctive denomination, most of them affiliating with the Congregationalists or Independents. The third was the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists (see PRESBYTERIANS), organized in 1743. They have prospered, extending principally in Wales and reaching the United States by way of immigration. They are influential and vigorous, at times experiencing revivals of such intensity as to attract the attention of the Christian world. After contributing for many years to the London Missionary Society, the Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Foreign Missionary Society was founded in Liverpool in 1840. Its first attempts were in India, where persevering faith has been rewarded. There are more than 500 preaching-places, 450 day schools, 6,000 communicants, and nearly 20,000 attendants. **3. The Methodist New Connection**: Alexander Kilham, born in Epworth, 1762, of Methodist parents, became a local preacher, and in 1785 Wesley received him into the regular itinerant ministry. As he grew in influence he proposed various alterations. Three years before the death of Wesley, Kilham made known his design of petitioning the conference "to let us have the liberty of Englishmen, and to give the Lord's Supper to our societies." He sent petitions to the conference of 1791, and submitted a new system of government for the connection. As discussion progressed he grew more determined, appealing to God "to destroy everything that belongs to despotism wherever it appears." At the conference of 1796 he was put upon trial. After hot debate the conference unanimously adjudged him "unworthy of being a member of the Methodist Connection." Soon afterward he began the formation of the Methodist New Connection. In places where the Wesleyans would not allow him to preach in their chapels, dissenters opened their houses of worship. To disseminate his views he established, at Leeds, a periodical called *The Monitor.* In Leeds 167 class-leaders and other officers, and sixty-seven delegates from the trustees of the connection appeared at the conference of 1797, calling for changes in the government. The spread of sympathy with Kilham's projects within the pale of the Wesleyan connection caused alarm. The conference of the Methodist New Connection was constituted upon the representative system, laymen having an equal voice with the clergy in the government of the church; while in doctrine and general us" they did not differ from the old connection. This church at first gained rapidly, and later at a slow but steady pace. At the first ecumenical conference, held in London, 1881, it was reported to have 31,652 members.. It took the first step in mission work in 1824, and soon after established missions in Ireland. It began a mission in Canada in 1837, and thirty-eight years after, when it united with other Methodist bodies in that province, it contributed 7,661 members. In 1859 this church began mission work in China, and in 1862 in Australia.. This mission affiliated with other Methodisms. The China mission prospered, having more than 4,466 communicants, 100 churches, and many chapels. In 1907, it reported 41,875 communicants in the United Kingdom. **4. Primitive Methodists**: The Primitive Methodists arose in 1810. Lorenzo Dow (q.v), an eccentric American Methodist preacher, with a spark of genius, visited England and Ireland and there introduced camp-meetings. The story of the remarkable meetings in the western forests of the United States recalled to older members the marvelous open-air triumphs of Wesley and Whitefield. Dow was master of a weird eloquence and absorbed by his conviction that the Lord had sent him to England to revive the spirit of the ancient days. A few regular Wesleyan preachers permitted the camp-meetings to be held within the bounds of their circuits, and attended them; but the conference denounced this as highly improper. About this time young Hugh Bourne was passing through an experience in some respects similar to that of John Wesley. When he was twenty-seven years of age he read *The Life of Fletcher, * several of Wesley's sermons, Alleine's *Alarm,* and Baxter's *Call to the Unconverted, * and these works seemed to meet his spiritual needs. He joined the Wesleyans and zealously sought the salvation of certain rough Iumbermen in his employment. In May, 1807, assisted by several Wesleyans, especially by William Clowes and Thomas Cotton, he held a camp-meeting at Mow Cap, "a border-line between Staffordshire and Cheshire." The next summer special meetings of like character were held. The Wesleyan preachers of the circuits adjacent to Mow Hill, fearing the spread of a fanaticism which might bring scorn upon true religion, issued hand-bills repudiating the movement. At the next session of the Wesleyan Methodist conference the following resolution was passed: " It is our judgment that even supposing such meetings to be allowed in America, they are highly improper in England and likely to be productive of mischief; and we disclaim all connection with them." Thereafter, most of the leading Methodists held aloof from the camp-meeting. Bourne and a few others persisted and, securing recognition of their meeting by the civil authorities, were enabled to preserve order. The Wesleyan conference would not endure what it described as Bourne's "insufferable contumacy." Bourne and Thomas Clowes were expelled from the connection, which naturally made them yet more zealous. In 1809 Hugh Bourne and his brother James hired James Crawfoot, noted for piety, to preach in neglected places for three months, the salary being ten shillings per week. " This is generally looked on as the commencement of the Primitive Methodist ministry." In the spring of 1810 those converted in meetings held by Hugh Bourne were formed into a class, which was offered to the Burslem circuit (Wesleyan), but the authorities declined to accept its members " unless they pledged to sever their connection with Hugh Bourne." Bourne took the class under his personal charge as a distinct society, Sept., 1810; and this is considered to be the birth of the connection. The name " Primitive Methodist " was formally assumed in 1812. Two years later a comprehensive body of laws was adopted. The form of church government is in substance Presbyterian, but with a larger mixture of the lay element than is found in Presbyterian, or, even at this day, in other Methodist denominations. The general conference convenes yearly, and consists of twelve " deed poll " members, four persons elected by the previous conference, and delegates chosen by the district meetings, in the unusual proportion of two laymen to one traveling. preacher. In 1829 a deed poll was "enrolled in chancery " to make more effectual the deeds, leases, etc., and to render donations and trusts secure; it was also valued as a permanent statement for the settling of controversy. An appeal isallowed from court to court to the final arbiter, the conference. This communion has paid much attention to education. One of the foremost scholars of to-day, Arthur Samuel Peake (q.v.), is associated with other accomplished persons on the staff of the Hartley College of this church, located at Manchester, England, and named after the philanthropist, W. P. Hartley, who has given munificently for its endowment. Famous preachers such as James Macpherson, William Antliff, Samuel Antliff, James Travis, and John Flanagan have been among the leaders of this enterprising and growing section of the Church of Christ. The Primitive Methodist Church is by far the largest of those which follow Wesley in Great Britain, with the exception of the original Wesleyan body. It has constantly grown; in 1881 it had 185,316 communicants, 1,150 ministers and more than twelve times as many local preachers, the majority preaching every Sunday. This denomination formed a foreign Missionary Society in 1844, opening missions in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. These missions were affiliated with the other Methodist bodies of those countries. It also carries on energetic missions in Africa among the natives. Statistics for 1909 show 212,168 members, 5,148 church buildings at home and 5,018 members and probationers in foreign missions. **5. The Protestant Methodists**: The Protestant Methodists, who in 1828 organized themselves into a separate body, resulted from irreconcilable differences of opinion in the society over the introduction of an organ into the largest chapel in Leeds. Until 1820 trustees of chapels could obtain this "risky innovation " only by direct application to the conference. In this case the conference had prematurely consented, and a local preacher convoked unauthorized assemblies for the purpose of agitation. When, at the appeal of the superintendent, he would not desist, the latter sentenced him to three months' suspension from his office. Thereupon seventy local preachers made common cause, and refused to preach, affirming that they would sit in silence with him. He was expelled, and a futile attempt made to secure pacification. A large number seceded, assuming the name of nonConformist Methodists (popularly called "NonCons."). This name they changed for that of Protestant Methodists. In Leeds alone 1,040 members were lost, and elsewhere the depletion was even more serious. As a separate body they have long ceased to exist. **6. The Wesleyan Methodist Association**: The Wesleyan Methodist Association began in the determination of the Wesleyan conference to establish a theological seminary. Two days before the conference of 1834, a number of ministers and laymen met to discuss the project of such an institution, to be presided over by Dr. Jabez Bunting. In the progress of the controversy, Samuel Warren found himself in a minority; and as soon as the conference adjourned he began a general agitation. The Manchester district meeting suspended him, and Robert Newton was requested to undertake the superintendency. Warren applied to the court of chancery for an injunction against Newton and the trustees of the Oldham Street Chapel. The vice-chancellor sustaining the district meeting, Warren appealed to Lyndhurst, the lord chancellor, who, after a thorough review of the Methodist polity, as established by Wesley's deed of declaration, and of the chief events in the history of the conference, affirmed the decision of the vice-chancellor. Warren was expelled, as were two others on charges of lawlessly abetting him. Circulars had been distributed denouncing the action of the conference, as well as the leaders who directed the acts. All who had anything to do with the distribution were under censure, and others under suspicion. The disruption of 1849 began with the expulsion of James Everett, Samuel Dunn, William Griffith, James Bromley, and Thomas Rowland, suspected of connection with the "fly-sheets." No formal and general secession took place until after the conference of 1850. Within five years after that date the original Wesleyan connection was depleted by 100,469, and "some of the fairest and most fruitful circuits in Methodism were laid waste." But, less than half of those who left the Wesleyan connection entered the new denomination. **7. The United Free Churches**: The Protestant Methodists, the Wesleyan Methodist Association, and the "Wesleyan R-formers " (the title taken by those who organized after the expulsion of Everett and his companions), certain societies calling themselves " Arminian " Methodists, and others styling themselves Welsh Independent Methodists, united in the year 1857 under the name of the United Free Churches. This body at once became the third in numerical importance of the Methodist denominations in England. When consolidated it had 39,986 members and 2,152 probationers. At the end of twenty years the church included 72,997 members and 6,984 on probation. The government is democratic. The home circuits are divided into districts, but district meetings are not possessed of remarkable powers; the annual assembly controls only matters of connectional interest. The connectional officers are the president of the assembly, elected annually, the connectional secretary, treasurer, and the corresponding secretary. The church has shown commendable interest in foreign missions, continuing those which came in with the union, and establishing others in the West Indies, Africa, and China. Among the most eminent of British Methodists in his day was Marmaduke Miller, heard on religious and civic questions with great interest. At the end of 1907 it had 84,464 members and probationers at home, and in the foreign field 18,739 members and probartioners. **8. Bible Christians**: The denomination known as "Bible Christians " originated in Cornwall. William O'Bryan was one of its founders, and in May, 1810, was formally excluded from the Methodist society, "in the chapel of which he had given the freehold beside one-half the cost of the building, for no crime except irregular attempts to save souls." In 1814 he retired from business in order "to be ready to go whithersoever providence directed his steps." He sought out parishes in which there was no evangelical preaching and wrought much good. After a few years of independent action he reunited with the Methodist society, but subsequently his "ticket " was withheld on the ground that he had not been excluded, but that he had excluded himself. He then began to form his own plan of appointments, and a new society resulted. James Thorne was an associate founder of the "Bible Christians." During 1815 and 1816 throngs were converted, O'Bryan being so active that the converts were characterized as "Bryanites." Societies were formed in various parts of England and adjacent islands. The first conference consisted of twelve of the itinerant brethren. Every circuit was empowered to send one of its stewards to the annual district meeting, "and, to prevent priestly domination, every fifth year additional representatives were to be so appointed as to make the number of the itinerant preachers and representives equal." A contention began in 1827 as to the authority of conference, and O'Bryan developed a spirit similar to that of those Wealeyans who had disfellowshiped him. In the struggle both O'Bryan and those who formulated their demands used the iron hand without the velvet glove. In the end O'Bryan migrated to America and had no further connection with the Bible Christians. The work had spread throughout the outlying provinces of England. The first chapel was built in 1818; in 1859 the connection occupied 453 chapels at home, and in 1900 the number had increased to 607. Between the years 1851 and 1860 separate conferences were established in Canada, South Australia, and Victoria. The enterprising spirit of the society was apparent in the fact that, in 1821, a missionary society was established for sending missionaries into dark parts of the United Kingdom and other countries, "as divine providence might open the way." In 1831 two missionaries were sent to British North America; and in 1850 James Rowe and the devout James Way were set apart to open a mission in South Australia, which prospered exceedingly and extended into the neighboring colony of Victoria. Missions were established later in New Zealand, Queensland, and China. In the report to the ecumenical conference in 1881 its number of communicants had reached 31,542. At home it had long maintained a force of missionaries working among the lowest stratum of London's population, and in other parts of England. See BIBLE CHRISTIANS **9. The United Methodist Church**: In 1902 the United Free Churches had 83,803 members, and raised more than £104,000 for the twentieth-century fund. The organization declared that its denomination was a practical illustration of the advantages of union, and that it believed that those who are nearest to each other in their foundation principles should unite. The United Free Churches, the Methodist New Connection, and the Bible Christians in 1905 prepared a basis of union. Substantial agreement was reached; and in Sept., 1907, at Wesley's Chapel, City Road, London, the adjourned conferences of these three churches met as a "uniting conference," and by permission of an act of parliament formed the United Methodist Church. The total membership of the three amalgamating bodies is 186,905. Methodism in Great Britain and Ireland now consists of three large bodies, Wesleyan Methodists, the Primitive Methodist Church, and the United Methodist Church. Besides these are two smaller societies, the Wesleyan Reform Union, 8,489, and the Independent Methodist Churches, 9,442. There are in all these bodies 969,078 members, exclusive of members of the foreign missions. **II. In Australasia**: **1. History.**:The Rev. Samuel Leigh, the first Methodist preacher to go to Australia, arrived in Aug., 1815, and began his work in New South Wales. By Mar., 1816, an address of the Methodist societies in New South Wales was sent to the Wesleyan mission committee in London. The history of his subsequent work and that of his successors is as interesting as the civil and personal history of the country and its inhabitants. Thirty years after Mr. Leigh began his work, the Primitive Methodists appeared; and later the Bible Christians, United Methodist Free Churches, and the Methodist New Connection planted missions. The Wesleyan spread among the English in the seven colonies, and established missions in Fiji, Tonga, and New Guinea. The Primitive Methodists were also at work in all the colonies save West Australia. The Bible Christians labored in South Australia, Victoria, and New Zealand, maintaining a few circuits in New South Wales. The United Free Methodists were represented in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, and New Zealand. The Methodist New Connection had established but two circuits in Australia. About 1888 these circuits were incorporated with the Wesleyan and Bible Christian churches. In 1895 the Wesleyan Methodists had in Australasia 51,702 members, and there were in the missions 34,691 members. According to the number of members at that time the Bible Christian denomination was twice the size of the United Methodist Free Churches, and the Primitive Methodist body double the size of the Bible Christians. These smaller bodies were two-fifths the size of the Wesleyan Church in Australia, New Zealand, and Tasmania, and one-fourth that of Wesleyan Methodism in the whole southern world. Methodist union in Australasia was agitated for a long time before effective steps were taken. In New Zealand, after prolonged negotiation, the ministers and members included in the Wesleyan conference, the United Free Methodist Churches, and the Bible Christians formed a union in the year 1896. The only section of Methodism in that island which declined to enter into the union was the Primitive Methodist. Two years later a union of the denominations was effected in Queensland. The Primitive Methodists and the Bible Christians in South Australia came together, and later the Methodist New Connection; and in 1900 the Wesleyan Methodists, the Primitive Methodists, and the Bible Christians, joined by the United Free Church, were consolidated into one body in South and West Australia. By this time preparations for the complete union of all Methodists in Australia reached a culmination, and from Dec. 31, 1902, Methodism became one in Australia, a continent nearly as large as Europe, and almost one in New Zealand, about as large as the British Isles; there was, therefore, a united Methodism throughout Australasia, except the Primitive Methodists in New Zealand, who represented only one-eightieth in numbers of the Methodism of Australia. **2. Agencies and Activities.** The Methodist Missionary Society of Australasia supports missions in Samoa, Fiji, and New Britain. Tonga was formerly connected with the board of missions. The latest mission is that to Solomon Islands. The list of native ministers is long, and includes such names as Philemon Waqaniveitagavi, Ananias Tagavi, Tychicus Noke, Moses Mamafainoa, and Zephaniah Bilavucu. The Fiji district synod has reached such a degree of development that the conference resolved that the principle of lay representation be brought into operation in 1908. It is also under contract to accept from the Wesleyan Missionary Society of England a definite field of work in India, and a complete plant in one of the presidencies in that country. A recent conference recorded its gratitude to God for the signal success which he has given to its missions in the South Seas; for the islands which have been won from savagery and cannibalism and that are now Christian; for the thousands of men and women savingly converted to God, and for the native ministers, local preachers, and teachers raised up, by whose labors, in conjunction with those of the missionaries sent from England and Australia, so great a work has been done. These incontestable statements constitute a pillar of defense against attacks upon missionary effort in behalf of the uncivilized races. The Australasian Methodist Church is devoting itself to education. It supports a theological college and other institutions for training purposes and a number of high and village schools. The progress of Australasia, though unequally distributed in the various colonies, of recent years has been extraordinary, and not only the British Empire but all leading nations have watched with interest its various experiments in legislation which have dealt with the burning questions of the age. As in other continents Methodism has shown in Australasia its ability to stem a dangerous tide or swell a beneficent one. Many able ministers and laymen have been developed and some of them sent abroad as fraternal delegates. Their communications, no less than the indications of a vigorous church life, attested by the comments of the secular press, give good ground to believe that Australasian Methodism is, and is to continue, a powerful civilizing and Christianizing factor. The total number of ministers is 1,820, of whom 77 are of native races. The total number of members is 150,751, of whom one-third are natives. Besides these are 10,465 on probation. The attendance on preaching services reaches the great number of 644,183. **III. In Japan**: The Methodist Episcopal Church established a mission in Japan in the year 1873. In the same year the Canadian Methodist Church began a similar work in that country. Twelve years later, the Methodist Episcopal Church South also sent missionaries there. The work of the Methodist Episcopal Church has expanded into two annual conferences, and that of the Canadian Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church South into two more. As the same doctrines were taught, and the same spirit infused, a sentiment arose in favor of a union of the Methodist Churches in Japan. The churches in America appointed commissioners to effect a union and, in July, 1906, they unanimously agreed upon a plan. In accordance therewith, a general conference was convened in Tokyo, Japan, on May 22, 1907, composed of delegates, previously elected by the four annual conferences of the three uniting churches in Japan, and the Nippon Methodist Kyokwai was formally organized. A system of government was adopted, and went at once into effect, the first general conference under the same being held in June, 1907. The relation of the churches in the United States and Canada to the Methodist Church of Japan is cooperative. The missionaries from America hold their conference relation in their home conferences, and are supported by them; but they are entitled to the rights and privileges of membership in the annual conference to which their work of the preceding year has been related, except when the character or relations of Japanese preachers are under consideration. **IV. In America.-1. Methodist Episcopal Church: ** 1. Beginnings. Philip Embury (q.v.), an Irish Methodist local preacher, accompanied by his wife, Paul Heck, Barbara, his wife, and several others, emigrated in 1760 from Limerick to New York. Five years later came five families, some of whom were related to Embury. In 1766 Barbara Heck, finding several of them engaged in card-playing, expostulated, and begged Embury to sound a note of warning. He opened his house for a meeting, preaching there to Mrs. Heck and four others who had responded to her invitation. Those present at this first service were enrolled in a class. Numerous conversions followed and additional classes were formed. Embury was strongly reinforced by Thomas Webb (q.v.). a Wesleyan local preacher and captain in the British army, and soon it was necessary to build a church. While Embury and Webb were preaching in New York a similar awakening was creating excitement in Maryland. Robert Strawbridge (q.v.), an Irishman, had emigrated to Maryland, and, as he was persuasive in private, convincing in public, and ever active, many accessions resulted from his labors. The society in New York continued to prosper, and Thomas Taylor, a layman, besought Wesley to send over a preacher of wisdom, sound in faith, and a good disciplinarian. The twenty-sixth annual British conference, held in 1768, sent to the church in New York City fifty pounds, also passage money for two missionaries, Richard Boardman and Joseph Pilmoor. In 1771 came Francis Asbury (q.v.), as devoted and untiring as Wesley, who, in Oct., 1772, appointed him "assistant superintendent." Pilmoor and others objecting to his methods as a disciplinarian, Wesley appointed Thomas Rankin (q.v.) "superintendent of the entire work of Methodism in America"; and with him sent George Shadford, who received a letter from Wesley which reveals the vastness of his imagination and expectations, all of which have been more than fulfilled. ". . . I let you loose, George, on the great continent of America. Publish your message in the open face of the sun, and do all the good you can. I am, dear George, Yours affectionately, John Wesley." Asbury came to America to stay, determined to identify himself fully with its people and their institutions; Rankin was full of notions and emotions of loyalty and government, and so magnified authority that those who had thought Asbury's hand iron found that of Rankin to be of steel. The first American conference was held in Philadelphia in 1773; ten preachers were present. It acknowledged the authority of Wesley and the Wesleyan conference; resolved that the doctrine and discipline of Methodism, as contained in the minutes, should be the sole rule of conduct; and that the members of the conference should " strictly avoid administering baptism and the Lord's Supper." Strawbridge had administered the sacraments before any of Wesley's regular missionaries arrived, and would not comply. Asbury explained that the rule was adopted with the understanding that "no brother in our connection shall be permitted to administer the ordinances at this time except Mr. Strawbridge, and he under the particular direction of the assistant." But Strawbridge refused to administer under such direction. At the second conference there was sharp conflict between Rankin and Asbury. The latter records, "My judgment was stubbornly opposed for a while, but at last submitted to." Unable to take the test-oaths or to sympathize with the colonies, Rankin left the country, and Rodda, another English preacher, also fled. Finally, Asbury of all the European Wesleyan preachers was left alone. The conference of 1778 showed a loss of 873 members; but in 1779, extensive revivals having occurred in those parts of the connection not directly affected by the war of the Revolution, the loss was made up with a gain of 1,600. **2. Dissensions; Wesley's Device.** The first serious controversy occurred in 1779 the preachers in the South having determined toy secure authority to administer baptism and the holy communion. A committee was chosen by those thus minded, who ordained themselves and others, and to the satisfaction of most of the Methodists in that region began at once to administer the sacraments. The preachers north of Virginia opposed the step, and the conference of 1780 took harsh measures. The members declared their unanimous disapproval of the step of the brethren in Virginia, and declared that, until retracted, they would not consider them as Methodists in connection with Wesley and the conference. The question was temporarily settled by an agreement to refrain until Wesley should be heard from. At the close of 1783 Asbury received directions from Wesley to act as general superintendent, to receive no preachers from Europe not recommended by him, and neither to accept nor to retain any in America who would not submit to the minutes of the conference. Wesley perceived that unity upon the subject of administration of the sacraments had not been reached; that the truce would be but temporary, and that the societies would disintegrate unless relief should be speedily given. To meet the emergency he performed an act unparalleled in the history of organized Protestantism. In Feb., 1784, he proposed to Thomas Coke to receive ordination from him and go to America to ordain others and establish an adequate system of church government. In July Wesley adopted the measure. Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey offered to accompany Coke as mis sionaries, and at Bristol, Wesley, assisted by Coke and James Creighton, presbyters of the Church of England, ordained them as presbyters for America. Coke was ordained as a superintendent; Wesley accredited him by a document explaining the grounds for the step, the substance of which was that Lord King's account of the primitive church and the *Irenicum *(London, 1661) of Bishop Stillingfleet, which maintained that neither Christ nor his apostles prescribed any particular form of church government, had convinced him (Wesley) "that bishops and presbyters are the same order, and consequently have the same right to ordain"; that he had been " importuned from time to time to exercise his right by ordaining part of the traveling preachers, but had refused, not only for the sake of peace, but because he was determined to violate as little as possible the established order of the national church," to which he belonged. The case was different between England and North America, as in the latter no bishops have legal jurisdiction. The closing words of this letter were: "They [the Methodists in the United States] are now at full liberty simply to follow the Scriptures and the primitive Church. And we judge it best that they should stand fast in that liberty wherewith God has so strangely made them free." **3. The New Organization.** Coke and his companions landed in New York on Nov. 3, 1784. On Sunday the 14th, by appointment, he met Freeborn Garrettson at the residence of Judge Bassett of Delaware, and in a neighboring chapel preached to a multitude, administering the Lord's Supper to more than 500. At this service sixteen preachers, including Asbury, learned the purpose of the commissioners in coming to this country. A special conference was opened Dec. 24 of the same year, and about sixty preachers agreed to organize themselves into a Methodist Episcopal Church "in which the liturgy (as presented by the Rev. John Wesley) should be read, and the sacraments administered by a superintendent, elders and deacons, who shall be ordained by a presbytery, using the Episcopal form, as prescribed in the Rev. Mr. Wesley's prayer book." Asbury was ordained deacon by Coke, assisted by Vasey and Whatcoat; on the following Sunday was ordained an elder, and on Monday consecrated superintendent. Before receiving ordination Asbury was unanimously elected superintendent, having stated that he could not serve as he had hitherto done, merely by Mr. Wesley's appointment. Coke also was elected superintendent. Several days were spent in perfecting a code of rules, selecting preachers to receive orders, and in ordinations. The first *Discipline* of the Methodist Episcopal Church was adopted by this convention. The prayer-book which Wesley had prepared and printed for the use of the church in America was entitled, *A Sunday Service of the Methodists in North America, with Other Occasional Services. * The articles of religion of the Church of England were reduced from thirty-nine to twenty-four, and those retained were so altered as "to eradicate all traces of Romanism, High-church ritualism, and the distinctive points of Calvinism." The church now formed consisted of 18,000 members, 104 traveling preachers, as many local preachers, and twice as many licensed exhorters. There were sixty chapels and 800 recognized preaching-places. Coke went everywhere baptizing children and administering the Lord's Supper, as did Asbury wherever opportunity offered. In the mean time the general superintendents at their own initiative assumed the title of bishop, asking the conference to approve it, not to the exclusion of the name general superintendent under which they were ordained, but for brevity's sake, as its equivalent and alternative. **4. The General Conference.** By the year 1789 it became necessary to hold eleven conferences. A plan was devised by Bishops Coke and Asbury, which involved the establishment of a council to be invested with extraordinary powers, and to consist of general superintendents (i.e., bishops) and presiding elders. The council met that year, and a second was convened in 1790, which boldly claimed general additional power. Its proceedings Conference. created such dissatisfaction that the plan was abandoned, and it was decided to provide for a general conference. The annual conferences unanimously authorized the bishops to call such an assembly to meet in Baltimore the first of Nov., 1792. The most important event was a conflict between Bishop Asbury and James O'Kelly (q.v.), a strenuous elder, who presided over a wide district. He proposed that preachers not satisfied with their appointments might appeal to the conference. The motion was lost by a large majority and O'Kelly and several other preachers seceded. The second general conference met in Baltimore in 1796, and the subject of slavery was discussed at length. An earnest debate, concerning the relations of Coke to the Methodist Epispocal Church, occupied two days. Jesse Lee--a powerful debater and preacher--and others, who opposed a conditional offer by Coke, were rapidly gaining adherents, until Bishop Asbury intervened. Coke himself made a conciliatory speech, and Lee's party lost the day. Coke, while remaining a member of the Wesleyan conference, continued to perform the duties of general superintendent when in America. The general conference of 1800 from the beginning took on a radical form, but conservative views prevailed. Richard Whatcoat was elected to the episcopacy by only four majority, his competitor being Jesse Lee. The general conference of 1804 is celebrated for the enactment of the rule forbidding bishops "to allow any preacher to remain in the same station or circuit more than two consecutive years," except presiding elders. In 1807, the New York conference adopted a memorial expressing its conviction that a representative or delegated general conference, composed of a specific number, on principles of equal representation, from the several annual conferences, was essential to unity. This was submitted to the other conferences, and presented to the conference of 1808, in which the proposition was- launched by a motion to proceed to "the business relative to regulating and perpetuating general conferences." A committee was formed of two members from each annual conference, who agreed upon a plan, the first provision of which was: "The General Conference shall be composed of delegates from the annual conferences." This was lost by a majority of seven in 121 votes. Confusion reigned, and various members from distant conferences began preparations to return home, but unanimity being attained, the conference provided for a delegated general conference to have full powers to make rules and regulations for the church under six restrictions. At this conference William McKendree was elected bishop, the first of American birth to be invested with that responsibility. The membership was now 144,590 laymen and 516 preachers. There were more than four times as many adherents. The general conference of 1812, the first delegated body in the history of the church, gave attention to the operation of the restrictive rules, and it was soon seen that in McKendree a will as firm as that of Asbury was being rapidly developed. In 1820 the conference enacted that the bishop should nominate three times the number of presiding elders needed and the conference, without debate, should elect from those thus nominated the number desired, and that presiding elders should become the advisory council of the bishop or president of the conference in stationing the preachers. The passage of these resolutions caused Joshua Soule, who had been elected--but not consecrated--to the episcopacy, to state that he considered them unconstitutional, and that he would not be governed by them. The conference was equally divided, and Souls resigned; but action on the resolutions was by vote "suspended " for four years. After adjournment McKendree wrote a circular letter to the annual conferences protesting against the suspended resolutions as unconstitutional. Seven conferences voted them to be so, but six of these recommended their legalization by a change in the constitution. The remaining conferences, indignant at what they considered the dominating manner of the senior bishop and the obstructive attitude of Soule, refused to pay any attention to McKendree's letter. In 1824 these resolutions were pronounced void, and Soule and Elijah Hedding, representing opposite sides on the presiding-elder question, were elected bishops. By 1828 the astonishing increase in members became a topic of public discussion. The increase in the next quadrennium was thirty-three per cent., and placed the membership more than 13,000 beyond the half-million mark. In 1836 the church established an annual conference in Africa, and plans were made to enter China. **5. Slavery amd the Church in the South.** Notwithstanding several petitions, the conference refused to change the section on slavery, or to countenance the agitation on the slavery question then assuming the aspect of a crisis. Perplex-ing questions presented themselves in 1840. A resolution was adopted " that it is inexpedient and unjustifiable for any preacher among us to permit colored persons to give testimony against white persons in any state where they are denied that privilege in trials at law." To quell the commotion which this created, explanatory resolutions were passed. The material and spiritual progress of the denomination is indicated in part by the election of four book-agents, editors of the *Quarterly Review, Christian. Advocate, Western Advocate, Christian Apologist, Ladies' Repository, Southern Christian Advocate, Richmond Advocate, *and the*South-Western Advocate; * and the fact that, in addition to the main centers, depositories were appointed at Charleston, Pittsburg and Boston. The subject of slavery came up with explosive force in the conference of 1844. The Baltimore conference had expelled a member for holding slaves through his wife. He appealed to the general conference, which affirmed the expulsion by 117 to 56. The numerous petitions for the enactment of laws to exclude slave-holders from the church might have been dealt with to the pacification of a majority; but a fatal element entered with the knowledge that Bishop James O. Andrew had become a slaveowner by inheritance and marriage. A motion was made that he be asked to resign. Efforts to reach a peaceable solution were futile, and the conference finally declared, by a vote of 111 against 61, "That it is the sense of this conference that Bishop Andrew desist from the exercise of his office so long as this impediment remains." The southem delegates presented a protest " in behalf of thirteen annual conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and portions of the ministry and membership of several other conferences, embracing nearly 5,000 ministers, and a membership of nearly 500,000 constitutionally represented in this general conference." A plan of separation was passed, and a prominent member, Leonidas Lent Hamline, educated to the law, maintained that the only point in it which touched the constitution related to the division of the funds of the Book Concern, and that was the only one to be sent to the annual conferenore. On a test resolution there were 135 votes in the affirmative, and fifteen in the negative. After ten months of excited discussion throughout the country, the protesting conferences elected delegates to a convention which met May 1, 1845, in Louisville, Ky., and organized the Methodist Episcopal Church South. The general conference of 1844 elected Edmund S. Janes and Leonidas Lent Hemline to the episcopacy--the last to be chosen by the undivided Methodist Episcopal Church. A portentous reaction soon began in the Methodist Episcopal Church. The annual conferences declined to grant the request for a division of the property of the Book Concern. The general conference of 1848 would not receive, in an official capacity, a fraternal delegate from the Methodist Episcopal Church South. It maintained that the plan of separation was unconstitutional, if not that the Southern conference had not acted in harmony with it. It replied to the commissioners of the Southern body that it had no power to negotiate a division of the property with the Southern church without the concurrent vote of the annual conferences, which had been refused. This led to legal proceedings in state and federal courts. The general conference of 1856 contended over several aspects of the slavery question, particularly the church membership of slave-holders. This conference began a movement which, when perfected, altered the constitution so as to permit the election of missionary bishops, the exercise of whose functions should be restricted to a definite territory. Slavery, in 1860, was still a thorn in the church. The general conference of that year, responding to many petitions, replaced, by one more radical, the chapter on slavery, which had come down from 1780. A plan for the introduction of lay representatives included an informal vote of male members over twenty-one years of age, to be followed by a vote by the members of the annual conferences. Two of the border conferences practically repudiated the new chapter on slavery, and, as the civil war was imminent, excitement on that subject was heightened by the rancor prevailing in both the body politic and the body ecclesiastic. The Baltimore, Pittsburg, Philadelphia, and Ohio conferences, Maryland, Delaware, and a part of Virginia, became centers of competition for members between the two Episcopal Methodisms. Before 1864 the Baltimore annual conference had lost more than sixty members, and five of its districts had become incorporated with the Methodist Episcopal Church South. The general conference of that year took a constitutional vote so as to make the rule on slavery read, "slaveholding, buying, or selling slaves." The informal vote of the laity on lay representation gave a majority against the proposition. A deputation of laymen addressed the conference, criticizing the method of taking the vote, and plans were made to reballot. This conference lengthened the possible duration of pastorates from two years to three, and passed a rule on class-meetings unintentionally so framed as in practise to make attendance voluntary. When the general conference of 1868 convened, the war was over and slavery abolished. The reports justified the claim of 1,146,081 members, with an increase of 222,687 during the past four years. With the exception of the gain of the last quadrennium of the undivided church, this was the largest in the history of the denomination; of this gain 117,326 were in the southern states. **6. Lay Representation.** The second vote for lay representation had failed, but in the interim the Methodist Episcopal Church South had admitted lay delegates, and sentiment speedily changed throughRepresen. out the whole church. Nearly all the members of this conference were ready to concede this long-deferred boon, but there were differences of opinion concerning the *modus operandi*. The plan adopted provided for a lay vote, and, should there be a majority for the innovation, the annual conferences were to vote to change the constitution so as to enable the ensuing general conference, after ratifying that action by a vote of two-thirds, to admit laymen provisionally elected. The required three-fourths were obtained, and on the first day of the general conference of 1872, the lay representatives were seated. The conference selected episcopal residences, and prescribed a method of residential assignment. A law was passed, that the general conference should declare "who of the bishops are effective, and who are non effective." In 1876 the election of presiding elders was strongly advocated, but being opposed on the grounds of unconstitutionality and inexpediency, the proposition was lost. The body also refused to approve the licensing of women to preach, and allowed conferences having both white and colored members to be divided on race lines "when it shall be requested by a majority of the white and also a majority of the colored members; but in no case where it is not clearly to be seen that such division would improve the work," etc. When the general conference of 1848 refused to receive Lovick Pierce as delegate from the Methodist Episcopal Church South, he announced that, should there ever be official fraternal relation, the Methodist Episcopal Church would be obliged to initiate it. Such preliminary steps having been taken by the Methodist Episcopal Church, the first fraternal delegates from the Methodist Episcopal Church South were welcomed with every demonstration of satisfaction, and their message augmented the spirit of fraternity. From that time the relations between the two churches have been increasingly friendly. The conference of 1880 is notable for having revised the ecclesiastical code. In 1884 William Taylor (q.v.), already the most renowned world-exploring voluntary missionary, was elected missionary bishop for Africa. The general conference also adopted and ordered inserted as a preface to the "Form of Consecrating Bishops," the following: "This service is not to be understood as an ordination to a higher Order in the Christian Ministry, beyond and above that of Elders or Presbyters, but as a solemn and fitting Consecration for the special and most sacred duties of Superintendency in the Church." **7. Female Representation.** At the conference of 1888 several women presented credentials of election, but their right to seats was challenged on the ground of sex, and by a small majority they were denied admission. It was maintained that the constitution did not allow women to act as representatives; therefore the conference sent the issue to the annual conferences that there might be a lay and clerical vote as to such a change in the constitution. James M. Thoburn (q.v.) was elected a missionary bishop for India. This conference lengthened the possible pastoral term from three years to five. The conference of 1892 dealt chiefly with matters relating to the ordinary work of the church and did not add to the number of bishops. In 1898 two bishops were consecrated and a missionary bishop for Africa to succeed William Taylor, retired on account of declining health. Four women were elected to the general conference, and the usual debate arose, but this compromise was reached, that the claimants might remain, but under a title in dispute, and that the conference should adopt an amendment to the constitution legalizing the admission of women to the body, to be ratified by the annual conferences. Under the circumstances the women preferred not to remain. The annual conferences failed to adopt the amendment. During the next four years the church was agitated by a controversy concerning the inequality of clerical and lay representation. The annual conferences having given a constitutional majority for doing away with this inequality, the general conference of 1900, after completing the action, admitted the needed number of delegates, who had been provisionally elected. It also removed the time limit of the pastorate, leaving the appointments entirely to the judgment of the bishops. The same conference amended the draft of a revised constitution then pending by substituting "lay members" for "laymen." The annual and lay electoral conferences confirmed the constitution; thus the struggle of twelve years ended. In the succeeding conferences the few women elected have performed the duties of their office creditably. The constitution as revised contains several regulations long in the discipline, the constitutionality of which some disputed, and also some recognized essentials, which were before but rules. The most important change was in the number of votes of ministers in the annual conferences necessary to a vote to initiate or confirm a change of the constitution. Formerly it was three-fourths, now but two-thirds. The lay electoral conferences were invested with the same power, conditional on two-thirds of their members. The conference of 1908 substituted the title "district superintendent " for that of " presiding elder," and removed the time limit upon probation for membership in the church, placing the responsibility jointly upon the pastor and the official board, who must concur as to the fitness of a candidate and the time when he may be received into full membership. **8. Government.** The general conference is the supreme legislative, judicial, and executive body, having "full power to make rules and regulations for the church," with certain constitutional restrictions. It can not do away with episcopacy, nor destroy the plan of itinerant general superintendency. This plan excludes diocesan bishops, gives the power of ordination to the bishops, makes them presidents in the annual conferences, and gives them authority to decide questions of law when presiding there, subject to appeal to the general conference. To them belong the power and duty of appointing the preachers and district superintendents, and to transfer pastors. Each annual conference is divided into districts, of which, in the absence of a bishop, the district superintendent has the charge. The quarterly conference is the ultimate body in the local church. The annual conference has substantially the function of a Presbyterian synod, except that, as a conference, it has no legislative function. It is the sole decider whether candidates for the ministry shall be received on trial, and, if so, who among them shall be ordained deacons and elders. Appointments are in the power of the bishop in charge and of his agents the district superintendents. Deeds to church property contain the provision that the pastors sent by the general conference through a bishop (and such only) shall be received. A bishop presides in the general conference, but in the absence of a bishop, the conference can elect one of its members president pro tempore. As an appeal can be taken from the presiding officer's decisions on parliamentary law direct to the conference, and he has no right to make decisions of law or interpret the constitution before the general conference, his functions are strictly those of a moderator. But the veneration felt for his office as bishop adds moral influence to his office as president, and it is rarely that his parliamentary decisions are contested. The bishop is amenable to the general conference. It can superannuate him, as annual conferences do their members, and can order the manner of his trial, and expel him if, in its judgment, this be just and necessary. From its decision there is no appeal. The rights of members and ministers to trial before a committee and to an appeal are guarded. The profits of the Book Concern and chartered fund are restricted to the purposes specified in the constitution. The general rules can be changed only as the constitution provides, and the ratio of representation is to be determined in the same manner. The doctrines of the church are protected by a double constitutional guard. They can not be changed by the general conference, nor by the constitutional methods which apply to other protected subjects. The method of change must itself be revoked before the doctrines, as embodied in the " Articles of Religion," the Sermons of Wesley, and his *Notes on the New Testament, * can be modified in the least degree. **9. Missions.** The Missionary Society was founded in 1819, having the compound title of " The Bible and Missionary Society." The next year the title of " Bible " was eliminated, and the society made entirely missionary. It was adopted by the church in 1820, and dealt at first strictly with the home field. Foreign fields were entered in the following order: Africa, in 1833; South America, 1836; China, 1847; India, 1858; Bulgaria, 1857; Japan, 1872; Mexico, 1873; Korea, 1885; Malaysia, 1885; Germany, 1849; Norway, 1853; Sweden, 1854; Switzerland, 1856; Denmark, 1857; Italy, 1871; Finland, 1884; France, 1906; Russia at St. Petersburg, 1907. The missions in Scandinavia, Germany, and Switzerland received their initial impulse by citizens of those countries migrating to the United States, coming there under the influence of Methodism and reporting doctrinal and spiritual transition to their friends in the Fatherland. In 1906 the missions of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Japan and the missions of the Methodist Episcopal Church South and the Methodist Church of Canada, with the consent and under the direction of their respective churches, united to form the Japan Methodist Church; and the first general conference of that church was convened in Tokyo on May 22, 1907. The Woman's Foreign Missionary Society, founded in 1869, succeeded a number of other organizations of limited scope. As an adjunct to the " parent " society, and as an independent missionary force, it has been of incalculable value. Within thirty-eight years it has raised and expended in foreign lands $9,244,187, of which $984,975 was collected in the year 1908-9. The Woman's Home Missionary Society was organized in 1880. It has accumulated $1,250,000 in property, invested in industrial homes for girls; others for children, deaconesses, and training-schools for missionaries, deaconesses, and nurses for hospitals. Its annual income is about $200,000. In the general missionary work of the church, until 1907, domestic or home missions were dealt with by the Missionary Society and included under the general term of missions. This included mission conferences and missions to the English-speaking churches needing help in the annual conferences, and non-English-speaking citizens of the United States, such as Germans, Scandinavians, Chinese, Finns, and Italians. In conformity with action taken by the general conference of 1904, and consummated by a commission appointed for the purpose, all such domestic missions were transferred to the care of the Board of Church Extension; and in conformity with the action in and by the states of New York and Pennsylvania, the title was changed to the Board of Home Missions and Church Extension. This board is located in Philadelphia. The name of the original society was changed to the Board of Foreign Missions, its headquarters remaining in New York. **10. Brotherhood.** The origin and organization of the Methodist Brotherhood is as follows: In 1877 Dr. A. B. Kendig organized a group of men in the church of which he was pastor, which he styled the Mizpah Brotherhood. He continued to organize such societies until 1898. Bishop T. B. Neely, independently of this movement, organized in the churches of which he was successively pastor what was termed a Wesley Brotherhood. The first of these was organized in 1890. Meanwhile societies of men in local churches had been springing up. Some of these were called the International Brotherhood of St. Andrew and Philip (see ANDREW AND PHILIP, BROTHERHOOD OF). Besides these there were Oxford Clubs and Brotherhoods, Embury Brotherhoods, etc. In 1896 Dr. F. D. Leete organized in his church the Brotherhood of St. Paul. In the succeeding two years the Wesley Brotherhood and the Brotherhood of St. Paul began to spread. In 1898 Dr. Neely invited representatives of all local and general brotherhoods to a convention. There was a union of several, and those bodies that united took the name, first, of the Brotherhood of the Methodist Episcopal Church, which later was changed to " The Wesley Brotherhood-the Brotherhood of the Methodist Episcopal Church." This was its legal title. As the Brotherhood of St. Paul had not affiliated with this body, there arose in the church two distinct movements, and this brought about the wide-spread organization of independent brotherhoods. In Nov., 1907, the first real convention of the Wesley organization was held at Louisville, Ky. At the convention of the Brotherhood of St. Paul, and at the instance of Bishop Berry, a resolution was adopted calling for union with the Wesley Brotherhood. Commissions were appointed by each body and the joint commission of unification met in Buffalo Mar. 11, 1908. The two brotherhoods then went out of existence and the Methodist Brotherhood was formed. The Methodist Brotherhood memorialized the general conference of 1908 for recognition and adoption, which was granted. In these later movements from the year 1905 Mr. William B. Patterson, corresponding secretary of the Wesley Brotherhood, was very influential, and he was elected general secretary and still holds that position. **11. Other Agencies.** In the Methodist Episcopal Church, almost from the beginning, education has been in the front rank of denominational enterprise. The official list shows that the church sustains 173 institutions of learning: 26 of these are theological institutions; 54 universities and colleges; 27 classical seminaries; 8 institutions exclusively for women; 55 foreign-mission schools; and 4 missionary institutes and Bible training-schools. Wesleyan University was founded in 1831. It is the first institution of its grade established under distinctively Methodist auspices. The Northwestern, Syracuse, Boston, and Wesleyan universities have the largest endow ments; and the first three the largest number of students. The first theological institution established by American Methodists was located at Concord, N. H., in 1847. Its corporate name was the Methodist General Biblical Institute. After Boston University was established, the Institute was transferred from Concord, and became in 1871 The Boston University School of Theology. The Garrett Biblical Institute, incorporated by the legislature of Illinois in 1855, situated in Evanston, Ill., was endowed by the philanthropic woman whose name it bears. Drew Theological Seminary, formally opened in 1867, at Madison, N. J., was made possible, furnished with buildings, and endowed by Daniel Drew. The value of the property held for the church by the trustees of these institutions is twenty-six million dollars, and the sum total of the endowment twenty-four million dollars. In addition to the Missionary and Church Extension societies, the church supports a Board of Education, a Board of Sunday-schools, and a peculiarly interesting Board of Freedmen's Aid. It has, in the southern and neighboring states, 217,011 communicants of African descent. Vast sums have been expended in aiding them to maintain churches and schools. To an intelligent and sympathetic appreciation, the results appear commensurate with the expenditures and efforts. These members have every ecclesiastical right and privilege, including representation in the general conference and eligibility to all offices. Methodism has always made extensive use of the press. Nearly all the churches bearing that name have Book Concerns and *Advocates*. Hospitals were introduced in 1880. The first is the Methodist Episcopal in Brooklyn, N. Y., founded by George I. Seney; and the second, in Philadelphia, was founded by Scott Stewart, M.D., who provided for it in his will. Twenty-six hospitals are now directly under the care of the church. Deaconesses were authorized in 1888. More than sixty institutions are now managed by them, including training-schools, hospitals, and homes, and they are numerous and increasingly useful in the foreign mission fields. Children's institutions are growing in numbers, proportions, and endowment. Homes for the aged are not yet in sufficient numbers, but some of the few that exist are models for those that should be built. That phenomenon of growth--the Epworth League, was the result of a union of several Young People's Societies. Though founded only in 1889, its membership long since passed the million line. At all times, local preachers, in every denomination of Methodism, have been most efficient helpers of the regular ministry, maintaining worship and raising up societies where traveling preachers were not available, and, usually supporting themselves, have been true builders of the church. **12. Notable Representatives.** The episcopacy has been the most potent personal force in the development of those bodies in which it exists. After Coke and Asbury, the most representative directing and constructive bishops were William McKendree, Joshua Soule (q.v.), and Elijah Hedding. Since 1844, Edmund S. Janes (q.v.), who was most efficient for more than thirty years, Edward R. Ames, who was a dominant factor for a quarter of a century, and Matthew Simpson (q.v.), who combined administrative skill with unsurpassed persuasive oratory, were the most notable. The last-named probably did more to popularize his denomination in the United States, and other countries, than any other of its bishops. In higher education, Wilbur Fisk (q.v.) occupies the first place in time and value of influence. In the organization and promotion of foreign missions, John Price Durbin (q.v.) stands forth most clearly; and among the missionaries whose work is done William Butler, William Taylor, and Robert Samuel Maclay (qq.v.) will be recognized as leaders. The relation of William Nast to his countrymen in Germany, and in this country, is similar to that of the men who, having migrated from Sweden, Norway, and Denmark to this country and falling under the influence of Methodism, have returned and laid the foundations of that form of Christianity in those countries. The whole number of communicants in the United States at the close of 1909 was 3;159,913; and the number of communicants in the foreign missions of the church, 313,818--a total of 3,473,531 members. **1. Organization.** **2. The Methodist Episcopal Church South**: The separate history of- this body, the second in number of communicants in the Methodist world, begins with the close of the fourteenth general conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The momentous proceedings of that body are recorded above. It adjourned at midnight June10, 1844. The next day the southern delegates met to determine what course should be pursued. Wisely they suggested to their constituents that nothing be done till "all the conferences represented " could assemble in a general convention. It was decided to meet in Louisville, Ky., May, 1845. In the interim the quarterly conferences, stations and circuits, and annual conferences discussed the subject and concluded that "dire necessity" was upon them to be freed from the jurisdiction of the northern conferences. All recommended strict adherence to the Plan of Separation adopted by the general conference. The convention assembled, and a committee on organization was instructed to consider events and influences which had a bearing on the possibility of maintaining the " unity of Methodism under one General Conference jurisdiction, without the ruin of Southern Methodism." It reported that ninety-five per cent of the ministry and membership in the south deemed a division of jurisdiction indispensable, and on May 17, by a vote of ninety-four to three, the convention adopted a report which declared: " The jurisdiction hitherto exercised over said Annual Conferences by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church entirely dissolved; and that said Annual Conferences shall be, and hereby are, constituted a separate ecclesiastical connection under the provisional Plan of Separation aforesaid, and based upon the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, comprehending the doctrines and entire moral, ecclesiastical, and canonical rules and regulations of said discipline, except only in so far as verbal alterations may be necessary to a distinct organization, and to be known by the style and title of the Methodist Episcopal Church South." The first general conference (under this plan of withdrawal and organization) met in May, 1846, in Petersburg, Va., and its successors were to convene in the month of April or May, once in four years successively. There Bishop Soule formally declared his adherence to the Methodist Episcopal Church South, upon which, by a unanimous rising vote, he was received as one of the bishops of that church. A permanent Board of Missions was organized, and an agent chosen to establish a Book Concern. Three commissioners were elected to confer with a similar body from the Methodist Episcopal Church concerning the division of the property of the Book Concern. Lovick Pierce (q.v.) was elected fraternal delegate to the ensuing general conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. William Capers and Robert Paine were elected bishops, and ordained by Bishops Soule and Andrew. The pastoral address, sent out to the conferences, declared: " No recognized principle of the Methodism of our fathers has been in any way affected by these changes. All the doctrines duties, and usages, the entire creed and ritual of the Church before the separation, remain without change of any kind." The report to this first conference showed the following constituency: **2. Property and Development.** In 1849 the Methodist Episcopal Church South entered suit, in the United States courts of New York and Ohio, for a *pro rata* part of the property of the Book Concern. That brought in New York was decided in 1851 in favor of the claimants on every matrial point; that in Ohio was, in 1852, decided adversely to them and the commissioners appealed to the supreme court of the United States, when the judgment was reversed by a unanimous decision. The conclusions of the court are thus stated: "The division of the Church as originally constituted, thus became complete; and from this time two separate and distinct organizations have taken the place of the one previously existing. ... We entertain no doubt that the General Conference of 1844 was competent to make it; and that each division of the Church, under the separate organization, is just as legitimate, and can claim as high a sanction, ecclesiastical and temporal, as the Methodist Episcopal Church first founded in the United States. The authority, which founded that Church in 1784, has divided it, and established two separate and independent organizations, occupying the place of the old one. ... As a division of the common property followed, an matter of law, a division of the Church organization, nothing short of an agreement or stipulation of the Church South to give up their share of it, could preclude the assertion of their right; and it is quite clear no such agreement or stipulation is to be found in the Plan of Separation." By this decision the Methodist Episcopal Church South secured the printing-establishments in Richmond, Charleston, and Nashville. "To them were transferred the debts due from persons residing within the limits of their annual conferences, and in addition $270,000, in cash, the defendant also paying the cost of the suit." The second general conference, held in 1850, showed an increase of 60,000, of which four-fifths were white. Two years before the meeting of this conference, California was ceded to the United States. The bishops, urged by southern emigrants, sent missionaries "to unfurl their banner in that distant and interesting portion of the great republic." Another large increase of membership was noted when the general conference of 1854 convened. New conferences were required, and Drs. Pierce, Early, and Kavanaugh were added to the episcopacy. The general conference of 1858, in session at Nashville, Tenn. , permanently located the publishing-house in that city. This "determined the future rank of Nashville as the ecclesiastical center of Southern Methodism." The general conference provided the organization of the Rio Grande Mission Conference, recommended the establishment of a mission in Central America, and requested the bishops and Board of Missions to organize a mission at such point in Africa as should he deemed expedient. New Orleans was chosen as the place for the conference of 1862. The historian Gross Alexander says "Little did the delegates dream of the events and changes that were to take place in the interval." During the war "halls were vacated, schools deserted, endowments swept away, hundreds of schools as well as churches burned or dismantled by use as hospitals, warehouses, or stables; mills destroyed, plantations and farms laid waste." "In April, 1862, New Orleans was in the possession of the Federal Government, which was represented there by General Butler." Delegates were appointed, but it was impracticable to hold a conference at that time and place. Not till 1866 was a general conference held, which met in New Orleans. The Baltimore conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church at the time of the separation had adhered to that church, but in 1861 a large part of it withdrew from its jurisdiction and maintained a separate existence. Now it was received into the Methodist Episcopal Church South. The statistics showed a loss of 246,044 members during the Civil War, "practically a threefold decimation." The Missionary Society of the church was $60,000 in debt, and the publishing-house practically in ruins. Of the 207,776 colored members in 1860, in the southern body, there remained at the close of the war only 48,742. Attendance upon class-meeting was made voluntary, and the rule requiring a probation of six months before membership, set aside. The pastoral term was extended from two to four years. The reconstructive spirit of this conference and the statesmanship manifested in the introduction of equal lay and clerical representation into the general conference, and a limited representation of the laity in the annual conferences, was a prophecy that the ravages of war would soon he repaired. **3. Government and Activities.** The government of the Methodist Episcopal Church South is still, in most respects, in agreement with that of the undivided church, but the general conference of 1870 initiated a constitutional change of vital import, which the annual conferences confirmed. It was, that when any rule is adopted by the conference which, in the opinion of the bishops, is unconstitutional, they may present their objections in writing, and if the general conference shall by a two-thirds vote ad here to its action, the rule shall take the course pre scribed for altering a restrictive rule. The bishops' veto, therefore, in any case, delays the consummation for four years. In the first instance, if the conference should not by a two-thirds vote adhere to its action, it is made by the objection of the bishops null and void. Another feature of the government is that when a bishop decides a question of law in an annual conference, it controls for that time and place; but is not binding elsewhere unless the college of bishops approves it. The making of and dealing in intoxicants is treated unequivocally and laconically as follows: " If any preacher or member shall engage in the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors to be used as a beverage, let the discipline be administered as in cases of immorality." From 1845 to 1860 the church, as its members had been from the beginning, was much occupied with the instruction and conversion of the slaves. When the Civil War began, there were "207,776 negro members with 180,000 children under regular catechetical instruction." In 1848 the church organized a mission in China. About thirty missionaries, exclusive of those connected with the Women's Foreign Missionary department, were sent to China before 1890. At present there are 21 missionaries and their wives, 22 native preachers, 1,883 members. The Mexican mission, founded in 1873, has been successful, having at present 6,405 members, 16 missionaries and 63 native preachers. The Brazilian mission, dating from 1875, shows the largest increase in membership, the largest collections in the field, and more self-supporting churches than any other. The Japan mission, together with the Methodist Episcopal and the Canadian Methodist missions, has become an integral part of the Japan Methodist Church (see JAPAN). There were included in this mission of the Methodist Episcopal Church South 26 missionaries and 1,573 members. The missionaries are still under the final control of the church which sent them out. The Korean mission (see KOREA), but 12 years old, has 15 workers and has gathered 1,600 members. Prior to the Spanish War, mission work was done in Cuba. After independence was achieved, the mission was reorganized, and has already, resident in five cities, about 2,500 communicants. The Methodist Episcopal Church South sustains many schools and colleges, the most important being Vanderbilt University, Nashville, founded in 1872, largely endowed by members of the family whose name it bears. Its theological department is steadily advancing in reputation and efficiency. Altogether there are 175 institutions, the titles to which are held by the Methodist Episcopal Church South. These institutions, of every grade, with the exception of perhaps fifteen, have been founded since the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church South. The church supports twelve orphanages in as many states. **4. Representatives and Results.** No small elected body has included a larger majority of competent men of different types than the college of bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church South. In its early period Bishops Soule and Andrew and William Capers sentatives and Robert Paine were the most revered. H. B. Bascom, already renowned, died less than six months after he was elected. The oratorical fame of Bishop George Foster Pierce spread throughout the United States, and he lived to diffuse it more than thirty years after his election. No more potential bishop arose in that body than Holland Nimmons McTyeire (q.v.), legislator, administrator, historian. John Christian Keener (q.v.) was for half a century un usually influential in several spheres. The sage Lovick Pierce, who survived to be appointed fraternal delegate to the general conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Nathaniel of the church, and John Berry McFerrin, the rejuvenator of every embarrassed enterprise, were pillars amidst the changes of their times. In all the diverse and increasing modes of Christian effort upon which Methodism, in Europe and America, has been so ready to enter, the Methodist Episcopal Church South is energetically working, being rewarded by a constant increase of members and liberality. The tendency to federation, if not to union, between the two great divisions of Episcopal Methodism is shown in their copartnership in the publishing-work in China, a common catechism, and a common hymnal, compiled by joint commissioners, authorized by the general conferences and introduced to the congregations by the signatures of the bishops of both communions. The membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church South was computed at the end of 1909 to be 1,780,778, and in the foreign missions over 15,000, making a total membership of about 1,800,000. **3. The Methodist Protestant Church**; William S. Stockton, an influential layman of the Methodist Episcopal Church, began, in 1821, the publication of the *Wesleyan Repository*, its contributors being ministers and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church. "Church polity" was criticized in successive numbers by Nicholas Snethen (q.v). As its circulation increased, its utterances became more aggressive, and it encountered wide opposition, but on account of an announcement in the *Methodist Magazine * of 1823 that its editors would not admit "subjects of controversy which act to disturb the peace and harmony of the church," the *Wesleyan Repository * gained a large patronage. While the general conference of 1824 was in session in Baltimore a convention of reformers was held there. It consisted of local and itinerant ministers, several of whom were members of the general conference, and numerous laymen. To take the place of the *Wesleyan Repository * this convention established a periodical entitled *The Mutual Rights of the Ministers and Members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, * and made preparations to organize union societies in various parts of the country. The Methodist Episcopal Church, considering this movement revolutionary, took steps to suppress it. Dennis B. Dorsey, a member of the Baltimore conference, was excluded from the church for refusing to pledge himself to desist from "spreading incendiary publications." W. C. Pool was similarly dealt with, and within thirty days eleven local preachers and twenty-two laymen were expelled in Baltimore; they took an appeal. When the general conference of 1828 drew nigh, the reformers adopted a memorial to be presented to that body and also issued an address to the public. Thomas Emerson Bond, a physician of Baltimore and a local preacher, issued a powerful appeal to Methodists in opposition to the changes proposed by the reformers; these were the elimination of the episcopacy and the presiding eldership, and the admission of laymen to the general and annual conferences. The general conference confirmed the expulsion of Dorsey and Pool. Prior to this a number of expelled members and their sympathizers formed themselves into a society named Associate Methodist Reformers. Its members were. most numerous in New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburg, and Cincinnati. A book issued by one of their number, Alexander McCaine, which proved peculiarly irritating, was chiefly devoted to attacks upon episcopacy as a form of government, and upon the personal administration of the bishops. Continual secessions from the church followed and local combinations were made. A general convention of such was assembled, which framed a constitution and discipline; this was amended and adopted, and a new denomination formed, The Methodist Protestant Church. According to its last analysis, the reformers declared the point of controversy to be an unmixed question of representation of the laity. In twelve years the Methodist Protestant Church included eighteen conferences and 50,000 members. The Methodist Protestant Church included, among those who formed it, many whom the Methodist Episcopal Church could ill afford to lose, such as Asa Shinn, orator, debater, and powerful preacher, and Nicholas Snethen, seldom equaled as a-polemic speaker and author. The Methodist Episcopal Church South and the Methodist Episcopal Church have fulfilled the prediction of Snethen made in 1864: "If we are true to it [the pure, unmixed question of representation], if we are not ashamed of it, if we glory in it, it must finally prevail, and proselyte every Methodist in the United States. They may, indeed, remain episcopal Methodists, but so sure as we are not moved away from our high calling, the whole lump will be leavened into representative Methodists." Its government is the embodiment of the representative principles for which it contended. In no period of its existence has it failed to be represented by men of rare ability. Among those of the middle period was Thomas Hewlings Stockton (q.v.), who had few if any superiors as a preacher. Another was Dr. Alexander Clark, orator, author, editor, traveler, no mean poet, and the principal compiler of the *Voice of Praise, *the hymn-book of the denomination. This communion has always been interested in education, and maintained useful institutions. For many years it aided the foreign mission work of other denominations. The Woman's Foreign Missionary Society was formed in 1879, and the Board of Foreign Missions in 1882. Its work has been chiefly in Japan and China. The membership in 1909 numbered 188,806, a gain of over sixty per cent since 1892. **4. Wesleyan Methodist Connection or Church of America**: Divers uncompromising abolitionists conferred together in 1842 as to the wisdom of secession from the Methodist Episcopal Church. In that year Orange Scott, Jotham Horton, and Leroy Sunderland announced, in a paper called the *True Wealeyan, *their withdrawal, and issued a call for a convention of all who agreed with them to prepare a plan of government and to organize a church which should be non-episcopal and anti-slavery. The convention met May 31, 1843, at Utica, N. Y., and founded the Wesleyan Methodist Connection of America. About 6,000 joined, twenty-two of whom were traveling ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and as many more from the Methodist Protestant and Reformed Methodists. To these were added forty-four who reported by letter. The discipline of the Wesleyan Methodist Connection of America differs in various particulars from that of other sections of the Methodist family. Members are forbidden to join any secret society, and if any break this rule and refuse to withdraw "they shall without trial be declared withdrawn from the church." Unatationed ministers are allowed to speak in. the conference but not to vote. In less than eighteen months after it was founded the membership increased from 6,000 to 15,000; but thirty-two years later it had no more. Its rigid condemnation of secret societies repelled many, and after slavery was destroyed, nearly one hundred ministers, accompanied by thousands of communicants, returned to the Methodist Episcopal Church. This denomination of Christians strives faithfully to convert men, and to enforce the stringent rules which it conscientiously holds to be just--to be Christian. Its present roster shows 19,485 members. **5. The Free Methodist Church**: This church was organized in 1860 at a convention of ministers and laymen. The action was the culmination of an agitation in the Genesee conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Certain ministers in that body had, for several years, been declaring that the church was tolerating worldly practises, and contradictory teachings on entire sanctification; that primitive Methodist simplicity was disappearing, unconverted persons being received into the church; that little attention was paid to discipline, and that many Methodists were allowed to belong to secret societies. They condemned the renting of pews, choir-singing, all worldly amusements, and the building of costly churches. In 1858 B. T. Roberts and Joseph McCreary were expelled from the Methodist Episcopal Church on charges of contumacy and alleged immoral and unchristian conduct. The charge of contumacy was based upon Roberts' publishing and circulating a second edition of New *School Methodism * and a pamphlet giving a short account of his previous trial. Many considered the expulsion of these ministers as persecution. Several ministers of the conference publicly expressed their sympathy, and four of them were expelled on similar charges, and two others were retired from the itinerant ministry to the local. At the general conference of 1860 the cases were taken up and the appeal of Roberts was not allowed. The conference affirmed that an unendurable spirit of censoriousness and insubordination was the cause of the action against them, and that their expulsion was in harmony with the regular forms. In the government of the Free Methodist Church a general superintendent, elected quadrennially, was substituted for the episcopacy. In all church courts the number of laymen was made equal to the ministry. The office of presiding elder was retained, but the officer is entitled district chairman. Two articles of faith were added to those of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The first is on entire sanctification, and the second on future reward and punishment. B. T. Roberts, who was long general superintendent of the body, having been reelected several times, was an alumnus of Wesleyan University, a good writer, and in private intercourse a man of both commanding and persuasive ability. The Free Methodist Church has furnished many illustrations of heroic self-denial. Limited as are the resources of the body, it has small missions in Africa, India, San Domingo, and Japan, and maintains a large number of schools and seminaries, and one college. In recent years it has made some modifications. The general conference of Aug., 1907, by a vote of seventy-eight to forty, changed the title of their presiding officer from superintendent to bishop. It now reports 1,132 ministers and 32,166 communicants. **6. The African Methodist Episcopal Church**: Early in the history of American Methodism there was dissatisfaction in the colored membership, who were aroused by Question 25 in the minutes of the conference of 1780: "Ought not the assistant to meet the colored people himself, and appoint as helpers in his absence proper white persons, and not suffer them to stay late and meet by themselves? Ans. Yes." In Philadelphia, in 1787, certain colored people belonging to the Methodist Church met to consider their condition. When their ideas were opposed, they withdrew from the church, and Bishop William White (q.v.), of the Protestant Episcopal Church, ordained a colored preacher for them. Asbury, in 1799, ordained Richard Allen (a slave who had bought his freedom, grown rich, and erected on his own land a church for the people of his race) a deacon, he being the first colored preacher ordained by the Methodist Episcopal Church. The African Methodist Episcopal Church sprang from the relations between the white and colored Methodists of Philadelphia. John Emory (q.v.), representing the Methodist Episcopal Church, sent a letter to them stating that the white preachers could no longer maintain pastoral responsibility over them. On account of this they considered themselves disowned by the Methodists, but an attempt was made to regain them. The case was taken into the courts, and was decided in favor of Bethel Church, with the result that the colored people in 1816 organized themselves into an independent body, adopting as its standards the doctrines of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and, with a few modifications, its form of government. Richard Allen was elected bishop. The church steadily prospered, but not proportionately in education. In 1843 a controversy arose on the subject of the qualifications for ministers, led by Daniel Alexander Payne (q.v.), who had been trained as a theologian in the Gettysburg Theological Seminary, and to him is due a large part of the intellectual progress of the church. In 1863 the church purchased Wilberforce University in Ohio. This institution has been successfully conducted. After the Civil War, the church increased steadily. Educational work is carried on with intelligence and enthusiasm. The African Methodist Episcopal Church and the British African Methodist Episcopal Church of the Dominion of Canada were united as a result of negotiations begun in 1880. A peculiarity of this body is that it makes the bishops members of the general conference. The African Methodist Episcopal Church has been devoted to missions. Before it was sixteen years old it established a mission in Hayti. In 1847 it founded The Parent Home and Foreign Missionary Society. It carries on missions in Africa, South America, West Indies, and Hawaii, and in Africa its missions have about 12,000 members. This body has produced notable orators, such as Bishops Campbell and Arnett, who have elicited admiration and respect for themselves, their race, and their denomination. The government of the body resembles that of other Methodist Episcopal Churches in most respects, but includes special differences of its own origination. The corrected returns by Dr. Carroll give the membership at 452,126. **7. The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church**: The colored people of the City of New York resented caste prejudice, which "forbade their taking the sacrament until white members were served." This, and the desire for other church privileges denied them, induced them to organize among themselves, which they did in 1796, and in the year 1800 they built a church and called it " Zion." A contract was made between that body and the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States of America., that, as they had no ordained ministers of their own race, the Methodist Episcopal Church should provide them. Under this arrangement " Zion " received the services of preachers of that church for " about twenty years." In the end, a minister, who had been sent to " Zion Colored Church," having seceded from the Methodist Episcopal Church, the trustees of " Zion " invited him to finish out the year, and, when this was done, the members induced him to ordain as elders three of their brethren, already ordained as deacons. These proceeded to ordain others. These elders, following the example of Wesley, ordained one of the number a bishop: During 1820 churches were organized in Philadelphia and New Hampshire. An eight years' controversy began in 1848, which finally reached the civil courts. The laity were admitted to representation in the annual and general conferences in 1851, and by 1858 the spirit of unity in the church had gained the ascendency. As late as 1865 the church had but 92 ministers and 5,000 members; but between 1864 and 1876 it doubled its membership more than five times. This body eliminated the word, "male" from the discipline so that the sexes are equally eligible to all positions, lay and clerical. In 1868 an unsuccessful attempt was made by Gilbert Haven (q.v.) and others to promote the union of the Zion Church with the Methodist Episcopal Church. Negotiations for union between the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church and the African Methodist Church have also proved abortive. In 1868 the episcopacy was made technically a life office; nevertheless the bishop was to be elected quadrennially; if not reelected, he was considered to be " retired," but could retain the title of bishop. This rule, in practise, created dissatisfaction, and in 1880 it was enacted that, without reelection, the bishop should be certain of tenure during good behavior. This church early espoused education, but for a long while its enterprises to promote it were unsuccessful; at last, however, Livingstone College was firmly established under the presidency of Dr. Joseph C. Price, whose abilities were extraordinary. On the platform and in conversation he was irresistible; anywhere in England or America he could secure money. for the institution, which became famous. The church publishes weekly periodicals and a Quarterly Review, and is endeavoring to secure the best modern equipment for extension. Foreign missions were made a separate department in 1884. The home membership (1909) is 545,681. **8. The Colored Methodist Episcopal Church**: In 1866 the conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church South authorized the bishops to organize its colored members "into an independent ecclesiastical body," if it should appear that the members desired it. The bishops then formed a number of annual conferences, consisting wholly of colored preachers. These requested in 1870 the appointment of five as a commission to meet five of their own number to create an independent church. The convention chose as the name of the body " The Colored Methodist Episcopal Church." Two bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church South presided and ordained to the episcopacy two colored elders, W. H. Miles and R. H. Vanderhorst, selected by the eight colored conferences. The total value of church property then made over by the Methodist Episcopal Church South to the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church was $1,500,000. Members of the Methodist Episcopal Church South have given them plots of ground and aided them in building churches. Paine College, Augusta, Ga., (with an enrolment of 300 in 1907), and Lane College, Jackson, Tenn., are carried on by the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church in connection with the Methodist Episcopal Church South. This church took over, from the body that had nourished it, the articles of religion and the forms of government. Its rules will not allow any others than negroes the privilege of membership. At the outset there were but little more than 60,000 members; in 1909 it had 233,911, shepherded by 2,809 ministers and housed in 2,619 churches. **9. Minor Methodist Churches**: The Primitive Methodist Church, as it exists in the United States, came from England. It has three annual conferences subdivided into districts and maintaining itinerant and local ministers and class-leaders. They are slowly growing, having had 4,764 communicants in 1890 and 7,295 in 1909. The Independent Methodist Churches are composed of congregations in Maryland, Tennessee, and the District of Columbia. Their statistics are inaccessible. The Evangelist Missionary Church comprises ministers and members in Ohio, who in 1886 withdrew from the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. They have now about 5,000 members. They have one bishop and profess to have no creed but the Bible. The New Congregational Methodists withdrew in 1881 from the Methodist Episcopal Church South in Georgia on account of alleged arbitrary action. Seven years later a number of its churches united with the Congregationalists. At the present time they report 1,782 members. The Congregational Methodists originated in Georgia in 1852. When the Congregational body began to establish congregations in the South after the war many of the churches and ministers that organized the Congregational Methodist Church went over to them. In doctrine, the Congregational Methodists agree with other Methodist bodies; and in polity they are not strictly Congregational. Appeals from the decision of the lower church may be taken to a district conference, thence to the state conference, and ultimately to the general conference. This church has 15,529 members, chiefly in the southern states. The African Union Methodist Protestant Church dates from 1816, and differs from the African Methodist Episcopal Church in opposing itinerancy, paid ministers, and episcopacy. It has 3,867 members in eight states. The Union American Methodist Episcopal Church agrees in doctrines and usages with other Methodist bodies. It antedates the African Methodist Episcopal Church, being organized in 1813 in Wilmington, Del., is divided into conferences, and elects its bishops for life. In 1890 it had 2,279 members, and now reports 18,500. The Zion Union Apostolic Church was organized in 1869 in Virginia. It was reported in 1890 to have 2,346 communicants, and at the end of 1909 reports 3,059. **10. In Canada and the Maritime Provinces:** **1. Beginnings.** Methodism was introduced into Newfoundland in 1765 by Lawrence Coughland, who was admitted as a traveling preacher by John Wesley in 1755. Coughland preached there until 1773, his work being strengthened by local preachers. In 1785 Wesley sent John McGeary especially to that colony. Methodism came into being in Nova Scotia in 1779 by the conversion of William Black through the influence of Wesley's sermons, and the efforts of newly arrived Methodists. Black in 1784, seeking for reinforcements, visited the conference called at Baltimore, Md., to receive Dr. Coke and form the Methodist Episcopal Church. By 1791 the work had so prospered in Nova Scotia as to demand a district with Black as elder, to act as superintendent of six stations, manned by as many preachers from the United States. Other preachers had been sent to various parts of the provinces. Methodism reached New Brunswick by way of Nova Scotia and the United States. In the Province of Canada local preachers had been working before the year 1790, but to William Losee, a preacher on trial without a definite appointment, belongs the honor of being the first missionary to Canada. His experiment proving successful, the next year he was regularly appointed. By 1799 a flourishing, presiding elder's district existed. In 1810 the Genesee conference was organized, and preachers in Canada for the most part assumed relations with that body. Until 1812 they had been associated with the Methodist Episcopal Church. From the beginning there had been steady advance till the war between the United States and Great Britain; but during that conflict the members were dispersed, and at its close only 1,785 could found. The Methodists of Lower Canada, having no preacher competent to administer the ordinances, applied to Nova Scotia for aid, and a regular minister was sent from the British conference. This created confusion, which continued till 1820, when the upper province was allotted to the American preachers, and the lower to the British. In 1824 Methodism in Upper Canada, then comprising thirty-five ministers and preachers on trial and 6,150 members, was organized into a single annual conference, and during the next four years increase was encouraging. At the conference of 1828 the Methodist churches located in Canada, by the consent of the general conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, were formed into an independent denomination, and William Case was appointed its general superintendent until the ensuing annual conference. That conference was visited by Bishop Hedding, under whose counsel the organization was perfected. **2. Division and Denominations,** In 1833 the Methodist Episcopal Church of Canada had three annual conferences, 197 effective ministers, 25,000 members, and a polity practically the same as that of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States. In that year it unified with the British conference, changing its name and form of government. When the conference agreed to this union it did so without formal consultation with the laity. The majority both of ministers and laymen acquiesced, but certain dissentients declared that, as it had not been submitted to the societies, the act was unconstitutional, and that it infringed upon the agreement made between the church in Canada and the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States. These organized a new Methodist Episcopal Church of Canada, more than one-thirteenth of the membership, declining to affiliate with the British conference, associating with them. Being without schools, parsonages, and churches, they began litigation to secure a pro rata part of the property. The lower courts decided in their favor, but on appeal the higher court recognized the Wesleyan Methodists of Canada as the rightful owners. After this question was settled the Wesleyan Methodist Church of Canada entered on a career of prosperity, and the Methodist Episcopal Church, thrown wholly on its own resources, made every sacrifice in order to succeed. Four Primitive Methodist ministers had been sent in 1829 from England because of the number of that sect emigrating to the United States. Three years later the Hull circuit in England decided to take the Canadian societies under its immediate charge. A general missionary committee was formed by the home church and under its management the increase of members was such that in 1854 the Canadian annual conference of Primitive Methodists was established. In 1831 the Bible Christians sent two missionaries to the British dominions in America, one to West Canada and the other to Prince Edward Island. In 1855 the society was strong, and held its first conference in Columbus. It then had 51 churches, 21 regular preachers and many lay helpers, and 2,200 members. Ten years afterward the union with it of the Prince Edward Island churches, together with local growth, raised its membership to 5,000. The Canadian Wesleyan Methodist Church was formed in 1829. It was founded principally by Henry Ryan and introduced lay representation in all its courts. Ryan died in 1833, but the little church struggled on, and in 1841 united with the Methodist New Connection. The Methodist New Connection of England, with the consent of the parent society, established a mission in Canada in 1837. The mission, enlarged by admitting a small denomination, assumed the title "Canadian Methodist New Connection." In 1840 the British conference "withdrew from its cooperation" with the Canada conference, which acted independently for seven years, but during that period the form and name of the Wesleyan Methodist Church remained unchanged. In 1847 the union was restored, and in 1854, by special arrangement, the Lower Canada and the Hudson Bay missionary districts, both of which had stood in immediate connection with the British Wesleyan conference, became incorporated with the Wesleyan church in Canada. In 1857 the Methodist Episcopal Church founded an educational institution at Bellville, which was incorporated as Bellville Seminary; three years later it was affiliated with the Toronto University as Bellville College, the ladies' department taking the designation of Alexandria College, and later the remaining part of the institution being known as Albert University. **3. Unification.** For years a yearning existed in many hearts for organic union of Methodist bodies. This first bore fruit in the union of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada, the Eastern British American conferences, and the Methodist New Connection Church, proposed in 1872, and consummated in Toronto in 1874, the uniting bodies adopting the all-inclusive name of the Methodist Church of Canada. Its first census reported 1,031 ministers, and 101,946 mem bers, two universities, three theological schools, and several colleges and secondary schools. Yet some thing still greater awaited Canadian Methodism. The first Ecumenical Conference of Methodism, which convened in Wesley Chapel, London, in 1881, gave such impulse to fraternity as to extend the horizon till glimpses of complete Methodist unity could be perceived in the not distant future. Canada was the first to know its visitation. In Bellville, in 1883, was accomplished the formal and ac tual union of the Methodist Church of Canada, the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, the Primitive Methodist Church in Canada, and the Bible Christian Church of Canada. The body thus formed was in the possession of seven colleges, having 100 professors and 5,068 students. The Methodist Church of Canada contributed to the union 128,337 members; the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, 25,678 members; the Primitive Methodists, 8,000; and the Bible Christians, 6,800--a sum total of 168,815 members. The itinerant general superintendents hold office for the term of eight years, and are eligible to reelection. The annual conferences are composed of ministers and an equal number of laymen, a president being selected from among the ministerial members. The president of the annual conference is the superintendent of the district in which he may be stationed. The annual conference elects superintendents for each district. There are now six departments of mission work, home, Indian, French, Chinese and Japanese in British Columbia, and foreign. The home work embraces needy fields in the dominion, Newfound land, and Bermuda. These include more than 35,000 communicants. The French missions are in Quebec, The foreign missions are in China and Japan. That in Japan has been affiliated with the missions of the two Episcopal Methodist Churches which have formed the Methodist Church of Japan (ut sup., I). The connectional educational institutions are: Victoria University, Toronto, the germ of which was planted in 1837, and it was incorporated in 1841; Mount Allison College, founded in 1840 at Sackville, N. B.; Wesleyan Theological College, Montreal; Wesley College, Winnipeg; Albert College, Bellville, Ont.; Alma College, St. Thomas; Methodist College, St. Johns, Newfoundland; Columbian College, New Westminister, British Columbia; Ontario Ladies' College, Whitby, incorporated in 1874; and the Stanstead Wesleyan College, Stanatead, Quebec, established in 1873. Long is the list of able and devoted men who have built up this noble structure. Among those who have finished their course can be mentioned, without exciting jealousy, Egerton Ryerson (q.v.), the renowned educator, George Douglas, whose memory is ever green, Samuel S. Nelles (q.v.), so long president of Victoria University, and William Morley Punshon (q.v.), whose preaching, administration, and guidance promoted every interest of the advancing church and country. To-day the vastness of the territory of the Methodist Church of Canada is suggested by the names of its conferences on the continent of North America: Toronto, London, Hamilton, Bay of Quinte, Montreal, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Manitoba, Alberta, and British Columbia. Distributed over this immense area are its 2,476 ministers and 334,637 members. **V. The Doctrinal Standards of Methodism**: **1. Doctrinal Bases.** John Wesley was a clergyman of the Church of England. The societies which he formed were organizations for the conversion of men and their religious development. He aimed to retain his converts within the pale of that great national church, and from its clergymen the majority of Methodists received the sacraments. He and they believed the fundamental doctrines of universal Christendom, as contained in the articles, homilies, and ritual to which they had been accustomed from childhood. Nevertheless, in the judgment of Wesley, certain doctrines of the New Testament were neglected by the clergy or robbed of their true proportion and emphasis. These doctrines were by him considered vital to the spread of pure Christianity. Accordingly he expounded them in his conferences, published them with comments in the *Minutes* and preached upon them. Also he found it necessary to write and publish sermons upon the doctrines which Methodism emphasized; for his preaching excited vehement opposition from unsympathetic Anglican clergymen, and from Presbyterian, Independent, and Baptist ministers. The Baptists differed from him on the method and subjects of baptism and its relation to the reception of the Lord's Supper. To preserve unity of belief among the preachers and members of his societies, he prepared *Notes on the New Testament*, wherein are clear explanations of the pivotal passages upon which he based the views he so firmly believed and fervently preached. To render impossible the preaching of heretical doctrines in the chapels, the deeds by which they were held contained a limitation of the powers of trustees in the following words: "Provided always, that the persons preach no other doctrine than is contained in Mr. Wesley's *'Notes on the New Testament,' * and four volumes of *'Sermons.'*" The same provision subsists in the model deed of the Wesleyan Methodist Church (in England, Ireland, etc.) in the following words: "No person shall be allowed to preach, who shall maintain, promulgate, or teach any Doctrine or Practise contrary to what is contained in certain Notes onthe New Testament, commonly reputed to be the Notes of the said John Wesley, and in the first four volumes of Sermons, commonly reputed to be written and published by him." When introducing these *Sermons* to the public, Wesley said, "The following sermons contain the substance of what I have been preaching for eight or nine years past. During that time, I have frequently spoken in public on every subject in the ensuing collection, and I am not conscious that there is any one point of doctrine, on which I am accustomed to speak in public, which is not incidentally, if not professedly, laid before every Christian reader. Every serious man, who peruses these, will, therefore, see in the clearest manner what these doctrines are, which I embrace and teach as the essentials of true religion." It was for this purpose that Wesley made these *Sermons* so large and vital a part of his doctrinal standards. Certain discrepancies have been alleged with respect to the number of these *Sermons. * The Wesleyan Methodist Church of Great Britain and Ireland and the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States recognize fifty-three; the Methodist Church of Canada and the Methodist Episcopal Church South but fifty-two, and certain critics but forty-three. The discrepancies are of no significance, as all agree on the smallest number, stated in the model deed, and all essential truths of the system of doctrine on which Methodism depends are discussed in the forty-three, and nothing additional of doctrinal value is contained in the nine or ten added by Wesley after he had made the others a standard. **2. Distinctive Doctrinal Features.** The distinctive doctrinal features of Methodism are suggested by the titles of these *Sermons*: "Scriptural Christianity," "The Almost Christian," "Awake thou that sleepest," "The Way to the Kingdom," "Salvation by Faith," "Justification by Faith," "The Righteousness of Faith," "The First Fruits of the Spirit," "The Spirit of Bondage and Adoption," "The Master of the New Birth," "The Witness of our own Spirit," two sermons on the" Witness of the Spirit," "Sin in Believers," thirteen sermons on the Sermon on the Mount, "The Nature of Enthusiasm," "A Caution against Bigotry," "Christian Perfection," "The Judgment." Incidental to the direct exposition of these topics the distinction between Wesley's Arminian theology and that of Calvin is pointed out; and the dangerous license of Antinomianism condemned. Wesley emphasized foreknowledge, but opposed the doctrines of election and reprobation as taught by Calvin. Magnifying free will and resultant responsibility, he acknowledged natural depravity, yet held that the Spirit of God so counteracts its effects that every man is capable of surrendering himself to him through Christ by faith. He taught Christian perfection as the consummation of the work of salvation; and that it is subsequent to regeneration, so that, while believers may grow in grace daily, perfection is reached by faith. By subtle distinctions he met successfully the current attacks upon his view. Upon this subject his writings were voluminous, and have occasioned controversy within as well as without Methodist circles. **3. American Position.** Until 1784 Methodism in America was under the control of Wesley; it was in fact the extension of his societies. In that year it devolved upon him to superintend its transformation into a church. Before his plan had fully matured or any American had anticipated it, the American conferences asked, and by vote answered, a peculiar question. Q. " How shall we conduct ourselves toward European preachers? " Answer: " If they are recommended by Mr. Wesley, will be subject to the American conference, preach the doctrine taught in the four volumes of Sermons, and Notes on the New Testament, ... we will receive them; but if they walk contrary to the above directions, no ancient right or appointment shall prevent their being excluded from our connection." Wesley sent to America a series of articles of religion, selected from the Thirty-nine of the Church of England. The following were adopted, with slight verbal changes and minor omissions: "Of Faith in the Holy Trinity," "Of the Word, or the Son of God, who was made very Man," "Of the Resurrection of Christ," "Of the Holy Ghost," "Of the Old Testament," "Of Free Will," "Of the Justification of Man," "Of Good Works," "Of Works of Supererogation," "Of Sin after Justification," "Of the Church," "Of Purgatory," "Of Speaking in the Congregation in such tongue as the People understand," "Of the Sacraments," "Of the Lord's Supper," "Of both Kinds," "Of the one Oblation of Christ, finished upon the Cross," "Of the Marriage of Ministers," "Of the Rites and Ceremonies of Churches," "Of Christian Men's Goods" and "Of a Christian Man's Oath." The following were retained with important omissions: "The Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation," "Of Original or Birth Sin," "Of the Church," and "Of Baptism." The following were rejected: "Of the Going down of Christ into Hell," "Of the Three Creeds," "Of Works before Justification," "Of Christ alone without Sin," "Of Predestination and Election," "Of Obtaining Eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ," "Of the Authority of the Church," "Of the Authority of General Councils," "Of Ministering in the Congregation," "Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers which Hinders not the effect of the Sacrament," "Of the Wicked which eat not the Body of Christ in the Use of the Lord's Supper," "Of Excommunicate Persons, how they are to be avoided," "Of the Homilies," "Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers," "Of the Civil Magistrates." **4. Purpose and Results.** A comparison between the English Articles as they were originally and as they were transmitted to the American conference reveals that the guiding purpose of Wesley, in altering and omitting, was to expurgate the leaven of ritualism, Calvinism, and Romanism. These articles, however, do not contain special reference to some of the most precious doctrines held by the founder of Methodism and by the churches that derived preaching, teaching, and example from those whom he instructed. But Wesley knew that the American Methodists had incorporated in their standards all that he had imposed upon English Methodism. Episcopal Methodist Churches, including the Canadian Methodist Church, accepted the articles sent by Wesley. The Methodist Episcopal Church of America is in harmony with these facts. The rule on the subject is as follows: "The General Conference shall not revoke, alter or change our Articles of Religion, nor establish any new standard or rules of doctrine contrary to our present, existing, and established standards of doctrine." The unparalleled unity in belief among the various Methodist bodies is the fruit of Wesley's method of conserving doctrines. Had he expressed them in confessions or even creeds, they would have been centers of controversy. His followers in every land concur with the Canadian Methodist theologian, Burwash: "It is to the spirit and type of this preaching that our obligations bind us. There may be in the Notes and Ser mons things incidental, accidental and personal, to which no Methodist minister or layman would feel bound to profess assent; but Methodism demands that in all its pulpits we should preach this Gospel and expound the word of God according to this analogy of Faith." The Calvinistic Methodists signify their doctrines by their name. In Evangelical spirit they are similar, but in the doctrines on which Wesley took the Arminian position they adhere to the Calvinist standards. J. M. BUCKLEY. Bibliography: The fundamental sources are the Works of John Wesley, the best ed. for this purpose being that issued as standard by the Methodist Book Concern, New York, in 7 vols., including in vols. i-ii. his Sermons, in vols. iii.-iv. his Journals, and in vols. v.-vii. his miscellaneous works; his *Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament*, issued by the same house as a standard (the recently deciphered diaries from which the Journals were written, containing a considerable amount of new material, are in course of publication in London, and will be available at the principal repositories for Methodist literature in the United States); the *Lives* and other literature given under the articles on the Wesleys in the lsst volume of this work; the Books of Discipline of the various Methodist bodies; the *Journals* of the Methodist Episcopal Church and of the Methodist Episcopal Church South; the *Minutes* of the annual conferences; the Proceedings of the Ecumenical Methodist Conferences, bold in London, 1881 Washington,1891, and London, 1901; the *Records* of theCentennial Convention in Baltimore, 1884; the *Year Books* of the various bodies; and the early periodicals to which reference in made in the text. Consult also the numerous sketches of Methodist worthies in this work, and the literature given there. Treatises of a general character are: A. Stevens,* Hist. of the Religious Movement . . . Called Methodism*, 3 vols., New York, 1858-61; H. S. Skeats, *Hist. of the Free Churches of England, 1688-1851,* London, 1859; G. Smith, *Hist. of Wesleyan Methodism, * 3 vols., ib. 1885; L. S. Jacoby, *Geschichte des Methodismus, seiner Entstehung und Ausbreitung,* 2 vols., Bremen, 1870; W. H. Daniels, *Illustrated Hist, of Merhodism in Great Britian and America from the Wesleys to the Present Time,* New York, 1880; J. Atkinson, *Centennial Hist. of American Methodism,* ib. 1884; idem, *Beginnings the Weslyan Movement in are Wesleyan Movement in * *America,* ib. 1896; J. W. Lee, N. Luccock, and J. M. Dixon *Illustrated Hist. of Methodism*, St. Louis. 1900; J. F. Hurst, *British Methodism*, 3 vols., London, 1901; W. J. Townsend, *A New Hist. of Methodism*, 2 vols., ib., 1901. Works on various Methodist bodies are: G. Smith, *Hist. of Wesleyan Methodists*, 3 vols., London, 1857-61; H. Smith, Sketches *Sketches of Methodist New Connexion Ministers*, ib. 1893; G. Packer, *The Centenary of the Methodist New Connexion 1797-1897* ib. 1897; T. Colhouer, *Sketches of the Founders of the Methodist Protestant Church and its Bibliography*, Pittsburg, 1880; A. H. Bassett, *Concise Hist. of the Methodist Protestant Church*, Baltimore, 1882; E. J. Drinkhouse, *Hist. of Methodist Reform and the Methodist Protestant Church*, 2 vols., Baltimore, 1899; E. Bowen, *Hist. of the Origin of the Free Methodist Church*, North Chili, New York, n.d.; F. W. Bourne, *The Bible Christians: Origin and History*, London, 1905; J. Petty, *Hist. of the Primitive Methodist Connexion*, 1861; W. Williams, *Welsh Calvinistic Methodism. A Historical Sketch*, ib. 1884; D. Young, *The Origin and Hist. of Methodism in Wales and the Borders*, ib. 1893; J. S. MacGeary, *The Free Methodist Church*, Chicago, 1909. For the Methodist Episcopal Church North and South consult: *Hist. of the Organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church South. Comprehending all the Official Proceedings of the General Conferences*, etc., Nashville, 1845; A. Stevens, *Memorials of the Introduction of Methodism into the Eastern States*, 2 vols., Boston, 1848-52; idem, *Hist. of the M. E. Church in U. S. A.*, 4 vols., New York, 1864; idem, *Centenary of American Methodism*, ib. 1866; C. Elliott, *History of the Great Secession from the Methodist Episcopal Church in the year 1845, Eventuating in the Organization of the New Church Entitled "The Methodist Episcopal Church South*," Cincinnati, 1855; J. Lednum, *A History of the Rise of Methodism in America. Containing Sketches of Methodist itinerant Preachers, 1738-86*, Philadelphia, 1859; N. Bangs, *Hist. of the Methodist Episcopal Church*, 4 vols., New York, 1860; L. C. Matlack, *Antislavery Struggle and Triumph in the M. E. Church*, ib. 1881; H. N. McTyeire, *Hist. of Methodism*, Nashville, 1886; J. G. Jones, *A Complete Hist. of Methodism as Connected with the Mississippi Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church South*, Vol. i., 1799-1817, Nashville, 1887; G. Alexander, in *American History Series*, vol. xi., New York, 1894; J. M. Buckley, in *American Church History Series*, vol. v., New York 1897. For Methodism among the African races consult: J. B. Wakeley, *Lost Chapters Recovered from the Early History African Methodism*, New York, 1889; L. M. Hagood, *The Colored Man in the Methodist Episcopal Church*, Cincinnati, 1890; D. A. Payne, *Hist. of the A. M. E. Church*, Nashville 1891; J. W. Hood, *One Hundred Years of the African M. E. Zion Church*, New York, 1895; I. L. Butt, *Hist. of African Methodism in Virginia; or, four Decades in the Old Dominion*, Eastville, Va., 1908. Books dealing with special topics are: J. Emory, *Defense of Our Fathers*, New York, 1827; D. W. Clark, *Life and Times of Elijah Hedding*, ib. 1855; R. Paine, *Life of W. MaKendree* 2 vols., Nashville, 1869; E. H. Myers,*Description of the M. E. Church, 1844-1846: comprising a 30 Years' History of the Relations of the two Methodism*, Nashville, Tenn., 1875; T. L. Flood and J. W. Hamilton, *Lives of Methodist Bishops*, New York, 1882; F. A. Arehibald, *Methodism and Literature*, Cincinnati, 1883; A. W. Cummings, *Early Schools of Methodism*, New York, 1886; W. J. Townsend, *The Story of Methodist Union*, London, 1906; D. B. Brummitt, *Epworth League Methods*, Cincinnati, 1906; H. K. Carroll, *Missionary Growth of the M. E. Church*, Cincinnati, 1907; J. Telfond, *Wesley's Veterans. Lives of Early Methodist Preachers told by Themselves. With Additions and Annotations*, London, 1909; On Methodism in various, countries consult: G. H. Cornish, *Cyclopedia of Methodism in Canada*, Toronto, 1881; E. Ryerson, *Canadian Methodism; its Epochs and Characteristics*, ib. 1882; A. Sutherland, *Methodism in Canada*, London, 1903; J. E. Sanderson, *First Century of Methodism in Canada*, vol. i., Toronto, 1908; C. H. Crookshank, *History of Methodism in Ireland*, vol. i., *Wesley and his Time*, vol. ii., *The Middle Age, Belfast*, 1885-1886; E. Thomas, *Irish Methodist Reminiscences*, London, 1889; R. C. Phillips, *Irish Methodism*, ib. 1897; H. B. Foster, *Wesleyan Methodism in Jamaica*, ib. 1881; J. Colwell, *Illustrated Hist. of Methodism in Australia, New South Wales. and Polynesia*, Sydney, 1904; H. Adams, *Methodism in the West Indies*, London, 1908; J. M. Erikson, *Metodismen i Sverige*, Stockholm, 1895; J. Jiingst, *Der Methodismus in Deutschland*, Giessen, 1906. On the polity, constitution, doctrines, and discipline of Methodism consult: R. Emory, *Hist. of the Discipline of the M. E. Church*, New York, 1843; T. E. Bond, *The Economy of Methodism Illustrated and Defended*, ib. 1852; T. E. Bond, *Economy of Methodism*, ib. 1852; E. Grindrod *A Compendium of the Laws and Regulations of Wesleyan Methodism*, London, 1858; B. Hawley, *Manual of Methodism, or the Doctrines, General Rules and Usages of the Methodist Episcopal Church*, New York, 1868; J. H. Rigg, *Connexional Economy of Wesleyan Methodism*, London, 1879; idem, *Church Organizations*, ib. 1896; H. W. Williams, *Constitution and Polity of Wesleyan Methodism*, London, 1881; S. M. Merrill, *A Digest of Methodist Law; or, Helps in the Administration of the Discipline of the E. Church*, Cincinnati, 1885; D. Sherman, *Hist. of the Revisions of the Discipline of the M. E. Church*, New York, 1890; T. B. Neely, *Evolution of Episcopacy and Organic Methodism*, ib. 1888; idem, *Hist. of the Origin and Development of the Governing Conference in Methodism*, Cincinnati, 1892; B. Gregory, *Side Lights on the Conflicts of Methodism, 1827-52*, London, 1898; D. J. Waller, *Constitution and Polity of the Wesleyan Methodist Church*, ib. 1898; W. F. Barclay, *Constitution of Methodist Episcopal Churches in America*, Nashville, Tenn., 1902; G. F. Oliver, *Our Lay Office Bearers*, Cincinnati, 1902; J. J. Tigert, *Doctrines of M. E. Church in America*, ib. 1902; idem, *Constitutional Hist. of American Episcopal Methodism*, Nashville, 1903; *Doctrines and Discipline of the M. E. Church South*, ed. Alexander, ib. 1906; D. A. Goodsell, J. B. Hingeley and J. M. Buckley, *The Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church*, Cincinnati, 1908; H. Wheeler, *Hist. and Exposition of the Twenty-five Articles of Religion of the M. E. Church*, New York, 1908; H. T. Hudson, *Methodist Armor; or, A Popular Exposition of the Doctrines, Peculiar Usages and Ecclesiastical Machinery of the M. E. Church South, Nashville*, n.d.
METHODIUS Methodius

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

### METHODIUS ### Works. Greek Church Father and bishop of Olympus, in Lycia; probably martyred by Maximinus, 311. The only one of his works preserved entire in Greek is the "Symposium," which, as its name implies, forms a counterpart to Plato's "Symposium." Ten maidens, invited to the "garden of virtue," are the speakers, their themes being the following: (1) the praise of virginity as the essence of the likeness to God brought by Christ; (2) the divine ordinance of marriage; (3) virginity preferable to the married state; (4) virginity the best medicament to immortality; (5) virginity the great vow; (6) virgins keep themselves undefiled for the marriage with the Logos; (7) they are equal to the martyrs and are meant by Cant. ii. 2, iv. 9 sqq., vi. 7 sqq.; (8) the woman of Rev. xii. 1 sqq. is the Church, and the human will is free; (9) with her we must adorn ourselves for the Feast of Tabernacles, which is the Resurrection; (10) perfect righteousness (cf. Judges ix. 8 sqq.) first came into the world through Christ. The maidens close with a hymn to the heavenly bridegroom. The *De Autexusio * is preserved independently in Greek only in the portion i.-vii. 5, but considerable fragments are given by Eusebius, but under the name of Maximus (*Præparatio evangelica, * vii. 22; Eng. transl., ii. 366 sqq., 2 vols., Oxford, 1903), Photius (*Bibliotheca, * 236), the *Sacra Parallela*; while it is fully reproduced in an Old Church Slavic translation of the eleventh century. Its theme is the origin of evil, which arose from Satan's disobedience to God. In his *Peri geneton*, of which only a few fragments have been preserved by Photius (*Bibliotheca*, 235), Methodius assails Origen's doctrine of an eternal creation ation of the world. The same opposition is maintained in his most important work next to the "Symposium," the *De resurrectione, * in which, at Patara, with one Theophilus presiding, the physician Aglaophon and Proclus plead for Origen against Eubulius (Methodius) and Memian. As the angels prove, things created are not necessarily mortal; and since the soul is immortal, while only the dead can rise, the body becomes mortal that the sin which dwells in it may be removed by death, the resurrection of the body being everywhere taught by the Scriptures. The work is extant only in an Old Church Slavic translation, though the Greek text of i. 20-ii. 8 is given by Epiphanius ( *Haer.*, Ixiv. 12 sqq.), and fragments are found in Photius ( *Bibliotheca*, 234), the *Sacra Parallela, * the Syriac florilegia, the *Catena * of Procopius, Justinian ( *Ad Menam*), OEcumenius, Eustratius, and others. The three fragments of his polemic against Porphyry are valuable for a knowledge of Methodius' theory of salvation; while those of his exegesis of Job ix., xxv., xxvii.-xxix., xxxviii:, xl., are important for his doctrine of grace. Of his *De martyribus * scant fragments have been preserved by Theodoret and the *Sacra Parallela. * His other works are preserved almost exclusively in abbreviated Old Church Slavic translations, such as that "On Life and Reason" and "On Foods and the Red Heifer," the latter treating also of the blessings of suffering, true purity, and the spiritual understanding of the Scriptures. In the "To Sistelius, On Leprosy" (a few fragments also in manuscript in Greek), he connects the legal rules for leprosy with Christian penance; and in his "On the Horseleach of Proverbs, and 'The Heavens Declare the Glory of God' " he interprets the horse-leach as the serpent of lust. His treatises "On the Body," and *De Pythonyssa, * as well as his exegeses of Genesis and Canticles, and, possibly, a dialogue *Xenon, * are lost; while the orations *De Symeone et Anna * and *In ramos palmarum, *like the Armenian fragments in the *In ascensionem Domini nostri Jesu Christi, * are spurious. Nor were the *Revelationes,* ascribed to him under various names and forming in various languages one of the favorite books of the Middle Ages, written by him. Their origin doubtless dates from the seventh century, although they appeared in Latin translation as early as the century following. ### Doctrine. Deeply influenced by Platonism and Stoicism, and strongly allegorical in interpretation, Methodius is at once an advocate of early Christian realism and of the ascetic and contemplative life. The main points of his constant opposition to Origen have already been noted. His concept of God was characterized by the attributes of non-becoming, power, and exemption from all need. If the Father is the essential principle of all being, the Son is the external effective force; yet Methodius stresses the divine nature of the Son, who was the means of all revelation of salvation, even in the Old Testament. The world was created for the microcosm man, whose will is absolutely free, and who is progressively taught by God to conquer the devil. The Logos necessarily became incarnate to bring man into harmony with the Divine, and, bringing "knowledge of the Father of all," he stripped off the old man, which he replaced "with his own flesh." This is done through the Church, for whom the Logos left the Father in heaven; and the souls betrothed to him are "helps meet for him," thus realizing the "deep sleep" of Adam (Gen. ii. 21). Nevertheless, outward membership is no guaranty of salvation, which is the work of grace that rewards longing with fulfilment. Yet even the Christian does not entirely extirpate sin in this life, and the forgiveness of sins and deeper recognition of the divine will only strengthen the natural good in him; while the birth of Christ in the faithful, transforming them into Christs, is essentially a spiritual growth, though coming to pass on principle in baptism. The cure for all evils and the root of true morality is the spiritual understanding of the Scriptures, wisdom blooming in the desert, where dwells the bride of the Logos. The progress in the Christian life here outlined, however, finds its culmination, as implied above, in perfect virginity of both body and soul. The ideal of Methodius is that of the ascetic sage. In accordance with the tradition of the Church, more over, Methodius was inclined toward a moderate chiliasm, holding that in the seventh millennium the faithful would celebrate the true Sabbaths and the real Feast of Tabernacles with Christ, this millennium being the rest preliminary to endless eternity. (N. BONWETSCH.) For Methodius the apostle to the Slavs see CYRIL AND METHODIUS. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The first complete ed. of the "Banquet" was by Allatius, Rome, 1656. An incomplete collection of the works was made by F. Combefs, Paris, 1644, enlarged, 1672. The works are also in A. Gallandi, Bibliotheca veterum patrum, iii. 670 sqq., Venice, 1767; in MPG, xviii. 27-408; and an edition is by A. Jahn, Halle, 1865. There is an Eng. transl. with introduction in *ANF, vi* . 307-402. The earlier literature on the subject is given very completely in *ANF, * Bibliography, pp. 75-76. Consult: Jerome, De vir. ill., Ixxxiii.; Socrates, Hist. eccl., vi. 13; A. Pankau, *Methodius, Bischof von Olympus, Mainz, * 1888; N. Bonwetsch, *Methodius von Olympus, * Leipsic, 1891; idem, Die Theologie des Methodius *von* Olympus, Berlin, 1903; O. Bardenhewer, Patrologie, pp. 154 sqq., Freiburg, 1894; Ehrhard, Die altchristliche Litteratur und ihre *Erforschung, 1884* -1900, pp. 363 sqq., ib. 1900; Harnack, Litteratur, i. 468-478, 786, 929-930, ii. 2, pp. 147 sqq., 150-151; idem, Dogma, vols. i.-v. passim; Krüger, History, pp. 235-242; Schaff, *Christian Church, * ii. 309-312; Ceillier, Auteurs sacrés, iii. 62-73; *DCB, iii: * 909-911.
METHURGEMAN Methurgeman

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**METHURGEMAN ** ("Interpreter"): The title given to the Palestinian official who in the synagogue service translated into the vernacular (Aramaic) the lesson read in Hebrew from the law verse by verse, and the lesson read from the prophets three verses at a time. See SYNAGOGUE, I.; and TALMUD.
METROPHANES, CRITOPULUS Metrophanes, Critopulus

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**METROPHANES, ** me"tref'a-niz, **CRITOPULUS,** crai'tep-u-lus: Patriarch of Alexandria; b. at Berrhoea, Macedonia, probably in 1589; d. at Alexandria, probably in 1639. After entering a monastery at an early age and becoming the protosyncellus of the patriarch of Constantinople, he was sent to England by Cyril Lucar (q.v.) and studied at Oxford until 1623. He then went to Helmstedt, and, after visiting other German cities, was an associate of the Reformed at Geneva in 1627. In 1631 he signed himself at Alexandria as tics but also as an anti-Montanist at the outset of that controversy. The unknown anti-Montanist writer of Asia Minor from whose work, written in 192 or 193, Eusebius gives extracts ( *Hist. eccl.*, V., xvi. sqq.) cites a Montanist work written in answer to one by "brother Miltiades." The thesis of the latter was apparently that a prophet should not speak in an ecstasy. In the so-called "Little Labyrinth" the Roman author (Hippolytus?) names Miltiades among the early witnesses for the divinity of Christ; and at the beginning of the third century Tertullian ("Against the Valentinians," chap. v., *ANF*, iii. 506) mentions him, under the title of "Militiades, the sophist of the churches," between Justin and Irenaeus as one of his own predecessors in the opposition to the Valentinians. The thesis quoted above as to prophecy is the first instance of this view in the Gentile Church. Miltiades must have been one of the new theologians who determined the great change in theological views marked by the outbreak of the Montanist controversy (see MONTANISM). His Christological position was also considered noteworthy by the later generation in opposition to the dynamistic view of the indwelling of God in Jesus. The name of "sophist," not necessarily a term of reproach, has nevertheless in Tertullian's mouth an unflattering ring. His book *De ecstasi * apparently continued the polemic against Miltiades begun in Asia Minor. Eusebius, who had himself handled books of Miltiades, is the last to mention him, attributing to him exhaustive treatises against both Jews and pagans, and an apology for his faith addressed "to the rulers of the world," by which phrase is to be understood the emperors-- either Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, or the latter and Lucius Verus, or less probably Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. There are reasons for thinking that he wrote a special treatise against the Valentinians which was unknown to Eusebius; there is an illegible name in the Muratorian Fragment which might easily be Miltiades, and Richardson has advanced the theory that four works of his are drawn upon in the pseudo-Clementine literature. (ADOLF HARNACH.) BzHLIoaBAPBT: A. Harmaclc, in TU, i (1882), 278-282; We.., uaeracwr, x.143, 239-240, 255-256, ii. 1, pp. 381382, 2, pp. 228, 283; idem, Dopnw, ii. 190, 237, 243; O. Otto, in Corpus apotopetarum CArist~norum, ix. 384373, Jens, 1872; T. Zahn, Forerhunpen sur Geeahiehte des . . Kamm, v. 237-240, Leipeio, 1892; lis'fer, Hiaforv, pp.121-122.
MILTON, JOHN Milton, John

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**MILTON, JOHN:** Famous English poet and leader of Puritanism during the Great Rebellion; b. in London Dec. 9, 1608; d. there Nov. 8, 1674. He was the son of a scrivener of strong Puritan tendencies, and was educated at St. Paul's School, London, and at Christ's College, Cambridge (1625-32). While still at Cambridge he wrote some fine poems, among them the *Ode on the Morning of Christ's Nativity*. He was originally destined to a ministerial career, but his independent spirit led him to "prefer a blameless silence before the sacred office of speaking bought and begun with servitude and forswearing." He spent five quiet years at Horton in Buckinghamshire, reading and writing. To this period belong *L'Allegro * and *Il Penseroso, Arcades, Comus*, and *Lycidas, * all breathing the lofty spirit of his religious convictions. In 1638 and 1639 he traveled on the continent, coming into contact with such men as Grotius, Galileo, and Lucas Holete (q.v.), but was recalled by a rumor of the outbreak of the armed struggle for liberty at home. The next twenty years of his life were devoted almost entirely to prose work in the service of the Puritan cause. In 1641 and 1642 appeared his tractates *Of Reformation touching Church Discipline in England, Of Prelatical Episcopacy, * the two defenses of Smectymnuus, and *The Reason of Church Government Urged against Prelaty. * With frequent passages of real eloquence lighting up the rough controversial style of the period, and with a wide knowledge of ecclesiastical antiquity, he struck weighty blows at the intolerant High-church party which seemed to dominate the Church of England. The ill-success of his first marriage, with the daughter of a Royalist squire in Oxfordshire, who left him in a month, led him to write four tracts dealing with divorce, the first entitled *The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, * attacking the English marriage law as it had been taken over almost unchanged from medieval Catholicism, and sanctioning divorce on the ground of incompatibility or childlessness. His intercourse with Hartlib and Comenius led him to write (1644) a short tract on *Education, * urging a reform of the national universities; and in the same year appeared the most popular of his prose writings, *Areopagitica, a Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing*. *The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates* (1649) announced his adhesion to the cause of the Commonwealth, to which he was made Latin secretary in March. As part of his duties in this post, he wrote his *Eikonoklastes * (1649) in reply to the *Eikon basilike* popularly attributed to Charles I., the first *Pro populo Anglicano defensio * (1651) against Salmasius, and in 1654 his *Defensio secunda * and *Pro se defensio; * and his fine Latin style was of great avail for the drafting of the state papers which passed between Cromwell's government and the continent. His incessant labors cost him his eyesight, but he retained his office until the Restoration. He then lived in retirement, devoting himself once more to poetical work, and publishing *Paradise Lost* in 1667, the epic by which he attained universal fame, to be followed by the much inferior *Paradise Regained, * together with *Samson Agonistes, * a drama on the Greek model, in 1671. Milton's religious position, partially expressed in the treatises named above and in his *Civil Power in Ecclesiastical Causes * and *Considerations touching the Likeliest Means to Remove Hirelings out of the Church * (1659), is most clearly seen in his posthumous *De doctrine Christiana, * the manuscript of which, long lost, was discovered only in 1823. His point of view is entirely subjective and individualistic; his faith is deduced from Scripture by the inner illumination of the Spirit, not tied to human traditions. It is not therefore surprising to find him taking his own view on the Trinity, the divinity of Christ and the Holy Ghost, predestination, the creation of the world, etc., as also in regard to practical questions such as marriage, infant baptism, and the observance of Sunday. What he attempts to give is not a complete
MISSIONS TO THE HEATHEN Missions to the Heathen

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

Missions to the Heathen A. Roman Catholic Missions. 1. Introduction. II. Separate Fields of Labor. 1. Africa West Africa (¢ 1). Western Central Africa (¢ 2). South and East Africa ($ 3). North Africa, African Islands (5 4)· 2. Asia. Eastern and Southern India (5 1). Western and Northern India (§ 2). Ceylon ($ 3). Eastern Asia ($ 4). Dutch East Indies; Philippines (§ 5). China (§ 6). Korea and Japan (§ 7). 3. America. United States and British North America (5 1). Latin America and the West Indies ($ 2). 4. Australia and Oceania. B. Protestant Missions. I. Introduction. The Basis of Christian Missions ($ 1). General Results (¢ 2). IL Colonial Missions. MISSIONS TO THE HEATHEN. 1. The Period of the Reformation and of the Old Protestant Orthodoxy. Attitude of the Reformers (§ 1). Adrian Saravia ($ 2). II Two Early Attempts (§ 3). 1. Reformed and Lutheran Opposition Q 4). Dutch Work in East Indies ($ b). Work of English Colonists (¢ 8). Early Danish Missions (5 7). 2. Era of Pietism and Rationalism. 2. Franeke'e Services (5'1). 3. Zinaendorf and the United Brethren 4. Apathy under Rationalistic Influ- 8. eases (§ 3). 7, 3. The Present Mission Era. 8. Events Leading to Renewed Effort 9, (i 1). 10 Carer and the English Missionary 11. Societies (12). IV Results on the Continent (§ 3). 4. Missionary Organisations. Ecclesiastical Attitude toward Missions (5 1). The Training of Missionaries ($ 2). Rise of Missionary Organisations present article deals with missions, Catholic and Protestant, to non-Christian peoples, considering especially the basis, history, results, and methods of this work. Various aspects of missions, especially of home missions, sae treated in the articles CITY MISSIONS; EMIGRANTS AND IMMIGRANTS, MISSION WORK AMONG; HARMS, GEORG LUDWIG DETLEV THEODOR; HOME MISSIONS; INDIANS OF NORTH AMERICA, MISSIONS TO; 11VNEHE MISSION; JEWS, MISSIONS TO THE; and SLAVIC MISSIONS IN THE UNITED STATES; and in the biographical articles on the missionaries who gave their efforts to the Church.] A, Roman Catholic Missions. [The figures enclosed in parentheses in the following summaries give for purposes of comparison the corresponding data of the Protestant Missions, or, as the author prefers to designate them. "Evangelical," as objectionable term in its implications, though frequently used sad appropriate if properly defined.) I. Introduction: According to the Roman Catholic conception, the missionary task consists in the Catholicizing of non-Catholic peoples, while Protestants understand by it the Christianizing of nonChriatians. In conformity with this view, this treatment will deal with the work of Roman Catholics among the heathen. It is, however, difficult to carry out this distinction, since efforts are made in the missionary fields not only occasionally to convert Europeans, but also to draw over native Evangelical converts to the Roman Catholic Church [the counterpart to the Protestant propagandaj. Those who are expelled or are dissatisfied furnish a welcome excuse for this work, and an excessive lenity toward unchristian customs serves as a temptation. It therefore happens that among the Roman Catholic converts from heathenism, many are counted who are gathered from Evangelical missions. Besides the Congregation de propaganda fide in Rome, where all the threads of the widely diffused Roman missions are brought together, there are in the different Roman Catholic countries Survey of Missionary Organisations Summary ($ 6). The Evangelical Missionary Fields. America. The Arctic Regions (¢ 1). British North America (¢ 2). United States (¢ 3). West Indies (§ 4). Central and South America (4 b). Africa. Central Asia. British India. Non-British UpperTndis. Malay Archipelago. Chins. Korea. Japan. Oceania. Conclusions. Methodology of Missions. The Purpose of Missions (§ i). Ends to be Attained (§ 2). Auxiliaries Employed (f 3). The Movement for Immediate Evangelization (14). The True Method ($ 5). missionary societies. Thus there is the Xavier Society or Society for the Propagation of Faith, founded in 1822 in Lyons; branch societies exist in most Roman Catholic countries. The journal of the society, the " Year Book," appears in various languages. The contributions reach the sum of from one and a quarter to one and a half million dollars annually. Others are the Society of Foreign Missions (Paris, 1820); the Leopoldinische Stiftung (Vienna, 1829); the Society of Holy Childhood (Paris, 1843) for the rescue of heathen children, who are baptized when in danger of death. In fifty years, twelve million children were baptized (mostly in China) and sixteen and one-half million dollars were expended by the society. Missionary seminaries exist in Paris, Lyons, Milan, Verona and Rome. England also has one: St. Joseph of Mill Hill. The seminary at Steyl, Holland, is principally for the education of German missionaries. Recently several mission homes have been founded in Germany to provide for the German colonies. The greater number of missionaries come, however, from the congregations, many of which serve the heathen mission exclusively; for instance, the Congregation of the Sacred Heart of Mary (1841; later combined with that of the Holy Spirit); the Mariate in Lyons and Paris; the Congregation of Picpus (Congregation of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Mary); the order of the Oblates of the Immaculate Conception of Mary; in Algiers, the Fathers of the Holy Spirit (called the White Fathers); in Paris, the Lazarists. The old orders also-Dominicans, Franciscans (Minorites), Capuchins, Carmelites, and othersshare in the work. Many of these orders have special missionary fields assigned to them, and have their procurators with the Propaganda. Others assume an auxiliary position, in that they supply the missions with lay brothers in great numbers for teaching, the care of the sick, work of civilization, and similar tasks. Many female orders work in this manner and send out hosts of sisters as missionaries.
MITHRAISM Mithraism

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

### MITHRA, MITHRAISM. Mithraism and Christianity (§ 1). Mithra as an Indo-Iranian Deity (§ 2). Development and Diffusion of Mithraism (§ 3). Mythology and Theology (§ 4). Anthropology, Eschatology (§ 5). The Mysteries (§ 6). Art and Architecture (§ 7). The Decay (§ 8). Interest in Mithraism is not attributable merely to the fact that it is a rediscovery of comparatively recent date. Two other reasons give the subject importance: (1) This religion contested with Christianity for the religious hegemony of the Roman world more closely than any other of the pagan cults in the syncretism which marked the religious practise of the later Roman empire. Renan says of it, and without exaggeration: "We may say that if Christianity had been arrested in its growth by some mortal malady, the world would have been Mithraistic . . . . It needed to destroy it the terrible blows struck at it by the Christian empire" (*Marcus Aurelius*, p. 332, London, n.d.). (2) The causes for this able rivalry furnish the second reason. The diffusion of Mithraism and of Christianity in the Roman world was from the same direction, at about the same time, and its propaganda, popular rather than philosophic, was carried to the same class of people. In theory, ritual, and practise Mithraism parodied or duplicated, after a fashion, the central ideas of Christianity. The birth of Mithra and of Christ were celebrated on the same day; tradition placed the birth of both in a cave; both regarded Sunday as sacred; in both the central figure was a mediator (*mesites*) who was one of a triad or trinity; in both there was a sacrifice for the benefit of the race, and the purifying power of blood from the sacrifice was, though in different ways, a prime motive; regeneration or the second birth was a fundamental tenet in both; the conception of the relationship of the worshipers to each other was the same--they were all brothers; both had sacraments, in which baptism and a communion meal of bread and the cup were included; both had mysteries from which the lower orders of initiates were excluded; ascetic ideals were common to both; the ideas of man, the soul and its immortality, heaven and hell, the resurrection from the dead, judgment after death, the final conflagration by which the world is to be consumed, the final conquest of evil, were quite similar. Of course the rationale behind these conceptions and the ways in which they were carried out were very different, but the general effect is almost startling. The Church Fathers were themselves astounded at the resemblances, and could explain them only by the theory which has so often been applied in the history of the contact of Christianity in its missions to the pagan world--the observances of Mithraism were the cunning parodies devised by Satan to discredit the holy things of God and to seduce the souls of men from the true faith by a false and insidious imitation of it (Tertullian, *De corona*, xv.; *De præscriptione*, xl.; Justin Martyr, *I Apol.* lxvi.; *Trypho*, lxxviii.). There were, however, two very important differences between the two faiths: Christianity had as its nucleating point a historic personage; Mithra came out of a distant past with all its accretion of myth and fancy. In the second place, Mithraism, like Buddhism and Brahmanism, was syncretistic, was tolerant of the practises of other cults. Where it could not supplant, it assimilated or adopted. As Renan says, once more (ut sup.): "Mithra lent himself to all the confusions, with Attis, with Adonis, with Salazius, with Men, who had already been in possession for a long time back, to make the tears of women flow." Christianity, on the other hand, was intolerant; its teachers were confident that they alone had the whole and only truth, that all else was error with which there could be no compromise. It would brook no rival; Mithraism, like all else pagan, was ruthlessly and completely crushed when the empire became Christian. Mithra was originally an Indo-Iranian deity. In the Vedas he appears as one of the Adityas, a light-deity commonly invoked with Varuna, but later giving way to Savitar. He was a guardian of truth, fidelity, and justice. In Zoroastrianism Mithra was very important. He was one of the Yazatas or lofty genii of the religion, second in age and honor only to Ahura Mazda the Supreme, and is often put on an equality with him. How prominent his part was in Mazdaism may be seen from the fact that in the Avesta the second and longest of the Yasts, the Mihir Yast, is in his praise, and to him the Mihir Nyayis is dedicated (*SBE*, xxiii. 119-158, 353-355). Here, too, he is a light-god, while his attributes appear in the Avesta as follows (a single passage only for each attribute is cited). He is lord of the country side (*Fargard*, i. 1) and of wide pastures (*Sirozah*, i. 7), having 100 ears and 10,000 eyes (*Sirozah*, i. 16); his club strikes the demons (*Khorshad Yast*, 5); he makes the world grow (*Farvardin Yast*, 18); has piercing rays (*Afrin Paighambar Zartust*, 6), possesses full knowledge, is strong, sleepless, was made by Ahura the most glorious of all gods, "Mithra and Ahura, the two great gods" ( *Khorshed Nyayis*, 6-7). In his own (Mihir) Yast Mithra appears as god of the heavenly light, who sees all and therefore knows the truth, of which he is therefore a witness and the preserver of oaths and of good faith, chastising liars and those who break promises, destroying their homes and smiting them in battle, but protecting those who keep faith. Ahura Mazda created Mithra as worthy of sacrifice and prayer as himself (§ 1); to him the chiefs sacrifice as they go to battle (§ 8); he precedes the sun over the hills (§ 13); is the invincible director of the fortunes of battle (§§ 35-43). He is the warrior and chief helper of Ahura in his contest with Ahriman, the giver to men of gifts both material and spiritual. Yet it is curious to note that in spite of the exalted position thus conceded in the documents of the religion as thus cited and in the worship accorded him by the princes and nobles of Persia (see below), there appears an effort to reduce him in rank in that he was not given a place with the six Amshaspands who are closely associated with Ahura as the seven great spirits, but is relegated to the position of Yazata or genius. Significant for the future is his association with Sraosha ("Obedience") and Rashnu ("Justice") in the protection of the soul from demons, from which develops the doctrine of redemption in the later mysteries. It may be noted in passing that the rites of these mysteries find their beginning in the Zoroastrian literature; baptism goes back to the purificatory aspersion of the Avesta; while the trials of the mysteries are implicit in the flagellations; and both of these were preliminary to the sacrifice ( *Mihir Yast*, § 122). While the theoretical and documentary position of Mithra, in Persia was as here described, he was if anything more prominent in the cult. He was a favorite with the Persian monarchs, consequently also with the nobility, and was regarded as the especial protector of this order. This continued after the spread of the cult into the West, the royal favor being shown later by the frequency with which his mule enters as an element into royal names in Asia Minor, while Roman emperors see reason to regard him as their protector. The Achæmenidæ worshiped him as making the great triad with Ahura and Anahita. His great festival on the sixteenth day of the seventh month (possibly the entire seventh month was sacred to him) was of especial moment in the royal calendar. Sacrifices were offered in his worship, consisting of cattle, great and small, and birds, and the preliminary to sacrifice consisted of ablutions and flagellations. As a consequence of the royal favor, the worship of Mithra spread throughout the empire. Moreover, Mithra was notably a deity with masculine characteristics; he appealed to the soldierly and the virile. It is hardly a wonder then that in its diffusion the Mithraic cult took on the character of an independent religion, and was promulgated no more as an element of Zoroastrianism, the intolerance of which unfitted it for a propaganda in contest with other religions as haughty as itself. ### 3. Development and Diffusion of Mithraism. The first step in the development of Mithraism as an independent religion was the carrying of the cult to Babylon, the winter capital of the empire. It there encountered the philosophical theologizing of the Babylonian priests, who identified Mithra with Shamash (see BABYLONIA, VII., 2, § 4), and welded to Mithra's story the mythology in which Babylonia was so rich. In addition to this there was ingrafted the mythology of the zodiac and shreds of Babylonian astrolatry, and this all came to have a large part in the symbolism of Mithraism. Into Armenia the faith was carried, and thence into Asia Minor, where, after the division of the empire of Alexander, Mithra became the favorite deity. It was probably at this period, 250-100 B.C., that the Mithraic system of ritual and doctrine took the form which it afterward retained. Here it came into contact with the mysteries, of which there were many varieties, among which the most notable were those of Cybele. Cumont attributes the development of the mysteries to the habit in Persia of transmitting from father to son the essentials and secrets of ritual. But if this be the origin, there is left unaccounted for the markedly sodalistic or fraternity character of the Mithraic communities. The worshipers in each mithræum were a small body, limited in membership, and the ensemble was much like that of a modern lodge. When it is remembered that the period 300 B.C.-100 A.D. was the one marked by a renascence of that curious feature of savage life, the mysteries, and that Asia Minor was the source from which the movement in the Roman and Greek world emanated, it seems more probable that the new cult took this form under the influences then and there so active, and that in this way the then fluent mass of Mithraic belief and practise took permanent form. The spirit of identification which had helped so in Babylon was employed in the new home. Mithra and Helios were identified, while Anahita, the Persian companion of Mithra, to whom the bull was sacred, was regarded as Artemis Tauropolos. These facile accommodations conciliated the populace, the element of secrecy and the grades or orders of the initiates added to the charm, while the belief that in the mysteries access was granted to the fabled wisdom of the East was one more element in favor of the religion. But the great triumphs of Mithraism were not won east of the religion, even Greece was wholly inhospitable; it was in the Roman world where success was to be gained. The story of the transition thither is almost that of romance. Among the people of Asia Minor the Cilicians were possibly the most devoted Mithraists. In their ambition they presumed to dispute with the Romans the control of the seas, and this brought upon them the force of Roman arms and the consequent conquest by the Romans of the "Cilician pirates" Among the immediate results of this was the initiation of Roman soldiers into the mysteries--it must not be forgotten that the cult of Mithra appealed especially to the soldier, and one of the ranks in the mysteries was that of *miles* or "soldier." To this was due the introduction of the mysteries into the army, and the army was the principal of three methods by which Mithraism passed into the Roman world. The successive wars of the Romans in the East brought the Roman soldiers into ever renewed touch with this cult, and the first Christian century was the period of the energetic propaganda, though as early as 70 B.C. Mithraism was known to the Roman world. It must not be forgotten also, in accounting for the spread of the religion, that orientals formed very largely the personnel of the Roman army; and as these forces were drafted to distant posts in Africa and Europe, even as far west as Scotland, the ardent faith of the initiates in the ranks and among the officers made each post the center of a new propaganda. The Roman roads and waterways were dotted with Mithraic sanctuaries, a fact attested by inscriptions and votive offerings *Soli invido Mithræ, *"to the sun, invincible Mithra," bearing the names of officers and soldiers. These are, as a rule, where they would be expected--on the outskirts of the empire, along the frontier. But the existence of mithræums in the great cities and centers of trade, Alexandria, Syracuse, Carthage, and Rome, point to a different agency for the propaganda; to these places the Syrian merchants brought their wares and their religion. Also in the rural districts the cult of Mithra flourished, and this points to a third agency. Rome in its wars captured slaves by the thousands, who were distributed to the hamlets and the mines. So thus post and city and village and mountain valley hymned their praises to Mithra. Moreover, the votaries entered the civil service of Rome, and in their transfers carried their faith with them and as devoted missionaries established new centers. In the first Christian century there were at Rome associations of the followers of Mithra, probably organized as burial associations, in accordance with a common device of that period employed to acquire a legal status. The growth and importance of the cult in the second century are marked by the literary notices; Celsus opposed it to Christianity, Lucian made it the object of his wit. Nero desired to be initiated; Commodus (180-192) was received into the brotherhood; in the third century the emperors had a Mithraic chaplain; Aurelian (270-275) made the cult official; Diocletian, with Galerius and Licinius, in 307 dedicated a temple to Mithra; and Julian was a devotee. Indeed, the un-Roman cult of the worship of the emperors is a direct reflection of the oriental cults in which the sun was the attendant and patron of the ruler. ### 4. Mythology and Theology The four elements, fire, water, earth, and air--the first and third typified by the lion and the serpent--were deified and worshiped. So, too, the sun, moon and planets were objects of regard. Babylonian influence wove into Mithraism its theories of the control by each of the planets of one day in the week, and with each a metal was associated, while the signs of the zodiac, which take creation under their influence, marked the devotions of the months in their turn. In the background as the primal cause which created and governed all things was Kronos, Unending Time, figured as a lion-headed human figure with four wings, sexless and passionless, his legs and body in the embrace (sometimes sixfold) of a serpent (representing the motion of the sun in the ecliptic), the head of which rested on his head. The figure carried a key, a scepter, and a torch, while the insignia of other deities (the thunderbolt of Zeus, the hammer and tongs of Hephæstus, the cock and cone of Æsculapius) were arranged about it to indicate that Kronos embodied the qualities of all the gods. He was fate, destiny, supreme cause, the ultimate creator. The dualism inherent in the parent religion continued its theoretic influence, leading to constant need for interposition by the savior, the part assumed by Mithra, who was called *mesites*, "mediator," first because he inhabited the air, midway between heaven and earth, on account of which the sixteenth of each month was sacred to him; and, second, because he was middleman between the ineffable, unknowable, and unapproachable god and the race of men. In many of the monuments of Mithraism appear two torch-bearers, interpreted as the double incarnation of Mithra, with himself forming a triad or triple Mithra. One of these, with torch erect, symbolized the growing sun and life; Mithra himself, in the center, was the sun at noon and the vigor of life; the other torch-bearer, with torch inverted, was the declining sun and death. Mithra himself is pictured in the mythology as born of the rock, and the sculptured representation of this event, common in the mithræums, showed him issuing from the living rock with knife and torch in his hands. It was then his task to demonstrate his invincible strength, and his first trial was against the sun, whom he vanquished, then crowned with the rayed crown and made his faithful ally. His next labor was with the bull, and this became the central point in the Mithraic myth, the portrayal of which furnished the set piece in Mithraic art which corresponds to the cross or the crucifix in Christian art. The bull was the first creature made by Ormuzd. It was caught and mastered after a severe struggle, and dragged by Mithra to his cave, whence it escaped. But Mithra was commanded to pursue and sacrifice it, which the pitying god reluctantly did; then from its body sprang all useful herbs, from its spinal marrow wheat, from its blood the grape which furnished the wine used in the mysteries, and from the seminal fluid all useful animals, while its soul became Silvanus, guardian of herds, also a great figure in the mysteries. Thus the death of the bull was the birth of life, and for this reason took its high place in the ceremonial and art of the Mithraic cultus. Meanwhile the first pair had been created and were put under the protection of Mithra. This was necessary because Ahriman was assailing humanity; drought, flood, conflagration, pestilence, and other dangers were met and conquered by Mithra, and then his labors were ended, the conclusion of which was celebrated by a last supper, after which he retired to heaven, whence he still protects his worshipers. ### 5. Anthropology, Eschatology But the battle between Ormuzd and Ahriman continues, so far as humanity is concerned. Life is a warfare, and to win, the faithful must ever obey the commands of Ormuzd. What the explicit commands were is not known, but that the Persian ethics persisted is clear. Purity was the end set before man, sensuality was to be avoided; lustrations and ablutions were therefore frequent. Philosophic speculation was at a minimum, practical effort at a premium. In this contest Mithra ever helps the devout, ever conquers the powers of darkness, and on this account he bears the Persian epithet *nabarze*, Gk. *aniketos*, Lat. *invictus*, "victorious." The psychology of man is as follows: An infinite multitude of souls preexisted in the ethereal heavens, and these descend to inhabit the bodies of men. As they descend, they pass through the realms governed by the planets and receive from them certain qualities, the proportion of which determines the character of the man. Thus from Saturn was received the determining dispositions, from Jupiter ambition, from Venue sensual appetite, from Mercury other desires, from Mars combativeness, from the moon vital energy, and from the sun intellectual powers. At death judgment by Mithra decided the soul's fate. If it was to return to heaven, it was enabled by the savior Mithra to satisfy the guardian of the gate to each sphere, where it gave up the qualities received on its descent, and so passed to the eighth sphere to enjoy life with Mithra. It is almost certain that the dogma of the resurrection of the flesh was a later addition to the eschatology. The final consummation will be the destruction of the world, a wonderful bull like the pristine bull will appear, Mithra will descend, waken all men to life, separate the good and the bad, will sacrifice the bull and give the fat mixed with wine to the good and thus immortalize them, while a fire will consume the wicked, including Ahriman and his demons. That the doctrine always remained pure is of course unlikely. The syncretism has been sufficiently indicated, and it is not unlikely that each district had its own coloring--in Rome Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva were spoken of in the religion, while in Celtic regions Celtic deities appear in the Mithraic crypts. But while syncretism existed, Persian conceptions were the guiding principles. ### 6. The Mysteries. The Mithraic liturgy is probably wholly lost, the *Mithraic Ritual* (London, 1907) issued by G. R. S. Mead being almost certainly Gnostic and not Mithraic. Indications are clear that at least part of the ritual was in Persian. There were seven degrees of initiation, in which the mystic assumed the names successively of raven, griffin, soldier, lion, Persian, courier of the sun, and father; on certain occasions a garb suggesting the name was put on and the actions of the bird or animal were simulated, in this way recalling the mimetic action common in the other mysteries of the period. The original number of degrees was probably only two--raven and lion, the subsequent increase being due to development in doctrine, perhaps to a desire to increase the awe and mystery, and also to the sacredness of the number seven. The first three degrees were preparatory only, and did not admit to the mysteries proper. The real initiation was called *sacramentum*, possibly from the oath not to divulge the doctrine and rites of which the initiate gained knowledge. The various steps were accompanied by ablutions and aspersions, signifying the purging away of sins. It would seem that on attaining the rank of soldier, the candidate was branded with a hot iron. In the grade of lion, typical of fire, water, the enemy of fire, was not used, and purification was with honey. Those who had passed the grade of lion were called participants, because to them was administered a sacrament of bread and water or wine commemorative of Mithra's banquet after he had finished his labors. Participation in this was supposed to impart immortality. Before partaking, the initiate underwent severe trials, physical and mental, endured prolonged fasting, and had part in dramatic representations which approached the terrible. Above these seven grad was a priesthood (*sacerdos*, *artistes*) which had charge of the ritual, conducted the threefold daily worship at morning, noon, and evening (toward the east, south, and west respectively), also the worship of the planet which governed each day, and replenished the ever-burning sacred fire. The sixteenth day of each month was a Mithraic festival, and Dec. 25 was probably a great feast. Initiations were probably at the vernal equinox. The sodalities were twofold, spiritual brotherhoods and legal associations. In the latter capacity they elected officials not spiritual in function, who conducted the secular and property affairs. The expenses were met by voluntary contributions, and the conduct of modern church life was anticipated in practically every respect in these directions. The progress of a mithræum and its community from indigence to affluence is sometimes clearly marked in the change from a rude chapel to a costly temple. The communities of each temple must have been small, possibly not largely exceeding one hundred. Thus the conception of brotherhood was fostered, as also an intensity of loyalty which well accounts for the tenacity of the cult. Conditions inside, where all met on the ground of equality, furnished a strong contrast with the social conditions in the empire, where extremes so great were furnished between the masses and the class. Yet women were not admitted; Cumont affirms that not a single inscription occurs out of the hundreds known which implies a female initiate or even one who made a gift. This deficiency may have been supplied by the quasi alliance with the cult of the Mater Magna, who in the West took the place of Anahita in the East; and under still other influences there was introduced the blood bath in which a bull was slain over a lattice and the blood was allowed to flow upon a person beneath. This was connected with the Mazdian belief, and was thought to effect the renewal of life to the soul. ### 7. Art and Architecture The Mithraism of the barbaric world no doubt celebrated its mysteries in caves, and this memory was preserved in the fact that the mithræum continued to be an underground structure, in a crypt so fitted up as to be susceptible of an illumination throwing into strong relief the cultic objects. The central representation was the tauroctonous Mithra. The torch-bearers might guard the approach, the lion of Mithra was there, two altars, the lion-headed Kronos, the zodiacal signs, the symbols of the different grades--all these were the adornments of the mithræum, while the illumination was probably so arranged as to impress the neophyte during the initiation. Along the sides, at least in some cases, were the benches at which the assistants knelt and prayed. In general, there is reason to suppose that as great differences existed between the Mithraic temples as between Christian churches, due to the resources, taste, and ambition of the communities which they served. The art of Mithraism is original neither in motif nor execution. The central figure of the tauroctonous Mithra goes back to a group by a sculptor of the school of Pergamon made in imitation of the sacrificing Victory of the temple of Athena Nike, while the dying Alexander furnished the type of the Mithra of this group. In general, the figures used in the West were derived from the current types of GrecoRoman art; Kronos, however, in the main kept his Asiatic form, the ugly leontocephalous figure entwined with the serpent, though at least one example exists where the head and face are rendered human with a cold calm countenance, while, the lion's head is placed as a sort of medallion on the breast. In most cases the objects have little artistic value; by far the greater number of Mithraic objects known are either votive offerings--crude and formless--or such as were made to serve in the humble homes of the devotees in the same way as crucifixes now serve to fix at home the attention of devout Roman Catholics. But the Phrygian cap and robes bear witness still to the eastern origin and Asiatic content of the teaching. Cumont claims that Mithraic art influenced strongly Christian art, that Mithra shooting at the rock became Moses smiting the rock; the sun raising Mithra from the ocean became the ascension of Elijah in the chariot of fire; the tauroctonous Mithra became Samson rending the lion; while the figures of heaven, earth, ocean, sun, moon, planets, the zodiacal signs, the winds, the seasons, and the like, found on Christian sarcophagi and in mosaics and miniatures are claimed by Cumont as adaptations of Mithraic models.. ### 8. The Decay. The decay of Mithraism was begun by the attack of the barbarians on the Roman empire, and naturally fell first where Mithraism was strongest, on the outposts. Diocletian favored the religion because it opposed Christianity. Under Constantine imperial favor was withdrawn, and Christianity demanded the repression of the cult. A Roman panegyric of the year 362 says that under Constantius no one dared to look at the rising or setting sun, and that farmers and sailors were afraid to observe the stars, and this very vividly suggests not only active persecution of the Mithraic religion, but also implies that those objects were regarded with worship in the way which the cultic objects suggests. Julian's short reign was a time of favor to this cult, for that prince regarded himself as under the favor of Mithra and introduced the practise of the worship at Constantinople. When George, patriarch of Alexandria, was slain by a mob roused to fury by his attempt to build a church on the site of a ruined mithræum, the emperor addressed a comparatively mild remonstrance to the city. After Julian's death, the attack of Christianity was definite and furious. But the contest was no local nor easy matter. Mithraism had its temples from India to Scotland, its devotees in families of senatorial rank, among the merchants, in the ranks of laborers and slaves, and especially in the military camps, and these devotees were inspired with sincerity in worship, and were governed to no small degree by a real nobility of teaching, and uplifted by the hope of immortality which was a fundamental tenet of the cult. At times the persecution was bloody, and the remains prove that the priests were sometimes slain and their corpses were buried in the mithræums in order to desecrate the site. A feeble period of revival took place under Eugenius, but Theodosius ended the prospects of the cult. GEO. W. GILMORE. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The one book on the subject, gathering up what little is known both from patriotic and classical authors and from art objects and excavations, is F. Cumont, *Textes et monuments figurés relatifs aux mystères de Mithra*, Brussels, 2 vols., 1896-99. The conclusions and part of the discussion are available for readers of English in the *Open Court*, xvi (1902), passim. cf. xvii (1903), and in F. Cumont, *The Mysteries of Mithra*, Chicago, 1903. Consult further: E. Renan, *Marc-Aurèle*, pp. 579-580, Paris, 1882, Eng. transl., p. 332, London, n.d.; W. H. Roscher, *Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie*, ii. 3028 sqq., Leipsic, 1896; S. Dill, *Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire*, London, 1898; idem, *Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius*, ib. 1904; M. Bossuet, in *Archiv für Religionswissenschaft*, iv (1901). 160 sqq.; J. von Grill, *Die persische Mysterienreligion im romischen Reiche und das Christentum*, Tübingen, 1903; J. G. Fraser, *Adonis, Attis, Osiris*, pp. 195 sqq., London, 1906; G. R. S. Mead, *The Mysteries of Mithra*, London, 1907; F. Passauer, *Die Saalburg und der Mithraskult*, Frankfort, 1907. Magazine literature of some importance is indicated in Richardson, *Encyclopaedia*, p. 738.
MITER Miter

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**MITER.** See VESTMENTS AND INSIGNIA, ECCLESIASTICAL.
MIXED MARRIAGES Mixed Marriages

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**MIXED MARRIAGES.** See MARRIAGE
MOAB Moab

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**MOAB.** Geography and Topography (§ 1). Cities (§ 2). History Prior to 586 B.C. (§ 3). History after 586 B.C. (§ 4). Products, Culture, and Religion (§ 5). Relations between Moab and Israel (§ 6). ### 1. Geography and Topography Moab is the name of a people dwelling east of the Dead Sea and of the land which they inhabited, in Greek times called Moabitis. The modern Arabic name of the land north of Wadi Mojib is el-Belka, of the part south of that wadi, Kerak. The western boundary is the Dead Sea, the eastern is the desert; on the south Wadi el-Hasa separates it from Edom. The northern boundary changed with the history of the people, but the Wadi Hesban is probably the extreme northern limit. Moab is a high plateau, which continues eastward into the desert with little change of altitude. The western boundary is an abrupt line of cliffs, with a somewhat broad shore at their foot in the south which grows narrower toward the north until the cliffs rise directly from the water. At the mouths of the Wadi bani Hammed and Wadi Kerak a tongue-shaped sandy peninsula stretches out into the Dead Sea and bears the name *al Lisan*, "the Tongue." The geological formation of the region is at the base Nubian sandstone, covered with hard limestone on which rests a softer limestone. In various places there are outcroppings of basalt which has broken through the limestone, often accompanied with hot springs. The altitude of the plain is 2,500-3,800 feet. The region presents evidences of having been the seat of great convulsions which have made deep rents in its surface. Especially important are the three great wadis, generally beginning in slight depressions in the eastern part of the land, but rapidly sinking into deep but narrow chasms debouching into the Dead Sea. These are: (1) the Wadi Kerak on the south (the Zared of Num. xxi. 12, the Zered of Deut. ii. 13), called the Wadi Ain Franji in its upper course. (2) The Wadi al-Mojib (the Arnon of the Old Testament), formed by the union of several tributaries (cf. "the brooks of the Amon," Num. xxi. 14), the chief of which, Rash Mojib, rises not far from Kerak and in its northerly course becomes the Wadi Lejjun, later uniting with the Wadi al-Sultan, Wadi Balna, Wadi Saida, and finally with the Wadi Heidan. The third great valley is Wadi Zerka Ma'in, known in the time of Josephus as the Kallirrhoe. An hour from its mouth is the celebrated hot sulphur spring visited by Herod the Great. Besides the three great wadis, a number of smaller ones issue from the western portion of the plain. The northeastern part of the region forms a rolling plain called in the Hebrew *mishor* (Deut. iii. 10, iv. 43). Southwest from Hesban rises a range of hills, the western sides of which form the abrupt drop to the coast beneath, the extreme projection being Rash Siyaja. To the east is a hill still called Neba, and the Nebo of Deut. xxxiv. 1 should be sought either in this or in Rash Siyaja, both of which afford an extensive view to the west and north. Pisgah (Num. xxi. 20), a name in use as late as the time of Eusebius, seems to mean a definite region in the northwestern part of Moab. Peor (Num. xxiii. 28) was not far distant, possibly the present al-Mushakkar. The fortress Machaerus is recalled by the hill Mkaur, the "mount of the valley" of Josh. xiii. 19. Kerak is a fortress on a mountain lying entirely within Wadi Kerak. The plateau is almost treeless, yet the soil is rich and suitable for pasturage or agriculture, especially the region south of Kerak, and many springs are found. A semi-tropical vegetation clothes the wadis as they approach the sea. The sheep is the animal most kept by the present as by the early inhabitants. Wild animals are the bear, wolf, and rock badger, on the steppe the gazelle and ostrich, while of rodents the rat is especially abundant. The streams abound in fish. The range of temperature is great, the summer heat being excessive and the winter being cold. The Old Testament and the Moabite Stone (q.v.) mention a great number of Moabitic cities. Many ruins are to be seen, but the most of them point to Roman occupation. Beth-jeshimoth (Ezek, xxv. 9) is located at Suweme; neither Beth-peor nor Sibma (Isa. xvi. 8) have been identified; Elealeh is located at El-'al, east of upper Wadi Hesban; to the south of this is Heshbon (Isa. xv. 4), which still retains its name Hesban; if Neba is the Biblical Nebo, the city of that name must be sought in one of the numerous masses of ruins discovered there; southeast from Neba are the ruins of Madeba, the Medeba (q.v.) of Isa. xv. 2, where ruins of several churches exist and an inscription of the year 362 was found; southwest of this the name Ma'in recalls the Baalmeon of Ezek. xxv. 9, and of the Moabite Stone. Between Wadi Zerka Ma'in and Wadi Wa'le are ruins on Mt. Attarus which mark the site of the old 'Ataroth of the Moabite Stone; Kureyat, to the south, locates the Kiriathaim of Gen. xiv. 5 (R. V. margin); to the west is a tower with a cistern which marks the celebrated fortress of Machairus, near which must be sought Zereth-shahar (Josh. xiii. 19). Between Wadi Wa'le and Wadi al-Mojib is Dhiban, where the Moabite Stone was found; the excavation of this site is very desirable, since it indicates the Biblical Dibon (Jer. xlviii. 18); to the north al-Jumeil is provisionally identified with Beth-gamul of Jer. xlviii. 23); Ara'ir, on the north side of Wadi el-Mojib, suggests the Aroer of Jer. xlviii. 19. Along the main road from the Arnon are the important ruins of Rabbath Moab, named by Eusebius. Kir-hareseth (Isa. xvi. 7) is probably to be sought in Kerak (compare, however, the "Kir of Moab" of Isa. xv. 1). Eastward from Rabba there are many ruins dating from the Roman period. Southeast from the Dead Sea is to be sought Zoar (Isa. xv. 5). Many other places are named in the Old Testament and on the Moabite Stone the locations of which are not yet found. The many dolmens and cromlechs point back to a very early period in the history of the land, but no certain knowledge exists of the early population. The Old Testament speaks of the Emim as early inhabitants (Gem. xiv. 5) whom the Moabites superseded. Gen. xiv. 30 sqq. preserves a tradition which represents historical fact, namely, the close relationship of both Moabitea and Ammonites to the Hebrews, though the history of the wandering in the desert implies that the Moabites were already settled when the Hebrews came upon them, but had lost the territory north of the Amon to the Amorites, who had established there a rich kingdom. The Hebrews were at first regarded as friends by the Moabites, but after the former had retained the district conquered from the Ammonites, this sentiment changed. Of the settlement of Gadites and Reubenites in the region two accounts exist, not entirely concordant (Num. xxxii. 34-36; Josh. xiii. 15). Various accounts in the history of Israel, such as the episode of Ehud (Judges iii.), of Jephtha (Judges xi.), and of Saul (I Sam. xiv. 47), imply vigorous contests between the two peoples, though the details are obscure. David's war against Moab (II Sam. viii. 2) is historical, though Moab had been a refuge for his family in his time of distress (I Sam. xxii. 3-4). The Book of Ruth can hardly be regarded as a basis for historical conclusions, especially since the passage in Samuel says nothing of relationship with the Moabites. Moab was not made a province of David's kingdom, but tribute was required. Moab's subjection to Israel ceased either under Solomon or under his successor until the time of *ten, Frankfort, 1849; A. Kuenen, in ThT, ii (1868), 551 * *598; idem, De Godedienet roan Israel, chap. iv., Eng. tranal., * *Religion * of *Israel, i. 249-252, London, 1873; H. Oort, *in *Waarheid in Liefde, 1868. pp. 1-31, 81-108, 161-173; * W. von Baudissin, Jahve *et Moloch, Leipsic, 1874; E. * *Nestle, Die israelitischen Eigennamen, pp. 174-182, Jerusalem, 1876; P. 8eholtz, Götzendienst und Zauberwesen bei * *den alten Hebrdern, pp 182-217, Regensburg, 1877; C. P. * *Tiele, Hist. comparée des anciennes religions de l’Égypte * *et des peuples s6mitiques, 281 sqq., 311 sqq., 435 *sqq., *Paris, 1882; idem, Geschichte der Religion in Altertum, * *i. 240-244, 343-344, 349-352, Gotha, 1896; . Hoffman: * *ZATW, iii (1883), 124; idem, in GGA, aarcvi (1890), 25; * B. D. *Eerdmans, Melekdienst en verserinp van hemellicha * *men in Israel's assyrische Periode, Leyden, 1891; G. *B. *Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names, pp. 115-120, 138, * *148, London, 1896; A. Kamphausen, Das Verhältnis des * *, , iii. 3183 * *G. F. Moore, in JBL3191; M. J. Lagrange, Études sur *les *religions sémitiques, pp. 99, 109, Paris, 1903; Schrader, KAT, pp 469-472; Smith, Hist. *of* Sam., pp. 372 sqq.; DB, iii. 415-417; JE, 653-664; Vigouroux, Dictionnaire, fasc. xxvii., cols. 12241230.* MOLOKANI. See *Russ1A, * III., § 6.
MOLTHER, MENRAD Molther, Menrad

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

MOLTHER, mel'tiAr, MENRAD: Humanist and Reformer; b. at Augsburg in 1500; d. at Heilbronn Apr. 8, 1558. He received his first education in the school of Johann Pinicianus; went to Heidelberg in 1526, where he became a tutor for young noblemen, and also edited several works, some of which had been recently recovered, e.g., those of Alcuin, Avitus, Christian Drutmar, and Willimar Ebersbergiensis; he directed the Realistenburse, 1532; was called as preacher to Heilbronn to assist Johann Lachmann (q.v.) 1533, whom he succeeded in 1539; and in 1543 he arranged the church rules according to the pattern of Hall. Because of the threatening presence of the imperial troops, he advised, in 1548, the acceptance of the Interim (q.v.); but he continued to preach in a strictly Evangelical and anti-Roman spirit, without, however, being able to persuade the council to abolish the mass. His successor was Jacob Ratz (q.v.). G. BOSSERT. BIBLIOGRAPHY: *G. Bossert, in Blätter für württembergische * *Kirchengeschichte, 1887, pp. 57-61. *
MOODY Moody

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**MOODY, DWIGHT LYMAN (RYTHER):** Evangelist; b. at Northfield, Mass., Feb. 5, 1837; d. there Dec. 22, 1899. He was the sixth of the nine children of Edwin and Betsy Moody (nee Bolton). His father, who was a mason, died in 1841 (aged 41) and the family was in very straitened circumstances for years. His mother died in 1895, aged ninety. Moody received his first religious impressions in the village Unitarian church and his first missionary work was in getting pupils for its Sunday-school, which he attended. His schooling was carried only as far as the district school could take him, and while a young boy he had to earn his living. In 1854 he resolved to try his fortunes in Boston, and there was hired by his uncle, Samuel Holton, as a clerk in his boot and shoe store. One of the conditions of his engagement was that he should regularly attend his uncle's church, the Mount Vernon (Orthodox) Congregational Church, and also its Sunday-school. This promise he faithfully kept and was so much impressed by the truths he heard taught that in 1855 he applied for admission into the church. But his examination was not considered satisfactory and his application was held over for a year when he was thought to have made sufficient attainments in theology for church membership. In Sept., 1856, he went to Chicago and quickly found a more lucrative position than his uncle could offer him, and made a reputation as a salesman and traveler in the shoe trade. He also accumulated $7,000 toward the $100,000 upon which he had set his heart. But while diligent in his business and uncommonly successful he became absorbed more and more in religious work. His energies were first spent upon the Sunday-school as teacher, as gatherer-in of new pupils, and most unpromising ones, who under his instruction improved marvelously, and then as superintendent of the North Market Hall Sunday-school which he built up until it had a membership of 1,500 and out of it in 1863 the Illinois Street Church was formed. He thus was well known in the state as a Sunday-school worker. From the time of his coming to Chicago he had entered heartily into the work of the Young Men's Christian Association, and he raised a large part of the money for its building, not once but twice, for the first was burned in 1867, and the second in 1871. In 1861 he gave up business and was an independent city missionary, then agent of the Christian Commission in the Civil War, and after that again in Sunday school work and the secretary of the Chicago Young Men's Christian Association. But as yet he had done nothing to give him international fame. In 1867 he made a visit to Great Britain on account of his wife's health-he had married in 1862. He made some valuable acquaintances and did a little evangelistic work. One of his converts was John Kenneth Mackenzie (q.v.). In 1872 he was again in Great Britain, held numerous meetings and won the esteem of prominent Evangelicals. From these he received an invitation to return for general revival work. He came the next year, bringing with him Ira David Sankey (q.v.), who was henceforth to be linked with him in fame as a revivalist. They landed at Liverpool on June 17, 1873, and held their first services in York. Moody's downright preaching and Sankey's simple but soul stirring singing won attention, and as they passed from city to city they were heard by great crowds. They spent two years in this arduous labor, and then returned to America. Their fame was now in all the churches and invitations poured in upon them to do at home what they had done abroad, so they repeated these services and duplicated their successes, and that in all parts of the country. In 1881 and again in 1891 and 1892 they were in the United Kingdom. One of their most loyal supporters was Henry Drummond, who owed to them the quickening of his religious life in 1874. In 1892 Moody by invitation of friends made a brief visit to the Holy Land. It was on his return to London that autumn that he first knew of the heart difficulty which ultimately caused his death. It may have been this knowledge that induced him during his remaining years to seek rather to deepen the spiritual life of professing Christians through church services of the ordinary quiet type, than to address the enormous miscellaneous crowds in all kinds of buildings as he did in earlier days. It was while holding services in Kansas City, Mo., on Nov. 16, 1899, that he broke down, and, although he was able to reach home, he was fatally stricken and soon after died. Moody had " consecrated common sense." He was honest, preached a Calvinistic creed which he accepted with all his heart, and was master of an effective style. His sermons and shorter addresses abound in personal allusions, in shrewd remarks and home thrusts. He had a hatred of shams and scant respect for persons who had only place to recommend them. He was often abrupt, sometimes brusk. He had no polish, small education, but he knew the English Bible and accepted it literally. He was fond of treating Bible characters very familiarly and enlivening his sermons by imaginary conversations with and between them. But that he was truly bent upon promoting the kingdom of God by the ways he thought most helpful there is no doubt. Like other great revivalists he had much praise which was undesirable, but he never lost his head. He also never allowed excitement to carry his audiences off their feet. For sanity, sincerity, spirituality, and success Moody goes into the very first rank of revival preachers. During Moody's and Sankey's mission at Newcastle, England, in 1873, the first form of the familiar hymn-book which bears their name appeared in response to the necessity of having a book which was adapted to their needs. This book was originally little better than a small pamphlet, but it was enlarged and has taken on various shapes and had varied contents while preserving its main features. The sale of the book in its different forms has been enormous. Up to 1900 more than a million and a quarter of dollars had been paid its compilers in royalties. Of his share in this money Moody made noble use, and thus opened a chapter in his life which is less known to the public, but will have more permanent interest than his preaching. For with it he founded, or helped to found, the chain of educational institutions which does not bear his name but which is his greatest monument. The first was the Northfield Seminary for Young Women, erected and carried on in his native town. It dates from 1879. This is a school which trains girls for college, if they go so far, but in any case gives them good instruction permeated with religion. All the work of the house is done by the students. In 1881 Mount Hermon School for Young Men was started. The two schools are only a few miles apart. The students are taken at very low rates, combine manual training with the usual school courses, and are under strong religious influences. The Bible Institute for Home and Foreign Missions in Chicago, open to both sexes, is another of the educational aids which owe their origin to him. The Students' Conferences and the Northfield Christian Workers' Conference, both of which meet annually at Northfield, were inaugurated by him. They have exerted a great influence, and of a very sane and thoughtful type. In church connection Moody belonged to the independent Chicago Avenue Church. In his activities he belonged to the Church universal. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The principal biography is by his son W. R. Moody, New York, 1900. Others are by H. Drummond, New York, 1900; J. S. Ogilvie, ib. 1900; and A. W. Williams, Philadelphia, 1900. Phases of Moody's life and work are treated in: T. S. J., D. L. *Moody at Home,* New York, 1886; H. M. Wharton, A *Month with Moody in Chicago, * Baltimore, 1894; H. B. Hartsler, *Moody in Chicago, *New York, 1894.
MOON Moon

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

### **MOON, HEBREW CONCEPTIONS OF THE.** Names; Relation to Time (§ 1). Conception of the Moon and its Functions (§ 2). Worship of the Moon (§ 3). The New Moon (§ 4). The usual Hebrew name for the moon *(yareah;* cf. Assyr. irihu, *arhw, " month * "; Ethiopic *wareh; * Palmyrene *yrh) is * evidently to be connected with a root *yarah * or *wdrah, * cognate with *'arah, " to * wander," cf. Assyr. ur(tu, " road," connoting the moon's motion among the stars. ### **1. Names; Relation to Time.** With this Semitic root meaning is to be contrasted the Aryan idea of the moon as " the measurer (of time)." While the moon did not among the Semites receive its name from its function as a marker of time periods, the regularity of its phases made its use general as a fixer of times and periods, as with other peoples, and with this were connoted other related conceptions. Thus in Egypt the moon-god Thoth was god of measures, then of knowledge and wisdom in general (with which cf. the Assyrian Sin, explained as *zu-en, " knowledge-lord," * and the Greek ideas associated with Hermes). The Manda'ans (q.v.), who derived a large part of their system from Babylonian sources, made the demiurge. Ptahil say: " I gave the moon as time-measurer for the world " (A. J. H. W. Brandt, *Die mandäische Religion, p. 61, * Leipsic, 1889). Similarly among the Hebrews the idea of the moon as a divider of time was predominant, and its measuring-function is strikingly expressed in Ps. civ. 19: " He appointed the moon for seasons." The Hebrews and Phenicians called the new moon *hodesh, * " new," the former called the new moon *kese' *(cf. Assyr. *kuae'u,* " cap," connected with the idea that the moon-god wore a cap when the moon was full). A Hebrew poetic name for the moon is *lebhenah, " white * "; and in Gen. i. the terminology used is " the lesser light." The Assyrians and Babylonians called the moon-god Sin (see above; from him the Sinaitic peninsula drew its name), while other names in the Semitic region were Aku (Elamitic'), Nannar, Aa (consort of Shamash; also frequently rendered " queen "), and the Phenician Ashtaroth-Karnaim. The importance of the moon to the Hebrews is seen when it is noted how fundamental a division of time the month was for them. The date of the new moon as marking the beginning of a new reckoning of time was by them not calculated but observed. The length of a month, twenty-nine or thirty days, depended, therefore, upon the day when the moon was first seen, except that in cloudy weather the thirtieth day was reckoned to the preceding month. That this basis of reckoning determined the custom of counting the day, not from morning till morning or midnight to midnight, but from evening to evening can not be proved; but it may be confidently assumed, since in general peoples who have only lunar months use this method of defining the day. It is equally difficult to be assured that the week was derived from the month by division of the latter into four parts (see WEEK). There is general agreement that the seven-day period was derived from Babylonia, where it was employed in pre-Semitic times-this is confirmed by the fact that not only were the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days of the month observed, but that the nineteenth was also a special day, the reason being apparently that thirty plus nineteen are forty-nine, this number making up a week of weeks. The union of the planetary bodies with the names of the days of the week seems to have been a very late phase, probably not completed till the Greek period. While the sacred seasons of the Hebrews were fixed by reference to lunar reckoning, there is a suggestion of solar reference in the Old Testament. It may be mere coincidence that Gen. viii. 14, cf. vii. 11, apparently makes the length of the flood a year and eleven days, i.e., a lunar year of 354 days plus eleven, or 365 days. The circumstances of husbandry necessitated regard for the solar year, but the adjustment of the solar and the lunar periods by intercalation was probably not made in the Hebrew region till after Old-Testament times (see TIME, BIBLICAL RECKONING OF). There are a number of indications that the pre-Canaanitic relations of the Hebrews with the moon-cult were close. Abraham is traced back to Haran (q.v.) and Ur (see BABYLONIA, IV., § 3 ), two noted centers of moon-worship. Moreover, in the Abrahamic family names and genealogies the moon has left its mark. ### **2. Conception of the Moon and Its Functions.** Thus with Terah may be compared Assyr. *tarahu* "gazelle" (sacred to Ishtar); Nahor is connected with Nannar, the name of a moon-god; Abram recalls *aburammu,* "exalted father," a frequent title of the moon-deity; Sarah ("princess") and Its and Milcah ("queen") are titles of Functions. the moon-goddess; Laban is to be connected with "*kbanu,*" the white one," cf. *lebhenah * above; while Lamech may be brought into relations with Assyr. *Lamgu, * a name of Sin. Yet with the Hebrews the moon was subordinate and secondary to the sun. Whether this represents the original Semitic conception is uncertain, since it is held, though not demonstrated, that the moon-cult represented an earlier Semitic stage of culture. The age of the worship of Sin is not determined; the Aramean cult at Haran was of great antiquity and persisted into the Roman period. Sahar, the name of a moon-god, is probably to be seen in the Mandaean Sauriel, while the Palmyrene deities Yarhibaal and Aglibaal were moon-deities. The Hebrews were, therefore, in the provenance of the moon-cult, and their conceptions of this body were in general agreement with those of their neighbors. The idea that the moon influenced the earth and its products was practically universal, and this influence was conceived as either malign or benign. This body was thought to be an agent in the production of crops, perhaps through its supposed function as a creator of dew (W. von Baudissin, *Jahve et Moloch, *p. 24, Leipsic, 1874; W. H. Roscher, *Ueber Selene,* pp. 49-99, ib. 1890). The Aryans went further than this and attributed to the moon the growth of animals *(Avesta, *Mah Yast, Mah Nyayis, *SBE*, xxiii. 88-91, 355); the Indo-Iranians connected the moon with the primeval bull, itself a symbol of fertility; Pliny (*Hist.nat.*, ii. 221 associated growth with the moon; Macrobius (" On the Dream of Scipio," I., xi. 7) attributes to the moon power over terrestrial objects for increase or decline; while it is a worldwide superstition that a waging moon brings increase of crops, and occasionally even the power of impregnation is attributed to that body. The Old Testament references to this notion are necessarily scanty, yet beyond question Deut. xxxiii. 14, " the precious things put forth by the moon," is to be brought into relationship with this idea. In the Assyrian hymns the moon is called " the mighty bull, with large horns, perfect form, and flowing beard, bright as crystal " (the bull is also a Semitic symbol of fertility); the supposed beard in seals is probably the effect of a necklace with pendants. On the malign side pestilence was associated with the moon (Ps. exgi. 6), while the Greek notion of the lunar origin of epilepsy (cf. the Greek verb *seleniazesthai*," to be struck with epilepsy," from *selene*, "*moon *") is shown to be held by Jews (Matt. iv. 24, xvii. 15). With this may be connected the name of the Mandaean angel of death, Sauriel, as well as such passages in the Old Testament as Gen. xxxi. 40 and Jer. xxxvi. 30. In theimagery of the Day of Yahweh (q.v.) the moon was to participate with the other heavenly bodies in the cataclysmic phenomena of that time (Isa. xiii. 10; Ezek. xxxii. 7; Joel ii. 10, iii. 4, 15; Matt. xxiv. 29; Acts ii. 20; Rev. vi. 12); also in the repair and glorifying of all nature (Isa. xxx. 26), though in the new era there will be no need for its light, since God is to be the light of his people (Isa. Ix. 19; cf. Rev. xxi. 23, xxii. 5). Yet its stability is one of the images of eternal duration (Ps. lxxii. 5, 7, bcxRix. 37), and it is also a synonym of beauty (Job xxxi. 26; Cant. vi. 9; Ecclus. i.6). ### **3. Worship of the Moon** Worship of the moon appears to have been native with the Semites. Wadd in Arabia, Sin and Nannar in Babylonia, Sahar in Mesopotamia (appearing on Aramaic steles at Merab near Aleppo; cf. C. Clermont-Ganneau, in *Bibliotheque de l'ecole des hautes Etudes,* fasc. 113, pp. 193-195, 211-215, Paris, 1897) are but a few of the examples which might be cited, the moon being representative of both male and female deities. Apart, however, from the suggestions contained in the tracing of Abraham to centers of moon-worship and in the connections of names in the Abrahamic family with names or titles of moon-deities, there is little or nothing in the early history of the Hebrews to connect them with worship of the moon (cf. Smith, *Red. of Sem., *2d ed., p. 135). It was only toward the end of the monarchy, in the period of declension and of eclectic religious practices, that the worship of this body appears among them, when it is registered by the denunciation of the prophets (Jer. viii. 2, xix. 3; Zeph. i. 5), by prohibition through legislation (Dent. iv. 9, xvii.3), by the repressive measures of Josiah (II Kings xxiii. 5), and later by the disavowal of participation in the cult by the righteous sufferer (Job xxxi.26-27). In general the worship of the moon was associated with that of other heavenly bodies, and the method was by prostration, and by kissing of the hands (Job. xxxi. 26-27), the latter a custom mentioned by Pliny (*Hist. nat.*, XXVIII., ii. 25). In Jer. vii. 18, xliv. 17-19, 25, there is mention of the " queen of heaven " in which a distinct cult is evidently distinguished, and its peculiarities in part given, as in the offering by fire of special cakes in the preparation of which men, women, and children united. The prophet in chap. xliv. represents the people as arguing for this worship on the experiential ground that its practice was attended with prosperity and the cessation of it was contemporaneous with disaster. It has been the custom since Jerome to identify this " queen of heaven " with the moon, though from the time of Isaac of Antioch (c. 450) she was also identified with Venus. The concrete deity with whom identification was made, however, was Ishtar, whose most intimate connection was with Venus and not with the moon (see ASHTORETH, § 5); accordingly later scholars are disposed to see in the cult under question the Ishtar-Venus type and to disconnect it from the moon. Perhaps the last word has not been said on the subject. As cults passed from the East to the West, Ishtar was associated with the moon, and this association registered itself in the Greek religion as well as in the Sidonian conception of Astarte as the moon. It is not beside the mark to note that cakes were offered in Athens to Artemis (the moongoddess), a practice which may be the analogue of that noted in Jeremiah. On the other hand, offerings like these were made in Arabia to the sun and to Venus. Other indications of worship in the Hebrew region are seen in Isa. iii. 18, in the ornaments "round like the moon," R. V., "crescents" (Hebr. *saharonim;* cf. the proper name Sahar, for the moon god in the vicinity of Aleppo, mentioned above), which seem to be referred to in Judges viii. 21-26, A. V. margin " ornaments like the moon," R. V." crescents," and are by the commentators associated with worship of the moon. ### **4. The New Moon.** The new-moon festival as an occasion of joyous character seems to belong to the oldest stratum of Hebrew observance. I Sam. xx. 5-6 shows it in connection with clan celebrations, and this implies antiquity. In II Kings iv. 23; Isa. i. 13; Hos. ii.11; and Amos viii. 5 it is placed apparently on an equal footing with the Sabbath, and 4. The New the passage last named involves cessation from work on that day, while it was in popular practce a day of assembling at the sanctuaries with offerings. It is, therefore, a peculiar phenomenon that JE and D are silent regarding the festival, which reappears in Ezekiel and the priestly legislation. Various explanations have been offered for the silence noted. Dillmann (in his commentary on Exodus-Leviticus, p. 635, Leipsic, 1897) supposes that the observance was so common and such a fixture that provision for it was unnecessary; in that case it is difficult to account for other provisions covering matters known to be no less firmly fixed (cf. Ex. xxi.-xxiii.). Benzinger (*EB*, iii. 3402) thinks that the increasing importance of the sabbath " forced the new-moon festival into the background "; if this be true, it is difficult to say what brought it into notice in the later codes, though it is not impossible that popular insistence made its demands felt. Wellhausen *(Prolegomena*, p. 118, Berlin, 1883) makes the ignoring in the JE and D legislation purposive, the intent being to wean the people away from an observance in which the Canaanitic rites were an especial feature. Whatever the reason for this silence, later popularity of the festival is evinced by the fact that the prophets dated their oracles by it (Ezek. xxvi. 1, xxix. 17, xxxi. 1, xxxii. 1; Hag. i. 1), and this further implies actual gatherings of the people at which the prophecies were delivered, while it is known that at this time the people also visited the prophets (II Kings iv. 23). In the newer legislation the day was not one of rest (except the new moon of the seventh month, Lev. xxiii. 24) but of extraordinary sacrifices, surpassing in richness those of the Sabbath. Thus in Ezekiel (xlvi. 4-6) for the new moon there were prescribed a bullock, six lambs, and a ram; for the Sabbath, six lambs and a ram. In Num. xxviii. 9-13 (which prescribes from a national standpoint) for the Sabbath were prescribed two lambs with one-tenth deal of flour for each;, for the new moon, two bullocks with three-tenths deal of flour for each, a ram with two-tenths deal of flour, and seven lambs with one tenth deal for each. To the daily burnt offering there was added a festal offering. For notes of the observance cf. I Chron. xxiii. 31; II Chron. ii. 4, viii. 13, xxxi. 3; Ezra iii. 5; Neh. x. 33, which regard the offerings as fixed and normal. Further, that the new moon was regarded as one of high observance is shown by the directions to blow the trumpets. The new moon of the seventh month has a sabbatical character in that cessation from labor is directed together with assemblage at the sanctuary, and possibly after the exile this took the character of a New Year's festival (Ezra iii. 6; Neh. viii. 1 sqq.). Judith viii. 6 shows the observance still later, while Gal. iv. 10 and Col. ii. 16 indicate that Jewish Christians were inclined to lay stress upon the observance. See FEASTS AND FESTIVALS, I.; SYNAGOGUE, II. GEO. W. GILMORE. BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. L. Ideler, *Handbuch der Chronologie, *Berlin, 1831; D. Chwolsohn, Die *Ssabier, *pp. 399-443, Leipsic, 1856; R. Pietsehmann, *Hermes Triemegistos, *Leipsic, 1875; F. Baethgen, *Beitrage zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte*, Berlin, 1887; A. Kuenen, *De Godsdiewt van Israel,* Haarlem, 1889, Eng. transl., *The Religion of Israel, *London, 1897; P. de Lagarde, in *GGA*, xxxv (1889), 46; P. Jensen, *Die Koemologie der Babylonier*, pp. 101-108, Strasburg, 1890; W. H. Roseher, *Ueber Selene and Verwandtes, *Leipsic, 1890; E. Sachau, in *Sitzungaberichte der Berliner Akademie, *1895, pp. 119-122; F. X. Kugler, *Die babylonische Mondrechnung, *Freiburg, 1900; E. Maass, *Die Tagesgotter in Ram and den Provinzen, *Berlin, 1902; W. St. C. Boscawen, *First of Empires*, pp. 31, 80-81, 306, London, 1906; J. G. Frazer, *Adonis, Attis, Osiris*, pp. 295 sqq., London, 1906 (for ethnic notions regarding the moon); Schrader, *KAT*, pp. 361-367; Benzinger, *Archaeology, *passim; Nowack, *Archaeology, ii. *138-144; *DB, *iii. 433-435, 521-523; *EB*, iii. 3192-97, 3401-04; *JE* viii. 678-679, ix. 243-244. **MOORE, CLEMENT CLARKE:** Protestant Episcopal; b. in New York July 15, 1779; d. in Newport, R. I., July 10, 1863. He was graduated from Columbia College, 1798; though prepared for the ministry he never took orders, but devoted himself to literature; and from 1821 to 1850 he was professor, first of Hebrew and Greek, then of Oriental and Greek literature, in the General Theological Seminary, New York. The ground on which the seminary now stands was his gift. He was the pioneer in America of Hebrew lexicography, for his *Hebrew and Greek Lexicon* (2 vols., New York, 1809) was the first Hebrew lexicon published in the United States. He wrote also: Poems (1844);*George Castriot, Surnamed Scanderbeg, King of Albania * (1850); and the favorite *A Visit from St.Nicholas * (1848; a story for children in verse), beginning "'Twas the night before Christmas." **MOORE, DUNLOP:** Presbyterian; b. at Lurgan (19 m. s.w. of Belfast), County Armagh, Ireland, July 25, 1830; d. at Pittsburg, Pa., Nov. 14, 1905. He was educated at Edinburgh and Belfast, being graduated in 1854. He was next a missionary of the Irish Presbyterian Church in Gujarat, India (1855-67), and to the Viennese Jews (1869-1874). From 1875 to 1891 he was pastor of the Presbyterian church at New Brighton, Pa., but after the latter year was without charge, engaged in evangelistic and literary work. After a year at Lansdowne, Pa., he made his home in Pittsburg. While in India be aided in preparing the Gujarati translation of the Bible and wrote treatises on Jainism and Mohammedanism in the same language. He likewise edited the Gujarati monthly *Jnanadipaka* and besides a number of contributions to the periodical press, collaborated with S. T. Lowrie in translating C. W. E. Nagelsbach's *Isaiah *for the American Lange series (New York, 1878). **MOORE, EDWARD: ** Church of England; b. at Cardiff, Wales, Feb. 28, 1835. He was educated at Pembroke College, Cambridge (B.A., 1867), and was ordered deacon in 1859 and ordained priest two years later. From 1858 to 1864 he was fellow and tutor of Queen's College, Oxford, and since the latter year has been principal of St. Edmund Hall, Oxford. He has been honorary fellow of Pembroke College since 1899 and of Queen's College since 1902, as well as canon of Canterbury and librarian of Canterbury Cathedral since 1903. He is best known as a Dante scholar, and has written or edited *Introduction to Aristotle's Ethics, *i.-iv. (London, 1871); *Aristotle's Poetics, with Notes *(Oxford, 1875); *Time References in the Divina Commedia *(London, 1887); *Textual Criticism of tie Divina Commedia *(Oxford, 1889); *Dante and his Early Biographers *(London, 1890); *Tutte le opere di Dante Alighieri nouvamente rivedute nel testo *(Oxford, 1894, 1904); *Studies in Dante *(3 series, 1896-1903) *; L'Autenticita della Quaestio de aqua et terra *(London, 1899); and *Gli Accenni al tempo nella Divina Commedia *(Florence, 1900). **MOORE, EDWARD CALDWELL: ** Congregationalist; b. at West Chester, Pa., Sept. 1, 1857. He was graduated from Marietta College, Marietta, O. (A.B., 1877), Union Theological Seminary (1884), and studied at the universities of Berlin, Gottingen, and Giessen (1884-86). He was pastor of the Westminster Presbyterian Church, Yonkers, N. Y. (1886-1889) and of the Central Congregational Church at Providence, R. I. (1889-1902). He was appointed to his present position of Parkman professor of theology at Harvard University in 1902. He was Lowell lecturer in 1903 and chairman of the Board of Preachers of Harvard University in 1905, and has also been a member of the Prudential Committee of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions since 1899, being chairman since 1905. He has written *The New Testament in the Christian Church *(New York, 1903). **MOORE, GEORGE FOOTE: **Congregationalist; b. at West Chester, Pa., Oct. 15, 1851. He was educated at Yale (A.B., 1872) and Union Theological Seminary (1877), after having taught in the Hopkins Grammar School, New Haven, and privately in Columbus, O. (1872-74), and after having been principal of the High School at Lancaster, 0. (1874-1875). He was then pastor of the Presbyterian Church at Bloomingburg, O., in 1877-78, and of the Putnam Presbyterian Church, Zanesville, 0. (1878-1883), and Hitchcock professor of the Hebrew language and literature in Andover Theological Seminary (1883-1902). Since 1902 he has been professor of the history of religion in Harvard University. In theology he belongs to the critical school, and is a member of the Deutsche morgenlandische Gesellschaft and the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, and recording secretary of the American Oriental Society. Besides articles in the *Encyclopaedia Biblica, *he has written *Commentary on Judges* (New York, 1895) ; translated and edited Judges for the *Polychrome Bile *(2 vols., 1898-1900); and assisted in editing *Old Testament and Semitic Studies in Memory of William Rainey Harper, *2 vols., Chicago, 1908, to which he also contributed. **MOORE, HENRY: ** Wesleyan Methodist; b. in Dublin Dec. 21, 1751; d. in London Apr. 27, 1844. In 1780 he became an itinerant on the Londonderry circuit; later as the constant companion of John Wesley in London he did most efficient service. After Wesley's death he figured prominently in the discussions from 1791 to 1797 concerning the permanent ecclesiastical organization of the Methodists, personally favoring the Episcopal form. He was a stanch upholder of the authority of the conference, even though disagreeing with its policy in certain matters. He opposed the movement to found a theological institute for training men for the ministry, and as the last survivor of those ordained by John Wesley he championed the right of the Wesleyan ministers to administer the sacraments. He was active in the itinerant ministry till 1833, when he became a supernumerary. His works of significance are: *The Life of the Rev. John Wesley, Including an Account of the Great Revival of Religion of which he was the . . Instrument *(in collaboration with T. Coke, London, 1792); *Thoughts on the Eternal Sonship of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Addressed to the People Called Methodists, . . *(Birmingham, 1817); *The Life of Mrs. M. Fletcher . . . Compiled from her Journal* (2 vols., London, 1817); *The Life of the Rev. J. Wesley . . . in which are Included, the Life of his Brother the Rev. C. Wesley, . . and Memoirs of their Family, Comprehending an Account of the Great Revival of Religion in which they were the Chief . . . Instruments *(2 vols., 1824-25); *Sermons Held on General Occasions . . . With a Brief Memoir (by the Author) of his Life and Christian Experience from his Birth to the First Conference Held after the Death of Mr. Wesley *(1830). BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mrs. R. Smith, *The Life of Rev. H. Moore, ... Including the Autobiography, *London, 1844; and the literature under METHODISTS dealing with the early history of that people. **MOORE, JOHN HENRY:**Dunker; b. at Salem, Va., Apr. 8, 1846. He was educated in the Illinois public schools, and in 1868 entered the ministry of his denomination, of which he was chosen bishop in 1879. In 1876 he became editor of *The Brethren at Work, *a Dunker weekly published at Lanark, Ill., but later merged with others and removed to Elgin, Ill., and renamed *The Gospel Messenger*. Of this he is still editor. In theology he is strongly Puritan, being opposed to war and intemperance in all forms. Like his denomination, he accepts only the New Testament as his creed. He has written:*Trine Immersion Traced to the Apostles *(Elgin, Ill., 1872); *The Perfect Plan of Salvation *(1874); and *One Baptism *(1876). **MOORE, WALTER WILLIAM:** Presbyterian (Southern assembly); b. at Charlotte, N. C., June 14, 1857. He was educated at Davidson College, N. C. (A.B., 1878), and Union Theological Seminary, Va. (1881). He was an evangelist in Bun oombe County, N. C. (1881-82) and pastor at Millersburg, Ky. (1882-83). Since 1883 he has been professor of the Hebrew language and literature in Union Theological Seminary, Va., of which he has also been president since 1904. He is a member of the Richmond Education Association and has been a trustee of Hampden-Sidney College since 1905. He has written *A Year in Europe * (Richmond, Va.,1904). **MOORE, WILLIAM EVES:** Presbyterian; b. at Strasburg, Pa., Apr. 1, 1823; d. at Columbus, O., June 5, 1899. He graduated from Yale College, New Haven, Conn., 1847; studied theology under Dr. Lyman H. Atwater at Fairfield, Conn.; became pastor at West Chester, Pa., 1850; and at Columbus, O., 1872. From 1884 he was permanent clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. He was the author of *The New Digest of the Acts and Deliverances of the Presbyterian Church, New School *(Philadelphia, 1861); and *The Presbyterian Digest, United Church * (1873). **MOORHOUSE, JAMES:** Church of England, former bishop; b. at Sheffield Nov. 19, 1826. He was educated at St. John's College, Cambridge (B.A., 1853), and was ordered deacon in 1853 and ordained priest in the following year. He was curate of St. Neots (1853-55), Sheffield (1855-59), and Hornsey (1859-61), and perpetual curate of St.John's, Fitzroy Square, London (1881-67). From 1867 to 1876 he was vicar and rural dean of Paddington, London, and in 1876 was consecrated bishop of Melbourne, Australia. In 1886 he was translated to the see of Manchester, which he resigned in 1903. He was Hulsean lecturer in 1865 and Warburtonian lecturer in 1874 and chaplain in ordinary to the queen and prebendary of Caddington Major in St. Paul's Cathedral (1874-76). He has written *Nature and Revelation * (London, 1861); *Our Lord Jesus Christ the Subject of Growth in Wisdom* (Hulsean lectures; 1866); *Jacob* (three sermons before the University of Cambridge; 1870); *The Expectation of the Christ * (1889); *The Dangers of the Apostolic Age * (Manchester, 1891); *The Teaching of Christ *(London, 1891); *Church Work* (1894); and *The Roman Claim to Supremacy *(Manchester, 1894). **MOORS.** See SPAIN. **MORAL THEOLOGY.** See THEOLOGY, MORAL. **Moralists, British** I. Introduction. II. Development of the Autonomy of Ethics. The Roman Catholic Theory (§ 1). The Protestant Position (§ 2). The State and the Law of Nature (§ 3)· Influence of the Renaissance (§ 4). Importance of Reformed Protestant Ethics ($ 5). English Ethics under Puritanism (§ 6). The New Psychological Basin (§ 7). Problems Presented (§ 8). III. Specific Contributions. Hobbes and Mandeville (§ 1). Cambridge School, Cudworth, More, and Cumberland (§ 2). Clarke, Hartley, and Price (§ 3). John Locke (§ 4). Shaftesbury, Butler, and Huteheson (§ 5). Hume and Adam Smith (§ 6). Results (§ 7). **I. Introduction:** The British moralists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries accomplished for ethics what the English deists of the same period accomplished for the science of religion. The deists cut loose from the ideal conception of religion founded on psychology and metaphysics, and established an analysis of religion founded on the psychological study of its phenomena. The British moralists cut loose from a dogmatically founded system of ethics, controlling the State, the Church, and private life, and founded an autonomous system of modern scientific ethics. In neither case were these movements isolated, they were a part of the social phenomena of an age which, among other things, tended to build up independent treatment of the various sciences. Specifically the work of the British moralists may be distinguished as follows. First they gave a scientific form to the practical material furnished them by Christian ethics, to which they stood sometimes in a hostile relation, sometimes enlarging its conceptions, sometimes incorporating with it purely secular interests and aims. Second, in place of deriving morality from dogmatic authoritative teaching and from the supernatural dualistic system of salvation and grace, they introduced the method of psychological analysis. **II. Development of the Autonomy of Ethics:** The first stage of the discussion concerns itself with the ethical ideas of Roman Catholicism. The combination of Christianity with the culture of the ancient world drove into the background the primitive system of Christian ethic, which concerned itself with the end of the world and a life of complete divine indwelling. The great process of amalgamation resulted in the Catholic objectification of Christianity, with the Church conceived as a supernatural institution of grace. Various elements were taken up in the process of combination. Participation in the divine was secured through neo-Platonic theories, by which the interval between the natural and supernatural was bridged. As each of these two spheres had its legitimate existence, a place was made for an ethical system resting largely upon the traditional law of nature as found in the philosophy of the Stoics, while the Aristotelian conception of the State was also wrought into the scheme. The esthetic ethics of antiquity completely disappeared. The law of nature was made identical with the decalogue, hence the sphere of a real political and civil ethics was very limited. Ecclesiastical ethics had the predominance. A different value was given to the morality of the layman from that of the clergy. As time went on, the weak points of this system were criticized and the secular element accentuated, and at the same time direct protests were heard against the prevailing conception of ethics as a system of laws and regulations enforced by the objectively divine institution of the Church.
MUEZZIN (MUEDDIN) Muezzin (Mueddin)

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

MUEZZIN, mn-ez'zin (MUEDDIN): The official attached to a Mohammedan mosque, whose business it is to chant the azan (from which the word muezzin is formed with the aid of the preformative), or call of the faithful to prayer, five times each day. The call is sounded from the minaret, if the mosque has one, otherwise from the side of the mosque. The words of the call are: " Allah is most great (four times); I testify that there is no God but Allah (twice); I testify that Mohammed is the apostle of Allah (twice); come to prayer (twice); come to salvation (twice); Allah is most great (twice); there is no god but Allah." In the early morning call, after the words " Come to salvation," the Muezzin adds " Prayer is better than sleep " (twice). MUFTI: The title of an *official * in Mohammedan, particularly Turkish, countries, whose duty it is to assist the judge or cadi by expounding the law. He must be familiar with the Koran, with the body of Mohammedan tradition as well as with the works on law, as it is part of his work to cite decisions already made in similar cases. BIBLIOGRAPHY: D. B. Macdonald, *Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence, and Constitutional Theory, pp. *115, 184, 278, 277, New York, 1903. MUGGLETON, LODOWICS, MUGGLETONIANS: English see $arian and the followers of him and John Reeve (1608-58); b. in Walnut Tree Yard, off Bishopsgate Street Without, London, July, 1609; d. at London Mar. 14, 1698. Apprenticed as a tailor, he went as a journeyman to his cousin John Reeve (1608-58) in 1631, who converted him to Puritanism, and in 1647 he withdrew from all worship, adopting an agnostic position. In 1650 he was attracted by the declaration of the two so-called prophets, John Robins, a " ranter," and Thomas Tansy, a predecessor of the Anglo-Israelites, whose crude pantheism took hold of him; at the same time he read Jacob Boehme (q.v.). He drew also Reeve to his views. The latter in 1652 professed personal communications, appointing him messenger and Muggleton mouthpiece of a new dispensation; and as the two witnesses (Rev. xi. 3) they set forth as prophets of a new system of faith. They gathered a large following and the sect continued till the last century, Joseph Gauder (d. 1868) being reported as the last adherent. The element of spirituality was contributed by Reeve. He distinguished between faith and reason as respectively the divine and demoniac elements in man (the doctrine of two-seeds), and shared with the Socinians a frank anthropomorphism and a belief that the mortality of the soul is to be remedied by a physical resurrection. The harder outlines, including the rejection of prayer, came from Muggleton. His philosophy is epicurean, holding that J. B. Shearer, *Modern Mysticism, *New York, 1905; A. Hegler, Beitrdge zur *Geschichte der *Mystik in der Reforma *lionszeit, Berlin, *1908; A. E. Waite, Studies in *Mysticism, *London, 1906; F. Pfeiffer, *Deutsche Mystiker, G*ottingen, 1907 sqq.; E. Receiac, *Essay on the *Basis of *Mystic Knowledge, *London, 1907; W. M. Scott, *Aspeds of Chris*tian *Mysticism, *ib. 1907; H. Delacroix, *nudes d *histoire et *de psychologie du *mysticisms, Paris, 1908; F. Gieseeke, *Die Mystik Jo. *Baptist van Helmonts (1677'-1 Bl,4), B3hmen, 1908; F. von Hiigel, The Mystical Element of Re- *ligion *as Studied *in.Saint Catherine of *Genoa and her *Friends, G*Sttingen, 1908; A. W. Hopkinson, *The *Mystery of Mysticism, London, 1909; R. M. Jones, Studies in myaticat *Religion, i*b. 1909; J. Paehen, *Paycholopie *des mystiques ehraiens, Paris, 1909; Meister *Bckhart's Sermons, *Eng. transl. by C. Field, London, 1910; Schaff, *Christian *Church, v. 1, pp. 636 sqq.
MYTHOLOGY Mythology

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**MYTHOLOGY.** See COMPARATIVE RELIGION, V., § 3, VI., §§ 7-8.
NAASENES Naasenes

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**NAASENES.** See OPHITES.
NAASENIAN HYMN Naasenian Hymn

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**NAASENIAN HYMN.** See OPHITES, § 2.
NABATAEANS Nabataeans

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

### NABATAEANS. I. Early History. Documentary Testimony (§ 1). Racial Affinity (§ 2). II. History from 312 B.C. Till the Roman Period (§ 1). Under the Romans (§ 2). Significance, Language, Religion (§ 3). ### I. Early History ### 1. Documentary Testimony. The Nabataeans were a Semitic people known at least as early as 312 B.C., inhabiting the region so long identified with the Edomites between the Dead Sea and the eastern arm of the Red Sea. Whether they can be traced to a still earlier time depends upon the interpretation of certain passages which are by most scholars taken as referring to this people. The passages in question are, first, those in the Old Testament which mention Nebajoth (first-born of Ishmael; Gen. xxv. 13, xxviii. 9, xxxvi. 3; I Chron. i. 29; cf. Isa. lx. 7, where the connection is with Kedar, both peoples being pastoral, while the relationship is wholly congruent with the implications in the Genesis passages). It is to be noted that if the Nabataeans are meant in these passages, Arabic affinity is implied. The second class of passages are from the cuneiform inscriptions. Under the form *Na-ba-ai-te * is mentioned a pastoral people, associated with Kedar, on a cylinder inscription of Asshurbanipal; their "king" Natnu had taken part in an Arabic revolt against Assyrian overlordship, and they had been punished by the Assyrian monarch. The inscription describes them as living in a remote region. Other notices of them appear from the same general period in inscriptions made under Tiglath-Pileser, Sargon, and Sennacherib; but in these cases they are assigned to the Aramean stock. After these references the Nabataeans (if they are the people meant) are lost to sight, so far as reference to them goes, until 312 B.C., after which notices become frequent. Thus Diodorus Siculus ( *Bibliotheca*, xix. 94-100, cf. ii. 48-50, iii. 41-43) speaks of them as mostly nomadic Arabs, well-to-do through their command of commerce in myrrh and incense. It is significant that Diodorus, though he calls them Arabs, notes that they use Syriac (Aramaic) characters in writing, and this undoubtedly explains the classification made in the Assyrian inscriptions referred to above. By Strabo ("Geography," xvi. 18-26) Nabatea is described as a populous country not far from the Elamitic Gulf, rich in pasturage. There seems to be a probability, however, that Strabo did not distinguish clearly between Nabataeans and Idumeans. Pliny ("Natural History," v. 12, xii. 17) calls the Nabataeans Arabian neighbors of the Syrians, and connects them with Kedar (cf. Isa. lx. 7). I Macc. v. 25 reports that Judas the Maccabee on a trans-Jordanic expedition when three days beyond the Jordan met the Nabataeans, who were friendly and gave information concerning the situation of the Jews who were in Gilead. According to I Macc. ix. 35, Jonathan, when in flight from Bacchides, left his baggage with the Nabataeans so as not to be encumbered with it, and those Nabataeans were not far from Medeba (q.v.). Josephus ( *Ant.*, XIII., i. 2) retells the story of I Macc. ix. 35 in a slightly variant form, and (I., xii. 4) makes the name Nabatene cover the region between the Euphrates and the Red Sea (cf. Strabo, above). Further frequent references are made by Josephus to incidents in their history, as in *Ant.*, XIII., xiii. 5, XIV. v. 1, XX., iv. 1, etc. In *Ant.*, I., xii. 4, Josephus evidently means to connect the Nabataeans with the Nebajoth of Genesis, and so to make the people Arabs. ### 2. Racial Affinity. There are two apparent difficulties in this identification. The first is philological, Nebajoth being spelt with a tau (t), while in the inscriptions and on the coins the word is written with teth (t). On this ground Glaser (see Bibliography) refuses the identification. While such a transmutation is rare, it is not without parallel, especially under the influence of Hellenism. The second difficulty is the matter of race affiliation. By Nebajoth in Genesis Arabic connections are clearly implied, and with this agree Diodorus, Strabo, Pliny, and Josephus (inferentially). But the fact that in their writing the Nabataeans used Aramaic seems at first sight to justify those Assyrian inscriptions which speak of them as Arameans. The reconciliation is not difficult, however, since Aramaic was the language of commerce and intercourse in quite early times (cf. II Kings, xviii. 26); the Nabataeans were carriers of commerce and therefore employed that language. It is corroborative of this conclusion that the names in the Nabataean inscriptions are clearly Arabic, though the language is Aramaic. Still further, while the identification of this people with the Nebajoth of the Old Testament can not be a matter of demonstration, there is justification for the identification. One ground is the well-known tenacity of existence of tribal names in the Arabic sphere. A second wine there is discerned the survival of a prehistoric puritanic conception of the Semites which held the enjoyment of wine and like luxuries to be hindrances in the way of perfect service of the deity. The abstinences of the Rechabites (Jer. xxxv.), of the Nabateans (Diodorus Siculus, xix. 94), and of Mohammedans are examples of the survival of this conception. In the case of the nazirite there is a connection with the priesthood found in the prohibition of contact with the dead, even of participation in the mourning ceremonies for his own kin, showing the sanctity of the nazirite; this is illustrated by the fact that the Talmudic tract *Nazir* (vii. 1) places the nazirite and the high priest on the same footing. But the naziritic vow did not necessarily involve special service at the sanctuary. The prohibition to cut the hair arises from the fact that the hair is sacred to Yahweh. Many peoples regarded the growth of the hair as a divine energy which was not to be assailed or weakened by contact with a tool of man's workmanship; the full growth of hair exhibited by a nazirite was, therefore, a sign of consecration, and with Samson was a condition of his divine power. Illustrative of this is the fact that the term *nazir* was applied to the untrimmed vine of the Sabbatical and Jubilee years. If during the period of his consecration the nazirite incurred pollution, his hair was shorn, the term of consecration was begun anew, and certain expiatory offerings were made (Num. vi. 9 sqq.). The Talmudic tract *Temurah* (vi. 4) prescribes that the hair of the polluted nazirite be not burned but buried; the implication is therefore that when the hair was burned in the sanctuary, the ceremony was constructively a sacrifice, and this is illustrated by ethnic usage like that of Mohammedan pilgrims who leave their hair unshorn from the time of taking the vow of pilgrimage until they reach Mecca and then cut the hair and burn it on holy ground. In the case of the nazirite who assumed the vows for a period only and not for life, the end of the term was marked by several kinds of sacrifices--burnt offering, sin-offering, peace-offering, with their accessories (Num. vi. 13 sqq.). Not to be overlooked is the difference in spirit between this institution and similar observances among Hindus and even Christians; in the latter case the object is suppression of sensual inclinations, in the Hebrew institution the purpose was to conserve the full vigor of the body for the service of God. Postexilic Judaism employed the naziritic vow in case of illness or misfortune (Josephus, *War*, II., xv.), when undertaking a journey (*Nazir*, i. 6), and on like occasions; it even furnished a form of oath which gave rise to Pharisaic casuistry and brought naziritism into disrepute. Paul seems to have a casual relationship to naziritism in the incident mentioned Acts xviii. 18, though there is doubt whether the vow referred to Paul or Aquila, and indeed whether the vow was actually naziritic. On the other hand, Paul assumed the not inconsiderable expenses attending the completion of the vows of four indigent Jews (Acts xxi. 23 sqq.). This was a friendly service often rendered by the wealthy (cf. Josephus, *Ant.* XIX., vi. 1; Mishna, *Nazir*, ii. 6). C. VON ORELLI. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Consult: the commentaries on the passages cited; H. Vilmar, in *TSK*, xxxvii (1864), 438 sqq.; H. Ewald, *Antiquities of Israel*, pp. 84-88, Boston, 1876; J. Grill, in *JPT*, vi (1880), 645 sqq.; J. B. Gray, in *Journal of Theological Studies*, i (1900), 201 sqq.; C. Grüneisen, *Der Ahnencultus*, pp. 46, 71, 92, 112 sqq., Halle, 1900; Benzinger, *Archäologie*, pp. 361-362; Nowack, *Archäologie*, ii. 134-138; Vigouroux, *Dictionnaire*, xxviii. 1515-20; *DB*, iii. 497-501; *EB*, iii. 3362-64; *DCG*, ii. 237-238; *JE*, ix. 195-198.
NEAL, DANIEL Neal, Daniel

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**NEAL, DANIEL:** Historian of the Puritans; b. in London Dec. 14, 1678; d. at Bath Apr. 4, 1743. He studied first at Merchant Taylors' School, London, then (1696-99) in Rev. Thomas Rowe's academy in Little Britain, and then for three years at Utrecht and Leyden. Returning to London in 1703, the next year he was chosen assistant pastor, and in 1706 full pastor, of the Independent Congregation in Aldersgate Street, and faithfully served it, until, a few months prior to his death, he was compelled by ill-health to resign. He was the author of two works which have given him lasting fame: *The History of New England, Containing an Impartial Account of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Affairs of the Country to the Year of Our Lord 1700* (2 vols., London, 1720) and the standard *History of the Puritans, or Protestant Nonconformists, from the Reformation in 1617, to the Revolution in 1688* (4 vols., 1732-38; 2d. ed., 2 vols., 1754; ed. J. Toulmin, with *Life*, 5 vols., Bath, 1793-97; ed. J. O. Choules, 2 vols., New York, 1844). BIBLIOGRAPHY: Besides the *Life* by Toulmin, ut sup., consult: Walter Wilson, *Hist. and Antiquities of Dissenting Churches in London*, iii. 90-102, London, 1810; *DNB*, xl. 134-136.
NEALE, JOHN MASON Neale, John Mason

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**NEALE, JOHN MASON:** Ecclesiastical historian and hymnologist; b. at London Jan. 24, 1818; d. at East Grinstead (23 m. s. of London) Aug. 6, 1866. He was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge (A.B., 1840). While a student he developed an extraordinary interest in church archeology, especially in architecture, and with a few others organized in 1839 the Cambridge Camden Society, which lasted till 1845. He was ordained deacon in 1841, and priest in 1842; was for a few months of 1842 incumbent of Crawley in Sussex, but ill-health compelled him to resign. He then married and the next winter went to live in Madeira. There he found facilities and strength to continue his literary work, which had already brought him considerable reputation. He returned to England finally in 1845, and from 1846 till his death was warden of Sackville College, East Grinstead. The "college" really was an almshouse for a few old people of both sexes, and the salary was only some £24 a year! But the duties were light and congenial and his opportunities for remunerative literary work were unimpaired. Still the position meant that in all likelihood he was out of the line of preferment. He belonged to the most advanced section of High-churchmen; and his outspoken and consistent championship of Puseyism (see PUSEY, EDWARD BOUVERIE) won him not only suspicion, but obloquy. He was under the inhibition of his bishop (Chichester) from 1846 to 1863; but his zeal and industry matched his great and varied talents. "His life was divided," says Josiah Miller, "between excessive literary toil and exhausting labors of piety and benevolence." He founded, in 1856, the Sisterhood of St. Margaret. Desperately unpopular for a time, the order was before his death in demand everywhere, as furnishing the best nurses in England. As an author his productiveness has few parallels, and he was more appreciated for his writings abroad than at home. His most important writings are his *History of the Holy Eastern Church* with *The Patriarchate of Alexandria* and *The Patriarchate of Antioch* in the appendix (5 vols., London, 1850-73); and *Commentary on the Psalms from Primitive and Mediaeval Writers* (4 vols., 1874; in association with R. F. Littledale). Mention may be made also of *Hierologus, or the Church Tourists* (1843); *Ecclesiological Notes on the Isle of Man* (1848); *Readings for the Aged* (4 series, 1850-58); *History of the So-Called Jansenist Church of Holland* (1858); *Voices from the East* (1859); and *Sermons for Children* (1867). Yet almost everything which he wrote provoked controversy. He had strong convictions, and the full courage of them: in his own view he was a witness of a system of absolute truth. On almost every page of his writings, whether prose or verse, learned or popular, his point of view and his resolute purpose are apparent: they are books of faith and of intention. To him "religion was the solidest of all realities," and religion and the Church were inseparably one. Nowhere is this more marked than in his wonderful stories for children and young people. Most of these have a historical foundation; many of them recite real or supposed facts, dealing with ancient or obscure trials and martyrdoms. His sympathies seem rather Roman than Protestant, and dubious legends are accepted with unquestioning belief; but the charm of style, the minute knowledge of distant times and places, the vivid realization, the subdued feeling, at once profoundly devout and intensely human, form a combination which few English popularizers of Christian history have approached. *The Farm of Aptonga* (1856); *The Egyptian Wanderers* (1854); *The Followers of the Lord* (1851); *Lent Legends* (1855); *Tales of Christian Heroism and Endurance* (in the *Juvenile Englishman's Library*, vi., 1846), and some others, are as much prized by adult as by juvenile readers. As a poet, Neale eleven times gained the Seatonian prize. An edition of his *Seatonian Poems* (Cambridge, 1864) was dedicated, by permission, to his bishop, after their reconciliation. His *Songs and Ballads for the People* (London, 1843) and *Songs and Ballads for Manufacturers* (1850) are secular only in name. But his greatest services have been rendered, and his widest fame won, through his hymns. Here he worked in a field entirely congenial. His twenty *Hymns for the Sick* (1843), and eighty-six *Hymns for Children* (1843) include some gems and much useful matter. *The Hymnal Noted* (1851-54) is chiefly given to long metres, which seem somewhat dry and formal. *Mediaeval Hymns and Sequences* (1851; 2d ed., enlarged, 1863) afford more variety and many valuable notes. Among the most precious of these is Neale's first selection from the famous *Rhythm of Bernard de Morlaix*, completed in 1858, beginning with the line, "Jerusalem, the golden." After the *Rhythm of Bernard* his noblest work is *Hymns of the Eastern, Church* (1862). There he was on ground familiar to him, and to him alone, and the mine he opened yielded treasures indeed. Almost unknown to the English Church were original sacred lyrics of such beauty as "Art thou weary," "The Day is past and over," and "Safe home." Within twenty years, many of these Greek hymns have made their way almost everywhere. Neale was a singular compound of medieval (he would have called it primitive) doctrine and devotion with modern culture and English manliness. He was the sworn foe of breadth or liberalism; but his large gifts and nature transcended his self-imposed (or, as he thought, God-imposed) limits, and made much of his work catholic in the sense which he repudiated. Those who most disliked his Romanizing tendencies have been forced to admire his vast industry, his rigid consistency, his patience under long adversity, injustice, and neglect, his superiority to all questions of self-interest, and his heroic and unflinching faith. BIBLIOGRAPHY: *Letters of John Mason Neale, Selected and ed. by his Daughter*, London and New York, 1910; Eleanor A. Towle, *John Mason Neale, A Memoir*, London, 1906; W. Jowett, *Memoir of the Rev. Cornelius Neale* (his father), ib. 1834; G. Huntington, *Random Recollections*, pp. 198-223, ib. 1893; S. W. Duffield, *English Hymns*, pp. 271-273 et passim, New York, 1886; S. M. Jackson, *Sources of "Jerusalem the Golden*," passim, Chicago, 1910; Julian, *Hymnology*, pp. 785-790; *DNB*, xl. 143-146.
NEANDER, JOACHIM Neander, Joachim

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**NEANDER, JOACHIM:** Principal poet of the Reformed Church; b. at Bremen 1650; d. there May 31, 1680. He was educated at the Latin school of Bremen and in 1666 entered the Gymnasium illustre. After a carelessly spent youth he was converted by a sermon of Theodor Undereick, pastor of St. Martini in Bremen, by whom he was led into the path of Reformed pietism. As the tutor of the sons of distinguished Frankfort merchants, and also to continue his studies, Neander went to Heidelberg. In 1674 the Reformed congregation of Düsseldorf called him as rector to their Latin school, but private religious meetings instituted by him in 1676 and some arbitrary rules in the administration of the school, brought him into conflict with the preacher and consistory. He was deposed in 1677, but before the notification reached him he signed a declaration in which among other things he condemned separation from the external church community as practised by Labadie and his people. He also renounced secret meetings and the "detention of members from the Lord's Supper." Neander was in consequence merely suspended. In 1679 he was called to Bremen as third preacher of the church of St. Martin, but died in the following year. The first edition of his songs appeared under the title, *A. *Joachimi Neandri Glaub- und Liebes-Uebung: Auffgemuntert durch einfältige Bundes Lieder und Danck-Psalmen* . . . (Bremen, 1680), contained fifty-seven songs, of which about twenty editions appeared before 1730. Although not suitable for church hymns because of their marked subjectivity, and though they contained reminiscences of Labadie and of Cocceius, the songs were taken into the hymnals. In the second part of the hymn-book for Cleve, Jülich, Berg, and Mark of 1738, Neander's name stands beside that of Luther on the title page.
NEGRO EDUCATION AND EVANGELIZATION Negro Education and Evangelization

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

NEGRO EDUCATION AND EVANGELIZATION. I. Education. Early Status (§ 1). In the Northern States (§ 2). In the South (§ 3). Benevolent Societies (§ 4). Educational Agencies (§ 5). Results (§ 6). II. Evangelization. 1. General History. Religious Condition of Early Slaves (§ 1). I. Education: Negro slaves imported to America were kept designedly in ignorance. The written and unwritten law of the land was that Negroes should receive no instruction. In the North this custom gradually was given up, but x. Early with the cotton gin in the South it Status. crystallized into law. The law of Georgia (1829) is typical: " If any slave, Negro or free person of color, or any white person shall teach any other slave, Negro or free person of color to read or write, either written or printed characters, the same free person of color or slave shall be punished by fine and whipping, or fine or whipping, at the discretion of the court; and if a white person so offend, he, she, or they shall be Lack of Early Missionary Effort ($ 2). Efforts for Negro Evangelization (§ 3). Results (§ 4). 2. Statistics. 3. Denominational Evangelization. a. Methodists. b. Baptists. [ Page 101]
NEW ZEALAND New Zealand

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

NEW ZEALAND: A British colony in the South Pacific Ocean, about 1,000 miles southeast of Australia. It consists of two large islands, North Island with an area of 44,468 square miles, and South or Middle Island with 58,525 square miles; Stewart Island with 665 square miles; and smaller groups and individual islands, the total area being about 104,751 square miles. The colony has been developed from a settlement of adventurers and refugees since 1805, and the first missionaries landed in 1814. In 1839 the islands were declared to be a part of the colony of New South Wales, and in 1840 Wellington, the capital, was founded on North Island. Despite the favorable character of the country, the increase of immigration was relatively slow, the principal obstacle being the wars with the brave aborigines, the Maoris, which began in 1845 and did not cease until 1892. Notwithstanding this, the white population in 1891 was 626,700 and in 1906 888,578, in addition to 47,731 Maoris and 2,570 Chinese of various religions. There is no established church in New Zealand. Ecclesiastical and religious conditions assumed a mixed character in the course of time, and only three Protestant denominations and the Roman Catholic Church report a considerable number of communicants. The Anglican Church is naturally predominant, with a membership of over 368,000 in 1906. The first bishopric was Auckland, founded in 1841, New Zealand having been previously under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Australia (see Aus TRwI.IA). In 1895 the Bishop of Auckland became primate of New Zealand. The other dioceses of the province are Christchurch (1856), Nelson (1858), Waiapu (1858), Wellington (1858), Melanesia (1861), and Dunedin (1866). In consequence of a large immigration from Scotland, the Presbyterian Church gained in importance, so that it numbers over 203,000 adherents. It has shared the fortunes of the Australian Presbyterians with regard to its relations with its foreign fellow believers. The Methodists number 89,000 and, as in the Australian commonwealth, their Wesleyan Union is extremely strong, although the denomination is divided into two large sects. The Congregationalists number 7,000, and the Lutherans, chiefly of German extraction and mostly scattered in the villages, have 4,840 members, while the Baptists, augmented especially by immigration from Australia, have (in 1909) 4,435 communicants. Of the twelve or fifteen sects which are small or unimportant elsewhere in the British Empire, the Plymouth Brethren have almost 7,500 adherents, and the Church of Christ, or Christian Disciples, 6,110. The Salvation Army reports 8,000 members, and the Mormons 270 disciples. To the Roman Catholic Church belong 127,227 inhabitants of the islands. The province of Wellington was organized in 1887, the city having been the seat of a bishop since 1845. Auckland also formed a diocese after 1848, and Christchurch was made a diocese simultaneously with the elevation of .Wellington to an archbishopric; in 1869 the diocese of Dunedin was separated from Wellington. Among the non-Christians were (1906) 1,867 Jews and 2,430 Buddhists and Confucians. Other forms of faith are represented by smaller numbers of adherents, although 8,521 persons declared them selves to be freethinkers, undenominational, and the like, while 24,325 refused to give any information regarding their religion. The Maoris are reckoned almost without exception among the Christian population. Wu=rm *GoETz. * BmLIOGSAP81: W. Gisborne, Colony of *New Zealand, its History. * London, *1891; Australian Handbook, * ib. *1902 * (includes New Zealand); R. Y. Irvine and O. T. G. Alpers, *Progress, * of *New Zealand in the Century, * ib. *1902; T. F. * Martin. *The Position . . . of tire Anglican Church in New Zealand, * ib. *1903; * R. Horsley, *New Zealand, * ib. *1908; J. Cow-. The Maoria * of *Neto Zealand, * ib. *1910.*
NICAEA, COUNCILS OF Nicaea, Councils of

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

### NICAEA (NICE), COUNCILS OF. I. The First Council, 325 A.D. Character, Membership, and Problems (§ 1). The Procedure (§ 2). The Symbol (§ 3). Other Problems (§ 4). II. The Second Council, 787 A.D. ### I. The First Council, 325 A.D. ### 1. Character, Membership, and Problems The first Council of Nice is conspicuous as the starting point for the great doctrinal controversies of the Church in the fourth and fifth centuries. Here a union between the ecclesiastical potency of the councils and the State was effected, vesting the deliberations of this body with imperial power. Earlier synods had been contented with protection against heretical doctrines; but the Council of Nice is characterized by the further step from a defensive position to positive decisions and minutely elaborated articles of faith. In the Arian controversy lay a great obstacle to the realization of Constantine's idea of a universal empire which was to be attained by aid of uniformity of divine worship. Accordingly for the summer of 325 the bishops of all provinces were summoned to the first ecumenical council at Nice in Bithynia, a place easily accessible to the majority of the bishops, especially those of Asia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace. The number of members can not be accurately stated; Athanasius counted 318, Eusebius only 250. As a matter of course, the oriental bishops formed the preponderating number; the first rank being held by the three archbishops Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem, and by Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarrea. A special prominence attached to this council also because the persecutions had just ended, and it was to be assumed that nearly all of the assembled fathers had stood forth as witnesses of the faith. The occident sent not more than five representatives in equal distribution from the provinces, Marcus of Calabria from Italy, Cecilian of Carthage from Africa, Hosius of Cordova from Spain, Nicasius of Dijon from Gaul, and Domnus of Stridon from the province of the Danube. These ecclesiastical dignitaries of course did not travel alone, but each one with his suite, so that Eusebius speaks of an almost innumerable host of accompanying priests, deacons, and acolytes. Among the assistants it was Athanasius, a young deacon and companion of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, who distinguished himself as the "most vigorous fighter against the Arians," and similarly Alexander of Constantinople, a presbyter, as representative of his aged bishop. The points to be discussed at the synod were: (1) The Arian question, (2) the celebration of Easter, (3) the Meletian schism, (4) the baptism of heretics, and (5) the status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius. ### 2. The Procedure The council was formally opened May 20, in the central structure of the imperial palace, busying itself chiefly with preparatory discussions on the Arian question, in which Arius, with some adherents, especially Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nice, and Maris of Chalcedon, seems to have been the leading spirit; regular sessions, however, began only on the arrival of the emperor. After prescribing the course of the negotiations he entrusted the mode of procedure to a committee appointed by himself, consisting in all probability of the most prominent participants of that body. It is undoubtedly chiefly owing to this step on the part of Constantine that the council, after being in session for an entire month, promulgated on June 19 the Nicene Creed (see CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED). At first the Arians and the orthodox showed an uncompromising front toward each other. The Arians entrusted the representation of their interests to Eusebius of Caesarea (q.v.), whose scholarship and flowery speech made a great impression upon the emperor. His reading of the confession of the Arians called forth a storm of resentment among the opponents; two minorities vividly interested in contrary opinions opposed each other, but between them yawned indifference. In their behalf, as well as for his own sake, Eusebius, after he had ceased to represent the Arians, appeared as a mediator; and in asserting that the chief aim to be pursued should be the establishment of the peace of the Church, he at the same time agreed with his exalted protector. He presented a new formula, the baptismal symbol of his own congregation at Caesarea, by means of which the differing opinions might be reconciled. The emperor, who pursued the purely political intentions of a successful pacification, could desire no more welcome proposition and immediately confirmed it by making it his own. In this way he did not overpower the majority, but most probably met its wishes; for if the orthodox had really been able to count on a preponderating majority, even the predilection of the emperor would not have hindered them from setting up their own confession in the manner of that proposed by Bishop Alexander in his first circular letter. But far from daring such an attempt, the majority (without resistance) complied, asserting their rights only in the form of amending clauses. While such modes of procedure are more characteristic of minorities than of majorities, their use by the latter does not necessarily debar victory, as indeed in this case it did not. All propositions of the orthodox during the remainder of the controversy having been accepted, it is furthermore evident, first: that the Arians of conviction were in the minority; second: that the majority (or deciding body) did not possess, and hence did not assert, convictions of a dogmatic nature. These are, considered in a general way, the presuppositions of the world-important decisions of the Council of Nice. ### 3. The Symbol Examining the symbol in detail, it appears that it contained indeed decisions on the Son of God which might satisfy all members of the council. Even Arius found no reason to oppose it from his standpoint. But for the partisans of Bishop Alexander the definitions were too vague; they rendered them more concise, and if the Nicene Creed be compared with its model, that of Caesarea, it seems to have originated in some omissions from the second article which was the only one in question. To these omissions corresponded three no less important additions: (1) to designate the Son "that is, of the essence of the Father" was added; (2) another addition reads " begotten, not made "; (3) the most important addition reads "of one substance with the Father." Of the third article only the words "and in the Holy Ghost" were left and then followed immediately the anathemas. Thus the neutral baptismal confession of the congregation of Caesarea, laid before the council by Eusebius, became the uncompromising anti-Arian symbol of Nice, the text of which is preserved in a letter of Eusebius to his congregation, in Athanasius, and elsewhere. The symbol was finally accepted, although the anti-Arians or Homoousians were in the minority. The emperor was intent upon a decisive settlement of the question; at first he probably had no predilection for either of the conceptions of the two contending parties, but perceiving that the original propositions of Eusebius, which supposedly furthered peace, effected the very opposite, he may involuntarily have considered whether he could not reach his aim more quickly by seeking an agreement with the anti-Arians. Undoubtedly there were not wanting attempts at personal mediation, in the first place on the part of Bishop Hosius of Cordova (q.v.), one of the most decided Homoousians, and at the time of the council the confidant of the emperor in all affairs of the Church. He stands at the head of the lists of participants, and Athanasius ascribes to him the actual success of the symbol. But when it is considered that great men like Eustathius of Antioch, Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius, and Marcellus of Ancyra belonged to the anti-Arian party, it does not seem strange that the Homoousians, in spite of being in the minority, gained the final victory. Eusebius of Caesarea, in spite of his sympathies for Arius, accepted the decisions of the council, subscribing even the condemnatory clauses against Arius. The number of persons of prominence among the opponents was not so considerable; for after the debates, extending over four weeks, there were only two adherents of Arius who remained steadfast, Theonas of Marmarica in Libya, and Secundus of Ptolemais; of the three others upon whom Arius might have counted, Maria of Chalcedon finally subscribed the whole symbol, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nice at least its positive part, without the condemnatory clauses against Arius. The emperor now actually fulfilled his threat, according to which everybody who refused to sign had to face exile. Arius, Theonas, Secundus, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis were excommunicated. The works of Arius were confiscated in order to be burnt. But it soon appeared that even force could not silence the disputes, and that under the pressure of such procedure the controversy on the equality of Christ with God assumed unthought-of dimensions; for the Council of Nice had done away with the indifference of the masses to theological distinctions. ### 4. Other Problems After the settlement, on June 19, of the most important subject of discussion, the question of Easter was brought up. According to Duchesne (*Revue des questions historiques,* xxviii. 37), who founds his conclusions (1), on the conciliar letter to the Alexandrians preserved in Theodoret, *Hist. eccl.*, I., ix. 12; Socrates, *Hist. eccl.*, I., ix. 12; (2), on the circular letter of Constantine to the bishops after the council, Eusebius, *Vita Constantine*, III., xviii. 19; Theodoret, *Hist. eccl.*, I., x. 3 sqq.; (3), on Athanasius, *De Synodo*, v.; *Epist. ad Afros*, ii.; the oriental churches of Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia adhered to the Jewish reckoning of the fourteenth of Nisan, instead of basing the calculation for Easter on the equinoctial occurrence after the model of Alexandria and Rome. The council assumed the task of regulating these differences in conformity with the usages of the other churches, because the dependence of some congregations on a Jewish peculiarity was offensive. The Council of Nice, however, did not declare the Alexandrine cycle of Easter as alone canonical, but gave the bishop of Alexandria the privilege of announcing annually the date of Easter to the Roman curia. Although the synod undertook the regulation of the dating of Easter, it contented itself with communicating its decision to the different dioceses, instead of establishing a canon; thus inviting opposition even on this point in due season. Then began the proceedings against the Meletian schism, which, on account of the great popularity of the movement, took an extremely mild development and cost its founder only suspension from office, but no degradation. Finally there followed the prescription of twenty canons or rules of discipline: (1) prohibition of self-castration; (2) establishment of a minimum term for catechizing; (3) prohibition of the presence in the house of a cleric of females who might bring him under suspicion; (4) consecration of a bishop in the presence of at least three provincial bishops and confirmation by the metropolitan; (5) provision for two provincial synods to be held annually; (6) exceptional position granted to Alex andria and Rome as episcopal sees; (7) recognition of the honorary rights of the see of Jerusalem; (8) provision for agreement with the Novatians; (9-14) provision for mild procedure against the lapsed during the persecution under Licinius; (15-16) prohibition of the removal of priests; (17) prohibition of usury among the clergy; (18) precedence of bishops and presbyters over deacons in taking the Eucharist; (19) declaration of the invalidity of baptism by heretics; (20) attitude at prayer on Pentecost. On July 25, 325, the fathers of the council celebrated the emperor's twentieth anniversary and then dispersed. In his valedictory address the emperor again informed his hearers how averse he was to all dogmatic controversy, and in a circular letter he announced the accomplished unity of practise by the whole Church in the matter of the celebration of Easter. But the illusion of victory did not last, the emperor experiencing stroke after stroke of disappointment and misfortune. The continuation of the synod in 327 questioned every result achieved in 325. Arius as well as the friends punished with him and the Meletians regained nearly all rights which they had lost. (CARL ALBRECHT BERNOULLI.) ### II. The Second Council, 787 A.D. Although image-worship had been finally abolished by the energetic measures of Constantine V., whose iconoclastic tendencies were shared by his son, Leo IV., after the latter's early death, his widow Irene, as regent for her son, began its restoration, moved thereto by personal inclination and political considerations (see IMAGES AND IMAGE WORSHIP, II.). When in 784 the imperial secretary Tarasius was appointed successor to the patriarch Paul, he accepted on condition that the intercommunion with the other churches should be reestablished, that is, that the images should be restored. However, as a council claiming to be ecumenical had abolished image-worship, another ecumenical council was necessary for its restoration. Pope Hadrian was invited to participate and gladly accepted. The invitation intended for the oriental patriarchs could not even be delivered to them. The Roman legates were an archbishop and an abbot, each named Peter. In 786 the council met in the Church of the Apostles in Constantinople, but soldiers in collusion with the opposition entered the church and broke up the assembly. The government now resorted to a stratagem. Under the pretext of a campaign, the iconoclastic bodyguard was sent away from the capital, disarmed, and disbanded. The council was again summoned to meet, this time in Nice, since Constantinople was still distrusted, assembling Sept. 24, 787. It numbered about 350 members; 308 bishops or their representatives signed. Tarasius presided, and seven sittings were held in Nice. Proof of the lawfulness of image-worship was drawn from Ex. xxv.17 sqq.; Num. vii. 89; Heb. ix. 1 sqq.; Ezek. xli., and Gen. xxxi. 34, but especially from a series of passages of the Church Fathers; the authority of the latter was decisive. It was determined that "As the sacred and life-giving cross is everywhere set up as a symbol, so also should the images of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the holy angels, as well as those of the saints and other pious and holy men be embodied in the manufacture of sacred vessels, tapestries, vestments, etc., and exhibited on the walls of churches, in the homes, and in all conspicuous places, by the roadside and everywhere," to be revered by all who might see them. For the more they are contemplated, the more they move to fervent memory of their prototypes. Therefore, it is proper to accord to them a fervent and reverent adoration, not, however, the veritable worship which, according to our faith, belongs to the Divine Being alone-- for the honor accorded to the image passes over to its prototype, and whoever adores the image adores in it the reality of what is there represented. The clear distinction between the adoration offered to God and that accorded to the images may well be looked upon as a result of the iconoclastic reform. The twenty-two canons drawn up in Constantinople also served ecclesiastical reform. Careful maintenance of the ordinances of the earlier councils, knowledge of the Scriptures on the part of the clergy, and care for Christian conduct are required, and the desire for a renewal of ecclesiastical life is awakened. The papal legates voiced their approval of the restoration of image-worship in no uncertain terms, and the patriarch sent a full account of the proceedings of the council to Hadrian, who caused the same to be translated, which translation Anastasius later replaced with a better one. For a treatment of the opposition view, see CAROLINE BOOKS. (N. BONWETSCH.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: I. The collection of sources which supersedes all others is *Patrum Nicaeorum nomina . . . sociata opera, * ed. H. Gelser, H. Hilgenfeld. O. Cunts, *adjecta ed tabula geographica, * Leipsic, 1899. The canons are in the collections of Mansi and Labbe, and in Hefele, *Conciliengeschichte*, i. 378-431. Eng. transl. i. 262-447. and Fr. transl., vol. i., note the material on the Coptic fragments in this transl., i. 1125-1138, on various editions of the canons, pp. 1139-1176, and on canon 8. pp. 1182-1202; an Eng. transl. with voluminous discussion is in J. Chrystal, *Authoritative Christianity*, vol. i., Jersey City, 1891. Consult: J. Kaye, *Some Account of the Council of Nicaea, * London, 1853; B. H. Covvper, *Analecta Nicaena,* London, 1857; E. Revillout, *Le Comas de Niche d'apres les textes coptes, * 2 vols., Paris, 1880-99; W. Bright, *Notes on the Canons of the First Four General Councils. * London, 1892; C. A: Bernoulli, *Das Konsil von Nicäa, * Freiburg, 1896; J. J. Lias, *The Nicene Creed, * London, 1897, new ed., 1910; O. Braun, *De sancta Nicaena synodo, * Munster, 1898; Schaff, *Christian Church*, iii. 622-832, and in general works on the church history of the period; Harnack, *Dogma*, vols. ii. iv. passim, and in general works on the history of doctrine; consult also the literature on the CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED. II. Hefele, *Conciliengeschichte*, iii. 441 sqq., Eng. transl., v. 342-400; C. W. F. Welch, *Historie der Ketzereien*, x. 419 sqq., 11 vols., Leipsic. 1762-85; Schaff, *Church History*, iv. 459-463; literature under CAROLINE BOOKS; IMAGES AND IMAGE WORSHIP, II.
NICAENO-CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**NICAENO-CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED.** See CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED.
NICARAGUA Nicaragua

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**NICARAGUA.** See CENTRAL AMERICA.
NICCCOLLS, SAMUEL JACK Niccolls, Samuel Jack

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**NICCOLLS, SAMUEL JACK**: Presbyterian; b. at Greenfield Farm, Westmoreland Co., Pa., Aug. 3, 1838. He was graduated from Jefferson College (now Washington and Jefferson), Cannonsburg, Pa. (A.B., 1857), and Western Theological Seminary, Alleghany, Pa. (1860). He was then pastor of Falling Springs Presbyterian Church at Chambersburg, Pa. (1860-64), and since 1864 has been pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church, St. Louis, Mo. He was also chaplain of the 126th Pennsylvania Volunteers in 1863, and a member of the committee on the revision of the Westminster Confession of Faith in 1890 and 1900. He is likewise president of the board of directors of McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago, and has written *The Eastern Question in Prophecy * (St. Louis, 1878). He is evangelical in belief and holds the Reformed theology.
NICENE CREED Nicene Creed

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**NICENE CREED**. See CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED.
NICEPHORUS Nicephorus

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**NICEPHORUS:** Celebrated Byzantine writer and patriarch of Constantinople; b. in Constantinople c. 758; d. at the monastery Tou Agathou June 2, 829. Of a strictly orthodox family, which had suffered from the earlier iconoclasm, he nevertheless entered the service of the State, became cabinet secretary, and under Irene took part in the synod of 787 as imperial commissioner. He then withdrew to a cloister that he had founded on the Propontis, until he was appointed director of the largest home for the destitute in Constantinople. After the death
NOWACK, WILHELM GUSTAV HERMANN Nowack, Wilhelm Gustav Hermann

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

NOWACK, n8"vdc', WILHELM GUSTAV HERMANN: German Lutheran; b. at Berlin Mar. 3, 1850. He was educated at the University of Berlin (Ph.D., Halle, 1872; Th. Lie., Berlin, 1873), and became privat-docent there in 1875, and extraordinary professor in 1880. He was also supply at St. Gertrud's, Berlin (1876-77), and pastor at the orphan asylum at Rummelsburg, an eastern suburb of Berlin (1877-81). Since 1881 he has been professor of Old-Testament exegesis and Hebrew at the University of Strasburg. He is also a canon of St. Thomas, Strasburg, a member of the supreme consistory, and an overseer of the Protestant gymnasium at Strasburg, as well as a member of the Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft and of the Strasburg Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft. In theology he is an adherent of the historical critical school. He has written: Die *Bedeutung des Hieronymus für die alttestamentliche Textkritik * (G6ttingen, *1875); Die aseyrisc)-babyloniachen Keilinschriften and daa AIM Testament * (Berlin, *1878); Der Prophet Hosea erkldrt (1880); Die 8ozialen Problems in Israel ursd deren Bedeutung fur die religibse F,nttsriekelung diesea Volke8 * (Strasburg, *1892); HebrdisscAe Arehdologie (2 vols., * Freiburg, *1894); Die Zukunftahq$nungen 1sraels in der astyrischen Zeit * (Tubingen, *1902); * and *Texlausgabe der kleineren Propheten * in Kittel's Bible *(1906). * He has prepared the second edition of E. Bertheau and F. Hitzig's commentaries on Proverbs and Ecclesiastes for the *Kurzgefaastee ezegetiachm Handbluh zum Allen Testament * (Leipsic, *1883); * the third edition of H. Hupfeld's commentary on the Psalms *(2 vols., * Gotha, *1888); * and Amos and Hosea for *Religionsgeachichtliche Volkabilcher (Til* bingen, *1908). * Since *1892 * he has been the editorin-chief of the *Handkommentar zum Alters Testament, * to which he has contributed the volumes on the Minor Prophets (G6ttingen, *1897; * 2d ed., *1903), * Judges and Ruth *(1900), * and Samuel *(1902).*
NYVALL, DAVID Nyvall, David

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**NYVALL, DAVID:** Lutheran; b. at Vall, in the parish of Karlskoga, Varmland, Sweden, Jan. 19, 1863. He was educated at the gymnasium of Gafle, the University of Upsala (1882-84), and the Carolingian Medical Institute, Stockholm (1884-1885). Leaving Sweden for the United States, he was instructor in a private school in Minneapolis, Minn. (1886-87), pastor of the Swedish Evangelical mission church, Sioux City, Ia. (1887-88), instructor in the Swedish department of the Chicago Theological Seminary (1888-90), instructor and principal of a private school in Minneapolis and assistant editor of the weekly *Veckobladet* (1890-91), president of the same school when enlarged and taken under the control of the Swedish Evangelical Mission Covenant (1891-94), and president of the North Park College, Chicago (the new Covenant school), and instructor in New Testament, Swedish, and other subjects in the same institution (1894-1905). Since 1905 he has been president of Walden College, McPherson, Kan. He has also been secretary of the Swedish Evangelical Mission Covenant (1896-1903). In theology he is an orthodox Lutheran. He has written: *Versi och Saga * (Minneapolis, Minn., 1890), poems; *Minnesblad * (Chicago, 1892), six addresses to the young; *Medsols* (1898), three patriotic addresses to the young; *Soken Guds Rike* (1901), addresses to the young; *Skogsdrillar* (1901), poems; and *My Business* (McPherson, Kan., 1905), eight addresses to the young:
OATES, TITUS Oates, Titus

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**OATES, TITUS:** The inventor of the famous Popish Plot; b. at Oakham (9 m. s.e. of Melton Mowbray) about 1649; d. at London July 12 or 13, 1705. The son of a Baptist clergyman, he studied at Merchant Taylors' school and at Cambridge, took orders in the Church of England; was a chaplain in the navy; and entered the Roman Catholic Church with the pretense, it is claimed, of obtaining the secrets of the Jesuits; he tarried for some time in the Jesuit houses of Valladolid and St. Omer. He was expelled from these institutions for misconduct; but, while he was an inmate, he had heard of a meeting of Jesuits held in London; and "on his expulsion," as John Richard Green says, "this single fact widened in his fertile brain into a plot for the subversion of Protestantism and the death of the king." About this time (1678) there was a good deal of suppressed anxiety among the Protestants of England in view of the machinations and activity of the Roman Catholics, and the well-known sympathy with them of Charles II., and especially of the duke of York, heir to the throne. Oates took advantage of this state of the public mind, and claimed to have evidence of a huge Popish Plot for the extirpation of Protestantism. He had the matter brought to the notice of the king, who probably smiled at it; and made public affidavit to the alleged facts before Sir Edmondsbury Godfrey, justice of the peace, deposing to a narrative consisting of forty-three articles, soon after increased to eighty one, the majority of which were palpably invented. The excitement over the revelations was intense. Lord Shaftesbury, who had just been released from prison, for political reasons fell in with the popular feeling, and exclaimed, "Let the treasurer cry as loud as he pleases against Popery, I will cry a note louder." The popular agitation was increased to frenzy by the murder of Godfrey, which was construed into an attempt to stifle the plot. The two houses of Parliament instituted an investigation of the matter and concurred in the opinion that a plot existed. Five peers, including Arundel and Bellasys, were sent to the Tower. Patrols guarded the streets; chains were drawn across them, and the houses supplied with arms. Parliament at the end of the year (1678) passed a bill excluding Roman Catholics from both houses, which was left unrepealed for a century and a half. The excitement was beginning to subside, when one Bedloe, stimulated by the reward which had been offered, appeared on the scene, and again aroused the national frenzy to its former intensity by more circumstantial and irritating revelations than those of Oaten. He swore to a plot for the landing of an army and the massacre of the Protestants. Oates had been treated like a hero, and assigned rooms at Whitehall, with a pension of 1,200 pounds. But a revulsion of public feeling took place after the execution of Stafford in 1680; and the duke of York, whom he had severely accused, secured a verdict for defamation of character, in 1684. Oates was condemned to pay a fine of 100,000 pounds, and sent to prison. On the accession of the duke to the throne in 1685, Oates was tried and convicted of perjury and was sentenced to be put in the pillory annually, be whipped from Oldgate to Newgate, and from thence to Tyburn, to pay a heavy fine, to be stripped of his canonical habits, and to be imprisoned for life. Taken back again to prison, he recovered from the exceedingly severe whipping. After the accession of William and Mary, the conviction of Oates was declared to have been illegal (1689), and he was not only pardoned, but granted an annual pension of five pounds a week, which was suspended at the instance of Queen Mary in 1693, but restored and increased, in 1698, to 300 pounds per annum. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The best modern book is J. Pollock, *The Popish Plot, *London, 1903. Consult further: *The Discovery of the Popish Plot, *London, 1679; T. Knox, *The Tryal of T. Knox and J. Lane for a Conspiracy to Defame . . . Dr. Oates, *ib. 1680; C. M. Clode, *Titus Oates and the Merchant Taylors' Company, * ib. 1890. A large literature of contemporaneous writers is indicated in the *British Museum Catalogue *under "Oates, Titus."
ORDER OF SALVATION Order of Salvation

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

ORDER OF SALVATION (Ordo salutis): A technical term of Protestant dogmatics to designate the consecutive steps in the work of the Holy Spirit in the appropriation of salvation. The phrase seems to occur for the first time in Buddeus *(In8ti* *tutione8 theologise dogmatica, p. 40,* History Leipsic, 1723), but the idea is an inher of the ent constituent of the older Protes Term. tant dogmatics. In medieval theology no definite analogue appears. As Prot estantism proceeded from the criticism and displace ment of the Roman Catholic conceptions of repent ance, faith, and works, and as it recognized in faith the form of the religious conviction, its interest sic, 1910. Other special works to be consulted are G. J. Planck, *Geschichte der christlich-kirchlichen Gesellschaftsverfaessng*, 5 vols., Hanover, 1803 sqq.; R. Rothe, *Die Anfange der christlichen Kirche, * Wittenberg, 1837; A. Harnack, *Die Lehre der zwolf Apostel, * in *T U*, ii. 1-2 (1884); E. Loning, *Die Gemeindeverfaesung den Urchristeniums,* Halle, 1888; C. Weissacker, *Apostolisches Zeitalter, * Freiburg, 1892, Eng. transl., London, 1894-95; J. Reville, *Les Origines de l'episcopat, * Paris, 1894; A. C. McGiffert, *The Apostolic Age, * New York, 1897; S. von Dunin-Borkowski, *Die neueren Forschungen uber die Anfange des Episkopats,* Freiburg, 1900 (reviews the later literature); K. Lubeck, *Reichseinteilung und kirchliche Hierarchie des Orients,* Munster, 1901; H. Bruders, *Die Verfassung der Kirche bis . . . 175, * Mains, 1904; R. Knopf, *Das nachapostolische Zeitalter, * Tubingen, 1905; P. A. Leder, *Die Diakonen, die Bischofe und Presbyter, * Stuttgart, 1905; K. Kautsky, *Der Ursprung des Christentums,* Stuttgart, 1908; C. Bigg, *The Origins of Christianity, * Oxford, 1909; F. C. Conybeare, *Myth, Magic, and Morals: a Study of Christian Origins, * London, 1909; O. Pfleiderer, *The Development of Christianity, * ib. 1909.
ORENTIUS Orentius

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**ORIENTIUS:** The received name of the author of *Commonitorium*, a Christian didactic poem of the first part of the fifth century. He is probably identical with Bishop Orientius of Auch, envoy from the Gothic King Theodoric I. to the Roman generals AEtius and Litorius, in the year 439. His poem describes the way to blessedness, and urgently admonishes against various byways of sin, especially against carnal temptation. The poem has for its constructive background the devastation of Gaul by the Alans, Suevi, Burgundians, and Vandals, 406 A.D. Classic poets are consulted; in particular, Catullus, Ovid, and Virgil. Whether there is also some reference to Christian poets (Prudentius?) is doubtful. In the extant manuscript, codex Ashburnham, tenth chapter, the *Commonitorium* is followed by five lesser poems and several poetical prayers of uncertain origin. The best edition is that of R. Ellis in *CSEL*, xvi. 191-261 and in *MPL, * lxi. 977-1006. G. KRUGER. BIOGRAPHY: An early *Vita* is in *ASB*, May, i. 61-64. Consult further: A. Ebert, *Allgemeine Geschicte der Litteratur des Mittelalters*, i. 410-414, Leipsic, 1889; M. Manitius, *Gesehichte der christlich-lateinischen Poesie*, pp. 192-201, Stuttgart, 1891; *KL*, ix. 1052-53; *DCB*, iv. 96.
ORIGEN Origen

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

### ORIGEN I. Life. Early Training (§ 1). Teacher and Writer (§ 2). Conflict with Demetrius and Removal to Caesarea (§ 3). II. Works. Exegetical Writings (§ 1). Extant Commentaries of Origen (§ 2). Dogmatic, Practical, and Apologetic Writings (§ 3). III. Views. Philosophical and Religious (§ 1). Theological and Dogmatic (§ 2). The Logos Doctrine and Cosmology (§ 3). Christology (§ 4). Eschatology (§ 5). IV. Character. ### I. Life ### 1. Early Training Origen, one of the most distinguished of the Fathers of the early Church, was born, probably at Alexandria, about 182; and died at Caesarea not later than 251. His full name was apparently Origenes Adamantius; and he received from his father, Leonides, thorough instruction in the Bible and in elementary studies. But in 202 the outbreak of the persecution of Septimius Severus robbed Origen of his father, whom he sought to follow in martyrdom, being prevented only by a ruse of his mother. The death of Leonides left the family of nine impoverished, their property being confiscated. Origen, however, was taken under the protection of a woman of wealth and standing; but as her household already included a heretic named Paul, the strictly orthodox Origen seems to have remained with her but a short time. Since his father's teaching enabled him also to give elementary instruction, he revived, in 203, the catechetical school at Alexandria (see ALEXANDRIA, SCHOOL OF), whose last teacher, Clement, was apparently driven out by the persecution. But the persecution still raged, and the young teacher unceasingly visited the prisoners, attended the courts, and comforted the condemned, himself preserved from harm as if by a miracle. His fame and the number of his pupils increased rapidly, so that Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, made him restrict himself to instruction in Christian doctrine alone. Origen, to be entirely independent, sold his library for a sum which netted him a daily income of 4 obols (about twelve cents) on which he lived by exercising the utmost frugality. Teaching throughout the day, he devoted the greater part of the night to the study of the Bible and lived a life of rigid asceticism. This he carried to such an extent that, fearing that his position as a teacher of women as well as men might give ground for scandal to the heathen, he followed literally Matt. xix. 12, partly influenced, too, by his belief that the Christian must follow the words of his Master without reserve. Later in life, however, he saw reason to judge differently concerning his extreme act. During the reign of Caracalla, about 211-212, Origen paid a brief visit to Rome, but the relative laxity under the pontificate of Zephyrinus seems to have disillusioned him, and on his return to Alexandria he resumed his teaching with zeal increased by the contrast. But the school had far outgrown the strength of a single man; the catechumens pressed eagerly for elementary instruction, and the baptized sought for interpretation of the Bible. Under these circumstances, Origen entrusted the teaching of the catechumens to Heraclas (q.v.), the brother of the martyr Plutarch, his first pupil. His own interests became more and more centered in exegesis, and he accordingly studied Hebrew, though there is no certain knowledge concerning his instructor in that language. From about this period (212-213) dates Origen's acquaintance with Ambrose of Alexandria (q.v.), whom he was instrumental in converting from Valentianism to orthodoxy. Later (about 218) Ambrose, a man of wealth, made a formal agreement with Origen to promulgate his writings, and all the subsequent works of Origen (except his sermons, which were not expressly prepared for publication) were dedicated to Ambrose. In 213 or 214, Origen visited Arabia at the request of the prefect, who wished to have an interview with him; and Origen accordingly spent a brief time in Petra, after which he returned to Alexandria. In the following year (215), a popular uprising at Alexandria caused Caracalla to let his soldiers plunder the city, shut the schools, and expel all foreigners. The latter measure caused Ambrose to take refuge in Caesarea, where he seems to have made his permanent home; and Origen, who felt that the turmoil hindered his activity as a teacher and imperilled his safety, left Egypt, apparently going with Ambrose to Caesarea, where he spent some time. Here, in conformity with local usage based on Jewish custom, Origen, though not in orders, preached and interpreted the Scriptures at the request of the bishops Alexander of Jerusalem and Theoctistus of Caesarea. When, however, the confusion in Alexandria subsided, Demetrius recalled Origen, probably in 216. Of Origen's activity during the next decade little is known, but it was obviously devoted to teaching and writing. The latter was rendered the more easy for him by Ambrose, who provided him with more than seven stenographers to take dictation in relays, as many scribes to prepare long-hand copies, and a number of girls to multiply the copies. At the request of Ambrose, he now began a huge commentary on the Bible, beginning with John, and continuing with Genesis, Ps. i.-xxv., and Lamentations, besides brief exegeses of selected texts (forming the ten books of his *Stromateis*), two books on the resurrection, and the work "On First Principles." ### 3. Conflict with Demetrius and Removal to Caesarea About 230, Origen entered on the fateful journey which was to compel him to give up his work at Alexandria and embittered the next years of his life. Sent to Greece on some ecclesiastical mission, he paid a visit to Caesarea, where he was heartily welcomed and was ordained presbyter, that no further cause for criticism might be given Demetrius, who had strongly disapproved his preaching before ordination while at Caesarea. But Demetrius, taking this well-meant act as an infringement of his rights, was furious, for not only was Origen under his jurisdiction, but, if Eastern sources may be believed, Demetrius had been the first to introduce episcopal ordination in Egypt. The metropolitan accordingly convened a synod of bishops and presbyters which banished Origen from Alexandria, while a second synod declared his ordination invalid. Origen accordingly fled from Alexandria in 231, and made his permanent home in Caesarea. A series of attacks on him seems to have emanated from Alexandria, whether for his self-castration (a capital crime in Roman law) or for alleged heterodoxy is unknown; but at all events these fulminations were heeded only at Rome, while Palestine, Phenicia, Arabia, and Achaia paid no attention to them. At Alexandria Heraclas became head of Origen's school, and shortly afterward, on the death of Demetrius, was consecrated bishop. At Caesarea Origen was joyfully received, and was also the guest of Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and of the empress-dowager, Julia Mammaea, at Antioch. The former also visited him at Caesarea, where Origen, deeply loved by his pupils, preached and taught dialectics, physics, ethics, and metaphysics; thus laying his foundation for the crowning theme of theology. He accordingly sought to set forth all the science of the time from the Christian point of view, and to elevate Christianity to a theory of the universe compatible with Hellenism. In 235, with the accession of Maximinus, a persecution raged; and for two years Origen is said, though on somewhat doubtful authority, to have remained concealed in the house of a certain Juliana in Casarea of Cappadocia. Little is known of the last twenty years of Origen's life. He preached regularly on Wednesdays and Fridays, and later daily. He evidently, however, developed an extraordinary literary productivity, broken by occasional journeys; one of which, to Athens during some unknown year, was of sufficient length to allow him time for research. After his return from Athens, he succeeded in converting Beryllus, bishop of Bostra, from his adoptianistic views to the orthodox faith; yet in these very years (about 240) probably occurred the attacks on Origen's own orthodoxy which compelled him to defend himself in writing to the Roman pontiff Fabian (236-250) and many bishops. Neither the source nor the object of these attacks is known, though the latter may have been connected with Novatianism (see NOVATIAN, NOVATIANISM). After his conversion of Beryllus, however, his aid was frequently invoked against heresies. Thus, when the doctrine was promulgated in Arabia that the soul died and decayed with the body, being restored to life only at the resurrection, appeal was made to Origen, who journeyed to Arabia, and by his preaching reclaimed the erring. In 250 persecutions of the Church broke out anew, and this time Origen did not escape. He was tortured, pilloried, and bound hand and foot to the block for days without yielding. These tortures seem to have resulted in his death. A later legend, recounted by Jerome (*De vir. ill.*, liv.; Eng. transl. in *NPNF,* 2 ser., iii. 373-374) and numerous itineraries place his death and burial at Tyre, but to this little value can be attached. ### II. Works ### 1. Exegetical Writings According to Epiphanius *(Haer.*, lxiv. 63) Origen wrote about 6,000 works (i.e., rolls or chapters). A list was given by Eusebius in his lost life of Pamphilus (*Hist. eccl.*, VI., xxxii. 3; Eng. transl., *NPNF, * 2 ser., i. 277), which was apparently known to Jerome (*Epist. ad Paulam, NPNF, * vi. 46). These fall into four classes: text criticism; exegesis; systematic, practical, and apologetic theology; and letters; besides certain spurious works. By far the most important work of Origen on textual criticism was the Hexapla (see BIBLE VERSIONS, A, I., 1, $ 4). With Origen's great text-critical work a closer acquaintance is afforded by the discovery of an original fragment. By this work he thought to establish a basis for the study of the Old Testament, that should be adequate to scientific demands. As a sample of the execution of the work, a page is offered. View table in original page image Of the fate of the Hexapla nothing is known. The Milan discovery (see for this BIBLE VERSIONS, A, I., 1, $ 4) proves that at least some individual parts existed much longer than was supposed up to that time. The references to the Hexapla by later manuscripts and authors obtain therefore a greater significance than hitherto. The Tetrapla was an abbreviation of the former in which Origen placed only the translations (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and the Septuagint) in parallels. He was likewise keenly conscious of the textual difficulties in the manuscripts of the New Testament, although he never wrote definitely on this subject. In his exegetical writings he frequently alludes to the variant readings, but his habit of making rough citations in his dictation, the verification being left to the scribes, renders it impossible to deduce his text from his commentaries. The exegetical writings of Origen fall into three classes: scholia, or brief summaries of the meaning of difficult passages; homilies; and "books," or commentaries in the strict sense of the term. Jerome (ut sup.) states that there were scholia on Leviticus, Psalms i.-xv., Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, and part of John. The *Stromateis* were of a similar character, and the margin of Codex Athous, Laura, 184, contains citations from this work on Rom. ix. 23; I Cor. vi. 14, vii. 31, 34, ix. 20-21, x. 9, besides a few other fragments. Homilies on almost the entire Bible were prepared by Origen, these being taken down after his sixtieth year as he preached. It is not improbable that Origen gave no attention to supervising the publication of his homilies, for only by such a hypothesis can the numerous evidences of carelessness in diction be explained. The exegesis of the homilies was simpler than that of the scientific commentaries, but nevertheless demanded no mean degree of intelligence from the auditor. Origen's chief aim was the practical exposition of the text, verse by verse; and while in such barren books as Leviticus and Numbers he sought to allegorize, the wealth of material in the prophets seldom rendered it necessary for him to seek meanings deeper than the surface afforded. Whether the sermons were delivered in series, or the homilies on a single book were collected from various series, is unknown. The homilies preserved are on Genesis (17), Exodus (13), Leviticus (18), Numbers (28), Joshua (16), Judges (9), I Sam. (2), Psalms xxxvi.- xxviii. (9), Canticles (2), Isaiah (9), Jeremiah (7 Greek, 2 Latin, 12 Greek and Latin), Ezekiel (14), and Luke (39). ### 2. Extant Commentaries of Origen The object of Origen's commentaries was to give an exegesis that discriminated strictly against the incidental, unimportant historical significance, in favor of the deeper, hidden, spiritual truth. At the same time, he neglected neither philological nor geographical, historical nor antiquarian material, to all of which he devoted numerous excursuses. In his commentary on John he constantly considered the exegesis of the Valentinian Heracleon (probably at the instance of Ambrose), and in many other places he implied or expressly cited Gnostic views and refuted them. Unfortunately, only meager fragments of the commentaries have survived. Besides the citations in the *Philocalia*, which include fragments of the third book of the commentary on Genesis, Ps. i., iv. 1, the small commentary on Canticles, and the second book of the large commentary on the same, the twentieth book of the commentary on Ezekiel, and the commentary on Hosea, and of the commentary on John, only books i., ii., x., xiii., xx., xxviii., xxxii., and a fragment of xix. have been preserved. The commentary on Romans is extant only in the abbreviated version of Rufinus, and the eight books preserved of the commentary on Matthew likewise seem to be either a brief reworking or a rough outline. Codex Vaticanus, 1215, gives the division of the twenty-five books of the commentary on Ezekiel, and part of the arrangement of the commentary on Isaiah (beginnings of books VI., VIII., XVI.; book X. extends from Isa. viii. 1 to ix. 7; XI. from ix. 8, to x. 11; XII., from x. 12 to x. 23; XIII. from x. 24 to xi. 9; XIV. from xi. 10 to xii. 6; XV. from xiii. 1 to xiii. 16; XXI. from xix. 1 to xix. 17; XXII. from xix. 18 to xx. 6; XXIII. from xxi. 1 to xxi. 17; XXIV. from xxii. 1 to xxii. 25; XXV. from xxiii. 1 to xxiii. 18; XXVI. from xxiv. 1 to xxv. 12; XXVII. from xxvi. 1 to xxvi. 15; XXVIII. from xxvi. 16 to xxvii. 11a; XXIX. from xxvii. 11b to xxviii. 29; and XXX. treats of xxix. 1 sqq.). The Codex Athous Laura, 184, in like manner, gives the division of the fifteen books of the commentary on Romans (except XI. and XII.) and of the five books on Galatians, as well as the extent of the commentaries on Philippians and Corinthians (Romans: I. from i. 1 to i. 7; II. from i. 8 to i. 25; III. from i. 26 to ii. 11; IV. from ii. 12 to iii. 15; V. from iii. 16 to iii. 31; VI. from iv. 1 to v. 7; VII. from v. 8 to v. 16; VIII. from v. 17 to vi. 15; IX. from vi. 16 to viii. 8; X. from viii. 9 to viii. 39; XIII. from xi. 13 to xii. 15; XIV. from xii. 16 to xiv. 10; XV. from xiv. 11 to the end; Galatians: I. from i. 1 to ii. 2; II. from ii. 3 to iii. 4; III. from iii. 5 to iv. 5; IV. from iv. 6 to v. 5; and V. from v. 6 to vi. 18; the commentary on Philippians extended to iv. 1; and on Ephesians to iv. 13). ### 3. Dogmatic, Practical, and Apologetic Writings Among the systematic, practical, and apologetic writings of Origen, mention should first be made of his work "On First Principles," perhaps written for his more advanced pupils at Alexandria and probably composed between 212 and 215. It is extant only in the free translation of Rufinus, except for fragments of the third and fourth books preserved in the *Philocalia*., and smaller citations in Justinian's letter to Mennas. In the first book the author considers God, the Logos, the Holy Ghost, reason, and the angels; in the second the world and man (including the incarnation of the Logos, the soul, free will, and eschatology); in the third, the doctrine of sin and redemption; and in the fourth, the Scriptures; the whole being concluded with a resume of the entire system. The work is noteworthy as the first endeavor to present Christianity as a complete theory of the universe, and was designed to remove the difficulties felt by many Christians concerning the essential bases of their faith. Earlier in date than this treatise were the two books on the resurrection (now lost, a fate which has also befallen two dialogues on the same theme) dedicated to Ambrose. After his removal to Caesarea, Origen wrote the works, still extant, "On Prayer," "On Martyrdom," and "Against Celsus." The first of these was written shortly before 235 (or possibly before 230), and, after an introduction on the object, necessity, and advantage of prayer, ends with an exegesis of the Lord's Prayer, concluding with remarks on the position, place, and attitude to be assumed during prayer, as well as on the classes of prayer. The persecution of Maximinus was the occasion of the composition of the "On Martyrdom," which is preserved in the "Exhortation to Martyrdom." In it, Origen warns against any trifling with idolatry and emphasizes the duty of suffering martyrdom manfully; while in the second part he explains the meaning of martyrdom. The eight books against Celsus (q.v.) were written in 248 in reply to the polemic of that pagan philosopher agains Christianity. Eusebius had a collection of more than one hundred letters of Origen (*Hist. eccl.*, VI., xxxvi. 3; Eng. transl. *NPNF, * 2 ser. i. 278-279), and the list of Jerome speaks of several books of his epistles. Except for a few fragments, only a short letter to Gregory Thaumaturgus and the epistle to Julius Africanus (defending the authenticity of the Greek additions to Daniel) have been preserved. For forgeries of the writings of Origen made in his lifetime cf. Rufinus, *De adulteratione librorum Origenis.* The *Dialogus de recta in Deum fide* (q.v.), the *Philosophumena * of Hippolytus (q.v.), and the Commentary on Job by Julian of Halicarnassus (q.v.) have also been ascribed to him. ### III. Views ### 1. Philosophical and Religious Origen, trained in the school of Clement and by his father, was essentially a Platonist with occasional traces of Stoic philosophy. He was thus a pronounced idealist, regarding all things temporal and material as insignificant and indifferent, the only real and eternal things being comprised in the idea. He therefore regards as the purely ideal center of this spiritual and eternal world, God, the pure reason, whose creative powers call into being the world with matter as the necessary substratum. Likewise Platonic is the doctrine that those spirits capable of knowing supreme reason, but imprisoned in the body in this world, will rise after death to divinity, being purified by fire. In his attempt to amalgamate the system evolved by Greek thought with Christianity, Origen found his predecessors in the Platonizing Philo and even in the Gnostics. His exegesis does not differ generally from that of Heracleon, but in the canon of the New Testament and in the tradition of the Church, Origen possessed a check which kept him from the excesses of Gnostic exegesis. He was, indeed, a rigid adherent of the Bible, making no statement without adducing some Scriptural basis. To him the Bible was divinely inspired, as was proved both by the fulfilment of prophecy and by the immediate impression which the Scriptures made on him who read them. Since the divine Logos spoke in the Scriptures, they were an organic whole and on every occasion he combatted the Gnostic tenet of the inferiority of the Old Testament. He was aware of the discrepancies between the Old and New Testaments and the contradictory accounts, of the Gospels; but he considered these only as inconsistencies that lend themselves to an unspirituel historical exegesis according to the letter. In his exegesis, Origen sought to discover the deeper meaning implied in the Scriptures. One of his chief methods was the translation of proper names, which enabled him, like Philo, to find a deep meaning even in every event of history (see EXEGESIS OR HERMENEUTICS, III., $ 2); but at the same time he insisted on an exact grammatical interpretation of the text as the basis of all exegesis. A strict adherent of the Church, Origen yet distinguished sharply between the ideal and the empirical Church, representing "a double church of men and angels," or, in Platonic phraseology, the lower church and its celestial ideal. The ideal Church alone was the Church of Christ, scattered over all the earth; the other provided also a shelter for sinners. Holding that the Church, as being in possession of the mysteries, affords the only means of salvation, he was indifferent to her external organization, although he spoke sometimes of the office-bearers as the pillars of the Church, and of their heavy duties and responsibilities. More important to him was the idea borrowed from Plato of the grand division between the great human multitude, capable of sensual vision only, and those who know how to comprehend the hidden meaning of Scripture and the diverse mysteries; church organization being for the former only. It is doubtful whether Origen possessed an obligatory creed; at any rate, such a confession of faith was not a norm like the inspired word of Scripture. The reason, illumined by the divine Logos, which is able to search the secret depths of the divine nature, remains as the only source of knowledge. ### 2. Theological and Dogmatic Origen's conception of God is entirely abstract-- God is a perfect unity, invisible and incorporeal, transcending all things material, and therefore inconceivable and incomprehensible. He is likewise unchangeable, and transcends space and time. But his power is limited by his goodness, justice, and wisdom; and, though entirely free from necessity, his goodness and omnipotence constrained him to reveal himself. This revelation, the external self-emanation of God, is expressed by Origen in various ways, the Logos being only one of many. Revelation was the first creation of God (cf. Prov. viii. 22), in order to afford creative mediation between God and the world, such mediation being necessary, because God, as changeless unity, could not he the source of a multitudinous creation. The Logos is the rational creative principle that permeates the universe. Since God eternally manifests himself, the Logos is likewise eternal. He forms a bridge between the created and uncreated, and only through him, as the visible representative of divine wisdom, can the inconceivable and incorporeal God be known. Creation came into existence only through the Logos, and God's nearest approach to the world is the command to create. While the Logos is substantially a unity, he comprehends a multiplicity of concepts, so that Origen terms him, in Platonic fashion, "essence of essences" and "idea of ideas." The defense of the unity of God against the Gnostics led Origen to maintain the subordination of the Logos to God, and the doctrine of the eternal generation is later. Origen distinctly emphasised the independence of the Logos as well as the distinction from the being and substance of God. The term "of the same substance with the Father "was not employed. He is merely an image, a reflex not to be compared with God; as one among other "gods," of course first in rank. ### 3. The Logos Doctrine and Cosmology The activity of the Logos was conceived by Origen in Platonic fashion, as the world soul, wherein God manifested his omnipotence. His first creative act was the divine spirit, as an independent existence; and partial reflexes of the Logos were the created rational beings, who, as they had to revert to the perfect God as their background, must likewise be perfect; yet their perfection, unlike in kind with that of God, the Logos, and the divine spirit, had to be attained. The freedom of the will is an essential fact of the reason, notwithstanding the foreknowledge of God. The Logos, eternally creative, forms an endless series of finite, comprehensible worlds, which are mutually alternative. Combining the Stoic doctrine of a universe without beginning with the Biblical doctrine of the beginning and the end of the world, he conceived of the visible world as the stages of an eternal cosmic process, affording also an explanation of the diversity of human fortunes, rewards, and punishments. The material world, which at first had no place in this eternal spiritual progression, was due to the fall of the spirits from God, the first being the serpent, who was imprisoned in matter and body. The ultimate aim of God in the creation of matter out of nothing was not punishment, but the upraising of the fallen spirits. Man's accidental being is rooted in transitory matter, but his higher nature is formed in the image of the Creator. The soul is divided into the rational and the irrational, the latter being material and transitory, while the former, incorporeal and immaterial, possesses freedom of the will and the power to reascend to purer life. The strong ethical import of this cosmic process can not remain unnoticed. The return to original being through divine reason is the object of the entire cosmic process. Through the worlds which follow each other in eternal succession, the spirits are able to return to Paradise. God so ordered the universe that all individual acts work together toward one cosmic end which culminates in himself. Likewise as to Origen's anthropology, man conceived in the image of God is able by imitating God in good works to become like God, if he first recognizes his own weakness and trusts all to the divine goodness. He is aided by guardian angels, but more especially by the Logos who operates through saints and prophets in proportion to the constitution of these and man's capacity. ### 4. Christology The culmination of this gradual revelation is the universal revelation of Christ. In Christ, God, hitherto manifest only as the Lord, appeared as the Father. The incarnation of the Logos, moreover, was necessary since otherwise he would not be intelligible to sensual man; but the indwelling of the Logos remained a mystery, which could be represented only by the analogy of his indwelling in the saints; nor could Origen fully explain it. He speaks of a "remarkable body," and in his opinion that the mortal body of Jesus was transformed by God into an ethereal and divine body, Origen approximated the Docetism (q.v.) that he otherwise abhorred. His concept of the soul of Jesus is likewise uncertain and wavering. He proposes the question whether it was not originally perfect with God but, emanating from him, at his command assumed a material body. As he conceived matter as merely the universal limit of created spirits, so would it be impossible to state in what form the two were combined. He dismissed the solution by referring it to the mystery of the divine governance of the universe. More logically did he declare the material nature of the world to be merely an episode in the spiritual process of development, whose end should be the annihilation of all matter and return to God, who should again be all in all. The doctrine of the resurrection of the body he upholds by the explanation that the Logos maintains the unity of man's existence by ever changing his body into new forms, thus preserving the unity and identity of personality in harmony with the tenet of an endless cosmic process. Origen's concept of the Logos allowed him to make no definite statement on the redemptive work of Jesus. Since sin was ultimately only negative as a lack of pure knowledge, the activity of Jesus was essentially example and instruction, and his human life was only incidental as contrasted with the immanent cosmic activity of the Logos. Origen regarded the death of Jesus as a sacrifice, paralleling it with other cases of self-sacrifice for the general good. On this, Origen's accord with the teachings of the Church was merely superficial. ### 5. Eschatology His idealizing tendency to consider the spiritual alone as real, fundamental to his entire system, led him to combat the rude Chiliasm (see MILLENNIUM, MILLENARIANISM) of a sensual beyond; yet he constrained himself from breaking entirely with the distinct celestial hopes and representations of Paradise prevalent in the Church. He represents a progressive purification of souls, until, cleansed of all clouds of evil, they should know the truth and God as the Son knew him, see God face to face, and attain a full possession of the Holy Spirit and union with God. The means of attainment of this end were described by Origen in different ways, the most important of which was his Platonic concept of a purifying fire which should cleanse the world of evil and thus lead to cosmic renovation. By a further spiritualization Origen could call God himself this consuming fire. In proportion as the souls were freed from sin and ignorance, the material world was to pass away, until, after endless eons, at the final end, God should be all in all, and the worlds and spitits should return to a knowledge of God. ### IV. Character In Origen the Christian Church had its first theologian in the highest sense of the term, nor has the Greek Church ever had his superior. Attaining the pinnacle of human speculation, his teaching was not merely theoretical, like that of his antagonists, the Gnostics, but was also imbued with an intense ethical power. To the multitude to whom his instruction was beyond grasp, he left mediating images and symbols, as well as the final goal of attainment. In Origen Christianity blended with the paganism in which lived the desire for truth and the longing after God. When he died, however, he left no pupil who could succeed him, nor was the church of his period able to become his heir, and thus, his knowledge was buried. Three centuries later his very name was stricken from the books of the Church; yet in the monasteries of the Greeks his influence still lived on, and the spiritual father of Greek monasticism was that same Origen at whose name the monks had shuddered. See ORIGENISTIC CONTROVERSIES. (ERWIN PREUSCHEN.) Bibliography: For the earlier literature on Origen consult *ANF, * Bibliography, pp. 50-55; U. Chevalier, *R6pertoire des sources hidorkuea du moyen dpe, pp. * 1883 sqq., 2758 eqq., Paris, 1904; A. Ehrhard. *Die altchriagiche LitUerntta, * in TSR,1880-84, and the supplement for 1885-1900. The one complete edition of the Opera is that by C. and V. de la Rue, 4 vols., Paris, 1733-59 (but cf. the ed. Of LOmmatssch, 25 vols., Berlin, 1831-48). reproduced in MPO, a.-zvu.; a new edition, which will supersede the earlier editions, is in process under the auspices of the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences, vols. i.-iv., Leipsie, 18991903. The exegetical writings, ed. P. D. Huet, with learned dissertations. Oriveniana, appeared, 2 vole., Rouen, 1888, Paris, 1879, Cologne, 1885. The commentary on John, ed. A. E. Brooke, appeared 2 vols., Cambridge, 1891; and individual works or excerpts in TU, ii. 4, vi. 1, xii. 3, xvi. 3. Several of his works (' On First Principles," ·' To Africanus," ·· To Gregory," and " Against Coleus ") are in Eng. trannl., with an introduction, in *ANF, iv* . 221 eqq. For the English reader of first importance is Westcott's fine article in *DCB, * iv. 98-142. Consult further: G. Thomasius, Oripen, Nuremberg, 1837; E. R. Rudepenning, Oripenee, Bonn. 1843 18; C. Rsmere, Oripens Lehre von der Auferdekunp des Pleisches, Troves, 1851; A. Fournier, Exposition critique des idges d'Oripme aw la rldemption, Strasburg. 1881; G. Contestin, Or;pMe atdpde, Arras, 1887; F. BBhringer, Die %irche Chridi *and * ihre Zeupen, Hlemens *and O* ripenes, Zurich, 1889; C. E. Freppel. Oripkne, Paris, 1875; A. H. Charteris, *Canonicily, * Edinburgh, 1880; J. Denis. La *Philosophic d* 'Oripane, Paris, 1884; C. Bigg, *Christian P* latonisls of Alexandria, pp. 115-288, Oxford, 1888; C. Boyer, La *R6demption * daps Oripdne. Montauban, 1888; F. W. Farrar, Hidory of Interpretation, pp. 187-203, New York, 1888; !dam, Lines of the Fathers, f. 291-323, ib. 1889; J. Patrick, The Apology of Oripen in Reply to Cola-, London. 1892; F. Kattenbusch, Do& apostolssche Symbol, Leipelo, 1894: C. Mein, Die Freiheitelehre doe Oripenes, Strasburg, 1894; Mostermsnn, in TU, xvi. 3 (1897); G. Capitaine, De Origenis eWiica, MBneter. 1898; W. Fairweather, Oripen and Greek Patridic Theology. Edinburgh, 1901; A. Zd111g, Die *lnapirationdehre doe * Or;pense, Freiburg, 1902; G. Anrieh, Clemens and Oripines ale *Bqgrtlnder der * Lehre room Pqgfeuer, TObingen 1902; O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Litteratur, ii. 88-158, Freiburg, 1903; A. Z51fg, Die Inepira6onalekre des Origenes, Freiburg. 1903; E. C. Dargan, Hist. of Preaching, pp* . 49 sqq., New York, 1905; F. Prat, Origins, Is Wolopien d rerigNe, Paris, 1907: Vigouroux Dietiormairs, faeo. xxiu., cola. 1870-1889 (a worthy dfaoussion); Krager, History, 173 eqq.; Harnack. Dogma (consult index); idem, Litteratur, i. 332-405 et passim; Schaff, Christian Church, iii. 785 ,qq., et passim; and fn general the works on the church history of the period; Ceillier, Auteura sacr&, ii. 130-440; %L, ix. 1053-73; and in general works on the history of doctrine. For some new fragments of the Hess of. Cairo *Genisoh P* alsmpseds, London, 1901.
P P

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**P:** The symbol employed to designate the Priestly document which, according to the critical school, is one of the components of the Hexateuch (q.v.). See HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE, II., § 4.
PACCA, BARTOLOMMEO Pacca, Bartolommeo

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PACCA,** pa'ca, **BARTOLOMMEO:** Cardinal; b. at Benevento Dec. 15, 1756; d. at Rome Apr. 19, 1844. At the Congress of Ems (see EMS, CONGRESS OF), in 1786, when certain princes of the Church in western Germany endeavored to secure for themselves a last vestige of ecclesiastical independence, Rome's answer was already framed in the founding of a papal nunciature at Munich, together with the despatch of the young diplomat, Pacca, to Cologne as nuncio. Thus every attempt in the Febronian direction (see HONTHEIM, JOHANN NICOLAUS VON) was nullified by Rome. And though the Rhenish prelates refused to receive the new nuncio, he nevertheless exercised an unrestricted authority of jurisdiction at Cologne, where he took skilful advantage of the discord between the citizens and the archbishop. In the Prussian districts on the left bank of the Rhine, he gained no less prompt recognition than in the dioceses of Hildesheim, Paderborn, Speyer, Liege, and the Bavarian domains. The Prussian diplomacy, then as afterward, proved all too accommodating in relation to the Curia. Indeed, Frederick William II. thereby reaped the advantage of having recognized by the Curia the royal title which the Prussian monarchs had borne since 1701. The clever diplomatist Pacca was already in a very fair way to stifle all impulses of ecclesiastical independence in western Germany, when the French Revolution (q.v.) broke out. Its army, invading the German border in 1794, interrupted further proceedings. His experiences acquired at Cologne availed Pacca, in the next place, as nuncio at Lisbon, 1795-1800. His method was to assume the appearance of concession, yet prosecute his demands to their utmost limits by presenting them repeatedly in diversified form. His "Memoirs," which belong to the most interesting state papers of his time, cover his sojourn in both Germany and Portugal, and have appeared in various languages and editions (Pesaro, 1830, Orvieto, 1843, Paris, 1883, 1884, etc.). Returning to Rome in 1801, Pacca took his place at the front of the radical party, and, in 1808, thrust out the temporizing Consalvi (q.v.) from the leadership of affairs of State. On July 6, 1809, he was abducted in the same carriage with Pope Pius VII. (q.v.) and continued in French custody until 1813. In 1814 he accompanied the pope in his triumphal entry into Rome. Though the subsequent course of events restored his opponent Consalvi to the leading place, Pacca nevertheless remained the effective influence to which the papacy owed its restoration. K. BENRATH. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Consult Pacca's *Memorie Storiche del Ministero . . . del Card. B. Pacca, * 2 vols., Orvieto, 1843, Eng. transl., *Notes on the Ministry of Cardinal B. Pacca, * Dublin, 1843; and his *Historical Memoirs, * 2 vols., London, 1850; M. Brosch. *Geschichte des Kirchenstaates*, vol. ii., Gotha, 1882; F. Nippold, *The Papacy in the 18th Century*, pp. 22, 26, 36, New York, 1900.
PACCANARI, NICOLO Paccanari, Nicolo

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PACCANARI, NICOLO:** Roman Catholic, founder of the Society of the Faith of Jesus (Baccanarists, Paccanarists); b. at Val Sugana (near Trent, 80 m. s.w. of Innsbruck) about the middle of the eighteenth century; d. after 1809. Originally a merchant, he came under the influence of the Jesuit Gravita at Rome and was inspired, though a layman, to attempt the restoration of the Society of Jesus (see JESUITS), which had been dissolved by Clement XIV. With a few companions Paccanari accordingly founded his society in 1797, imitating the Jesuit organization in detail, and himself being chosen superior. The society was confirmed by Pius VI. in 1798, and the fathers, originally twelve in number, at first resided near Spoleta. By letters. to various ecclesiastical princes of Italy, and by entrusting to the society the education of the students of the propaganda driven from Rome by the French republicans, Pius VI. aided in the rapid growth of the organization. In 1799 the organization was united with the French society of the Holy Heart of Jesus which had taken refuge in Austria, and Paccanari became general superior of the united body, and in 1800 was ordained priest. Though the order spread rapidly from Austria and Italy to France, Belgium, Holland, and England, it soon began to decline. Paccanari lacked administrative ability, and his imperious temper opposed union with the Russian branch of the Jesuits. In 1804, therefore, a number of Italian members went over to the Jesuits who had been restored in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. At the same time the fathers of the society in Holland and England began to migrate to Russia to become Jesuit novices; while the French members of the order fell away from their incapable founder and chose Varin, the second superior of the old Society of the Holy Heart of Jesus, as their head. In 1808 Paccanari was deposed by the holy office from the general superiorship and condemned to ten years in prison. He gained his liberty in the following year, when the French again invaded Rome, but he had lost his importance and henceforth remained unknown. (O. ZOCKLER.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. Speil, *Leonor Framz von Tournely und die Gesellschaft des heiligen Herzens Jesu*, pp. 269 sqq., 313 sqq., Breslau, 1874; A. Guidee, *Vie du . . . Joseph Varin*, pp. 72 sqq., 169 sqq., Paris, 1860; Heimbucher, *Orden und Kongregationen*, iii. 88 sqq.
PACE, RICHARD Pace, Richard

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PACE, RICHARD:** English ecclesiastic, diplomatist, and man of letters; b. at or near Winchester, about 1482; d. at Stepney, in the east of London, 1536. His studies were principally conducted at Padua; and although, on his return, he entered Queen's College, Oxford, he very soon left it for the service of Cardinal Bainbridge, whom he accompanied to Rome at the end of 1509. In May, 1510, he became prebendary of South Muskham, Southwell. In 1514 he became archdeacon of Dorset, in 1519 dean of St. Paul's, and in 1522 dean of
PAINE, TIMOTHY OTIS Paine, Timothy Otis

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

PAINE, TIMOTHY OTIS: Theologian; b. at Winslow, Me., Oct. 13, 1824; d. at Boston Dec. 6, 1895. He was graduated from Waterville College (now Colby University), in 1847. After 1856 he was pastor of the Swedenborgian Church at Elm-
PARAMENTA Paramenta

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

PARAMENTA. 1. Early and Western Church. The General Structure (§ 1). Separate Parts (§ 2). Ambo and Chancel (§ 3). II. Eastern Church. III. Protestant Churches. General Situation (¢ 1). Specific Pieces (§ 2). Color Symbolism (§ 3). 1. Early and Western Church: By paramentum was meant in the Middle Ages the possessions of the churches in the shape of materials which served in the cultus, including the altar vessels and carpets and hangings. But in the course of time the word became differentiated and carried only the idea of textiles other than vestments. r. The In the larger and richer churches large General quantities of these materials accumu- Structure. lated, as inventories prove. In archi tecture the models for the early Church were found generally in classical antiquity, and these forms governed the development of the paramenta; the entrance first demanded treatment, then the intercolumnar spaces, then the choir, and so on, hangings being applied. This was very early. For the transition to the Middle Ages the *Liber pon * *tificalis (q.v.) *is a rich source, showing, as it does, that, e.g., Adrian T. assigned to St. Peter's sixty seven, to St. Paul's seventy-two, to S. Maria Mag giore's forty-four altar cloths, carpets, and hang ings, and to other churches in proportion, the material being silk, half-silk, and linen. The orient was the source whence these materials were drawn, the ornamentation being of geometrical figures, plants, Biblical illustrations, and figures from hagi ology, while the cross was especially affected. When architecture emancipated itself from the old models, adornment with these materials developed; the choir and the side chapels especially came in for ornamentation, though on festival occasions nave and entrance afforded place for carpets and hang ings, while the Altar *(q.v., III.) *gave itself easily to treatment. When these materials were made in the West, the stuff used was wool or linen, fashioned upon earlier models, the monastic institutions being places of manufacture, while later the cities took it up. In the manufacture embroidery took a large, sometimes a luxurious part, at first upon oriental models, but afterward in more independent style. In the fourteenth century needlework on the Rhine, in Burgundy, and in Flanders reached its highest development. While naturally at first the models used were those from the East, in which the ani mals employed in decorations (griffin, peacock, eagle, lion) testified to the derivation, the tendency to independence was strong; so ornamentation based upon Scriptural stories, upon ecclesiastical material, and even drawn from common life, because usual. Some of the results are impressive, and follow the lead of Painting *(q.v.). *The Renaissance, too, had its influences both in weaving and in embroidery. While the decoration of the structure as such was being developed, the individual parts also received attention. Naturally, among these the altar was emphasized. By early custom the altar table *Parables o/ our * l"d, L Vale., Mlaburgh, 1eSM-lib; b. Goebel, *Die Parabeln Jesu, *Goths, 1880, Eng. trawl., Edinburgh, 1884; S. D. F. Salmond, *Parables of our Lord, *ib. 1893; W. H. Thomson, *The Parables and their Homes, *New York, 1895; B. W. Martin, *Practical Studies on the Parables of our Lord, *London, 1897; 1. Stoekmeyer, *ExeDetische and praktisehe Erkldrunp auspewdhlter Gleichnisse Jesu, *ed. B. Stockmeyer, Basel, 1897; C. A. Bugge, *Die Haupt-Pambeln Jesu, mit edner Einleitunp aber die Methode der Parabeln-Ausleyung, *Giessen, 1903; C. Ricketts, *Parables from the Gospels, *New York, 1903; P. Fiebig, *Alljftdischs Gleichnisse and die Gleichnisse Jesu, *Tiibingen, 1904; G. C. Morgan *The Parables of the Kingdom, *New York, 1907; and literature on the Life of Christ, and the commentaries on the Gospels. PARABOLANOI: A brotherhood at Alexandria in the fifth oenturv devntad to tha enm of tha %&Lwas covered with white linen, which fell with a greater or a lesser margin over the edge. This overhang easily lent itself to decoration either by embroidery or in the weaving. In the development of the cloth covering of the altar s. Separate there was by the Middle Ages the Parts. greatest advance, in the larger struc tures the materials being very rich silks or cloth of gold, often richly figured. The gen eral development was away from the early simplicity, and the structure itself of the altar and its appurte nances changed so that t6re were costly additions in the way of shelves and suspended parts made of gold or silver plate or leaf, adorned even with precious stones. In connection with these the hangings took on new importance and magnificence, were used often to set off the other decorations, and were hung between the pillars and at the sides. For the holding of the hangings framework of wood or iron was often employed. Present liturgical prescrip tions of the Roman Catholic Church, which have their antecedents in the Middle Ages, require three linen altar cloths, two cover the altar table, while the third covers the entire altar and falls nearly to the foot. Upon the stone lies the chrismal, serving really as a protection for the other cloths. The service of the altar further requires the palla cor Porcalis, a linen cloth about twenty-three inches square, used by the priest after the consecration of the bread to spread the latter upon and after to wrap it up. While it was formerly used also for the cup, the latter has now its own covering, the palla calicis, from which is to be distinguished the velum calicis which conceals the cup till the beginning of the offertory. Other pieces which have been em ployed were the Palls dominicalis and the purifica torium, the latter'a fine linen cloth for cleansing the cup. In the Ambo and Chancel (qq.v.) the readingdesk was adorned with a narrow piece of cloth which hung down in front, in festal seasons the ornamentation was more elaborate. But in early and medieval times ambo and chan- 3. Ambo eel were decorated rather with plas and Chancel. tic material. In the early Church, as baptism was generally of adults and by immersion, the baptismal font was naturally enclosed by hangings; if the baptistery had col umns about it, the hangings were suspended be tween the columns. The episcopal chair lent itself in festal seasons to this kind of adornment, espe cially after the thirteenth century when its position was changed. In the Middle Ages there was in use a large curtain shutting off the choir from the nave during fasting seasons, often ornamented with scenes from the passion. Carpets were a direct in heritance from early times and were used in the choir, and these were until a late period brought from the East or patterned after oriental models. The Western Church lacked prescriptions regard ing all these adornments, and freedom in materials, color, and design was therefore exercised. The free dom of the early Middle Ages in all these matters has vanished before the growing restrictions of liturgical directions, with the result that a certain monotony has come in. This has in recent times,
PATTON, CORNELIUS HOWARD Patton, Cornelius Howard

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PATTON, CORNELIUS HOWARD: ** Congregationalist; b. at Chicago Dec. 25, 1860. He received his education at Howard University, Emerson Institute, Washington, D. C., Amherst College (B.A., 1883), and Yale Divinity School (B.D., 1887); was ordained in 1887, and served the churches at Westfield, N. J., 1887-95, Duluth, Minn., 1895-98, and the First Congregational Church at St. Louis, 1898-1904; since 1904 he has been corresponding secretary of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions.
PATTON, FRANCIS LANDEY Patton, Francis Landey

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PATTON, FRANCIS LANDEY:** Presbyterian; b. at Warwick, Bermuda, Jan. 22, 1843. He was educated at Knox College, Toronto, the University of Toronto, and Princeton Theological Seminary (graduated, 1865). He was ordained in 1865 and held pastorates at the Eighty-fourth Street Presbyterian Church, New York City (1865-67), Nyack, N. Y. (1867-70), and South Presbyterian Church, Brooklyn, N. Y. (1871); he was Cyrus H. McCormick professor of theology in the Theological Seminary of the North-West (now McCormick Theological Seminary), Chicago (1871-72); pastor of the Jefferson Park Presbyterian Church in the same city (1874-81); Robert L. Stewart professor of the relations of philosophy and science to the Christian religion in Princeton Theological Seminary (1881-1888); also professor of ethics in Princeton College (1886-88). In 1888 he was elected president of Princeton College, and held this position until 1902, when he resigned and was elected to his present position of president of Princeton Theological Seminary. He still retains, however, the professorship of ethics in Princeton University, as well as a lectureship on theism in Princeton Theological S eminary. In theology he is extremely conservative. Besides editing *The Interior* ( 1873-76) and being for several years a member of the editorial board of *The Presbyterian Review, * he has written *Inspiration of the Scriptures * (Philadelphia, 1869); and *Summary of Christian Doctrine * (1874). **PAUL:** The name of five popes.
PAUL I Paul I

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**Paul I.:** Pope 757-767. He first appears as a Roman deacon and was frequently employed by his brother, Pope Stephen II., in negotiations with the Lombard kings. After Stephen's death (April 26, 757) Paul was chosen his successor by those who wished a continuation of the late pope's policy. The new pope's reign was dominated by his relations to the Frankish and Lombard kings and to the Eastern emperor. He adopted an independent tone in informing the exarch in Ravenna of his election, but wrote to Pepin that the Frankish alliance should be maintained unimpaired, being forced to this course by the attitude of the Lombard king, Desiderius. The latter held the cities of Imola, Osimo, Bologna, and Ancona, which were claimed by Rome, and in 758 seized upon the duchies of Spoleto and Benevento. The same year he visited Rome and compelled Paul to write to Pepin asking him to concede all the Lombard claims except that to Imola; another letter of exactly opposite tenor was sent by the same messenger. Pepin found it advisable to maintain good relations with Desiderius, and Paul accomplished nothing by his double-dealing. Later, however, Pepin gave the pope some support and acted as arbiter between the Roman and Lombard claims. In 765 the papal privileges were restored in Beneventine and Tuscan territory and partially in Spoleto. Meanwhile, the alienation from Byzantium grew greater. Several times, especially in 759, Paul feared that the Greek emperor would send an armament against Rome; and he lived in continual dread lest Byzantine machinations turn the Frankish influence in favor of the Lombards. This was actually attempted, but Pepin held to his original Italian policy. Paul died June 28, 767. See PAPAL STATES. (A. HAUCK.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mann, *Popes, i. 2, pp. 331-360; * F. Papencordt, *Geschichte der Stadt Rom, pp. 89 * sqq., Paderborn, *1857· R. * Baxmann, *Die Politik der P4pste, i. 251 * eqq., Elberfeld, *1868; J. * Ficker, *Forachungen zur Reich's--and RechtWeschichte Italiens ii, 329 * sqq., Innsbruck, *1869; * L. Oelsner, *Jahrbacher des frankiachen Rekhs unter . . . Pippin, pp. 319 * sqq, *343 * sqq, *353 * sqq., Leipsic, *1871; * B. Niehues, *Geschichte des Verhdunisses Misden Kap8er-* *tum and Papatlum, r. 497 * sqq., Munster, *1877; idem, * in *HfatonackerJahrb~her. ii. 221 * sqq., *ib. 1881; W. * Martens, *Die rnmiwAe Prape unter Pippin and Karl dm ~rossen,* *pp. 86 * sqq., *254-255, * Stuttgart, *1881; E. D. * Glssson, *Les Rapport's du pouvoir apirwtuet et du pouvoir temporel au m0ym 49e, * Paris, *1894; F. * Gregorovins, *Hist. of the City* *of Rome, ii. 305 eqq., *London, 1894; P. Hehr, *Chronolopis der Brief, Paula 1. im Codes Carolinus, *in *Gaainper philolopiache Nachrichten, *1896, pp. 103-157; W. Gundlach, *Die Entetehunp des Kirchenetaatea, *Breslau. 1899; Bower, Popes, ii. 109-114; Milman, *Latin Christianity, ii. *428; Platina, *Popes, i. *172-174; Hefele, *Coneiliengeachichte, *iii. 420, 431 sqq.; Hauck, *KD, ii. *18, note 3 (for supplementary bibliography'); literature under PAPAL STATES.
PAUL II Paul II

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**Paul II.** (Pietro Barbo): Pope 1464-71. He was born at Venice 1418, and was a nephew of Pope Eugenius IV. His adoption of the spiritual career was prompted by his uncle's election as pope. His promotion was rapid; he became a cardinal in 1440, and was unanimously elected pope on Aug. 30, 1464, to succeed Pius II. His oath on taking office obligated him to abolish the prevalent nepotism in the Curia, to improve the morals there, to prosecute the war on the Turks, and to convene an ecumenical council within three years. But these terms of subscription were modified by Paul at his own discretion, and this action lost him the confidence of the sacred college. Consequently, when in 1466, designing to eliminate redundant offices, Paul proceeded to annul the college of abbreviators, whose function it was to formulate papal documents, a storm of indignation arose, inasmuch as rhetoricians and poets had long been accustomed to buy in the reversion of such positions. Platina (q.v.), who was one of these, wrote a threatening letter to the pope, and was imprisoned but discharged; in 1467 he was again imprisoned on the charge of having participated in a conspiracy against the pope, and was subjected to torture, being accused, along with other abbreviators, of pagan views. In retaliation, Platina, in his *Vitae pontificum*, set forth an unfavorable delineation of the character of Paul II. It is certain that Paul was an opposer of the humanists, was second to none in making provision for popular amusements, and displayed an extravagant love of splendor. But justice requires notice of his strict sense of equity, his reforms in the municipal administration, and his fight against official bribery and traffic in posts of dignity. In statecraft, Paul lacked eminence and achieved nothing of consequence for Italy. In his own domain, however, he terminated, in 1465, the predatory regime of the counts of Anguillara. In the matter of war on the Turks, the one sovereign who might have taken the lead, King George Podiebrad of Bohemia, was rejected by the pope, and prosecuted as heretic because he sustained the conventions of Basel (see Huss, John) in favor of the Utraquists. In August, 1465, he summoned Podiebrad before his Roman tribunal, and, when the king failed to come, leagued himself with the insurgents in Bohemia, and released the king's subjects from the oath of allegiance. In December, 1466, he pronounced the ban of excommunication and sentence of deposition against Podiebrad. When ultimately the king's good success was disposing the pope in favor of reconciliation, Paul II. died, on Mar. 22, 1471. K. BENRATH. B:BraoaaArar: Sources: Of prime importance is the continuation of the *Commentarii Pius ll., *by J. Ammanati, and the latter's *Epiatolm *in the Frankfort, 1614, ed. of the *Commentarii; *Gaspar Veronensis, *De gestis Pauli IL, *book f., in G. L. Marini, *Archiatri pontijecii, ii. *178 sqq., Rome, 1784, books ii.-iv. in Muratori, *Script", iii. 2, pp. 1024* sqq.; Muratori, ut sup., pp. 993 s4q., contains a *Vita by *M. Caneneius; A. M. Quirini, *Pauli 11. Vita, *Rome, 1740; A. Gyaconius, *Vita . . . pontilicum Romanorum, ii. *10691070, Rome, 1677. Consult: Pastor, *Popes, iv. 1-196,* documents are reproduced, pp. 475-505 (the footnotes afford a most complete bibliography); Creighton, *Papacy, *iv. 4-60; F. Papeneordt, *Geschichte der Stadt Rom im Mit-* *tetalter, *Paderborn, 1857; J. Palaeky, *Ge8chichte van BAmen, vole. *iv.-v., Prague, 1860-65; M. Jordan, *Das Koniptum Gems van Podiebrad, pp. *184 sqq., Leipsic, 1861; Petrucelli della Gattina, *Hietoire diplamatique des conclaves, i. *285 eqq., Paris, 1864; A. von Reumont, *Ge-* *whiehte der Stadt Rom, iii., i., pp. *152 eqq., Berlin, 1867; J. Burekhardt, *Geschichts der Renaissance in Italien, *Stuttgart, 1878; idem, *Die Cultur der Renaissance in Italien, *2 vole., Leipsic, 1877-78; Von HSHer, in *Archiv ffir daterroeichiache Geschichtskunde, ail. *328 sqq.; ides, in *Site-* *unpaberichte Wiener Akademie, historieche Klasae, *zevi., 1881; De I'Epinois, in *Revue des questions hiatoriques, *1886, pp. 278 sqq.; W. Barry, *The Papal Monarchy, pp. *83-85, New York, 1902; Platina, Popes, ii. 275-296 (of. remark in teat); Bower, Popes, iii. 244-248.
PAUL III Paul III

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**Paul III.** (Alessandro Farnese): Pope 1534-49. He was born at Carino, in Tuscany, and came through his mother from the Gaetani family, which had also produced Bonifacius VIII. He received his instruction at Rome and Florence from distinguished humanists, and became a prothonotary at the Curia under Innocent VIII. From Alexander VI. he received rapid promotion, becoming cardinal in 1493. He came near succeeding Leo X. and Adrian VI. Under Clement VII. he became cardinal bishop of Portus (Ostia) and dean of the sacred college, and on the death of Clement VII., in 1534, received election as pope. His first appointment to the cardinalate on Dec. 18, 1534, made it clear that nepotism had come to the front once more; since the red hat fell to his nephews Alessandro Farnese and Ascanio Sforza, aged fourteen and sixteen years respectively; yet subsequent appointments included Gasparo Contarini, Sadoleto, Pole, and Giovanni Pietro Caraffa, subsequently Pope Paul IV. (q.v.). Paul III. was in earnest in the matter of improving the ecclesiastical situation, and on June 2, 1536, he issued a bull convoking a general council to sit at Mantua in 1537. But at the very start the German Protestant estates declined to send any delegates to a council in Italy, while the duke of Mantua himself put forth such large requirements that Paul first deferred for a year and then discarded the whole project. In 1536 Paul invited nine eminent prelates, distinguished by learning and piety alike, to act in committee and to report as to the reformation and rebuilding of the Church. In 1537 they turned in their celebrated *Concilium de emendenda ecclesia * (in J. le Plat, *Monumenta ad historiam Concilii Tridentini*, ii. 596-597, Louvain, 1782), exposing gross abuses in the Curia, in the church administration and public worship; and proffering many a bold and earnest word in behalf of abolishing such abuses. This report was printed not only at Rome, but at Strasburg and elsewhere. But to the Protestants it seemed far from thorough; Luther had his edition (1538) prefaced with a vignette showing the cardinals cleaning the Augean stable of the Roman Church with their foxtails instead of with lusty brooms. Yet the pope was in earnest when he took up the problem of reform. He clearly perceived that the emperor would not rest until the problem were grappled in earnest, and that the surest way to convoke a council without prejudice to the pope was by an unequivocal mode of procedure that should leave no room for doubt of his own readiness to make amendments. Yet it is clear that the Concilium bore no fruit in the actual situation, and that in Rome no results followed from the committee's recommendations. On the other hand, serious political complications eventuated. In order to vest his grandson Ottavio Farnese with the dukedom of Camerino, Paul forcibly wrested the same from the duke of Urbino (1540). He also incurred virtual war with his own subjects and vassals by the imposition of burdensome taxes. Perugia, renouncing its obedience, was besieged by Pier Luigi, and forfeited its freedom entirely on its surrender. The burghers of Colonna were duly vanquished, and Ascanio was banished (1541). After this the time seemed ripe for annihilating heresy. While it was not foreseen at Rome in 1540, when the Church officially recognized the young society forming about Ignatius of Loyola (see JESUITs), what large results this new organization was destined to achieve; yet a deliberate and gradual course of action against Protestantism dates from this period. The second visible stage in the process becomes marked by the institution, or reorganization, in 1542, of the Holy Office (see INQUISITION). On another side, the emperor was insisting that Rome should forward his designs toward a peaceable recovery of the German Protestants. Accordingly the pope despatched the nuncio Morone to Hagenau and Worms, in 1540; while, in 1541, Cardinal Contarini took part in the adjustment proceedings at Regensburg (see REGENSBURG, CONFERENCE OF). It was Contarini who led to the stating of a definition in connection with the article of justification in which occurs the famous formula "by faith alone are we justified," with which was combined, however, the Roman Catholic doctrine of good works. At Rome, this definition was rejected in the consistory of May 27, and Luther declared that he could accept it only provided the opposers would admit that hitherto they had taught differently from what was meant in the present instance. The general results of the conference and the attitude of the Curia, including its rejection of Contarini's propositions, shows a definite avoidance of an understanding with the Protestants. All that could henceforth be expected of the pope was that he would cooperate in the violent suppression of "heretics" in Germany, as he had done in Italy, by creating for their annihilation the arm of the revived Inquisition. Yet, even now, and particularly after the Regensburg Conference had proved in vain, the emperor did not cease to insist on convening the council, the final result of his insistence being the Council of Trent (q.v.),which, after several postponements, was finally convoked by the bull *Laetare Hierusalem*, Mar. 15, 1545. Meanwhile, after the peace of Crespy (Sep., 1544), the situation had so shaped itself that Charles V. began to put down Protestantism by force. Pending the diet of 1545 in Worms, the emperor concluded a covenant of joint action with the papal legate, Cardinal Alessandro Farnese. The pope was to aid in the projected war against the German Evangelical princes and estates. The prompt acquiescence of Paul III. in the war project was probably grounded on personal motives. The moment now seemed opportune for him, since the emperor was sufficiently preoccupied in the German realm, to acquire for his son Pier Luigi the duchies of Parma and Piacenza. Although these belonged to the Papal States (q.v.), Paul thought to overcome the reluctance of the cardinals by exchanging the duchies for the less valuable domains of Camerino and Nepi. The emperor agreed, because of his prospective compensation to the extent of 12,000 infantry, 500 troopers, and considerable sums of money. In Germany the campaign began in the west, where Protestant movements had been at work in the archbishopric of Cologne since 1542. The Reformation was not a complete success there, because the city council and the majority of the chapter opposed it; whereas on Apr. 16, 1546, Herman of Wied (q.v.) was excommunicated, his rank forfeited, and he was, in Feb., 1547, compelled by the emperor to abdicate. In the mean time open warfare had begun against the Evangelical princes, estates, and cities allied in the Schmalkald League (see PHILIP of HESSE). By the close of 1546, Charles V. succeeded in subjugating South Germany, while the victorious battle at Muhlberg, on Apr. 24, 1547, established his imperial sovereignty everywhere in Germany and delivered into his hands the two leaders of the league. But while north of the Alps, in virtue of his preparations for the Interim (q.v.) and its enforcement, the emperor was widely instrumental in recovering Germany to Roman Catholicism, the pope now held aloof from him because the emperor himself had stood aloof in the matter of endowing Pier Luigi with Parma and Piacenza, and the situation came to a total rupture when the imperial vice-gerent, Ferrante Gonzaga, proceeded forcibly to expel Pier Luigi. The pope's son was assassinated at Piacenza, and Paul III. believed that this had not come to pass without the emperor's foreknowledge. In the same year, however, and after the death of the French King Francis I., with whom the pope had once again sought an alliance, the stress of circumstances compelled him to do the emperor's will and accept the ecclesiastical measures adopted during the Interim. With reference to the assassinated prince's inheritance, the restitution of which Paul III. demanded ostensibly in the name and for the sake of the Church, the pope's design was thwarted by the emperor, who refused to surrender Piacenza, and by Pier Luigi's heir in Parma, Ottavio Farnese. In consequence of a violent altercation on this account with Cardinal Farnese, the pope, at the age of eighty-one years, became so overwrought that an attack of sickness ensued from which he died, Nov. 10, 1549. He proved unable to suppress the Reformation, although it was during his pontificate that the foundation was laid for the counter-Reformation. K. BENRATH. *BIBLIOGRAPHY: * Consult for sources: Paul's bulls, with those of Pius IV. and Gregory XIII. and related documents. Paris, 1624; they are also to be found in Coquelines, *Bullarum, Privilegiorum . . collectio*, iv. 1, pp. 112 sqq.. Rome, 1745; O. Panvinius, *Pontificum Roma-*
PENTECOST Pentecost

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

PENTECOST: The name of two feasts, one Jewish and the other Christian, so called from their
PETER THE APOSTLE Peter the Apostle

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PETER THE APOSTLE.** I. Life. Name and Early Career (§ 1). Position among the Apostles II. (§ 2). Character and Temperament (§ 3). Activity and Position in Palestine (§ 4). His Teachings as Recorded in Acts (§ 5). Attitude toward Gentile Christians (§ 6). The Closing Years (§ 7). Confused and False Traditions Concerning Peter (§ 8). II. Writings. Occasion and Circumstances of I Peter (§ 1). Relation to Other N. T. Writing (§ 2). Its Theology (§ 3). Place and Date of Composition; Authenticity (§ 4). II Peter (§ 5). III. Apocryphal Petrine Literature. 1. The Gospel. Early Mention (§ 1). Rediscovery (§ 2). Contents (§ 3). Date, Sources, Character (§ 4). 2. The Apocalypse. Early Mention (§ 1). Contents (§ 2). Literary Influence; Date (§ 3). 3. The Preaching. 4. The Acts. **I. Life:** **1. Name and Early Career.** The sole source for the biography of the Apostle Peter during the earthly ministry of Christ is the canonical Gospels. He originally bore the very common Jewish name of Shimeon, Simeon, or Simon (cf. Acts xv. 14; TT Pet. i. 1), the first of these forms being the earliest, and the last the latest. He likewise had the Aramaic honorary surname of *Kepha* (Gk. *Kephas),* or "Rock," which was translated into its Greek equivalent *Petros,* "Peter." Christ himself, however, termed his apostle Peter only thrice (John i. 42; Matt. xvi. 18; Luke xxii. 34), elsewhere using either the name Simon (Matt. xvii. 25; Mark xiv. 37; Luke xxii. 31) or, in more solemn moments, Simon son of John (Matt. xvi. 17; John i. 42, xxi. 15-17). The phraseology of the Evangelists varies. Mark terms the apostle Simon until he receives the sur name of Peter (Mark iii. 16), after which he is called Peter; and a similar, though less consistent, course is followed by the other two synoptists (cf. Matt. iv. 18, viii. 14, xvi. 16; Luke v. 8). In Acts he is invariably called Peter, even when addressed (Acts x. 13, xi. 7). In the Fourth Gospel he is called Simon only when first mentioned, elsewhere being usually termed Simon Peter, Peter alone being used only when the double name either precedes or follows. Paul almost invariably terms him Cephas (I Cor, i. 12, iii. 22, ix. 5, xv. 5; Gal. i. 18, ii. 9, 11, 14), the use of Peter here being extremely rare (Gal. ii. 7-8). The father of the Apostle Peter was named John (John i. 42, xxi. 15 eqq.) or, in abbreviated form, Jona (Matt. xvi. 17). He was probably from Bethsaida (John i. 44), although Mark i. 21, 29 makes him a resident of Capernaum, the apparent contradiction being explicable by the fact that at marriage (cf. T Cor. ix. 5) he had removed to the latter town, making his living by fishing, together with his younger brother Andrew, in the Sea of Galilee (Matt. iv. 18; Mark i. 16; Luke v. 3). Andrew had early become one of the disciples of John the Baptist (John i. 40), and it was this younger brother who brought Peter into contact with Jesus (John i. 42). There is, however, no reason to suppose that he then became a member of the Messiah's circle, or that he was present among the disciples at Cana (John ii. 2), at Jerusalem (ii. 17), in Judea (iv. 2), and in Samaria (iv. 8). It would rather seem that, after returning with Jesus to Galilee, Peter there resumed his trade, so that there is no real discrepancy between the account in the Gospel of John and the synoptic records of the calling of Peter (John ii. 41 sqq.; Matt. iv. 18 aqq.; Mark i. 16 sqq.), but, on the contrary, the synoptic account presupposes the Johannine, which alone renders it intelligible as the documents now read. With the second calling, however, Peter seems to have become the constant follower of Jesus throughout all his wanderings, so that his incorporation among the twelve apostles (Matt. x. 1 sqq.; Mark iii. 13 sqq.) evidently makes little real change in his relation to Christ. **2. Position amoung the Apostles.** While Matthew and Luke ascribe a slightly more marked preeminence to Peter among the apostles than does Mark, which is based largely on Petrine sources, there is no real the discrepancy between them. Matthew and Luke have included certain passages, omitted by Mark, which emphasize the leadership of Peter (Matt. xiv. 28-31, xvi. 17-19, xvii. 24-27, xviii. 21; Luke v. 3, xii. 41, xxii. 32, xxiv. 12, 34); words ascribed by Mark to the apostles in general are attributed by Matthew and Luke to Peter (cf. Matt. xv. 15 and Luke viii. 45 with Mark vii. 17, v. 31); Peter is expressly mentioned where Mark gives no name (cf. Luke xxii. 8 with Mark xiv. 13); Matthew explicitly stresses the priority of Peter among the apostles (cf. Matt. x. 2 with Mark iii. 16 aqq.; Luke vi. 14 sqq.; Acts i. 13 sqq.); and the position which be held according to Mark (v. 37, xiii. 3, xiv. 33) was little less than that ascribed to him in Matthew and Luke. Nor is this position altered by the relation of Peter to John in the Fourth Gospel. Here John has a certain preeminence because of his greater sympathy with the mind of Jesus, whereas Peter owed his position to his quick decision and action, a position which the Fourth Gospel not only does not minimize, but, on the contrary, brings into full prominence. **3. Character and Temperament.** Generally speaking, the character of Peter is described with essential harmony in all the Gospels. He appears as an admirable type of the Galilean, well-meaning, confiding, freedom-loving, and courageous, yet changeable, capricious, and eager for novelty (Josephus, *War,* III., iii. 2; *Life, * 16-17; Matt. xi. 7 sqq., 16 sqq.). At first blush it seems strange that Jesus should have given the epithet of "Rock" to one of such character, yet he saw far beneath the surface and grasped the inherent strength and stability that underlay the changing and inconstant exterior. Nor did Peter prove unworthy of this confidence; his trust became ardent devotion; and his quick resolution was strengthened and steadied. Yet in the account of his walking on the water (Matt. xiv. 28-31) his natural instability of character, even after being long under the influence of Jesus, comes clearly to the fore; while his denial of Christ still more strongly marks his wavering and his weakness. Nevertheless, he had already shown himself worthy of his title, as when at Caesarea Philippi he boldly declared Jesus to be the Christ, not a mere precursor of the Messiah (Matt. xvi. 13 sqq.; Mark viii. 27 sqq.; Luke ix. 18 sqq.; John vi. 66 sqq.), especially as this was the very time when many, disappointed in Jesus, were abandoning him. Yet even the faith of Peter was not uncommingled with hopes of the earthly power and glory of Christ, and from the first foreshadowing of the sufferings of Christ, made at Csesarea Philippi, until their close the alternate strength and weakness of Peter appear in ever-increasing clearness. He incurred the severe rebuke of his master by deprecating the necessity of such sufferings (Matt. xvi. 23-24; Mark viii. 33), yet on the mount of transfiguration he again wished to make permanent the glory there apocalyptically revealed (Matt. xvii. 3; Mark ix. 5; Luke ix. 33). Equally typical was his desire to extend forgiveness as far as possible, though he still fell far short of the Christian ideal (Matt. xviii. 21-22); and the same statement holds true of the words in which he reminds Christ how both he and the other disciples had left all to follow him (Matt. xix. 27; Mark x. 28; Luke xviii. 28). As the time of the passion approached, the moral perils of Peter thickened. In the scene recorded in John xiii. 6 aqq. his impetuosity is revealed, as well as a certain lack of understanding of the love of Jesus which was to reach its culmination in the passion. Immediately afterward he vowed, despite the prophecy of the denial, to remain faithful to Jesus even unto death (Matt. xxvi. 33 aqq.; Mark xiv. 29 sqq.; Luke xxii. 33-34; John xiii. 37-38). But he had overestimated his strength, nor could he even keep awake for his master's sake in Gethsemane (Matt. xxvi. 40; Luke xxii. 45). It is true that he drew his sword when Jesus was seized (Matt. xxvi. 51; Mark xiv. 47; Luke xxii. 50; John xviii. 10-11), but when he saw that this was useless, he fled with the other disciples (Matt. xxvi. 56 and parallels). Nevertheless, he made his way into the palace of the high priest, where he was put to the real test, only to deny Jesus with the utmost vehemence (Matt. xxvi. 69 sqq.; Mark xiv. 66 sqq.; Luke Vii. 56 sqq.; John xviii. 15 sqq.). This last fall receives only a partial explanation from the vacillating character of Peter; the real reason seems to lie in the fact that inaction undermined his resolution, which activity would have kept consistent. Yet in all this he never really lost faith in Christ for an instant, and when he became aware of what he bad almost unconsciously done, his remorse and shame, while finally purifying his character, kept him away from Christ until after the resurrection. Then, however, his old energy reappeared, and though at the tomb he was outstripped in running by the younger disciple John, he was still the first to find that the grave was empty (John xx. 3 aqq.), and in the account of the appearance of the risen Christ at the Sea of Tiberias, the old character of Peter once more becomes manifest (John xxi. 7 sqq.). The temperament of Peter, as here outlined, was inseparably connected with his position of preeminence among the apostles. Not only was he closely associated with the two sons of Zebedee, James and John, and once with his own brother, Andrew, as one of the favorite and most trusted disciples of Jesus (Mark v. 37, ix. 2, xiii. 3 sqq., xiv. 33 aqq.; Luke viii. 51, ix. 28), and not only were he and John commissioned to make preparations for the Last Supper (Luke xxii. 8 sqq.), but the entire content of the Gospels mark him as preeminent over the other disciples. This position seems to have been due essentially to his quick resolution and to his energy, and it was confirmed by Jesus both for the present and for the future; for the present by addressing to him questions and answers which concerned the other disciples as well (Matt. xvii. 25 sqq., xviii. 22, xxvi. 40; John xiii. 36); and for the future by the remarkable words recorded in Matt. xvi. 18-19, a prerogative which even temporary wavering and recreancy could not annul (cf. Luke xxii. 31-32). **4. Activity and Position in Palestine.** The apostolic activity of Peter in Judea and the neighboring districts after the resurrection of Jesus is recorded chiefly in Acts, although the Pauline epistles contain a few valuable allusions. It must be borne in mind that a certain amount of editorial change may be traced in the speeches ascribed to Peter in Acts, but there is no reason to doubt the essential authenticity of the facts there recorded. After the ascension, Peter, undismayed by the threats of the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, preached and worked in Samaria and along the Syro-Phenician coast, especially in Lydda, Joppa, and Cassarea (Acts viii. 14 sqq., ix. 32-x. 48), performing many miracles (Acts iii. 4 aqq., v. 15, ix. 34, 40). Returning to Jerusalem, he was imprisoned under Herod Agrippa after the death of James, the brother of John (Acts xii. 1 aqq.), but escaping, he left the city, though he seems again to have taken up his residence there after Herod's death. Paul visited him there three years after his conversion (Gal. i. 18), and he was there at the time of the council of the apostles recorded in Gal. ii. 1-9. With Jerusalem as a base, he visited other churches (Gal. ii. 11), accompanied by his wife (I Cor. ix. 5). Despite the existence of a Petrine faction in Corinth (I Cor. i. 12; cf. ix. 5), there is no reason to suppose that Peter ever labored there (cf. also I Cor. iv. 15), and the tradition, preserved by Eusebius, that Peter founded the church in the Syrian city of Antioch is refuted by Acts xi. 19 aqq. As to the position of Peter as the leader . of the apostolic church, Acts and the Pauline epistles are in full accord. He took first place in the meeting which chose Matthias to succeed Judas Iscariot (Acts i. 15 aqq.), he was the spokesman of the whole company of apostles both in winning a large body of Jewish converts (Acts ii. 14 sqq.) and in defending the Gospel against the Jewish hierarchy (Acts iv. 8 sqq., 19 sqq., v. 29 sqq.), he reformed conditions within the mother church at Jerusalem (Acts v. i sqq.), he watched over relations with other Christian communities (Acts viii. 14 sqq., ix. 32 sqq.), and he was the first to receive a pagan into the new church (Acts x. 1 sqq.). On the other hand, he enjoyed no absolute preeminence. He labored in Samaria together with John (Acts viii. 14), and he was called to account for associating with gentiles (Acts xi. 3 sqq.). At the council of the apostles, moreover, he was not only sot the leader, but was even subordinate, in a sense, to James (Acts xv. 6 aqq.). In like manner Paul at first describes Peter as the leader of the church at Jerusalem (Gal. i. 18), but by the time of the apostolic council he was, although still the virtual representative of the mission to the Jews, only one of the three pillars of the church, the other two being James and John (Gal. ii. 8-9). **5. His Teachings as Recorded in Acts.** The teaching of Peter, as recorded in Acts, was essentially apologetic, hortatory, and practical. Special stress was laid by him on the sufferings of Christ, which could allege no obstacle to full acceptance of his Messianic mission, since his death was an undeserved and unrighteous act of murder on the part of the Jews through pagan hands (Acts ii. 23, iii. 13 sqq.; cf. iv. 10-11, v. 30, x. 39). Christ was a true prophet (Acts iii. 22), anointed by the Holy Ghost (x. 38), and attested by miracles, wonders, and signs (ii. 22); and his death was due not to chance, but to the divine plan (Acts ii. 23) as foretold by the prophets (iii. 18), the purpose being the first of all the blessings of the Messianic kingdom, including the forgiveness of sins (cf. iii. 18-19). The proof of the Messianic kingship of Jesus, even during his human life and suffering, was sought in the fact that, in harmony with prophecy, he had been raised by God from the dead on the third day (Acts ii. 32, iii. 15, 26, iv. 10, x. 40), had been manifested to chosen witnesses (x. 40-41), and had been exalted to the right hand of God (ii. 31 sqq.). This resurrection, of which it was an essential duty of the apostles to be witnesses (Acts i. 22, ii. 32, iii. 13 sqq., v. 30 sqq., x. 40-41), had made Jesus the Messianic king (ii. 36, v. 31), the cornerstone of the divine kingdom (iv. 11), lord of all (x. 36, cf. ii. 36), the perfection of the divine kingdom established since the days of the patriarchs (iii. 13), and the consummation of the Messianic days foretold by the prophets (iii. 24). His mediation, therefore, conditions all the promised blessings of the perfect kingdom of God, forgiveness of sins (Acts u. 38, iii. 19, v. 31, x. 43), peace (x. 36), the gift of the Holy Ghost (ii. 38, xi. 17), salvation from a perverse generation (ii. 40), physical health (iii. 6, 16, iv. 10), all salvation (iv. 12), and every divine blessing (iii. 26). The condition on which man shares in these blessings is repentance (Alts ii. 38, iii. 19, viii. 22), which first becomes fully possible through the death and resurrection of Clirist (v. 31, xi. 18, of. iii. 26), as well as obedience to God (v. 32) and acceptance of the divine revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the pledge and the expression of acceptance on both sides being baptism in the name of Christ (ii. 38). The full realization of the divine kingdom, however, will be impossible until the last judgment, when God will send Jesus as the judge of the quick and the dead (Acts x. 42), and to bring to the faithful of all ages rest from the affliction of the present wo (iii. 19 sqq.). **Attitude toward Gentile Christians.** While Peter realized that, in accordance with his divine promises, God would extend the blessings established in Christ to all the world and would call all the gentiles (Acts ii. 39, iii. 25-26), he also knew that thesd boons were primarily for the children of the old dispensation (iii. 25, x. 36), and he hoped that, despite their unbelief and rejection of Jesus, they might still be won for Christ (ii. 39). He was, moreover, certain that he and the other apostles were ordained to preach solely to the Jews (x. 42), and so strong was his aversion to the gentiles that only special divine commands could make him enter the house of the Roman centurion Cornelius in Caesarea and preach the Gospel to him and his family, concluding by baptizing them (Acts x.). The growth of the Church in non-Jewish territory, however, forced Peter and other Judeo-Christians to modify their views, and at the council convened at Jerusalem to decide on the requirements to be laid upon gentile converts to Christianity, Peter deprecated excessive ritual exactions of the converts, though agreeing with James that the gentile Christians should refrain from all things forbidden in the Noachian laws binding on every gentile (Acts xv. 7 sqq.). Further light is cast upon this council by the account given by Paul (Gal. ii. 1 sqq.), according to which the final conclusion was complete harmony, and it was decided that James, Peter, and John should preach to the Jews, and Paul and Barnabas to the gentiles. Neither does the disagreement between Paul and Peter recorded by the former as taking place at Antioch (Gal. ii. 11 sqq.) point to any opposition of principle between the two, particularly as they both agreed that true righteousness was to be sought, not in works of the law, but solely in faith in Christ (Gal. ii. 16). There can be little doubt that Peter's sudden change of attitude at Antioch was hypocritical, although at the same time it must be remembered that some uncertainty as to the proper course to be pursued may have existed in Peter's own mind. **The Closing Years.** Except for the prophecy in John xxi. 18 sqq. and the Petrine epistles (see below), the New Testament gives no information regarding the closing years of Peter. The sole remaining source is tradition, which, though constantly receiving unhistoric accretions, seems to preserve a kernel of truth in the legend that the apostle went to Rome toward the close of his life and there suffered martyrdom under Nero. Thus Clement, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, written in 95-97, records: "Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labors; and, when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him" (*ANF,* i. 6). It is also noteworthy that no source describes the place of Peter's martyrdom as other than Rome, the place evidently implied by Clement, as the context shows. It would also seem that Papias of Hierapolis knew of Peter's residence at Rome (cf. Eusebius, *Hist. eccl., III.; xxxix. 15). * There are, however, a number of direct statements that Peter lived at Rome. Dionysius of Corinth (about 170) states that Peter and Paul founded the church at Corinth and then taught in Italy, both suffering martyrdom at Rome (Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.,* II., xxv. 8; and like declarations are made by Irensaeus *(Haer.,* iii. 1, of. iii. 3), Tertullian *(De praescriptione,* xxxvi.; cf. *Scorpiace, xv.*; *Adv. Marcionem,* iv. 5), Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.,* VI., xiv., II., xv.), and the Roman presbyter Caius (Eusebius, *Hist. eel.*, II., xxv. 7). A similar story is told both by the late second-century Acts of Peter (perhaps Gnostic in origin) and by the almost contemporary Acts of Peter and Paul. Reference must also be made to a tradition, evolved in the small pseudo-Clementine circle and devoid of historicity, that Peter carried on a conflict at Rome with Paul, here represented as a false apostle masked as Simon Magus. There is no evidence that Simon Magus was ever at Rome, the alleged proof being an erroneous interpretation of an inscription to the Sabine deity Semo Sancus as being in honor of the sorcerer *(NPNF,* 2 ser., i. 114, note 11). The residence of Peter in Rome is first brought into connection with the alleged presence of Simon Magus there by the Acts of Peter (chap. cxc.). The attempt has also been made to prove that Peter really suffered martyrdom by crucifixion at Jerusalem as a result of the Neronian persecution, evidence being drawn from a combination of the Romans Albinus and Agrippa, mentioned by the Acts of Peter as the persecutor and judge of the apostle, with Albinus, the successor of Festus as procurator of Judea, and Agrippa II., tetrarch of Galilee; but the argument is inadequate, as is another theory that Peter suffered at some unknown place in the East. **8. Confused and False Traditions Concerning Peter.** Of the other patristic traditions concerning Peter's residence at Rome probably the only one which may be regarded as certain is that which makes Mark his companion at Rome, where the second Gospel was written after Peter's death on the basis of his oral communications. When, however, Jerome declares *(De vir. ill.*, i.) that Peter, after being bishop at Antioch and laboring in Pontus, Galacia, Cappadocia, Asia Minor, and Bithynia, went to Rome in the second year of Claudius to oppose Simon Magus, and was bishop of the church there for twenty-five years, finally being crucified head downward in the last year of Nero's reign and buried on the Vatican, his statements rest on a combination of fugitive allusions. The Antiochian episcopate is based on Gal. ii. 11 sqq., his activity in Asia Minor on I Pet. i. 1, his crucifixion is perhaps drawn from a literal interpretation of John xxi. 18, while the manner of it (cf. Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.*, III., i.) savors of post-apostolic rather than of apostolic taste, and his burial on the Vatican is deduced from the statement of Caius (see above) that there was a monument on that hill to commemorate the martyrdom of the apostle. The twenty-five years' episcopate of Peter at Rome is evidently due to the statement of Justin Martyr regarding the labors of Simon Magus at Rome (see above), combined with the tradition of Peter's residence in the same city, especially as it would seem that the Roman Church had actually been formed early in the reign of Claudius through the indirect influence of the Petrine Christianity of Palestine. All this giving rise to the belief that Peter himself came to Rome early in the reign of Claudius, the combination of it with the tradition of his martyrdom toward the close of Nero's reign evidently gave rise to the legend of his twenty-five years' residence in Rome. A further element of confusion was added by the increasing parallelism of Peter and Paul, leading not only to the unhistoric tradition of their joint founding of the church at Corinth, but also to their simultaneous labors in Rome; and a similar idea may have given rise to the belief that the death of Peter, almost coincident with that of Paul, took place in 64, the year of the general persecution of the Christians instigated by the burning of Rome. Still later the death of both apostles was put on the same day, June 29, although the persecution actually took place in July or August. Moreover, Eusebius *(Hist. eccl.,* III, ii., xxi.), like Irenaeus, the Apostolic Constitutions, and Rufinus, seems to have regarded Linus, not Peter, as the first bishop of Rome; . and it was not until the middle of the third century that Peter was definitely claimed as bishop of Rome (Cyprian, *Epist.*, lv. 8, lie. 14). The reckoning of the twenty-five years in Rome varies irreconcilably in different sources, and the whole is rendered impossible by the data of the New Testament, which shows that he was living in Jerusalem at the time of the council of the apostles in 53 (Acts xv.), whence he later visited Antioch (Gal. ii. 11 sqq.), while Paul's failure to mention him either in his epistle to the Romans (written in 59) or in his letters from Rome (in the seventh decade of the first century) would imply that Peter was not in the city even then. It seems most probable, on the whole, that Peter died a martyr's death in Rome toward the close of Nero's reign, some time after the cessation of the general persecution. Absolute certainty is, however, unattainable. **II. Writings:** **1. Occasion and Circumstances of I Peter.** The authenticity of the two epistles canonically ascribed to the Apostle Peter has been severely attacked by modern criticism, although the problems connected with each are essentially different in character. The first epistle purports (I Pet. i. 1) to be addressed to readers in Pontus, Galatia (doubtless including, as in official Roman parlance, Pamphylia, Pisidia, and part of Lycaonia), Cappadocia, Asia (Caria, Lydia, Mysia, and probably Phrygia), and Bithynia. There is no reason to suppose, as has long been maintained, that the Petrine epistles were intended solely, or even primarily, for Jewish Christians, especially as the only known churches in Asia Minor were the gentile congregations established by Paul and his associates (cf. Gal. iv. 8, 19; Eph. ii. 11-iii. 13; T Cor. iv. 15, xv. 1-3; Acts xv. 3, 12, 19, xxi. 19), as well as in view of Peter's own attitude toward gentile Christians (Gal. ii. 12). The fact that the epistle was addressed to recent converts from paganism, not to Jewish Christians, is clear, moreover, from repeated allusions, such as i. 14, 21, ii. 10, iii. 6, and iv. 3. A similar meaning is plainly contained in ii. 25, while " the strangers " of i. 1 (R. V., " sojourners of the Dispersion ") clearly denote, not the Jewish Diaspora, but gentile Christians regarded as the true Israel scattered among the heathen (cf. ii. 9-10), even though Peter plainly considered these gentile churches as daughters of the mother church at Jerusalem. The epistle implies that the gentile Christians of Asia Minor had already been assailed by their pagan compatriots (iv. 4). Although the apostle evidently regarded acts of violence as a very possible eventuality (iv. 15-16; cf. i. 6, iii. 14, 17), at the time the only dangers were taunts and insults (iv. 4, 14) and the charge that the Christians were evil-doers (ii. 12, iii. 16), based on their rejection of heathen vices (iv. 3), an attitude attributed by their enemies to a hatred of the human race which might lead even to theft oz murder (iv. 15). Such accusations were, generally speaking, unjust, but it is clear, from Peter's earnest admonitions to uprightness of life (I Pet: 13-iii. 22), that he feared that the charges might prove real ones, and was also apprehensive that the Christians would relapse into pagan abominations to gain the friendship of the world (ii. 11, iv. 2). The general situation described in the epistle points to the period of the Neronian persecution, not, as some maintain, to the persecution under Trajan, for Christianity had not yet been made a crime against the State (cf. ii. 12, iii. 6, 13, 16, iv. 15), and obedience to temporal superiors could still be urged, a thing impossible after the faith was officially proscribed. Apart from these sufferings of the Christians of Asia Minor, and their consequent perils, nothing is known regarding their condition. It was these distresses and these dangers which had evoked the letter and had formed its purpose (cf. v. 12). **2. Relation to Other N. T. Writings.** The contents of I Peter can scarcely be systematized. The introduction, with its hopeful outlook beyond the evils of the present (i. 1-12), is followed by general admonitions to upright life (i. 13-21), brotherly love (i. 22-25), and the building of a spiritual temple (ii. 1-10). Then come admonitions bearing more directly on present conditions of earthly pilgrimage. (ii. 11-12), obedience to earthly superiors, even though they be oppressive (ii. 13-25), mutual respect between husbands and wives (iii. 1-8), abstinence from revenge (iii. 8-12), and patient endurance of suffering (iii. 13-17), herein imitating Christ (iii. 18-22). The Christian must not relapse into pagan licentiousness (iv. 1-6), but must show sobriety, service, and affection (iv. 7-11), as well as endurance of undeserved affliction (iv. 12-19). Both old and young are admonished to perform their several duties (v. 1-5), and all must trust in God and be ever watchful (v. 6-9); while the epistle concludes with a benediction (v. 10-11), notes on the apostle's purpose in writing (v. 12), and salutations (v. 13-14). The epistle shows unmistakable dependence on Romans, Ephesians, and James (cf. I Pet. i. 14-15 with Rom. xii. 2; iv. 10 with xii. 3-8; iv. 8, i. 22 with xii. 9; iii. 9 with xii. 17; ii. 13-14 with xiii. 1; ii. 19 with xiii. 5; ii. 1, iv. 13 with xiii. 1213; ii. 24 with vi. 2; i. 5, iv. 13 with viii. 17-18). There is, on the other hand, no reason to assume that I Peter is dependent on Hebrews, Colossians, or any other Pauline epistles and what dependence there is must be considered rather as general reminiscences than as mechanical borrowing. **3. Its Theology.** There is, moreover, a marked individuality both in style and in dogmatic content, so that, despite a certain adoption of Pauline material (cf. I Pet. iv. 1-2, ii. 24, iii. 22 with Rom. vi. 7, 18, via. 34), the type of doctrine represented is primitively apostolic, and is essentially a further development of the Petrine passages recorded in Acts. In both there is the same basal concept of Christianity as the realization of the Old-Testament kingdom of God, harmonizing with prophecy and brought into being by the crucified but risen Christ. There is, however, no such antithesis between the law and the Gospel as in the Pauline writings, nor is there the Pauline stress on the atonement or on justification by faith; . but soteriology is more prominent in Peter than in James. Faith is not so much an acceptance of the forgiveness of sins based on the death of Christ upon the cross (as in Paul's teaching) as a trust in God grounded on the recognition of Jesus as the glorified Messiah who shall be revealed in the fulness of time. The moral life, consequently, is regarded as connected with faith from the first, rather than as a mere fruit of faith. The close union of prophecy. and the entire theocracy of the Old Testament leads Peter to the conclusion that the salvation sought by the prophets is become the possession of the Christian, while the spirit which worked in the prophets was essentially the same as the spirit of Christ (I Pet. i. 10 sqq.). The ideal of the Old-Testament people of God is realized in the Christian Church (I Pet. ii. 9), which is to include all gentiles called of God (Acts ii. 39). The sufferings of Christ are not only the model for the Christian's patience under outward affliction (I Pet. ii. 21, iii. 18, iv. 1), but, since they most clearly reveal his moral greatness (ii. 22 sqq.), they inspire the Christian to all self-denial and to all struggle with sin (iv. 1 sqq.). Redemption from the power of sin is founded on the redemptive work of the death of Christ (I Pet. i. 18-19), which has crushed the might of sin forever (iii. 18, iv. 1). From this it follows that Christ is the great shepherd of his flock (v. 4), that the salvation of the risen Lord extends even to the dead (iii. 19, iv. 6), that the moral effect of baptism, as " the answer of a good conscience toward God," is given through the resurrection of Christ (iii. 21), and that the sufferings of the Christians mark the beginning of the judgment (iv. 12). The result of all this is a lively hope (i. 3, 13, 21, iii. 15) in the Christian, who is but a pilgrim and a stranger in this world (i. 17, ii. 11), a situation which should only inspire him to still greater moral earnestness. **4. Place of Composition; Authenticity.** According to I Pet. v. 13, the epistle was written at " Babylon." The ruined condition of the great Babylon at the time, however, as well as the fact that in the reign of Caligula the Jews had been driven from it by pestilence and Date and persecution, render it certain that Peter did not compose his epistle there. It is equally improbable that "Babylon" here means Mesopotamia in general or the Egyptian town of Babylon in the Nile delta. Neither is there any tradition during the first five centuries of any activity of Peter in either Babylonia or Egypt. So it is indubitable that here, as elsewhere, "Babylon" means Rome (cf. Rev. xiv. 8, xvi. 19, xvii. 5, xviii. 2, 10, 21; *Oracula Sibyllina*, v. 153; II Esdras, iii. 1; cf. also I Pet. v. 14; Col. iv. 10). The letter can not have been written before 64, both because of its dependence on James and Romans, and because of the designation of Rome as Babylon, which did not come into vogue until the Neronian persecution had begun. It may be concluded, then, that it was written either soon after the outbreak of the persecution, shortly before the return of Paul from Spain and the martyrdom of both Peter and Paul, or, if the death of the former be placed shortly before the fall of Nero, in the closing years of this reign. The testimony of the early Church favors the authenticity of the epistle. Besides the allusion to it in II Pet. iii. 1, it is mentioned by Her mas, Papias, Polycarp, is cited by Irenseus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, and is placed in the canon by Eumbius. On the other hand, it was rejected, for dogmatic reasons, by the Paulicians, and in the nineteenth century its authenticity was denied by many critics; while others supposed either that it was translated from the Aramaic of Peter into Greek by Mark or Silvanus, or that one of these two developed the outline given by Peter. It has also been maintained that it was written later and then ascribed to Peter, although no credible motive can be assigned for such a proceeding. The optimism which pervades the epistle, like the theological attitude midway between James and Paul, is in entire accord with the temperament and position of Peter as revealed through out the New Testament. Hence there is, in short, no good reason to doubt the authenticity of I Peter. **5. II Peter.** With the second Petrine epistle the case is different. The occasion of its writing was the rise of false teachers, some of them libertines like those described by Jude, and others mockers and deniers of the second advent (II Pet. ii.-iii.), although it seems probable, on the whole, that only one class of false teachers is really meant. The epistle is composed of an introduction reminding the readers of the boon of salvation and urging them to remain faithful (i. 1-10), and three parts: an assurance of the certainty of the second coming of Christ (i. 11-21); a characterization of the libertinism of the false teachers and their sure punishment (ii. 1-22); and prediction of the destruction of the world by fire, the delay of the day of judgment through the mercy of God, and an admonition to righteousness and Patience (iii. 1-13); the whole concluding with an allusion to the writings of Paul, warning, admonition, and glorification of God (iii. 14-18). The epistle is clearly influenced profoundly by Jude (cf. ii. 4, 11, 13 with Jude 6, 9, 12); but, on the other hand, a comparison of the second Petrine epistle with the first shows a marked difference in style, as well as in dogmatic position. The concepts of "knowledge" and "godliness," unmentioned in I Pet., are prominent in II Pet., while the characteristic optimism of I Pet. here disappears.. The center of expectation is the end of the world rather than the perfection .of salvation; but, on the other hand, the second advent is thought of as more remote than in I Pet. Christ appears in II Pet. especially as the Savior, but the pattern of his life and passion, so stressed in I Pet., is as little mentioned in II Pet. as are his death and resurrection. The difference between the two epistles can not be explained from their divergent purposes; and a considerable time must have elapsed between the composition of the two, since II Pet. is later than Jude, which was probably written after the fall of Jerusalem (see JUDE, EPISTLE OF). Certain points in II Pet., moreover, imply a date subsequent to the apostolic age (cf. II Pet. iii. 3 sqq., 15-16), and the tradition of the Church is unfavorable to the authenticity of the epistle. There is no clear evidence that it was known to the apostolic Fathers or to the church writers of the second century. In the time of Origen only I Peter was considered canonical, and Eumbius reckoned II Peter among the antilegomena (*Hist. eccl.*, III., xxv. 3,), although Firmilian of Caesarea in Cappadocia seems to have considered it authentic (Cyprian, *Epist.*, lxxv.). Despite certain doubts of Gregory Nazianzen (*Carmina*, xxxiii. 35), Jerome, who himself recognized the fact that the epistle was rejected by most critics on the basis of its stylistic deviation from I Peter, was largely responsible for securing general acceptance of the epistle. At the Reformation period its authenticity was again doubted by Calvin and Erasmus, and since the time of J. S. Semler (q.v.) it has generally been deemed spurious by adherents of the critical school. (F. SIEFFERT) **III. Apocryphal Petrine Literature: ** Of writings of this class four claim mention here, the Gospel, the Apocalypse, the Preaching, and the Acts. **1. The Gospels.** **1. Early Mention.** That such a gospel existed has been known since the end of the second century. The most explicit account of it is found in several passages in Eusebius *(Hist. eccl.,* VI., xii the longest reference, III., iii. and xxv., Eng. transl. in *NPNP, * 2d ser. vol. i.) and it is mentioned by Origen ("Commentary on Matthew," x. 17), Jerome *(De vir. ill.,* i., Eng. transl. in NPNP, 2d ser., iii. 361), Theodoret *(Haereticarum Fabularum*, ii.2), and in *Decretum Gelaaianum (De libris recipiendis).* The Principal notice by Eumbius includes a letter by Serapion, bishop of Antioch 190-191-211-212, to the church at Rhossos in Cilicia, on the Mediterranean coast on the bay of Issus in Asia Minor. This church had been using the Gospel of Peter in its services, and when Serapion visited them he had granted permission to continue this use, though he did not himself examine the document closely. But he later read the book and found it tinged with Docetic heresy, though "most of it belonged to the right teaching of the Savior, but some things were additions." The clear implication is that Serapion wished the reading suspended till a secbnd visit, when he would probably give directions to cease using it. The other references to the gospel add little information beyond the fact that these documents attributed to Peter were not accepted or generally used as testimony by ecclesiastical authorities. **2. Rediscovery.** Being heretical, or at least being regarded as heretical, the Gospel was lost for centuries. Finally a Frenchman, Urbain Bouriant, discovered in the winter of 1886-87 at Akhmim in Upper Egypt a vellum manuscript in Greek containing on thirty-three pages parts of three Christian works, the Book of Enoch (pp. 21-56), the Gospel of Peter (pages 2-10), and the Apocalypse of Peter (reversed pages 19-13). The pages measure about six by four and three-quarters inches, and the manuscript itself is not earlier than the eighth century. The identification of the fragments as parts of the works named is granted by all critics. The documents were not published, however, till 1892, when they were issued under the auspices of the French Archeological Mission at Cairo as vol. ix. of a series devoted to Egyptology (pp. 137 sqq., Paris, 1892). The reason for the delay was probably that French scholars did not at first realize the importance of the documents. Immediately on the publication intense interest was manifested in the discovery, and discussions by leading scholars in the New Testament and in patristics issued in great numbers, as a result of which the principal questions which were raised may be regarded as settled. **8. Contents** The fragment of the gospel is about 150 lines in length, and deals with the passion and resurrection of Jesus. It begins abruptly in the midst of the account of the trial, and closes as abruptly in the middle of a sentence which in complete form possibly recorded the first appearance of Jesus to his disciples after his resurrection. Evidently what preceded was the account of Pilate's washing of his hands (Matt. xxvii. 24). The document then proceeds to state that none of the Jews washed their hands, not even Herod, who gives Jesus up to the Jews to do as they would with him. Then Joseph, a friend of Pilate and of Jesus, begs of Pilate the body (in anticipation of the crucifixion), and Pilate refers the request to Herod, who accedes. Then follows the account of the mocking, scourging, and crucifixion, Jesus ("the Lord") being silent "as if in no wise feeling pain" while the Jews would not have his legs broken in order to prolong his agony. The document tells of the midday darkness, and the administration of gall and vinegar. "The Lord" thereupon cried out: "My Power, my Power, hast thou forsaken me" (or, "thou hast forsaken me"), and then died. The veil of the temple is rent, and the Jews draw the nails "from the hands of the Lord" and remove him from the cross. To Joseph is given the body, and he performs the last rites and lays it in his tomb. Then the Jews come to a consciousness of their sin and a fear of the coming judgment. The murmurings and dread anticipations of the people lead the scribes and Pharisees to ask of Pilate a guard for the tomb lest the body be stolen and resurrection be fictitiously claimed. The tomb is then sealed. Early in the morning the guard hear a great voice, see two men descend from the open heavens, and the stone of the tomb-door roll away of itself; the men enter the tomb, and emerge supporting a third, while a cross follows them. The two men's heads reach to heaven, the head of the third is still higher. A voice asks: "Hast thou preachers to them that are asleep?" and the cross answers yea. The soldiers deliberate whether they shall tell Pilate, and from the open heavens a man descends and enters the tomb. The soldiers relate all to Pilate, who asserts innocence in the matter, but enjoins silence through fear of the Jews. At dawn "of the Lord's day" Mary Magdalen and her friends come to mourn Jesus, find the tomb open and a young man sitting there who tells them Jesus is risen. In the closing paragraph, on the last day of unleavened bread "the twelve disciples " after weeping and grieving withdrew to their homes. Simon Peter (the narrator) and Andrew took their nets and went to the sea with "Levi . . . whom the Lord . . ." **4. Date, Sources, and Character.** The date of composition of this gospel must be placed in the second century. This is proved by the fact that it was in use at Rhossus in the early part of the episcopate of Serapion; and it must have been some time in circulation to have gained the favor able reception which the Church there accorded it. It is evident, also, from a remark of Serapion that it was in quite extensive use among Docetic Christians. How far back into the second century it can be carried is doubtful. Harnack and MeGiffert find traces of its use by Justin Martyr in his First Apology, therefore before 161 at the latest. But the majority of scholars, probably with good reason, reject this hypothesis, explaining the parallelism by a common use of sources, so that the *terminus a quo * can with assurance not be placed very high. There is no clue to the authorship, the one mark being a very evident and somewhat extreme antagonism to the Jews. Thus there is brought out in bold relief at the very beginning of the fragment the assumption by the Jews, including Herod, of responsibility for the death of Jesus. It is probable that the author was not a Palestinian (he speaks of the temple "at Jerusalem "). The relation of this gospel to the four canonical Gospels is clear, as it uses them all (this is perhaps best exhibited to the eye in H. von Schubert's *Das Petrusevangelium, synoptische Tabelle, * Berlin, 1893, Eng. transl., *Gospel of St. Peter. Synoptical Tables, * Edinburgh, 1893), noteworthy here being the employment of the Fourth Gospel. But the material is used with freedom, and with a view to the author's purpose. Joseph, e.g., is made to ask the body of Jesus as soon as the condemnation of Jesus is assured. The character of the gospel is by nearly all the commentators called docetic, following the classificar tion of its users by Serapion as cited by Eusebius (ut sup.). That it is Gnostic is clear, that it is docetic is vigorously denied by McGiffert, who is not, however, strongly supported by other scholars. Docetism is on the surface of the document: to deny that quality requires strenuous argumentation. The docetism is of an early type. The reports referred to above (§ 1) all indicate that this book was outside the circle of ecclesiastically permitted writings. That it should be lost is therefore less strange than that it lingered so long as to become the object of copyist's care in the eighth century. Its recovery, however, showed it in pseudepigraphic company, and this company was in high favor in Egypt at a late date. **2. The Apocalypse:** **1. Early Notices** This work is one of those which received frequent and to some extent favorable mention in early Christian literature, and left their impress of ideas and even of expression upon it, and yet vanished under the stress of authority acquired by the canonical New Testament. The Muratorian Canon (q.v.) mentions it as a book which "some of our number will not have read in the churches "; Clement of Alexandria commented on it (Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.*, VI., xiv. 1), and three passages from it are quoted in fragments of his "Miscellanies," in one of which it is "Scripture"; Methodius (q.v.) cited it as inspired; Eusebius (ut sup., III., iii. 2, xxv. 4) pronounced against it, as against the gospel and the Preaching, though not as being heretical in tendency; Macarius Magnes (see *MACARIUS,* 3) used it, possibly citing from Porphyry of the third century, and speaks of it as in agreement with prophecy and the Gospel. The Nicephoran list of apocryphal books (c. 850) says that it contained 300 lines (about equal in size to Galatians, which has 311) and this agrees approximately with the length as given in Codex Claromontanus (D2) of the fourth century and with other evidence. After having been used with more or less reserve, sometimes being absolutely rejected, in Rome, Egypt, and Asia Minor, it survived in Palestine and Egypt till the eighth or ninth century. Certain fragments were known through the citations indicated above before the rediscovery (given in J. E. Grabe, *Spincilegium, i. * 74, Oxford, 1698; and in J. A. Robinson and M. R. James, *The Gospel . . . and . . .Revelation of Peter,* pp. 94-96, London, 1892). The knowledge of this book was greatly extended by the discovery, on the same manuscript as that which contained the fragment of the gospel, of a considerable part of the Apocalypse also. **2. Contents.** The newly recovered fragment of about 140 lines (nearly half the reported length of the book) consists of three parts: (1) the conclusion of an eschatological discourse, (2) a vision of paradise, and (3) part of a vision of hell. The eschatological part predicts false prophets, and the coming of God for the relief of the saints and the judgment of the lawless. The vision of paradise comes after the Lord had taken the twelve disciples into a mountain to pray, and is given them for encouragement in their preaching. While they are at prayer two of the righteous appear as glorious forms, and then a view of paradise with its inhabitants is granted. The vision of hell is more extended, and shows the punishment of blasphemers of various sorts, of adulterers, murderers and abortionists, persecutors of the saints, false witnesses, the wealthy and uncharitable, usurers, lewd persons, idolaters, and apostates from Christianity. The situation in which the book is placed is apparently a period after the resurrection of Christ and before the ascension, during which he instructs his disciples in order to their encouragement and equipment for the world-mission which (impliedly, according to the fourth complete sentence) they have already received. **3. Literary Influence; Date.** The literary influence of this Apocalypse is very far-reaching and important. Its general ideas affiliate with those of such books as Enoch and the Apocalypse of Baruch. But it has a much closer connection with (1) The Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ, (2) the Sibylline Oracles (ii. 6-30, 154-213), the vision of Josaphat in "History of Barlaam and Josaphat" and (4) II Peter. It appears to be very probable that the Testament is an expanded paraphrase of the first part of the Apocalypse, and that from it a fair idea can be gained of the content of the lost first part of the original. The Sibylline lines show close relationship with both the Testament and the Apocalypse, following the latter in the part where the Testament fails, and so making tenable the conclusion that the Sibyl employed as its source the Apocalypse. The description of paradise in the vision of Josaphat so reproduces not only the ideas but the language of the Apocalypse that identity of theme does not suffice to explain the close resemblances in expression. Finally, the connection between the verbal statements of II Peter and the Apocalypse (conveniently exhibited in *DB,* iii. 814-815) has made it clear either (1) that the writer of II Peter borrowed from the Apocalypse, (2) that both are by the same writer, or (3) that the authors were of the same school. Other Christian books which were influenced by the Apocalypse ®f Peter are the Apocalypse of Paul and the Apocalypse of Esdras, the Acts of Thomas, and the Passion of Perpetua. The notes of citation show that the document was composed in the second century, and the place of composition may have been either Palestine or Egypt. **3. The Preaching** (Gk. *Berugma Pelrou,* L at. *Prcedicatio Petri et Pauli*): This book is cited by Eusebius (*Hist. eccl.*, III., iii.) as one of the four spurious works attributed to Peter; Clement of Alexandria (*Strom.*, i. 29, ii. 15, vi. 5-7, 15; Eng. transl. in *ANF, * vol. ii.) uses it as a genuine writing of Peter; Origen (*In Johannem*, xiii. 17) quotes Heracleon as employing one of the passages used by Clement, but is generally unfavorable in his attitude to the book; still earlier use seems assured on the part of Justin Martyr, Aristides, and the author of the Epistle to Diognetus, and later use by Apollonius of Asia Minor. It is possibly the same as the "Preaching of Peter and Paul" quoted by Lactantius ("Divine Institutes," iv. 21; Eng. transl. in *ANF, * vii. 123). The extant fragments have been collected by A. Hilgenfeld in Novum *Testamentum extra canonem* (iv. 51 sqq., Leipme, 1884); by E. von Dobschiltz, in *TU*, xi. 1 (1894); and by E. Preuschen, *Antilegomena* (pp. 52-54, 143-145, Giessen, 1901). Its date is placed by Harnack (and Von Dobschiitz) as between 110 and 130, and by Zahn between 90 and 100 (too early!); Harnack and Von Dobschiits agree upon Egypt as the place of composition, the latter more definitely settles upon Alexandria. The fragments preserved indicate that the work was given as the substance of discourses by a spokesman for the apostles, the first person plural being used. It seems to have inculcated particularly a Christian monotheism, and to have been a polemic against Judaistic error and paganism, and an apology for Christianity. The faithful or saints are "a third race" (Gk. *triton genos*) among heathens and Jews. **4. The Acts:** Brief mention should be made of the fact that about Peter's name there grew up a considerable literature, much of it having the character of "tendency writings." Of "Acts" there are two series quite distinct, the "Gnostic Acts" and the "Catholic Acts," which cover practically the same ground but with a marked difference in form of statement. For references and description of these see APOCRYPHA, B, II., and for part of the literature which developed on the same basis as these series of "Acts" see CLEMENTINA. GEO. W. GILMORE. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The life and development of Peter is treated with more or less completeness in the works on the life of Christ (see under JESUS CHRIST); sketches usually appear also in the introductions to the commentaries on the epistles. For further treatment of his life and activities consult: T. W. H. Grifth, *The Apostle Peter*, New York, 1905; M. Marquardt, *Simon Petrus ala Mittle- und Ausgangspunkt der christlichen Urkirche, Kempten*, 1908; G. V. Lechler, *Das apostolische und das nach-apoatolische Zeifalter*, Gotha, 1857, Eng. transl., *The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times*, Edinburgh, 1888; E. Renan, Lea Apdtrea, Paris, 1808, Eng. transl., *The Apostles*, London, n.d.; A. Hausrath, *Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte*, Munich, 1879, Eng. transl., particularly *Times of the Apostles*, London, 1895; J. Sehmid, *Petrus in Rom*, Lucerne, 1879; F. W. Farrar, *Early Days of Christianity*, London, 1882; J. S. Howson, *Studies in the Life of St. Peter*, ib. 1883; C. von Weizahcker, *Das apostoliache Zeitalter*, Freiburg, 1888, Eng. transl., *Apostolic Age*, London, 1894; H. A. Birks, *Life and Character of St. Peter*, London, 1887; J. B. Lightfoot, in his *Apostolic Fathers, S. Clement of Rome*, ii. 481 sqq., London, 1890; C. Fouard, St. Peter *and the First Years of Christianity*, London, 1892; F. W. Puller, *Primitive Saints and the See of Rome*, London, 1893; W. M. Ramsay, *Church in the Roman Empire*, London, 1893; idem, *St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen*, ib. 1895; A. C. McGiffert, *Hist. of Christianity in the Apostolic Age*, New York, 1897; J. V. Bartlett, *Apostolic Age*, Edinburgh, 1900; J. G. Greenhough, *Apostles of our Lord*, London, 1904 (devotional); W. H. G. Thomas, *The Apostle Peter*, London, 1904; J. Ninek, *Simon Petrus, der Fischer aus Galilaa,* Leipsic, 1903; G. Matheson, *Representative Men of the N. T.*, London, 1905; A. Brun, *Easai sur l'apotre Pierre*, Montauban, 1905; L. C. Fillion, *Saint Pierre*, Paris, 1908; A. J. Southouse, *The Making of Simon Peter*, New York, 1908; A. Drews, *Die Petruslegende Ein Beitrag sur Mythologie des Christentums*, Frankfort, 1910. The discussions in the dictionaries usually cover both the life and the epistles: *DB*, iii. 756--818 (elaborate); *EB,* iv. 4599-4827 (life), iii. 3877,85 (epistles); *JB.* xi. 388-388; *DCG*, ii. 349-351; Vigouroux, *Dictionnaire*, fasc. xxxi., cols.358-379 (valuable citation of literature). On the theology of Peter consult the pertinent sections in the works on N. T. theology mentioned in and under BIBLICAL THEOLOGY: also C. A. Briggs, *Messiah of the Apostles*, pp. 21-41, New York, 1895; R. W. Dale, *The Atonement*, pp. 97-148, London, 1875. On questions of introduction to the epistles the reader should consult the relevant sections in the works on N. T. introduction and on the Canon (see BIBLICAL INTRODUCTION; and CANON OF SCRIPTURE). Consult further: Harnaek, *Littertur*, ii. 1, pp. 450-475; D. Volter, *Der erate Petruabrief, seine Entistchung und Stellung in der Geschichte des Urchristenthuma*, Strasburg, 1908; B. Weiss, *Der erate Pstrusbrief and die neuere Kritik*, Gross-Liehterfelde, 1908; E. T. Mayerhoff, *Einleitung in die petrinischen Schriften*, Hamburg, 1835; B. Weiss, in *TSK*, 1866, pp. 258 sqq.; Grimes, in *TSK*, 1872, pp. 857-894; B. B. Warfield, in *Southern Presbyterian Review* Jan., 1882, Apr., 1883; F. Spitta, *Der Zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas*, Halle, 1885; P. J. Gloag, *Introduction to the Catholic Epistles*, Edinburgh, 1887; H. Groeeh, *Die Echtheit des sweiten Briefes Petri*, Berlin, 1889; E. Saharfe, *Die petrinische Stromung der neutestamentlichen Literntur,* Berlin, 1893; G. A. Deissmann, *Bebelstudien*, pp. 244245, 277 sqq., Marburg, 1895; L. Monnier, *La Premiere Epitre de lapotre Pierre*, Paris, 1902; L. Gontard, *Essai critique et historique sur la premiere epitre de S. Pierre*, Lyon, 1905; Link, in *TSK*, 1898, pp. 405-138; E. A. Abbot, in *Expositor*, 2 ser., iii. 49 sqq.; Vigouroux, *Dictionnaire*, fascs. uxi.-xuii., cola. 380-413. Commentaries are: C. Bigg, in *International Critical Commentary*, Edinburgh and New York, 1901; J. B. Mayor (on II Peter and Jude), London, 1907; W. Steiger, Berlin, 1832 (I Peter); J. Brown, 3 vols., Edinburgh, 1848-58; T. Demarest, 2 vols., New York, 1851-85; A. Barnes, New York 1859' T. Schott, 2 volt., Erlangen, 1881-33; T. Adams, Edinburgh, 1882 (II Peter); F. Steinfam, Rostock, 1883 (II Peter); R. Leighton, republished Philadelphia, 1884; J. Lillie, New York, 1889; T. Harms, Hermannaburg, 1873 (II Peter); G. F. C. Fronmaller, in Lange's commentary, Eng. transl., New York, 1874; J. C. K. Hofmann, Nbrdlingen, 1875; in C. J. Ellicott's *Handy Commentary,* New York, 1883; E. H. Plumptre, in Cambridge Bible, 1883; G. D. F. Salmond, in P. Schaff's Popular Commentary, New York, 1883; F. C. Cook and J. R. Lumby, in the *Bible Commentary*, London, 1881; J. E. Huther, in Meyer's commentary, Eng. transl., 1881; in the *Pulpit Commentary*, London and New York, 1887; J. M. Usteri, Zurich, 1887; R. Johnstone, Edinburgh, 1888; F. B. Meyer, London, 1890; M. F. Sadler, London, 1891; H. von Soden, in *Hand-Kommentary* Freiburg, 1892; S. Goebel, Gotha, 1893; J. K. Lumby, in *Expositor's Bible*, London, 1894; K. Burger, Munich, 1895; H. Couard, Potsdam, 1895; J. T. Beck, GOtersloh, 1895; E. Kiihl, GSttingen, 1898; W. F. Besser, Halle, 1899; J. Moonier, Paris, 1900 (I Peter); E. Hopp, Giltersloh, 1901; B. Weiss, Leipsic,1902; K. Henkel, Freiburg, 1904 (II Peter); J. H. Jowett, London, 1905; H. Gunkel, in *Die Schriften des Neuen Testament ubersetzt and fur dis Gegenwart erklart*, ii. 25 sqq., Giittingen, 1908 (I Peter), and G. Hollmann, in the same, ii. 81 sqq. (II Peter). On the Apocryphal literature: The principal worbs on the Gospel are named under APOCRYPHA. Of the books named there (vol. i., p. 229, col. 1, bottom), those by Harris, Robinson and James, Von Gebhardt, Hamack, and Lode deal also with the Apocalypse. Further literature covering either Gospel or Apocalypse, and sometimes both, is: Funk, in *TQS*, lxxv (1893), 25& -288; A. Hilgenfeld, in *ZWT*, i (1893), 439-454; J. Kunze, *Das neu aufgefundene Bruchuck des . . . Petrusevangeliums,* Leipaic, 1893; H. von Soden, in *ZTK*, iii (1893), 52-92; H. B. Swete, *The Akmim Fragments of the Apocryphal Gospel of Peter*, London, 1893; W. C. Van Manen, *Hel Evangelic van Petrus*, Leyden, 1893; E. Klostermann, *Reste des Petrus-Evangelium, der Petrus Apokalypse und des Kerygma Petri*, Bonn, 1894; A. C. MoGiffert, in *Papers of the American Society of Church History,* vi. 101-130, New York, 1894 (contains a very full bibliography, including contributions to periodicals, which may be supplemented from Richardson, *Encyclopedia, * pp. 37, 412-413); E. Koch, in *Kirchliche Monateachrift*, xv (1898) 311388; G. Salmon, *Introduction to the Study of the . . . New Testament*, pp. 581-591, new ed., London, 1897; V. H. Stanton, in *JTS* ii (1901), 1-25; idem, *The Gospels as Historical Documents*, Cambridge, 1903; L. Henneeke, *Neutestamentliche Apokryphen,* pp. 27-32, Tubingen, 1904; Haraaek, *Lit-*
PETRI, LARS, AND OLAV (OLAUS) Petri, Lars, and Olav (Olaus)

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PETRI, LARS,** and **OLAV (OLAUS).** See SWEDEN.
PETRI, LUDWIG ADOLF Petri, Ludwig Adolf

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PETRI, LUDWIG ADOLF:** German Lutheran; b. at Lüethorst (a village of Hanover) Nov. 16, 1803; d. at Hanover Jan. 8, 1873. He was educated at the University of Göttingen (1824-27) and, after being a private tutor for some time, became, in 1829, "collaborator" at the Kreuzkirche in Hanover, where he was assistant pastor from 1837 until 1851, and senior pastor from 1851 until his death. During the years 1830-37 his convictions gradually changed from rationalistic to orthodox. His power as a preacher was especially shown by his *Licht des Lebens *(Hanover, 1858) and *Salz der Erde *(1864). For the improvement of the liturgy of his communion he wrote *Bedürfnisse und Wünsche der protestantischen Kirche im Vaterland *(Hanover, 1832); and still more important service was rendered by his edition of the *Agende der hannoverschen Kirchenordnungen *(1852). In behalf of religious instruction he wrote his *Lehrbuch der Religion fur die oberen Klassen protestantischer Schulen* (Hanover, 1839; 9th ed., 1888), and later collaborated on the ill-fated new catechism of 1862. He likewise conducted for many years the theological courses in the seminary for preachers at Hanover, and in 1837 founded in the same city an association for theological candidates, over which he presided until 1848. In 1845-47 he edited, together with Eduard Niemann, the periodical *Segen der evangelischen Kirche, *and in 1848-55 was editor of the *Zeitblatt fur die Angelegenheiten der lutherischen Kirche*. In 1842 he founded an annual conference of the Hanoverian Lutheran clergy; and in 1853, together with General Superintendent Steinmetz and August Friedrich Otto Miinchmeyer (q.v.), he established the well-known " Lutheran Poor-box " (see GOTTESKASTEN, LUTHERISCHER). At the same time, Petri was firmly opposed to any amalgamation of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches, and was thus led to assume an unfavorable position even toward the Inner Mission (q.v.). In 1834 he helped to found the Hanoverian missionary society, of which he was first secretary and then president, while he materially aided the cause of foreign missions by his *Die Mission und die Kirche *(Hanover, 1841). His opposition to all movements in favor of a union of Lutherans and Reformed found renewed expression in his *Beleuchtung der Göttinger Denkschrift zur Wahrung der evangelischen Lehrfreiheit *(Hanover, 1854), an attack on the unionistic sympathies of the theological faculty of Gottingen. After this, Petri withdrew more and more from public life; and the only noteworthy work which he subsequently wrote was *Der Glaube in kurzen Betrachtungen *(4th ed., Hanover, 1875). BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Petri, *L. A. Petri, ein Lebensbild*, 2 vols., Hanover, 1888-96; J. Freytag, *Zu Petris Gedächtnis*, ib. 1873.
PETRIE, WILLIAM MATTEW FLINDERS Petrie, William Matthew Flinders

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PETRIE, WILLIAM MATTHEW FLINDERS:** English Egyptologist; b. in London June 3, 1853. He was educated privately, and in 1875-80 was engaged in surveying early British remains. Since 1880 he has carried on excavations of the utmost importance in Egypt, while since 1892 he has been professor of Egyptology in University College, London, and also in London University since 1907. In 1894 he founded the Egyptian Research Account (q.v.), which became the British School of Archeology in Egypt in 1905, of which he is honorary director; he is likewise on the committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund and the Royal Anthropological Institute. Among his works special mention may be made of the following: *Stonehenge* (London, 1880); *Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh* (1883); *Tanis *(2 parts, 1885-87); *Naukratis *(1886); *A Season in Egypt *(1888); *Racial Portraits *(1888); *Historical Scarabs *(1889); *Hawara, Biahmu, and Arsinoe *(1889); *Kahun, Gurob, and Hawara *(1890); *Illahun, Kahun, and Gurob *(1891); *Tell el Hesy *(1891); *Medum *(1892); *Ten Years' Digging in Egypt *(1893); *Student's History of Egypt *(3 parts, 1894-1905); *Tell el Amarna *(1895); *Egyptian Tales *(1895); Decorative Art *in Egypt *(1895); *Naqada and Ballas *(1896); *Koptos *(1896); *Six Temples at Thebes *(1897); *Deshasheh *(1897); *Religion and Conscience in Egypt *(1898); *Syria and Egypt *(2 vols., 1898); *Dendereh *(1900); *Royal Tombs of the First Dynasty *(1900); *Diospolis Parva *(1901); *Royal Tombs of the Earliest Dynasties *(1901); *Abydos *(2 parts, 1902-03); *Ehnasya *(1904); *Methods and Aims in Archeology *(1904); *Researches in Sinai *(1906); *Hyksos and Israelite Cities *(1906); *Religion of Ancient Egypt *(1906); *Janus in Modern Life *(1907); *The Arts and Crafts of Ancient Egypt *(1909); and *Personal Religion in Egypt before Christianity (1910).*
PETRIKAU, SYNODS OF Petrikau, Synods of

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PETRIKAU**, pe"tri-kau', **SYNODS OF:** Four Polish synods held at Petrikau (75 m. s.w. of Warsaw), Russian Poland, in 1551, 1555, 1562, and 1565. The Reformation early found welcome in Poland, especially in Posen and Cracow; and the first Protestant teachers were exclusively Lutheran. Calvinism was introduced during the reign of Sigismund August II. (1548-72), who stood in close relations to Calvin, and at the same time the Bohemian Brethren expelled from their own country took refuge in large numbers in Great Poland, especially in Posen. At the Synod of Kozminek in 1555 they united with the Calvinists, though the Roman Catholics, under the leadership of Stanislaus Hosius, bishop of Culm and Ermeland, did all in their power to obstruct the extension of the Protestant movement. At the first Synod of Petrikau in 1551, a Roman Catholic confession of faith was drawn up, expressly intended to answer the principles of the Augsburg Confession, and severe measures were taken against converts to the new teachings. The king and the nobility, however, strongly favored the Protestant party, and the former added his voice to the demand made by the second Synod of Petrikau (1555) that a national council be convened to settle the religious controversies. Sigismund also sent representatives to the pope, requiring the administration of the chalice, the celebration of mass in the vernacular, the abolition of clerical celibacy, and the abandonment of annates. The pope, however, refused to accede to these demands, and sent a nuncio, Bishop Lipomani of Verona, to Poland to repress the Protestant movement. He entirely failed, but the success of the Polish reformers was rendered impossible by their own divisions, as became clear at the third synod, held at Petrikau in 1562. There were constant difficulties between the Lutheran and Reformed parties, and the situation was made still more complicated by the appearance of a Polish antitrinitarian movement. All attempts to secure harmony failed, and the antitrinitarians were formally excluded from fellowship with Protestants at the fourth synod of Petrikau, held in 1565, though neither this nor a royal command banishing all Italian antitrinitarians (1654) was carried out. In the same year, at a diet convened at Petrikau, the antitrinitarian leaders secured the holding of a disputation with their opponents, though the Lutherans held aloof, and only the Reformed and the Bohemian Brethren accepted. At this disputation Gregor Pauli, a Cracow preacher and the leader of the antitrinitarians, alleged the impossibility of reconciling the Catholic creeds concerning the Persons of the Trinity with the teaching of the Scriptures; while the trinitarians insisted on the historic agreement between the Scriptures and the teaching of the whole Church. After fourteen days of debate the two parties were farther apart than ever. The antitrinitarian representatives, moreover, disagreed among themselves, some denying the preexistence of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit, others accepting the preexistence of Christ and the reality of the Holy Spirit, and yet others assuming three Persons in the Trinity, but ascribing different values to them. The final outcome of the matter was the exclusion of the antitrinitarians from the Reformed Church, so that henceforth they constituted a separate communion. (DAVID ERDMANN†.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: Besides the literature under POLAND, CHRISTIANITY IN, and the works of Dalton and Kruske named under LASCO, JOHANNES A., consult: A. Regenvolscius (A. Wengierski), *Systema historico-chronologicum ecclesiarum Slavonicarum*, pp. 180 sqq., Utrecht, 1652; S. Lubenski, *Historia reformationis Polonicæ*, pp. 144 sqq., 201 sqq., Freistadt, 1685; E. Borgius, *Aus Posens und Polens kirchlicher Vergangenheit*, pp. 14 sqq., Berlin, 1898; and G. Krause, *Die Reformation und Gegenreformation in Polen*, Posen, 1901.
PETROBRUSSIANS Petrobrussians

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PETROBRUSSIANS.** See PETER OF BRUYS.
PETRUS MONGUS Petrus Mongus

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PETRUS MONGUS**. See MONOPHYSITES, §§ 5 sqq.
PEUCER, CASPAR Peucer, Caspar

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PEUCER**, pei'tser, **CASPAR:** Leader of the crypto-Calvinists (see PHILIPPISTS) in the electorate of Saxony; b. at Bautzen (31 m. e.n.e. of Dresden) Jan. 6, 1525; d. at Dessau (67 m. s.w. of Berlin) Sept. 2, 1602. He was educated at the University of Wittenberg, which he entered in 1540, and where he became professor of mathematics in 1554 and of medicine in 1560. Throughout the life of Melanchthon, whose son-in-law he was, he was his friend, counselor, physician, and companion, while after the Reformer's death he edited his collected works (Wittenberg, 1562-64), two books of his *Epistolæ *(1570), the third and fourth volumes of his *Selectæ declamationes* (Strasburg, 1557-58), etc. He likewise completed Melanchthon's revision of the *Chronicon Carionis*, which had extended only to Charlemagne, by two books bringing it down to the Leipsic disputation (2 parts, Wittenberg, 1562-65); while among his independent writings mention may be made of his *De dimensione terræ* (Wittenberg, 1550) and *De præcipuis divinationum generibus* (1553). Peucer was a favorite at the Dresden court, where he was appointed physician in 1570, though still retaining his Wittenberg professorship. At his instance Melanchthon's *Corpus doctrinæ* was officially introduced in 1564, thus marking the rise of Philippism;and vacancies in the university were filled with strict followers of Melanchthon. In 1571 he collaborated in a school abridgment of the *Corpus doctrinæ* which sharply denied Luther's teaching of Ubiquity (q.v.), and with the death of Paul Eber (q.v.) in 1569 approximation to Calvinism became still easier. At the same time, the strict Lutheran party continued to have much influence at court because their side was taken by the elector's wife, a Danish princess. Considerations of foreign policy, however, finally induced the elector to dismiss his favorite physician, especially as he was accused, though wrongly, of having a part in a Calvinistic exposition of the faith, *Exegesis perspicua*, published by Joachim Cureus in 1574. Peucer's correspondence was searched, and evidence was found which was construed as expressing his intention to try to introduce the Calvinistic theory of the Lord's Supper into the Saxon Church. He acknowledged his fault when tried before the Saxon diet at Torgau, and was directed to restrict his interest to medicine. But the Elector August was not contented and had Peucer, whom he suspected of working to introduce the rival ducal house into Saxony, taken to Rochlitz. In 1576 Peucer was imprisoned in the Pleissenburg in Leipsic, where he suffered much hardship, but determinedly resisted all attempts to convert him, refusing to make any concessions contrary to Calvinism. Finally, when the Danish princess died, and the elector married a second time (Jan. 3, 1586), his father-in-law, Prince Joachim Ernest of Anhalt successfully pleaded for Peucer's release. This took place on Feb. 8, 1586, a few days before the death of August. Peucer now went to Dessau, where he was appointed physician in ordinary and councilor to the prince. The remaining years of his life were peaceful, spent partly in Dessau, partly in Cassel and the Palatinate, and partly in travels, and he was honored by all. To the last he adhered to Melanchthon's theology, and he was likewise busy with his pen. During his imprisonment he began his *Historia carcerum et liberationis divinæ* (ed. after the author's death by Christoph Pezel, Zurich, 1605); and he also wrote in prison his *Tractatus historicus de Philippi Melanchthonis sententia de controversia coenæ Domini *(Amberg, 1596), as well as a poetical *Idyllium, patria seu historia Lusatiæ superioris* (Bautzen, 1594). (G. KAWERAU.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: For Peucers letters consult *CR*, vols. vii. and ix.; J. Voigt, *Briefwechael der berühmtesten Gelehrten, * pp. 497 sqq., Königsberg, 1841; and *Zeitschrift für preussische Geschichte*, xiv (1877), 90 sqq., 145 sqq. Early sources are the funeral sermon by J. Brendel, Zerbat, 1603; a memorial oration by 3. $tenius, ib. 1603; and A. van de Corput, *Het Leven ende Dood van . . . P. Melanehton Mitagaders de . . . gevangeniaas van . . . Caspar Peucerus, *Amsterdam, 1662. Biographies or sketches are by: J. C. Leopold, Budissin, 1745; H. C. A. Eichstädt, Jena, 1841; E. A. H. Heimburg Jena, 1842; F. Coch, Marburg, 1850; E. L. T. Henke, Marburg, 1865. Consult further: R. Calinich, *Kampf und Untergang des Melanchthonismus in Kursachsen, *Leipsic, 1866; J. W. Richard, *Philip Melanchthon, *New York, 1898; J. Janssen, *Hist. of the German People, vols. *vii.-viii., St. Louis, 1905; N. Müller, *Melanchthons letzte Lebenstage, 1910; *Ersch and Gruber, *Encyklopädie, III.*, xix. 435-460; *ADB*, xxv. 552 sqq.; and the literature under PHILIPPISTS.
PEW" Pew

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PEW:** Ecclesiastically, an enclosed seat in a church (not, in the modern sense, an open bench). The term (Old Fr. *pui, puy, puye, poi, peu*, "an elevated place," "seat"; Lat. *podium*, " balcony") in early English use meant a more or less elevated enclosure for business in a public place; this use was probably prior to its employment as the name for an enclosed seat for worshipers in a church. Indeed, the pew might be even a box in a theater. The pew is not, then, an original or primitive part of the church edifice, the floor of the structure being in early times open and unobstructed, though in the chancel there came to be seats for the clergy and choir. This tradition is continued in modern times in Roman and Greek cathedrals in Europe, which are usually without pews, portable benches or chairs being furnished instead. In early times the attitude of worshipers was standing (or kneeling), and the provision of stools or benches probably does not date back of the fourteenth century, though some English churches had stone benches along the walls and around pillars. The earliest known examples of regular benching is probably that of the church at Soest (34 m. s.e. of Münster, Westphalia) in the early fifteenth century. The church at Swaffham (25 m. w. of Norwich), England, was in 1454 provided with pews by private benefaction, and this was almost certainly not the first instance in England. The records of St. Michael's, Cornhill, London, prove the existence of pews in that church in 1457, the doors of some of which, at least, had locks, a fact which implies private ownership. It seems certain, however, that at first only parts of the edifice were provided with pews. The shape of these does not seem to have been uniform. While the oblong pew was naturally the most common, the seat facing the altar, other pews were square with the seats placed around three or all four sides, leaving space only for the door. These latter were often private, appropriated to the use of the lord of the manor or to a family an early member of which had in some way acquired a perpetual interest. In England the right to occupy a certain pew sometimes goes with the occupancy of a certain house in the parish. The acquisition of property-right in a pew is not confined to England; in quite a number of churches in the United States pews are held by families and may figure as property in valuation of assets. But the tendency is decidedly against this exclusive right, and where such cases exist, the policy of the church is usually to redeem the pew from private ownership. It is not certain at what period pews were made a means of income to the parish. In St. Margaret's, Westminster, the records show payment of pew rents as early as the first part of the sixteenth century. The law of England gives to every parishioner a right to a sitting in the parish church if it was built before 1818, and this right is enforceable by civil procedure. In the United States custom varies greatly. Almost general is the practise of using the pews as a means of raising revenue for church purposes. In a considerable number of churches the pew rents provide the principal means of income, pews being rented by the year. In a large number of churches, however, the feeling exists that this is a limitation upon the " freedom of the Gospel," and the sittings are all free, the income being derived from collections or pledges of free-will offerings. BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. M. Beale, *Hist. of Pews, *Cambridge, 1841; J. C. Fowler, *Church Pews, their Origin and Legal Incidents, *London, 1844; G. H. H. Oliphant, *The Law of Pews in Churches and Chapels, ib. *1850; A. Heales, *Hist. and Law of Church Seats or Pews, *2 vols., *ib. *1872.
PEZEL, CHRISTOPH Pezel, Christoph

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PEZEL**, pê'tsel, **CHRISTOPH:** German crypto-Calvinist; b. at Plauen (61 m. s.w. of Leipsic) Mar. 5, 1539; d. at Bremen Feb. 25, 1604. He was educated at the universities of Jena and Wittenberg, his studies at the latter institution being interrupted by his teaching for several years. In 1557 he was appointed professor in the philosophical faculty and in 1569 was ordained preacher at the Schlosskirche in Wittenberg. In the same year he entered the theological faculty, where he soon became involved in the disputes between the followers of Melanchthon and Luther, writing the *Apologia veræ doctrinæ de deflnitione Evangelii* (Wittenberg, 1571) and being the chief author of the Wittenberg catechism of 1571. He soon took a leading position as a zealous Philippist, but in 1574 he and his colleagues were summoned to Torgau and required to give up the Calvinistic theory of the Lord's Supper. As they refused to subscribe to the articles presented to them, they were placed under surveillance in their own houses and forbidden to discuss or to print anything on the questions in dispute. They were afterward deposed from their professorships, and in 1576 were banished. Pezel, who had hitherto been at Zeitz, now went to Eger; but in 1577, like his fellow exiles, received a position from Count John of Nassau, first at the school in Siegen and later at Dillingen. Pezel then definitely accepted Calvinism, and the Church in Dillenburg was united to the Calvinistic body. In 1578 he became pastor at Herborn, and in 1580 was permitted by Count John to go for a few weeks to Bremen to try to reconcile the Church difficulties between the Calvinists and Lutherans. His task was difficult, however, since the Lutheran Jodocus Glanæus refused to meet him in open debate. The civil authorities, construing this as contumacy, deposed Glanæus, and Pezel preached in his place. He soon returned to Nassau, but in 1581 was permanently appointed the successor of Glanæus at Bremen, where, four years later, he was made superintendent of the churches and schools. At the same time he became pastor of the Liebfrauenkirche, though he also retained his pastorate at the Ansgariikirche till 1598. He took an active part in improving and extending the work at the Bremen gymnasium, where he was professor of theology, moral philosophy, and history, being also the leader in all the theological controversies in which the Bremen church became involved. Pezel did away with Luther's Catechism, substituting for it his own Bremen catechism, which remained in force until the eighteenth century, removed images and pictures from the churches, formed a ministerium which united the clergy, and, by his *Consensus ministerii Bremensis ecclesiæ* of 1595, prepared the way for the complete acceptance of Calvinistic doctrine. Pezel was the editor Of many theological writings, of which the most important were the *Loci theologici* of his teacher, Victorinus Strigel (4 parts, Neustadt, 158184); Philip Melanchthon's *Conscilia* (1600); and Caspar Peucer's *Historia carcerum et liberationis divinæ *(Zurich, 1605); while among his independent works special mention may be made of the following: *Argumenta et objectiones de præcipuis articulis doctrinæ Christianæ* (Neustadt, 1580,89); *Libellus precationum *(1585); and *Mellificium historicism, complectens histohiam trium monarchiarum, Chaldaicæ, Peraicæ, Græcæ *(1592). He is particularly interesting as showing the evolution from Melanchthon's attitude toward predestination to the complete determinism of the Calvinistic concept of the dogma. (G. KAWERAU.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: Autobiographic material is contained in Pezel's *Widerholte warhaffte . . . Erzehlung*, Bremen, 1582, in *Wittemberger Ordiniertenbuch* ii (1895), 117. Consult: J. H. Steubing, *Nassauische Kirchen- und Reformationsgeschichte*, Hadamar, 1804; *ZHT*, 1866, pp. 382 sqq., 1873, 179 sqq.; Iken, in *Bremisches jahrbuch*, ix (1877), 1 sqq., a (1878), 34 sqq.; E. Jacobs, *Juliana Von Stolberg*, pp. 288 sqq., Wernigerode, 1889; W. von Bippen, *Geschichte der Stadt Bremen*, ii. 199, Bremen, 1898; Ersch and Gruber, *Encyklopädie*, III, xx. 83 sqq.; *ADB*, xxv. 575 sqq.
PFAFF, CHRISTOPH MATTHAEUS Pfaff, Christoph Matthaeus

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PFAFF**, pfäf, **CHRISTOPH MATTHAEUS:** German Lutheran; b. at Stuttgart Dec. 24, 1686; d. at Giessen Nov. 19, 1760. He was educated at the University of Tübingen (1699-1702), and became lecturer in 1705, but in the following year, at the command of the duke of Württemberg, traveled extensively in Germany, Denmark, Holland, and England, with special attention to the study of Semitic languages. Almost immediately on his return he was directed to proceed to Italy with the heir apparent, with whom he spent three years in Turin. Here, as elsewhere, he was unwearied in searching through libraries, and was rewarded by the discovery of many fragments hitherto unknown, as of sermons of Chrysostom and portions of Hippolytus. In this way he also found the epitome of the "Institutes" of Lactantius, which he edited at Paris in 1712; and he aroused wide interest by the alleged discovery of four fragments of Ignatius which he published, with voluminous dissertations, at The Hague in 1715. Over these fragments an animated controversy was long waged. It is now generally held that they are not to be ascribed to Ignatius; though the question remains whether they were a forgery of Pfaff 's, or whether they were cut out of some Turin catena manuscript. Both contingencies were possible in the case of Pfaff, who is known to have mutilated a Turin manuscript of Hippolytus, and to have forged a document to establish the claim of the house of Savoy to the titular kingdom of Cyprus. In 1712 Pfaff returned to Germany and remained a year at Stuttgart, after which he visited Holland and France with the heir apparent, returning permanently to Germany in 1716. Despite his youth, Pfaff was then appointed professor of theology at Tübingen, where he rose steadily, becoming chancellor of the university at the age of thirty-four, and retaining this dignity for thirty-six years. He was a man of great versatility and of encyclopedic learning, and at the same time was indefatigable as an author. He wrote a large number of dissertations, of which the *De originibus juris ecclesinatici ejusdem indole* (Tübingen, 1719) marked the beginning of a new epoch in its field, for in it, and in the *Akademische Reden über das sowohl allgemeine als auch teutsche protestantische Kirchenrecht* (1742), he for the first time carried to its logical results the doctrine of Collegialism (q.v.). In the sphere of theology he wrote *Conatitutiones theologiæ dogmaticæ et moralis *(Tübingen, 1719); *Introductio in historiam theologiæ literariam *(1720); *Institutiones historiæ ecclesiasticæ* (1721); and *Notæ exegeticæ in evangelium Matthæi* (1721); while his pietistic sympathies found expression in such works as his *Kurtzer Abriss vom wahren Christentum* (Tübingen, 1720) and *Hertzens-Katechismus* (1720), and his general Biblical scholarship was evinced by his collaboration with Johann Christian Klemm in the preparation of the "Tübingen Bible" of 1730 (see BIBLES, ANNOTATED, I., § 1), Pfaff was chiefly active, however, in endeavor ing to unite the Protestant churches, and to this end he composed a long series of monographs which were collected in German translation under the title of *Gesammelte Schriften, so zur Vereinigung der Protestierenden abzielen* (Halle, 1723). Here again he was no innovator, and though his proposals attracted wide attention, Lutheran opposition rendered them fruitless. Henceforth Pfaff frittered away his energies, producing work more remarkable for quantity than quality, and plunging into countless trivial literary controversies: He lost his popularity and influence in the university, forfeited the interest of the students, and in 1756 resigned from the chancellorship. His departure from Tübingen was unmourned, but his intention of spending the remainder of his life in retirement at Frankfort was frustrated by a call to Giessen, where he became chancellor, superintendent, and director of the theological faculty. Here he remained until his death, four years later, though here, too, the faults which dimmed his great talents gained him general enmity. (ERWIN PREUSCHEN.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: The short *Vita* in *Gesammelte Schrifften, *ut sup., ii. 1-9, was used by C. P. Leporin for his *Verbesserte Nachricht won . . . C. M. Pfafens Leben, *Leipsic, 1726, and this in turn was the basis of the account in Zedler's *Universallexicon*, xxvii. 1198, ib. 1741 and other narratives in biographical works. Consult F. W. Strieder, *Hessiche Gelehrtengeschichte*, x. 322 sqq., 21 vols., Göttingen, 1781-1868; A. F. Bosching, *Beyträge zu der Lebensgeshichte denkwürdiger Personen,* iii. 170-171, 287-288, 6 parts, Halle, 1783-89; J. M. H. Daring, *Gelehrte Theologen im 18. Jahrhundert*, iii. 249 sqq., 4 vols., Neustadt, 1831-1835; W. Gass, *Geschichte der proteatantischen Dogmatik*, iii. 74 sqq., 4 vols., Berlin, 1854-57; C. Weizeäcker, *Lehrer und Unterricht von dem evangelischen Fakultät*, pp. 97 sqq., in *Tübinger Festschrift*, 1877; A. Ritschl, *Geschichte des Pietismus*, iii. 42 sqq., Bonn, 1886; Ersch and Gruber, *Encyklopädie*, III., xx. 101 sqq.; *ADB*, xxv. 587 sqq.
PFAFFENBRIEF Pfaffenbrief

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PFAFFENBRIEF**, pfāf"en-brîf'**:** A compact, dated Oct. 7, 1370, whereby the cantons of Zurich, Lucerne, Zug, Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden united to oppose foreign spiritual and secular jurisdiction and to preserve national peace. The immediate cause of the compact was the attack upon and imprisonment of Peter of Gundoldingen, head of Zurich's ally, Lucerne, and his party by Bruno Brun, provost of the cathedral of Zurich (Sept. 13, 1370). The aggressor, an adherent of the Austrian party, refused to recognize the jurisdiction of a secular court, and was accordingly banished, while his prisoner was released. Such, however, was the fear that Brun might appeal to foreign, imperial, or ecclesiastical courts that, to avoid any such contingency in future, the Pfaffenbrief was drawn up. This document merely emphasized and guaranteed existing rights. It laid down two principles: all cases within the confederation, except matrimonial and ecclesiastical, must be tried before the local judge, who had jurisdiction even over aliens (thus ignoring both the imperial courts and foreign spiritual courts); it contained resolutions relating to the public peace, and forbade waging wars without the consent of the government. At the same time, ecclesiastical jurisdiction was not annulled, and cases in which one of the clergy was defendant were usually tried in the episcopal courts. By requiring the oath of allegiance from the clergy, moreover, the Pfaffenbrief indirectly tended to subordinate the clergy to the State in matters applying equally to clergy and laity. By thus delimiting, in an important sphere of law, what appertained to the State and what to the Church, and by favoring the claims of the former rather than of the latter, the Pfaffenbrief marked the first real and successful Swiss attempt to restrict by means of the secular law the unlimited extension of ecclesiastical power. (F. FLEINER.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. P. von Segesser, *Rechtsgeschichte der Stadt . . . Luzern, vols. *i.-ii., passim, Lucerne, 1850-58; J. C. Bluntschli, *Staats- and Rechtsgeschichte . . . Zurich, *i. 385 sqq., Zurich, 1838; idem, *Geschichte des schweizerischen Bundesrechts,* i. 122 sqq., Stuttgart, 1875; T. von Leibenau, in *Anzeiger für schweizerische Geschichte, *1882, p. 60; W. Oechsli, in *Politisches Jahrbuch der schweiz. Eidgenossenschaft,* v (1890), 359-365; idem, *Quellenbuch der Schweizergeschichte, *Zurich, 1901; J. Dierauer, *Geschichte der schweiz. Eidgenossenschaft, i. *282 sqq., Gotha, 1887; K. Dändliker, *Geschichte der Schweiz*, i. 545 sqq., 632 sqq., Zurich, 1900; J. Hiirbin, *Handbuch der Schweizergeschichte*, i. 197, Stans, 1900; *Die Bundesbriefe der alten Eidgenossen*, 1891-1518, Zurich, 1904.
PFANDER, KARL GOTTLIEB Pfander, Karl Gottlieb

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PFANDER**, pfān'der, **KARL GOTTLIEB:** Missionary to the Mohammedans; b. at Waiblingen (7 m. n.e. of Stuttgart), Germany, Nov. 3, 1803; d. at Richmond (8 m. w.s.w. of London) Dec. 1, 1865. His father was a baker, who, perceiving his aptitude for study and sharing his ambitions, sent him first to the Latin school in the town, then to Kornthal (q.v.), and finally to the missionary institute at Basel, where he studied from 1820 to 1825. He was a remarkable linguist and of indefatigable energy, and spent his life in the effort to convert Mohammedans. From 1825 to 1829 he labored in Shusha, in Transcaucasia, and neighboring lands; from 1829 to 1831 he was with Anthony Norris Groves (q.v.) in Bagdad; from Mar. to Sept., 1831, in Persia, but then returned to Shusha. In 1835 the Russian government forbade all missionary operations except those of the Greek Church; consequently he had to leave Shusha. He went first to Constantinople, in 1836 was back in Shusha, but in 1837 started for India by way of Persia, and arrived in Calcutta Oct. 1, 1838. As it seemed most promising to work henceforth under English auspices he, with the full consent of the Basel Society, became a missionary of the Church Missionary Society, Feb. 12, 1840. He was in Agra from 1841 to 1855, in Peshawar from 1855 to 1857, and in Constantinople from 1858 to 1865. His death occurred while on his furlough. He married first Sophia Reuss, a German, in Moscow, July 11, 1834, who died in childbed in Shusha, May 12, 1835; second, Emily Swinburne, an Englishwoman, in Calcutta, Jan. 19, 1841, who bore him three boys and three girls, and survived him fifteen years. He wrote few books, and most of them in oriental languages. One that is in English was his *Remarks on the Nature of Muhammedanism*, Calcutta, 1840. But one of his books is a missionary classic. He drafted it in German in May, 1829, while in Shusha, then he expanded and perfected it. It bears in German the title *Mizan ul Hakk oder die Wage der Wahrheit*, translations have been made of it into Armenian, Turkish, Persian, and Ordu, and it has been widely circulated among Mohammedans of many lands. There is an English translation of it under the title, *The Mizan ul Haqq; or Balance [should be Balances] of Truth* (London, 1867, new ed., 1910). It is a cogent and incisive attack on Mohammedanism and an explanation and application of Christianity, written in simple language but with deep conviction and ample knowledge. In recognition of the service he had thus rendered, the archbishop of Canterbury (John Bird Sumner) made him a doctor of divinity in 1857. BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. F. Eppler, *D. Karl Gottlieb Pfander,* Basel, 1888; Emily Headland, *Sketches of Church Missionary Society Workers, *London, 1897.
PFEFFINGER, JOHANN Pfeffinger, Johann

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PFEFFINGER**, pfef'ing-er, **JOHANN:** Saxon Reformer; b. at Wasserburg (31 m. e.s.e. of Munich), Upper Bavaria, Dec. 27, 1493; d. at Leipsic Jan. 1, 1573. Devoting himself to the religious life, he became an acolyte at Salzburg in 1515, and soon afterward was made subdeacon and deacon. Receiving a dispensation from the regulations concerning canonical age, he was ordained priest and stationed at Reichenhall, Saalfelden, and Passau, where his clerical activity soon found great approbation. Suspected of Lutheran heresy, he went to Wittenberg in 1523, where he was cordially welcomed by Luther, Melanchthon, and Bugenhagen. In 1527 he went as parish priest to Sonnenwalde; and in 1530, when expelled by the bishop of Meissen, he removed to the monastery of Eicha, near Leipsic, where his services were attended by many outside the parish. In 1532 he went to Belgern, whence he was delegated, in 1539, to complete the Reformation in Leipsic. In 1540, he was permanently vested with the office of superintendent. He declined calls to Halle and Breslau, though he took part in completing the work of the Reformation at Glauchau in 1542. In his capacity of censor he prevented further printing of Schenk's postilla. In 1543 he was graduated as the first Protestant doctor of theology, and became a professor of theology in the following year. In 1548 he was made a canon of Meissen. Duke Maurice of Saxony drew him into the negotiations reghrding the introduction of a Protestant church constitution and liturgy. Having been appointed assessor in the Leipsic consistory in 1543, he participated, in 1545, in the consecration of a bishop of Merseburg as one of the ordaining clergy. In the following year he negotiated at Dresden with Anton Musa and Daniel Greser, and took part in the deliberations concerning the Interim at the Diet of Meissen (July, 1548), at Torgau (Oct. 18), at Altzella (Nov.), and at the Leipsic Saxon Diet (Dec. 22). The Elector August likewise sought formal expressions of opinion from Pfeffinger; and in this connection, in 1555, he proposed, with a view to securing religious uniformity, that the Interim liturgy of 1549 should again be used. Melanchthon, however, opposed this suggestion, holding that, were it adopted, additional religious disunion would follow. Pfeffinger also took part in the deliberative proceedings of the delegates of the three consistories in 1556, as well as in the Dresden convention of 1571. Pfeffinger's writings were ethical, ascetic, and polemic. His *Propositionea de libero arbitrio* (1555) occasioned the outbreak of the synergistic strife (see SYNERGISM). Against Nikolaus von Amsdorf he wrote his *Antwort *(Wittenberg, 1558), *Demonstratio mendacii* (1558), and *Nochmals gründlicher* Bericht; while he opposed Matthias Flacius in his *Verantwortung. *He embodied his tenets in five articles of the *Formula der Bekendnis *of June 3, 1556, which he also submitted, in amplified form, to the Wittenberg theologians. GEORG MÜLLER. BIBLIOGRAPHY: B. Sartorius, *Einfältiger ... Bericht von dem Leben ... J. Pfeffingers*, Leipsic, 1573; F. Seifert, in heft iv. of *Beitrage zur sächsischen Kirchengeschichte*, Leipsic, 1888; G. Müller, in heft ix. of the same, pp. 98, 118, 165, 181, and x. 210; *ADB*, xxv. 624-630.
PFEILSCHIFTER, GEORG Pfeilschifter, Georg

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PFEILSCHIFTER**, pfail'shift-er, **GEORG:** German Roman Catholic; b. at Mering (7 m. s.e. of Augsburg), Upper Bavaria, May 13, 1870. He was educated at the universities of Munich (1889-93, 1894-99; D.D., 1897) and Vienna (1899), interrupting his studies to make a five months' tour of Italy in 1897. In 1900 he became privat-docent for church history at the University of Munich, but in the same year accepted a call to the Lyceum of Freising as associate professor of church history and patristics. Since 1903 he has been professor of church history in the University of Freiburg. He has written *Der Ostgotenkönig Theoderich der Grosse und die katholische Kirche *(Münster, 1896); *Die authentische Ausgabe der vierzig Evangelienhomilien Gregors des Grossen, ein erster Beitrag zur Geschichte der Ueberlieferung* (Munich, 1900); and *Zur Entstehung der Allegorie vom mystischen Gotteswagen bei Dante Purgatorio* (Freiburg, 1904).
PFENDER, CHARLE LEBERECHT Pfender, Charles Leberecht

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PFENDER, **pfen'der or [F.] fan"dar', **CHARLES LEBERECHT:** French Lutheran; b. at Hatten in Alsace Oct. 26, 1834. He pursued his studies at Wittenberg, the College de Pont-a-Mousson (B.Litt., 1853), under the faculty of theology at Strasburg (B.Th., 1859), and at the universities of Heidelberg, Göttingen, and Berlin; he became vicar at Wittenberg in 1860; at Paris, 1865; pastor of the Église du Batignolles, Paris, 1868, and of the Église Saint-Paul, same city, in 1874. He describes himself as theologically a confessional Lutheran. He is the author of *La Confession d'Augabourg. Traduction revue d'après le texte le plus autorisé. Précédée d'une introduction* (Paris, 1872); *L'Agneau de Dieu, Rècit de la passion et de la rèsurrection du Seigneur d'aprés les quatre èvangèlistes. Suivi de mèditations, de priéres, et de cantiques pour la semaine sainte* (1873); *Vie de Martin Luther, publièe a l'occasion du quatriéme centenaire de sa naissance* (1883). He is a contributor to the present work, and has written much for other standard publications.
PFLEIDERER, OTTO Pfleiderer, Otto

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PFLEIDERER, **pflai'der-er, **OTTO:** German Protestant; b. at Stetten (a village near Cannstadt, 4 m. n.e. of Stuttgart), Württemberg, Sept. 1, 1839; d. at Grosslichterfelde, Berlin, July 19, 1908. He was educated at the University of Tübingen from 1857 to 1861, and after being for a short time vicar at Eningen, a village near Reutlingen, traveled extensively in North Germany, England, and Scotland until 1864. He was then lecturer and privat-docent at Tübingen until 1868, after which he was a pastor at Heilbronn till 1870, when he went to Jena as chief pastor and university preacher. In 1870 he was appointed professor of theology at the University of Jena, and from 1875 till his death he was professor of practical theology at the University of Berlin. He was one of the most learned and vigorous defenders of the non-miraculous origin of Christianity. He lectured in England on both the Hibbert (1885) and the Gifford (1892-93) foundations. He wrote *Die Religion, ihr Wesen and ihre Geschichte *(2 vols., Leipsic, 1869); *Moral and Religion *(Haarlem, 1870); *Der Paulinismus *(Leipsic, 1873; Eng. transl. by E. Peters, *Paulinism*, 2 vols., London, 1877); *F. G. Fichte, Lebensbiild eines deutschen Denkers and Patrioten *(Stuttgart, 1877); *Religi-philosophic auf geachichtlicher Grundlage *(Berlin, 1878; *2d *ed., 2 vols., 1883-84; Eng. transl. by A. Stewart and A. Menzies, *Philosophy of Religion, *4 vole., London, 1886-88); *Zur religiösen Verstandigung *(1879); *Grundrisa der christlichen Glaubens and Sittenlehre *(1880); *The Influence of the Apostle Paul on the Development of Christianity *(Hibbert lectures; London, 1885); *Das Urchriatentum, seine Schriften and Lehren *(Berlin, 1885; 2d ed., 1902; Eng. transl., *Primitive Christianity. Its Writings and Teachings, *2 vole., New York, 1906-09); *The Development of Theology in Germany since Kant, and its Progress in Great Britain since 1826 *(London, 1890; German ed., *Der Entwickelung der protestantischen Theologw in Deutschland seit Kant and in Grossbritannien seit 1825, *Freiburg, 1891); *Die Ritschlsche Theologie kritisch beleuchtet *(Bnmswiek, 1891); *The Philosophy and Development of Religion *(Gifford lectures; 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1894); *Evolution and Theology, and other Essays *(New York, 1900); *Das Christusbild des urchristlichen Glaubens *(Berlin, 1903; Eng. transl., *The Early Christian Conception of Christ: Its Value and Significance in the History of Religion, *London, 1905); *Die Entstehung des Christentums *(Munich, 1905; Eng. transl., *Christian Origins*, London, 1906); *Religion und Religionen *(1906; Eng. transl., *Religion and Historic Faiths, *London, 1907); and *Die Entwicklung des Christentums *(1907; Eng. transl., *The Development of Christianity, *London, 1910).
PFLUG, JULIUS Pflug, Julius

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PFLUG**, pflūlg, **JULIUS:** Roman Catholic bishop of Naumburg; b. at Eytra (a village near Zwenkau, 9 m. s.s.w. of Leipsie) 1499; d. at Zeitz (23 m. s.w. of Leipsic) Sept. 3, 1564. He studied at the universities of Leipsic (1510-17) and Bologna (1517-19), and returned to Germany in 1519 to become canon in Meissen. Disturbed by the religious controversies at home, he returned to Bologna, whence he went to Padua, but in 1521, induced by offers of preferment from Duke George, he returned to his native state, first of all to Dresden, and then to Leipsic, where he still continued to devote himself chiefly to humanistic interests. In 1528-29 he was again in Italy, and in 1530 he accompanied Duke George to the Diet of Augsburg. At this time he became a correspondent of Erasmus, and in his letters to him unfolded his plan for restoring religious peace to Germany. Everything could be done, he thought, by the influence of moderate men like Erasmus and Melanchthon. Erasmus replied that things had gone so far that even a council could be of no help; one party wanted revolution, the other would tolerate no reform. In 1532 Pflug became dean of Zeitz, where he had to grapple with the practical question of the Reformation, since not only was the bishop, who was also diocesan of Freising, continually absent, but the neighboring Protestant elector of Saxony was alleging claims of jurisdiction over the see. Pflug was in favor of lay communion under both kinds, the marriage of the priesthood, and general moral reform. He took part in the Leipsic colloquy in 1534, and as dean of Meissen prepared for the clergy of the diocese the constitutions reprinted in the *Leges seu constitutiones ecclesiæ Budissinensis* (1573). As one of the envoys of John of Meissen, Pflug endeavored, in 1539, to secure from the papal nuncio, Alexander, who was then at Vienna, adhesion to his project for a reform of Roman Catholicism along the lines already indicated, only to be obliged to wait for the decision of the pope. The Reformation was now carried through in Meissen, and Pflug took refuge in Zeitz, later retiring to his canonry at Maintz, and thus rendering Zeitz more accessible to the Protestant movement. In 1541 he was appointed bishop of Naumburg, but John Frederick, the elector of Saxony, hating all men of moderation, forbade him to occupy his see. Pflug was uncertain whether he would accept the nomination or not; and meanwhile the elector, after vainly urging the chapter to nominate another bishop, turned the cathedral of Naumburg over to Protestant services and proposed to provide for the election of a bishop according to his liking. The elector's theologians, though exceedingly dubious regarding his course, finally yielded, and John Frederick selected Nikolaus von Amsdorf (q.v.) for the place and had him ordained by Luther. On Jan. 15, 1542, however, Pflug accepted his election to the bishopric, and sought to have his rights protected by the diets of Speyer (1542, 1544), Nuremberg (1543), and Worms (1545). At the latter diet the emperor directed the elector to admit Pflug to his bishopric, and to repudiate Amsdorf and the secular directors of the chapter. John Frederick refused, however, and the question was settled only by the Schmalkald War. Hitherto Pflug had been in favor of a Roman Catholic reform of a far-reaching character, as was shown by his part at the Regensburg Conference of 1541 (see REGENSBURG, CONFERENCE OF); but political conditions and his troubles with the elector of Saxony now made him a bitter opponent of the Reformation. In 1547, when the Schmalkald War closed, Pflug took possession of his bishopric under imperial protection. He was a prominent factor in the negotiations which resulted in the interim (q.v.), the basis of which was formed by the revision of his *Formula sacrorum emendandorum* (ed. C. G. Müller, Leipsic, 1803) by himself, Michael Helding, Johannes Agricola, Domingo de Soto, and Pedro de Malvenda. Pflug now entertained still higher hopes of realizing his reform of Roman Catholicism. He took part in negotiations in Pegaü, continuing them in a secret correspondence witness, with Melanchthon to induce him and Prince George of Anhalt to accept a modified sacrificial theory of the mass; and he was also concerned in the deliberations between Maurice and Joachim II. and their theologians at Jüterboch. The result was the first draft of the Leipsic Interim, which was submitted to the national diet in his presence. In his own diocese Pflug refrained from disturbing the Lutherans, restoring Roman Catholic worship only in the chief church in Zeitz and the cathedral of Naumburg, and even permitting Protestant services to be held in the latter. There was almost an entire dearth of Roman Catholic clergy, nor could the he secure a sufficient number from other dioceses. He was accordingly forced to allow the married ministers whom Amsdorf had placed in office to retain their positions, though without Roman Catholic ordination. In Nov., 1551, he was present for a short time at the Council of Trent. Even after the final success of the Protestants in 1552, he remained in undisturbed possession of his see, thanks to his popularity and moderation; and after the abdication of Charles V., he urged the best interests of Germany in his *Oratio de ordinanda republica Germaniæ* (Cologne, 1562). In 1557 he presided at the religious conference at Worms, but was unable to prevent the Flacians from wrecking negotiations. To the last, however, he hoped that, when the Council of Trent reassembled, his moderate program would be successful in restoring religious peace. (G. KAWERAU.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: The earlier biographies are superseded by that of A. Jansen, in *Neue Mitteilungen aus dem Gebiet histor.-antiq. Forschungen*, x (1863), parts 1 and 2. Consult further: A. von Druffel *Briefe und Akten zur Geschichte des 16. Jahrhunderts * Munich, 1873 sqq.; L. Pastor, *Die kirchlichen Reunionabestrebungen, *Freiburg, 1879; Sixtus Braun, *Naumburger Annalen*, pp. 280 sqq., Naumburg, 1892; Rosenfeld, in *ZKG*, xix (1898), 155 sqq.; E. Hoffmann, *Naumburg im Zeitalter der Reformation, *Leipsic, 1901; J. Janssen, *Hist. of the German People*. 147, 182-187, 248, 366, 396 sqq., St. Louis, 1903. Scattering notices of his activity will be found in many works dealing with the Reformation.
PHARAOH Pharaoh

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PHARAOH.** See EGYPT, I., 2, § 4.
PHARISEES AND SADUCEES Pharisees and Sadducees

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES.** ### 1. Importance; Sources of Knowledge. The great importance of a proper understanding of the two parties thus named for the history of the later Judaism and of Primitive Christianity is not to be misconceived. The entire history of the Jews and of their literature from the Maccabean wars until the destruction of Jerusalem is dominated by this Partisan antithesis. The history of Jesus himself and of the original Church are largely thereby conditioned, since it was particularly in conflict with the Pharisees that the doctrine, self-witness and whole active career of Jesus took shape as they did, while over against a Pharisaism which pushed its way even into Christianity the Apostle Paul had to defend the right of his mission to the gentiles, and the universality of Christian salvation. All the more serious, then, that the sources toward knowledge of those parties can be utilized only under difficulties. The Old-Testament books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, Esther, and Daniel, are pertinent merely in relation to the preliminary history of the, same. And only in sparing measure can even Old-Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (qq.v.) be employed; among the latter, chiefly the Psalms of Solomon (see PSEUDEPIGRAPHA, II., 1). In the Gospels and in Acts a few dogmatic differences are mentioned as between Pharisees and Sadducees; but this allows no certain deduction respecting the fundamental and distinctive character of either party. Even the invectives of Jesus against the Pharisees have had reference to out growths of their trend, and are not to influence a judgment of their actual essence. What data Acts and the Pauline epistles contain by way of defining the Pharisaical anti-Pauline Jewish Christians, warrant only slight *a posteriori* deductions regarding Pharisaism. Doubtless the most valuable intelligence concerning the Pharisees and Sadducees is given by Josephus, whose data are appreciably colored cf. Baumgarten, *Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie*, IX., 616 sqq.; Paret, in *TSK*, 1856, pp. 809 sqq) by his own attenuated Pharisaism and by his effort to present Jewish conditions in the most favorable light before the Greek ans Roman world. Patristic data are strongIy dependent on Josephus, and are, furthermore, untrustworthy. The Jewish talmudic literature is of great significance in the study of Pharisaism since it is itself elicited by the Pharisaic spirit. Yet its anecdotal details about the history of the Pharisees and Sadducees are almost wholly valueless, being conceived from the standpoint of the later Jewish scholasticism. Yet despite this dearth of sources, they still afford a fairly distinct portraiture of the two parties. ### 2. Derivation of "Pharisee" The names of the two parties throw some light on the origin and character of both parties. Touching the meaning of the name "Pharisee" there can exist no doubt. The Pharisees are certainly designated as the "separated" (cf. the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan on Deut. xxxiii. 16; Josh. iii. 5)—those who by their prescriptive and ascetic sanctity hedged themselves apart from not only heathenism but also from the rest of judaism. This explanation occurs even so early as in Suidas, in the Homilies of Clement (xi. 28), in Epphanius (*Hær.*, xvi. 1), and Pseudo-Tertullian (*Hær.*, i.). The same is borne out by the abstract *Perishuth*, in Talmudic writings, in the signification of abstemiousness or exclusive ascetic piety; and by the Talmudic use of the term *Perischin*, in the reproachful sense of separatists. From the latter use and the avoidance of the term Pharisees the thoroughly Pharisaic II Maccabees one may infer that the name arose in hostile circles. ### 3. Derivation of "Sadducees" The same is also probably true of the name "Sadducees." It is a mistake to derive the same from the Stoics (Köster, *TSK*, 1837, p. 164); more plausible is it to explain the Sadducees as *Zaddikim* "the just," from their stress upon the simple law in contrast with Pharisaical traditions (Derenbourg); or their strictness in dealing penal sentences (Reville). Only on linguistic grounds, again, is there warrant for deriving the term (Gk. *Saddoukaios*, Heb. *Zadduki*), from a personal name of which no trace exists after the exile. Such a gratuitous hypothesis (Grätz, Montet, Legarde) can be justified only by extreme embarrassment. There is, on the other hand, great probability in favor of the hypothesis (Geiger), whereby the name is traced to that Zadok who was high priest in the time of David and Solomon, in whose line the high-priestly dignity continued during nearly the entire dominion of David's royal house (II Sam. viii. 17; 1 Kings i. 32; Ezek. xl. 46; Josephus, *Ant.*, X., viii. 6). In the period after the exile, not only the high priest Joshua (Neh. xl. 11; cf. I Chron vi.; Josephus, *Ant.*, X., viii. 6), but also, according to Josephus, all the high priests descending from him down to Menelaus, hence also all the high-priestly families of their lineage-belonged to the house of Zadok. According to this view the name " Sadducees " denotes the descendants of the high priest Zadok, together with their adherents. Which theory is also favored by analogy of the "Boëthusians," who in tthe Talmudic writings appear as an offshoot of the Sadducees; or as a sect akin to them. For the "Boëthusians" can be named Sadducees only through the circumstance that Herod the Great adopted the line of the Alexandrine Boëthos, whose granddaughter he married, into the succession of the high-priestly families (Josephus, *Ant.*, XV., ix. 3). If the name Sadducees denotes the Zadokites, it is impossible to deny all actual connection with the Zadokite high priestly families, and to identify them with the Maccabean princes and their following, who had obtained that name only by way of reproach (Wellhausen). It is probable that the name Zadokites was given to the party by their enemies; but this was possible only in case the real Zadokite high priests formed the stock of the party; so that a partizan following could then readily join the same. In this light, the two party names of Pharisees and Sadducees are distinct in so far as that the former has reference to religious aims, the latter to connection with the high-priestly nobility. This does not controvert the correctness of the given derivation; indeed, the point becomes thereby more prominent that the Pharisaical party structure took its departure from religious motives; the Sadducean, predominantly from aristocratic interests. ### 4. Date of Origin Partisan opposition between Pharisees and Sadducees probably arose in the first decades of the Maccabean era. A Jewish tradition (in the *Baraitha* to Rabbi Nathan's *Aboth*), respecting the founding of the Sadducees' party through two pupils of Antigonus of Socho, would carry the origins back to the close of the second century B.C. But apart from other improbabilities in this account, which dates only from the Middle Ages, its chronological correctness is precluded by the certified existence of the Sadducees' cause at a considerably earlier period. According to Josephus (*Ant.*, XIII., x. 6), an open conflict between Pharisees and Sadducees broke out as early as toward the close of the administration of Hyrcanus, about 115 B.C. But this presupposes an antecedent and quiet development of both parties, and Hyrcanus him self was brought. up in the Pharisaic doctrine (Josephus, *Ant.*, XIII., x. 5). Essentially opposite is the incidental remark of Josephus in his narrative of the last executive years of Jonathan (*Ant.*, XIII., v. 9), that about that time there were three "sects" among the Jews: Phansees, Sadducees, and Essenes. The origin of the Pharisees and Sadducees falls, therefore, at its latest, during the rule of Jonathan; but it can not be set back much further, since no trace of their names appears earlier to show that the parties were forming. The assumption is forbidden that they arose before the Maccabean insurrection. Nor may appeal be made to the presence of the Hasideans (see HASMONEANS, § 1) in the pre-Maccabean period. For the Pharisees are not to be identified with these. While one can date the Pharisees and Sadducees as parties back to the beginning of the post exilic period (A. Geiger, *Ursprung and Uebersetz und der Bibel*, pp. 26 sqq., 56 sqq., Breslau, 1857) only by resting upon conjecture, it is possible that the partizan antithesis but continued an older contention, such as might have taken shape prior to the Maccabean uprising; indeed, opposition of interests similar to these appeared in the pre-Maccabean era. ### 5. Relations of Pharisees and Scribes This first of all appears in the class distinction between the Pharisees and Sadducees. Soon after the return, there began to develop an opposition between the scribes, who insisted upon an absolutely strict prescriptive life, and the adherents of the aristocratic Pharisees high-priestly lines, who favored the gentiles. This antithesis accentuated itself in the Syrian and Hellenistic era, and led to the formation of parties during the rule of Antiochus Epiphanes. At that time the rising party of radical Hellenism, which sought to supplant Mosaic Judaism by Greek manners and customs, was withstood by the coterie of the Hasideans, who determined to adhere with the utmost rigor to the Jewish law as the unconditional norm of life. At that time the leaders of the former party were the high-priestly aristocrats; those of the second, the scribes. A similar class distinction formed the basis of the conflict between Pharisees and Sadducees. True, the Pharisees are not identical with the scribes. From Acts xxiii. 9, it appears that in the apostolic age not all scribes were Pharisees, but that there were also Sadducee or neutral scribes; and only a portion of the Pharisees consisted of scribes (Mark ii. 16; Luke v. 30). Indeed, a characteristic distinction comes forth in the very use of the two terms in the gospels. Quite often they speak of the Pharisees, where only individuals of that sect are meant (Matt. ix. 19-34, etc.). On the other hand, where the matter turns on particular scribes, the text mentions "certain of the scribes" ( Matt. ix. 3, xii. 38, etc.). Only where the scribes are named in conjunction with the Pharisees is the general expression used for the former with refer ence to individuals ( Mark ii. 16; Luke v. 30, etc.). On the contrary, "the scribes," without other qualification, is never used of individuals, but every where only of the entire category ( Matt. vii. 29, xvii. 10, etc.). Hence the scribes are conceived as a class; the Pharisees as a compact party, such as is represented even in the case of individual members. Occasionally in the addresses of Jesus to the scribes and Pharisees there is to be remarked the distinctive reference to the learned legal science of the former and the prescriptive manner of life advanced by the latter. So the scribes appear as theorists in contrast with the Pharisees as practitioners. For the most part, however, the two were likely to be united in one and the same person. This close affinity between Pharisees and scribes crops out alike in Josephus, in the New Testament, and in the Talmud. Where Josephus speaks of Jewish scribes, he generally implies that they are adherents of the Pharisaic school ( *War*, I., xxxiii. 2-3, II., xvii. 8; *Ant.*, XVIL, vi. 2). Conversely, where he brings the Pharisees into his narrative, he assumes that they make disciples and give instruction in the law, hence are scribes ( *Ant.*, XIII., x. 6). Again, certain scribes, well known and eminent in Talmudic sources, he designates as Pharisees ( *Ant.*, XV., i. 1, x. 4; *Life*, xxxviii.). In the New Testament, the scribes and Pharisees are now grouped together in the discourses of Jesus ( Matt. v. 20, xxiii. 2 sqq.; cf. Luke vii. 30), and are introduced as acting in common ( Matt. xii. 38, and elsewhere). Moreover, the two designations often vary in parallel passages, as well as in the relation of the same Gospel. Lastly, the post-Maccabean scribes of the Mishna speak of one another as the "Learned" ( *hakamim*); whereas in the controversial objections of the Sadducees they are termed "Pharisees" ( *Judaim*, iv. 6, 7, 8) and advocate Pharisaic views. From all this it is to be assumed that the Pharisees were composed of the leading scribes and their following, and were the practical exponents of the theoretical knowledge of the law. ### 6. Sadducees as Aristocrats On the contrary, the Sadducees, like the Hellenists of the pre-Maccabean era, had their nucleus in the Jewish aristocracy. Those magnates ("mighty ones"; Josephus, *Ant.*, II., vi. 2; cf. *War.*, I., v. 3), who as counselors of Alexander Jannaeus were by him endowed with as the highest honors, but were thrust aside by Queen Salome Alexandra, were undoubtedly Sadducees. For their persecution took place under the Pharisees' rule of terror. In his general depiction of the Sadducees, Josephus says expressly that they had only the rich on their side, but not the common people (*Ant.*, XIII., x. 6), that this doctrine won but few, but they the first in dignity (*Ant.*, XVIII., i. 4). And in the Psalms of Solomon, wherein the joy of the Pharisaic circles over the downfall of the Sadducees in the year 69 B.C. finds distinct vent, the latter are described as eye-serving courtiers and unjust judges (iv. 1-10, ii. 3-5). Hence the Sadducees' aristocratic character is distinctive and proper. But if Josephus (*Life*, i.) designates the priests in general as the nobility of the Jewish people, at all events this does not apply in a social connection. And it is erroneous (Geiger, Hauarath, Montet) to suppose that the Sadducees represented the interests of the priesthood on a preponderant scale; there lay no intrinsic objection in the nature of Pharisaism to the priesthood as such, and there appear to have been not a few priestly Pharisees (cf. Josephus, *Life*, i.-ii., xxxix.; *Mishna Eduyoth*, ii. 6-7, viii. 2; *Aboth*, ii. 8, iii. 2; *Shekalim*, iv: 4, vi. 1). It was rather the high-priestly families that offset the rest of the priesthood in the manner of a distinctive aristocracy. Under the Maccabean Simon, the adherents thereof effected their reception into the senate; while in the time of Pompey, they sat and voted in the sanhedrim (Ps. of Sol., iv. 2), which had grown out of the earlier senate, and represented a remnant of political independence, while their influence here was limited by the unaristocratic assessors of the scribes' class, yet in a certain measure it was secured by the fact that the high priests, who now constantly belonged to their circles, held the presidency in the sanhedrim. These " chief priests," as the officiating and former high priests, together with their kindred, are called in the New Testament (Schürer, in *TSK*, 1872, pp. 614 sqq.), are therefore at once the most important element of the Jewish aristocracy, and the proper nucleus of the Sadducean party. Josephus mentions only incidentally of Ananus that he belonged to the Sadducees (*Ant.*, XX., ix. 1). In the Psalms of Solomon the Sadducee members of the sanhedrim appear as unworthy directors of the temple worship (i. 8, ii. 1-5, viii. 12). In Acts the Sadduceea are expressly designated as those empowered with dispensing penal correction (iv. 1-3), as also the high priest's party (v. 17). Certain reminders of the Sadducaio complexion of the high priest's retinue occur in talmudic sources (cf. Geiger, ut sup., pp. 109 sqq.). ### 7. Relation of Pharisees to Jewish Natuionalism In keeping with this class distinction between Pharisees and Sadducees is the national attitude of the two parties. One may not think of the Sadducees as the national and patriotic of the Pharisees, on the conof Pharisees trary, as an unattached, international society. To the Pharisees might better be applied the term "national"; they were more frequently the opposers of the oppressors of the people. It is to the Pharisees that Rabbi Hillel'a word applies: "Do not separate thyself from the congregation," (*Pirke Aboth*, ii. 4); and they desired that the benefits of the theocracy should benefit all, without exception (II Macc. ii. 17). Hence the Pharisees had not only the women on their side (Josephus, *Ant.*, XVII., ii. 4), but the masses generally (*Ant.*, XIII., x. 6). Yet on another side one may not perceive in them the healthy citizenship, the true kernel of the people, the truly national party. As a faction of the scribes, they pursued only distinctively religious aims. It was merely in a religious connection that they desired the welfare of the people and the maintenance of what was peculiarly Jewish. And if they sought to extend their leadership over all other spheres of life, their sole motive was that these might thus become dominated by the thoroughly prescriptive form of their religious aims. There resulted an externally theocratic trend of policy, and this was naturally contradicted by a totally non-Jewish government; so that, theoretically, the Pharisees did not concede the legality of tribute to such a regime ( Matt. xxii. 17). They endured government by a heathen power as brought about by the divine providence, but only in the expectation of its future downfall. And the hatred latent in such an attitude easily converted itself into fanatical deeds. But yet again, they could sacrifice the theocratical idea to an untheocratical Jewish prince like Alexander Jannreus. Furthermore, how little the Pharisees were disposed to bridge the gap between priesthood and people appears from their especially strict precepts regarding the tithe and other dues in favor of priests and Temple. Indeed, they set themselves over against the people with the utmost exclusiveness as a spiritual aristocracy, from which arose their party name, "the separated," the haughty behavior charged to their reproach by Jesus ( Matt. xxiii. 5 sqq.), and the contempt with which they looked down upon the rest of the people as ignorant, not knowing the law, and unclean ( John vii. 49; cf. the "Letter of Aristeas," dating from the time of Herod, in E. Kautsch, *Apokryphen*, ii. 67,140 sqq., Tübingen, 1900). So the Pharisees' popularity among the common people had yet its limits. ### 8. Relation of Sadducees to Nationalism. Still less, however, is a national arid patriotic attitude to be discerned in the case of the Sadducees. Their connection with the Hasmoneans (q.v.) came about only as the administration of the same lost its incipiently Jewish national character. The goal of their political action was, first of all, the strengthening of their aristocratic caste. Only as dictated to them through this class interest, did they stand on the national side. The circumstance that the first Hasmonean who ruled after the transition of Hyrcanus to the Sadducees' party, Aristobulus I., was surnamed the " Philhellene," throws light on their Hellenistic tendency. Subsequently, they became servile friends of the Romans. All the more overbearing and hard-hearted were they at that time in regard to the common people (Josephus, *War*, II., viii. 14; *Ant.*, XX., ix. 1). Hence their unpopularity was so great that, in order to " make themselves possible " at all, they had to govern, in the administration of their offices, according to Pharisaic principles (Josephus, *Ant.*, XVIII., i. 4). Nevertheless, neither Pharisees nor Sadducees were of an antinational character directly. The Pharisees did not manifest that purely separatistic demeanor of the Hasideans or of the Essenes. Neither were the Sadducees willing, like the radical Hellenists of the pre-Maccabean era, to surrender the people's national existence, its faith and its law. Obviously, then, after the founding of the legally national Maccabean state, the extreme elements of both the previously existing tendencies were eliminated. The most partizan among the Hasideans receded into small groups, which led eventually to the formation of the Essenes' order. And the radical Hellenists perished in the conflicts with the Maccabeans. Thus the more moderate elements were left over, and they merged, in turn, into the broad stream of the popular life whence they had originally issued. ### 9. Religious Characteristics. With this alteration of parties, however, the fundamental religious trend persisted. The Pharisees, like the pre-Maccabean party of scribes, assiduously cultivated a strictly legalistic piety, holding themselves aloof from the world (Josephus, *War*, II., viii. 14; *Ant.*, XVIL, ii. 4; *Life*, xxxviii.; Acts xxiii. 3, xxvi. 5; Phil. iii. 5). Religion determined all their aims. But they set the essence of religion in the knowledge and fulfilment of the law. From this one-sided and legal drift of their piety there emerged all the defects and excesses of the same, such as are exhibited quite sharply in the New Testament. They built or garnished the sepulchers of the prophets (Matt. xxiii. 29 sqq.), but had none of their spirit; they zealously disputed over their prophecies (Luke xvii. 20), but their belief in the same simply sanctified their venality. They labored zealously for the propagation of their faith (Matt. xxiii. 15), but only in behalf of outward results (cf. Sieffert, *Die Heidenbekehrung im Alten Testament and im Judenthum, pp. 43 *sqq., 1908; see PROSELYTES). Their faith was no inwardly liberating power, so that for them the law was but an enslaving yoke (John viii. 32; cf. Gal. v. 1). Out of this came the minute and anxious manner of fulfilling the law (Matt. xxiii. 23), the externalizing of the entire religious and moral life, the mechanicalism of their prayer (Matt. vi. 5 sqq.), the stress upon fasting (Matt. ix. 14); valuation of conspicuous borders to their garments, and broad phylacteries (Matt. xxiii. 5), the literalness of service in observing the sabbath (Matt. xii. 2, 9-13; Luke xiii. 10 sqq., xiv. 4 sqq.; John v. 1 sqq., ix. 14 sqq.). From this source arose their prescriptions of cleanliness (Matt. xv. 2, xxiii. 25; Mark vii. 2 sqq.; Luke xi. 38 sqq.), their preference for external acts of devotion above the plainest duties (Matt. xv. 5; Mark vii. 11 sqq.). This was indeed a straining at gnats and swallowing of camels (Matt. xxiii. 24). Of course, it was possible to practise all this in good faith and with honest sentiments. This is evidenced by the examples of Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and in particular, too, by that of Paul, who even though recalling his bygone disquietude with aversion (Rom. vii. 7 sqq.), yet thinks back without shame to his Pharisaic past (Phil. iii. 5 sqq.; Acts xxiii. 6, xxvi. 5). Only often enough that emphasis upon external acts led to complete self-satisfaction (Matt. xix. 16 sqq.; Luke xviii. 10) and to ostentation of piety (Matt. vi. 5 sqq., 16, xv. 7 sqq.; Mark vii. 6, xii. 40; Luke xx. 47), extending even to the endeavor to conceal the lack of inner moral integrity by means of the outward show of devout deportment (Matt. xxiii. 25 sqq.; Luke xi. 39 sqq.). In the Talmud, besides, there occur not a few beautiful sentences, urging toward right thinking and true humanity (especially in *Pirke Aboth*). But they stand isolated in a wilderness of external precepts which smother the spirit of the law in their casuistical forcing of its letter. In distinction from all this, the Sadducees evinced a strong inclination toward other than Jewish manners; and, consistently with this trait, they were fain to guard the advantages of their social standing, their culture and possessions, from prejudice in the way of a troublesome piety. They were charged with leading an effeminate mode of life (Josephus, *Ant.,* XVIII., i. 3). The fourth of the Psalms of Solomon gives a picture, inspired by Pharisaism, of the worldly, even dissolute, life of the Sadducees and of their hypocritical show of pious ardor. And a late rabbinical tradition ( *Aboth* of Rabbi Nathan) tells of their luxury in the article on tableware, and their scoffing at the economy of the worrying Pharisees. ### 10 Theological Differences This also affords a ready key to the- particular theological disputes between the Pharisees and Sadducees. From the different fundamental religious trend of the two parties there most immediately results their antithetical relation toward that oral tradition which had been early created by the scribes of the past age, through exposition and application of the law, for a sort of hedge to the same (Josephus, *Ant.*, XIII., xvi. 2; Matt. xv. 2,; Mark vii. 3). This tradition was made of binding force by the Pharisees; by the Sadducees it was rejected (Josephus, *Ant.*, XIII., x. 6). Through their endeavor to regulate the whole of human life, down to every detail, by means of the law, the Pharisees were led to lay great stress on enlarging the scope of the same by tradition, even to ascribe a paramount importance to the latter in comparison with the less exactly defined law (Mishnah, *Sanhedrin*, xi. 3). Ultimately, therefore, tradition, like the law, came to be traced back to Moses (*Pirke Aboth*, i. 11 sqq.), and so came the possibility of invalidating a legal provision by virtue of a traditional precept (cf. Mark vii. 11). Moreover, the Sadducees did not altogether avoid developing an exegetical school tradition, partly diverging from the tradition of the Pharisees (*Megillath Taanit*, 10); partly, indeed, accordant with it (*Sandehrin*, xxxiii. 6. *Horayoth* 4a). But while they admitted no authority transcending the law, they so emphasized independence of judgment that they made it a boast to contradict their teachers themselves as far as possible (Josephus, *Ant.*, XVIII., i. 4). But their principled rejection of legal tradition resulted partly from their opposition to the Pharisaic scribes, partly from their desire to be constrained as little as possible through legal regulations. Hence they repudiated all refining deductions from the law, and appealed simply to the letter thereof, which was easier to circumvent. Thus the letter of the law became for them their only categorical religious principle. Sometimes, again, they enforced the strictness of the letter, in contrast with its attenuation; particularly in imposing penal sentences they were "more hard-hearted than all other Jews" (Josephus, *Ant.*, XX., ix. 1). Jesus himself experienced this hard-heartedness on the part of his Sadducee judges. ### 11. Legal and Dogmatic Differences. This divergent attitude of the Pharisees and Sadducees in respect to the letter of the law and to tradition, also explains a number of the particular legal disputes which are attributed to them in Talmudic sources, many of which are historical. In certain cases the Sadducees, as it appears, represented the priesthood; in the rest, a definite principle of opposition is not to be ascertained. To be noted also are some dogmatic differences, among which the most important was the one touching the doctrine of resurrection; not, as Josephus presents it in Hellenizing fashion (*War*, II., viii. 14; *Ant.*, XVIII., i. 3, 4), the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. If the Sadducees rejected the doctrine in question, they advocated the older position of Judaism. For the like doctrine was not at all proposed in the earlier Old Testament Scriptures, and not with complete distinctness before its appearance in the Book of Daniel. The Sadducees' position was reinforced by their directly practical contemplation of earthly conditions. On the other hand, the fact that the Pharisees decidedly espoused the doctrine of resurrection was quite in accord with their very diligent fostering of hopes in the Messiah, which hopes, like their doctrine itself, on account of their avarricious temperament, assumed a strongly sensual cast. In like manner the doctrine concerning angels, which had been elaborated by the Pharisaic scribes on the basis of the Old Testament, was rejected by the Sadducees (Acts xxiii. 8) consistently with their preoccupation with mundane affairs. According to Josephus the Pharisees and Sadducees also diverged in their conception as to the relation between destiny and human free-will (*War*, II, viii. 14; *Ant.*, XIII., v. 9, XVIII., i. 3). This seems to indicate that the Pharisees, in their religious decisiveness, made everything dependent on divine providence; whereas the Sadducees, as men of practical affairs, deducted the elements of welfare and calamity from human transactions. ### 12 Relationship of Pharisaism to religion The further development of the religious life could not attach itself to the materialistic and worldly bent of the Sadducees, but only to Pharisaism, which, however legalistic, traditional, and mercenary, was yet distinguished by a certain religious Pharisaism potentiality, as appears from the relatotion of primitive Christianity to both parties. The contact between Christianity and the Sadducees' party was but slight and external. Enraged at the Christian revival of the hope of resurrection, and threatened in their hierarchical position by the. Messianic claims of Jesus and the accordant expectations of the Apostolic Church, the Sadducees persecuted both those teachings with scorn and violence. With Pharisaism, however, Christianity had to reach an understanding on inward grounds quite from the start. Proceeding from the common platform of the law and the Messianic hopes, Jesus attacked the formalism of the Pharisees and their entire externalizing of the moral and religious life in that he coupled the profoundest vitalization of the same with the renovating forces which emanated from his own person. The hatred that he thereby brought upon himself on the part of the Pharisees also frenzied the popular masses. But when afterward in the apostolic congregation the proclaiming of Christ's resurrection pushed to the foreground, over shadowing, in a manner, the content of his own preaching, Pharisaism's antithesis to Christianity receded so far behind the vehement persecution of the same through the Sadducees, that it now be came feasible for Pharisaic elements to make their way into the Christian assembly ( Acts xv. 1 sqq.). It was only where the logical issues of Christianity became voiced in direct opposition to an absolute enforcement of the law (somewhat reservedly, at first, by the deacon Stephen, afterward more vigorously and with practical application by the Apostle Paul) that the Pharisaic enmity awoke, in utter bitterness. However, it was precisely his own Pharisaic training in youth that moved the Apostle Paul, after his radical breach with his past, to engage in a conflict with the Pharisaic party, not only outside, but especially within Christianity; wherein he prevailed to illustrate the peculiar principles of Christianity in contrast with the legal religion of the Old Testament, in a degree equaled by no other apostle. F. SIEFFERT. BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Wellhausen, *Die Pharisäer and die Sadducäer*, Greifswald, 1874; A. Geiger, *Sadducäer und Pharisäer*, Breslau, 1863; idem, in *Judische Zeitschrift*, ii (1863), 11-54; M. Friedländer, *Die religiösen Bewegungen innerhalb des Judentums im Zeitalter Jesu*, Berlin, 1905. Consult further: Grossmann, *De Judæorum disciplina arcani*, Leipsic, 1833-41; idem, *De philosophia Sadducæorum*. ib. 1836-38; *De Pharisæismo Judæorum Alexandrino, *ib. 1846-50; *De collegio Pharisæorum, ib. *1851; A. F. Gfrörer, *Das Jahrhundert des Heils*, i. 309 sqq.. Stuttgart, 1838; J. A. B. Lutterbeek, *Die neutestamentlichen Lehrbegriffe*, i. 157-222, Mainz, 1852; I. M. Jost, *Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Secten*, i. 197 sqq., 216 sqq., Leipsic; 1857-59; A. Müller, in the *Sitzungsberichte* of the Vienna Academy, philosoph.-historical class, xxciv (1860), 95164; J. Derenbourg, *Hist. de la Palestine*, pp. 75-78, 119-144, 452-456, Paris, 1867; Hanne, in *ZWT*, 1867, pp. 131-179, 239-263; A. Hausrath, *Neutedamentliche Zeitgeschichte*, i. 129 sqq., Heidelberg, 1868, Eng. transl., *Hist.of the N. T. Times*, 4 vols., London, 1895; A. Kuenen, *De Godsdienst van Israel*, ii. 338-371, 456 sqq., 2 vols., Haarlem, 1869-70; J. Cohen, *Les Pharisiens, *2 vols., Paris, 1877; A. M. Fairbaim, *Studies in the Life of Christ*, pp. 165 sqq., London, 1881; Baneth, in *Magazin für die Wissenschaft des Judentums*, ix (1882), 1-37, 61-95; J. Hamburger, *Real-encyyclopädie für Bibel and Talmud*, ii. 1038 sqq., Strelitz, 1882; E. Montet, *Essai sur lea origines des parties saducéen et pharisien. *Paris, 1883; idem, in *JA*, 1887, pp. 415-423; R. Mackintosh *Christ and the Jewish Law*, pp. 39 sqq., London, 1885; F. Weber, *Die Lehren des Talmud*, Leipsic, 1886; idem, *Jüdische Theologie auf Grund des Talmud und verwandter Schriften,* pp. 10-14, 44-46, ib. 1897; E. Davaine, *Le Sadducéisme, *Montauban, 1888; A. Jülieher, *Die Gleichnisreden Jesu*, ii. 54 sqq., 549 sqq., Freiburg, 1888-89; A. B. Bruce, *Kingdom of God*, pp. 187 sqq., Edinburgh, 1889; J. L. Narbel, *Étude sur Ie parti Pharisien, *Lausanne, 1891; H. E. Ryle, and M. R. James, *Psalms of Solomon*, pp. xlviii.-lii., Cambridge, 1891; J. F. W. Bousset, *Jeau Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Judentum*, Göttingen, 1892; idem, *Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter*, pp. 161-168, Berlin; 1903; Krüger, in *TQ*, lxxxv (1894), 431-496; O. Holtzmann, *Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte*, pp. 158 sqq., Freiburg, 1895; A. Bertholet, *Die Stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den Fremden*, pp. 123-256, Tübingen, 1896; I. Elbogen, *Die Religionsanschauung der Pharisäer*, Berlin, 1904; S. Schechter, *Die Chassidim*, Berlin, 1904; G. Hölscher, *Der Sadduzäismus, Eine kritische Untersuchung zur späteren Judenreligionsgeschichte*, Leipsic, 1906; S. Bamberger. *Sadducäer in ihren Bezichungen zu Alexander Jannai and Salome, *Frankfort, 1907; Schürer, *Geschicte*, ii. 380-419, Eng. transl., II., ii. 1-43 (contains bibliography); *DB*, iii. 821-829, iv. 349-352; *EB, *iv. 4234-40, 4321-29; *JE*, ix. 661-666, x. 630-633; *KL*, ix. 1990-96; Vigouroux, *Dictionnaire, *part xxxi., pp. 206-218; Jacobus, *Dictionary*, pp. 666-668, 760-761. Magazine literature is indicated in Richardson, *Encyclopaedia*, pp. 848, 969; the subject is treated also in the more important works on the life of Christ, such as those of Farrar (Excursuses IX.-XIV.), Edersheim, and Keim, and in those on the history of the Jews, as in Ewald and Grätz.
PHARMAKIDES, THEOKLITOS Pharmakides, Theoklitos

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PHARMAKIDES, THEOKLITOS:** Modern Greek theologian and ecclesiastical statesman; b. at Larissa, Thessaly, Jan. 25, 1784; d. at Athens Apr. 21, 1860. With but meager education, he was ordained deacon at Larissa in 1802 and priest at Bucharest in 1811, after which he was in charge of the Greek church in Vienna for some eight years. Here he was brought into contact not only with his compatriots who were interested in the revival of the Greek nation, but also with the philhellene Frederick North, fifth earl of Guilford, who wished him to accept a theological professorship in the projected university of Corfu. Pharmakides accordingly studied for two years at Göttingen, but returned to Greece on the outbreak of the Greek war for independence. Here he was active until his death in the reorganization of the national church and the establishment of an educational system. Circumstances, however, hampered his efforts until 1833 when the Bavarian regency made him president of the committee to investigate the condition of the Greek Church. As secretary of the Synod of Nauplia, he was the main factor in securing the declaration of independence of the Greek Church in the same year. The conservative influence was, however, too strong for him, and after writing, his "On Zechariah, son of Berechiah" (Athens, 1838), "The Pseudonymous German" (1838), and "On the Oath" (1840), he was removed from his secretariate in 1839 and appointed professor of philology. He now published in his own defense his "Apology" (Athens, 1840), and unremittingly continued the struggle for the freedom of the Greek Church. His program was finally carried out, aided largely by his "The Synodic Volume: or, Concerning Truth" (Athens, 1852), when, in 1852, the Greek Church was made entirely independent except for ecclesiastical prerogatives of honor accorded to the patriarch of Constantinople. After this last work, Pharmakides appeared little in public. At the time of his death he was working on a large historical polemic against the Roman Catholic Church. Among his earlier publications mention may be made of his commentary on the New Testament (7 vols., Athens, 1844). (PHILIPP MEYER.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: Biographical matter is found in the "Apology," ut sup. Consult: "Evangelical Herald," pp. 203-216, Athens, 1860; G. L. von Maurer, *Das griechische Volk*, vol. ii., Heidelberg, 1835; C. A. Brandis, *Mitteilungen über Griechenland*, vol. iii., Leipsic, 1842; R. Nicolai, *Geschichte der neugriechischen Literatur *, ib. 1876; G. F. Hertzberg, *Geschichte Griechenlands*, vols. iii. iv., Gotha, 1878; *TSK*, 1841, pp. 7-53.
PHELONION Phelonion

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PHELONION:** See VESTMENTS AND INSIGNIA, ECCLESIASTICAL.
PHELPS, AUSTIN Phelps, Austin

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PHELPS, AUSTIN:** American Congregationalist; b. at West Brookfield, Mass., Jan. 7, 1820; d. at Bar Harbor, Me., Oct. 13, 1890. He graduated at the University of Pennsylvania in 1837, and studied at Andover and Union Theological seminaries; was pastor of Pine Street Church, Boston, 1842-48, and professor of sacred rhetoric at Andover Theological Seminary, 1848-79, and president from 1869. He was a master of English, and distinguished in his teaching and writing. He published *The Still Hour *(Boston, 1859); *Hymns and Choirs *(Andover, 1860); Boston, 1867); *Sabbath Hours *(1870); *Studies of the Old Testament *(1879); *The Theory of Preaching *(1881); *Men and Books *(1882); *My Portfolio *(1882); *English Style *(1883); *My Study *(1885); and *My Note Book *(1890). BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. S. Phelps, *Austin Phelps; a Memoir*, New York, 1891; D. L. Furber, in *Bibliotheca Sacra*, xlviii (1891). 545-585.
PHENICIA, PHENICIANS Phenicia, Phenicians

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

### PHENICIA, PHENICIANS ### 1. Geography and Topography ### General Description; Acre, Achzib. The term Sidonions or Sidonians is employed in the Old Testament to denote the Phenicians (cf. I Kings v. 6, xvi. 31), though their country is called Phenicia or Phenice (I Esd. ii. 17 sqq.; II Macc. iii. 5, etc.; Acts xi. 19, xv. 3, xxi. 2). The boundaries of the country can not be determined definitely, for the scanty allusions to the Phenicians do not tell how far inland their domains extended. That they did extend inland is certain (cf. I Kings v. 9), and Josephus states (*Ant.*, XIII., v. 6; *War*, II., xviii. 1, IV., ii. 3) that the city of Cedasa or Cydyssa was a Tyrian stronghold on the border of Galilee. The Phenician coast falls into three natural divisions: southern Phenicia, from Ras al-Abjad to the Nahr al-`Awali, north of Sidon; central Phenicia, from the Nahr al-`Awali to al-Shakkai; and northern Phenicia, from al-Shakkai to Ras ibn Hani or to Ras al-Basit. In ancient history the southern and the northern divisions are alone important. The Philistine conquests permanently separated the southern cities from association with the Phenicians, and deprived them of such cities as Joppa and Dor; not until the Persian rule did the Phenicians again control these regions. Before discussing Phenicia proper brief mention should be made of two cities, Acre and Achzib. The former lies on a steep promontory extending southward into the sea and forming a natural haven of medium size with the eastern edge of St. George's Bay. Owing to deposits of silt the harbor is deserted, and trade is diverted to the neighboring Haifa. In ancient times this city was of importance because of its haven and the roads connecting it with the interior, especially the " way of the sea " (Isa. ix. 1). The city is mentioned by Sethos I. under the name of `Aka about 1320 B.C., and about 380 Artaxerxes Mnemon made it his base in his expedition against Egypt. Ptolemy II. Philadelphus refounded the city and named it Ptolemais. It passed into the possession of the Seleucids in 198 B.C., and was an important military center in the Maccabean wars. In 65 B.C. Pompey brought it under the Romans, for whom it constituted the most important harbor of Palestine. In 1103 A.D. it was taken by Baldwin I., given to Saladin in 1187, retaken by the crusaders in 1189, and destroyed by Sultan Malik al-Ashraf in 1291. Rebuilt in 1749, the city. has slowly increased, despite the attack of Napoleon in 1799 and the bombardment of the united English, Austrian, and Turkish fleet in 1840, until it now contains a population of about 11,000. Some nine miles to the north, and pot far from the coast, lies the small village al-Zib, representing the Achzib of Judges xix. 29. A quarter of an hour to the north is the spring of 'Ain al-Mashairfah, which has been compared with the Misrephoth-maim of Josh. xi. 8, xiii. 6. ### Region south of Tyre. Here the Jabal al-Mushakkah approaches the coast, and the ascent to the promontory of Ras al-Nakurah brings the traveler to Phenicia proper. To the north of the road stretches a small stony strip of coast in the form of a crescent to the second promontory, the Ras al-Abjad, or " White Promontory." The valley between the two promontories shows ruins of two ancient sites, Umm al-'Amud and Iskandarunah, the former perhaps being the ancient Ramantha or Ramitha, the Greek Leuke Akte, later called Laodicea, and the latter dating back, at least in name, to the Roman Emperor Alexander Severus (222-235). In 1116 A.D. Iskandarunah was rebuilt by Baldwin I. as a base of operations against Tyre. The ancient road over the White Promontory runs for about forty minutes close to the declivity. In the course of centuries portions of it have been hewn in the rocks, and in especially steep places stone stairs have been cut, so that Josephus and the Talmud give as the ancient name of this road the " Tyrian Stairs." North of the Ras al-Abjad a small plain extends between the shores and the foot of the mountains of Galilee. The streams are shallow and have little water, though good springs are occasionally found, especially about an hour south of Tyre in the Ras al-`Ain and ten minutes to the north, both about a quarter of an hour from the shore. Three other wells and an aqueduct, the latter apparently of Roman architecture, are found about fifteen minutes north of Ras al-`Ain. It was doubtless the springs of this promontory which first attracted the Pheniciana, which they also used for their city. ### Tyre The distance from Ras al-`Ain to Tyre is an hour, and the plain with its sandy coast is one and a half miles broad. Modern Tyre, a town of some 6,000 inhabitants, lies on the northern side of a peninsula, while the ancient Phenician city was situated on an island. The prophet Ezekiel, like the Assyrian King Asahurbanipal, describes Tyre as built " in the midst of the seas " ( xxviii. 2, cf. xxvii. 3-1, xxvi. 4), and the name itself means " rock." The island on which Tyre lay would seem to be the present peninsula where the modern town is situated. Of the buildings of the ancient city little is known. According to Menander of Ephesus (cf. Josephus, *Apion*, i. 18; *Ant.*, VIII., v. 3), Hiram I., the contemporary of Solomon, rebuilt the old temples. Special mention is made of the temple of Heracles (Melkarth) and Astarte, while Herodotus (ii. 44) refers to the temple of Thasian Heracles, which is probably identical with the Agenorium of Arrian ( *Anabasis*, ii. 25-26). According to Menander and Dius, Hiram extended the city to the east and there constructed the great square, or Eurychorum. The ancient city had two harbors, the Sidonian to the north, and the Egyptian to the south. The former is now choked with sand, and the latter has entirely disappeared. On the main land opposite the island lay a city called Old Tyre by Menander, Strabo, Pliny, and others. It would seem, however, that the city in question was really called Ushu, a name occurring in the Amarna Tablets and the Assyrian inscriptions, and probably in the *Authu* of Egyptian monuments. The patron deity of the city was U SOOS, who was said to have been the first to sail the sea on a tree trunk, while his brother, Samemmmus, built huts of reed in Tyre (see S ANCHUNIATHON). This legend seems to imply that the island city of Tyre was settled from the mainland. The accounts of "Old Tyre" vary so widely that it is uncertain whether one or more places are meant, or whether sites are referred to which belong to different periods. Ancient Tyre, which seems to have had an important suburb at Ras al-Ma'shut, ceased to be an island city in consequence of the siege by Alexander the Great in 332, when he constructed a vast mole, four stadia long and two plethra wide, from the mainland to the eastern side of the island (cf. Arrian, *Anabasis*, ii. 17 sqq.; Diodorus Siculus, xvii. 40). The walls, said to be over 150 feet high, rendered the mole useless at first, but the Greek fleet bottled up the Tyrian ships in the harbors, whereupon the troops of Alexander were able to storm the relatively weaker ramparts on the south. In the taking of the city Arrian states that 8,000 fell, while 30,000 were sold as slaves, figures which imply a dense population. Tyre was not wholly destroyed, however, by the Greek conqueror, and in 316-315 it was besieged in vain by Antigonus for fourteen months. Coming under Seleucid control in 198, it apparently bought its autonomy in 126, later restricted by Augustus. On his journey from Miletus to Jerusalem Paul found Christians at Tyre ( Acts xxi. 3-6), and a bishop of Tyre, Cassius, is mentioned at the Synod of Cæsarea toward the end of the second century. The crusaders were in possession of the city 1124-91 A.D., after which the Sultan Malik al-Ashraf occupied the place. The history of modern Tyre begins in 1766, when a sheik named Hanzar settled in the ruins and rebuilt them. After the destructive earthquake of 1837 the buildings were reconstructed by Ibrahim Pasha. ### The Region Between Tyre and Sidon The coast north of Tyre resembles that of the southern vicinity of the city. First the sandy shore, then a level plain stretching inland for about a mile, and then the beginning of the plateau of Galilee. Almost two hours between north of Tyre is the mouth of the Nahr al-Kasimiyah, after which the strip of Sidon. coast narrows, while the foothills are rich in tombs of various periods. At the foot of the range are traces of the old Roman road from Tyre to Sidon. North of the Wadi abu'l Aswad is a ruined site called `Adlun, apparently the town of Ornithopolis, mentioned by Strabo as a Sidonian colony. An hour farther north a promontory and a village bear the name of Zarafand, the Zarephath of the Bible (I Kings xvii. 9-10; Obadiah 20; Sarepta, Luke iv. 26). The Crusaders made Zarephath an episcopal see, and the Wali al Khidr is held to mark the abode of the prophet Elijah. From Zarafand the coast bends westward, the first great rivers from the western slope of the Lebanon being found in the Nahr al-Zaharani and the Nahr Sanik. The gardens now begin, and become more numerous and more beautiful the closer the traveler approaches Zaida, the ancient Sidon. ### 5. Sidon The modern city of Zaida is situated on a flat promontory between 200 and 300 yards wide, with a small rocky peninsula, 600 yards long. The northern quarter and a series of reefs and islands protect the inner harbor, while to the eastward stretches the outer harbor, which was used as an anchorage in summer. The peninsula bears the remains of ancient walls, and similar ruins are found on an island to the north of the harbor and on other reefs. The Phenician Sidon extended some 700 yards farther east than the modern town. The basalt sarcophagus of King Eshmunazar was discovered in 1855 ten minutes southeast of the city; in 1887, near the village of al-Halaliyah, seventeen magnificent Phenician and Greek sarcophagi were found, among them those of Tabnit, father of Eshmunazar, and the alleged sarcophagus of Alexander the Great. Excavations since 1900 have revealed a temple of Eshmun on the Nahr al-`Awali, also ancient aqueducts. In the Old Testament a " Great Sidon " is mentioned (Josh. xi. 8, xix. 28). This phrase is repeated on the Taylor cylinder with the words "Little Sidon" beside it, though the basis of the distinction is as yet unknown. The ancient city of Sidon was destroyed by Artaxerxes Ochus in 348 B.C. Yet after Alexander and during the Roman period Sidon remained an important city. Paul, on his way to Rome, found Christians there (Acts xxvii. 3), and the bishop of Sidon attended the Nicene Council of 325. Later the city declined and in 637-638 surrendered to the Mohammedans without resistance. During the crusades it was repeatedly taken and refortified, last by Louis IX. of France in 1253. Seven years later it was sacked by the Mongols, and in 1291 came under the control of Malik al- Ashraf. Early in the seventeenth century Sidon was revived by the Druse Prince Fakhr al-Din. It likewise enjoyed the protection of Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt, but in 1840 was attacked by the fleet of the European allies. ### 6. Sidon to Beirut The little plain about Sidon stretches to the north about to the Nahr al 'Awali, from the north side of which, about a half-hour from the city, the district of the Lebanon comprises the coast until near Tarabulus, or Tripolis, with the exception of Beirut and its immediate vicinity. This valley and the comparatively low passes near by were doubtless used in antiquity as the shortest road from Sidon to Damascus. The coast now becomes more stony, with no coast plain. Between the Ras Jedrah and the Ras al-Damur the towns of Platanus (or Plantana) and Porphyreum must have lain, where Antiochus the Great defeated the general of Ptolemy IV. Philopator in 218 B.C. North of the Ras al Damur is the mouth of the Nahr al-Damur, the Damuras, Demarus, or Tamyras of the ancients. A conspicuous point on the coast is the promontory of Beirut (Ras Bairut), with the city of the same name at its foot. To the east is a small well-populated plain on the banks of the Nahr Bairut, the ancient Magoras, as well as on the coast, which runs about, six miles to the east and forms St. George's Bay. The background is formed by the steep terraces of Lebanon with green valleys, neat farm houses, and small villages on the lower slopes, higher up remnants of the once famous forests, and at the summit a bare sharp ridge. In ancient Phenicia the city was of no importance, though its name, which apparently means "wells," occurs in the Amarna Tablets, which designate the place as the seat of the Egyptian vassal Ammunira. Beirut attained prominence as the Roman Colonia Julia Augusta Felix Berytus. It was famed for its school of law and for its silk-weaving until it was damaged by the earthquake of 529. Its second period of prosperity began when the Dmse Prince Fakhr al-Din (1595-1634) made it his chief residence. It is now the center of trade and commerce for the entire Syrian coast, especially as it has been connected with Damascus since 1895 by a railway. The city is the center of Syrian Christian culture, represented by American Presbyterian (The Syrian Protestant College) and Jesuit institutions of learning, and by German Protestant benevolent organizations. The British Syrian mission also maintains a series of schools, the Scotch mission works chiefly among Jews, Mohammedans, and Druses, while various French religious orders labor for the education of the natives and the care of the sick. This activity has spurred the nonChristian Syrians to establish schools. Beirut is the seat of a wali and contains about 120,000 inhabitants. ### 7. Beirut to al-Shakkai. Some two and a half miles east of Beirut the coast resumes its northerly course and soon reaches the mouth of the Nahr al-Kalb, the Lycus of the classics. The mountains here touch the water, and are crossed by the coast roads. The present road and railway from Beirut to the north is the closest to the sea level. Some ninety feet higher is the Roman road constructed by Marcus Aurelius about 176-180 A.D. Higher still three Egyptian and six Assyrian inscriptions or sculptures show that armies were led across this promontory over a much steeper, but more accessible road, by Rameses II. about 1300, Tiglath-Pileser I. about 1140, Shalmaneser II. about 850, Sennacherib in 702, and Esarhaddon in 670 (see ASSYRIA, VI., 3, §§ 3, 7, 13). Later still, Greek, Roman, crusading, and Mohammedan armies passed over these roads, and finally the soldiers of the French expedition of 1860. The railway runs along the road to Ma'amiltain on the Bay of Juniyah. From this point the old road again follows the coast, and at the northern end of the bay is hewn through the rock. An hour and a half farther to the north is the Nahr Ibrahim, the classical Adonis, closely associated with the Aphrodite legend. This goddess, the Astarte (q.v.) of the Phenicians, had her famous temple near the source of the river, which issues from a cavern under the steep high wall of the Jabal al Munaitirah. The ruins of the fane, 90 feet long and fifty-five feet wide, may still be seen, and probably represent the temple of Venus of Aphaka, destroyed by Constantine the Great in the fourth century. The modern village of Afka is situated fifteen minutes above the source. Near the village of al-Ghinah, on the southern bank of the river, sculptures were found by Renan representing the leaping goddess and the death of Adonis. The center of the Adonis cult, the Byblos of the Greeks and the Gebal of the Phenicians, the modem Jabail with about a thousand inhabitants, lies an hour and a half north of the mouth of the Nahr Ibrar him (see GEBAL). The rocky road along the coast leads to the town of Batrun, the ancient Botrys. North of the Nahr al-Jauz rises a broad promontory now called al-Shakkai, but called by the Greeks " face of God," apparently translating its Phenician name (cf. Gen. xxxii. 30; I Kings xii. 25). ### 8. Tripolis and Environs. At al-Shakkai central Phenicia ends. The road along the coast now crosses some small promontories, and then enters the plain of Tripolis, which spreads out at the mouth of the Nahr abu `Ali, or the Nahr Kadisha. The modem Tripolis consists of the court of al-Mina on the northern edge of a low but rocky promontory, with a series of small islands enclosing the harbor, and the city proper, now called Tarabulus. The latter is situated on both banks of the Nahr abu `Ali, about two miles from al-Mina. It owes its existence to the Mohammedans, who destroyed the former city on the coast in 1289. The city of the Phenicians and the crusaders, which probably occupied the site of the present al-Mina, had three distinct quarters occupied by Tyrians, Sidonians, and Aradians respectively. Before the Persian period, however, the city is not mentioned, its origin being obscure. From Tarabulus the coast bends westward, the resulting bay being called Jun 'Akkar. The coast is less rugged, especially where the Nahr al-Kabir or Nahr Laftara (the Eleutherus of the Greeks) approaches the sea. Through the broad plain thus formed the road leads to Emesa and Hamath in the valley of the Orontes. Between Tripolis and the Nahr al-Kabir a number of ancient cities were located. On the southern bank of the Nahr al-Barid was Orthosia, the Arab Artusiah or Artusi; and on the north bank of the Nahr 'Arka was Arks, or Arke, the Roman Caesarea Libani, where Alexander Severus was born (now called Tell `Arka). The site is also brought into connection with the Canaanitic Arkites ( Gen. x. 17). Scarcely half a mile north of the Nahr `Arka a village Syn existed in the fifteenth century, and this has been connected with the Sinites of Gen. x. 17; cuneiform inscriptions mention a site Sianu near Zimira and `Arza. North of the Nahr al-Kabir rises the Jabal al-Anzariyah, receiving its name from the Shiite sect of the Nuzairi, who live chiefly on this mountain. ### 9. Extreme Northern Phenicia. The coast of northern Phenicia is, in general, milder and more attractive than in the southern and central portions, so that its cities were numerous. The first is Simyra or Simyrus, the Zumur of the Amarna letters, probably to be identified with the modern Zumrah between the Nahr al-Kabir and the Nahr al-Abrash. Two or three hours later the district of the ancient Aradians is reached, where, between the Nahr al-Kiblah and the Nahr Amrit, are extensive remains of the city of Marat, the Marathus of the Greeks, important during the Persian period, but destroyed in the struggles following the downfall of the Seleucids. On the coast, an hour farther north, is Tartus, the medieval Tortosa and the ancient Antaradus, first mentioned by Ptolemy in the second century A.D. The Phenician center on this part of the coast was the island city of Aradus (the Arvad of Ezek. xxvii. 8, 11, the modern Ru'ad or Arwad), situated between Amrit and Tartus on an irregular rock some 800 yards long by 500 wide. Of the ancient city little remains. The present inhabitants, between 2,000 and 3,000 in number, are expert boatmen (cf. Ezek. xxvii. 8B.C., and on its ships Tiglath-Pileser sailed the Mediterranean. Later it is repeatedly mentioned in Assyrian in scriptions as a place " in the midst of the sea." The nearest port on the mainland was Carne or Carnus, the modern Karnun, an hour north of Tartus, where ruins of fortifications axe still visible. Other harbors reckoned to Arvad were Balanias or Leucas (the modern Baniyas), Paltus (the modern Baldah), and Gabala (the modern Jablah). Probably the population of this northern district was not exclusively Phenician, and Phenicians hardly had centers beyond it. North of the promontory of Rae ibn Hani was a Heraclea, the name of which suggests Phenician origin; and the city of Rhosus (the modern Arsuz) north of the Ras al-Khanzir, and the city of Myriandrus (Myriandus) are expressly said to have been in the hands of the Phenicians. The latter place was the predecessor of the modern Alexandretta or Iskandarun, but probably lay somewhat farther to the south. ### II. Names and Ethnology: ### 1. Names. The name Phenicia is derived from the Greek, occurring as early as Homer (Odyssey, xiv. 288, xv. 419) and Herodotus (i. 1-8, etc.). From this is derived the name of the country, Phenice (Odyssey, iv. 83, xiv. 291; Herodotus, ii. 44 sqq.), the form Phenicia being later. The meaning is uncertain. In the twelfth century Eustathius of Thessalonica, with probable correctness, advanced the view that it denoted "red," and referred to >the color of the people. Movers derived Phenice from the Greek *phoinix*, " date palm," but this tree is seldom found in Phenicia, and is of inferior quality there. Nor is there any reason to suppose that the name of the country is derived from the Egyptian Fenkhu; about 1500 B.C. the Egyptians termed the Phenician coast from Acre to Arvad Zahi or Zahe. The Babylonians reckoned Phenicia in the land of Amurru; and after Tiglath Pileser III. Syria and Palestine were also called the "land of the Hittites." A special name for Phenicia does not occur. Late Greek writers state that the Phenicians named themselves Canaanites (see CANAAN). The Phenicians seem to have called themselves after the names of their cities, Tyrians, Sidonians, etc. In the Old Testament, therefore, the name "Sidon" (Zidon) and "Sidonians," when not shown by the context to refer expressly to the city and its inhabitants (as in Gen. x. 19; Judges i. 31; II Sam. xxiv. 6; I Kings xvii. 9 (cf. Luke iv. 26]; Isa. xxiii. 2, 4, 12; Ezek. xxviii. 21-22), must be understood to connote Phenicia and the Phenicians in general (e.g., Deut. xiii. 9; Josh. xiii. 4, 6; Judges iii. 3; I Kings v. 6; Ezek. xxxii, 30). This linguistic usage, found current and continued by the Israelites, implies that Sidon was then the most important city of Phenicia. Later this usage disappeared, so that Herodotus ("History," i. 1) uses " Phenicians " to denote the population of the country. In later passages of the Old Testament (as Jer. xxv. 22; Joel iv. 4; Zech. ix. 2; I Macc. v. 15), as well as in the New Testament (Matt. xi. 21-22; Mark iii. 8; Luke vi. 17; Acts xii. 20), the formal phrase "Tyre and Sidon" denotes the Phenicians in general. ### 2. Ethnology. The inhabitants of the Phenician coast can not be separated from the pre-Israelitic population of Canaan. This is shown, in the first place, by community of language as evinced in inscriptions, proper names, individual words cited by classic writers, and the sentences placed in the mouth of the Carthaginian Hanno in the Poenulus of Plautus, which show that the Phenician language was essentially identical with Hebrew. Though this linguistic affinity does not prove ethnological unity, the absence of opposing data renders it probable. In view of the natural contour of Canaan it would seem that the coast was settled from the southern mountain-district northward. The problem whether the Phenicians were indigenous in Syria is a part of the broader question of the original home of the pre-Israelitic population of Canaan. The most plausible answer seems to be that given by Herodotus (i. 1, vii. 80), who affirms that the Phenicians formerly dwelt by the Red Sea, whence they journeyed across Syria to the Mediterranean, thus implying an original home in Arabia and conforming with the general trend of Semitic migrations. Winckler (*Geschichte Israels*, i. 126-132, Leipsic, 1895) has advanced the hypothesis that the Phenician and Canaanitic migration was the second to take place from Arabia, probably between 2800 and 1800 B.C. While there are thus no ethnological or linguistic reasons for regarding the Phenieians as a separate people, the events of history render it possible to speak of them as a nation. In their home, between the open sea and the almost impassable mountains, they became navigators and merchants, rather than an agricultural or pastoral people. Thus, on the one hand, their coherence with the Canaanites became ever more loose; and, on the other hand, their commercial interests developed a fresh bond of union. In Syria they never unfolded a strict nationality, for there was always a number of central points, consisting of the larger cities. The Phenicians accordingly called themselves Sidonians, Giblites, Carthaginians, and the like. To foreigners, however, they all seemed to be of one type, bold seamen, cunning and conscienceless traders. Through their enterprise and good fortune they brought the treasures of Babylonia and Egypt to the west, and thus essentially furthered the subsequent civilization of the Mediterranean lands. ### III Religion The sources for a knowledge of Phenician religion and cult are scanty. The inscriptions contain little but names of gods whose pronunciation is often uncertain, and many formulas the meaning of which is obscure. The euhemeristic treatise on the cosmogony and theogony of the Phenicians, the "Phenician history" of Sanchuniathon (q.v.), can be used only with caution, if at all, for the older period. It is remarkable that in so maritime a people the cult of seagods was so slightly emphasized. Hesychius mentions a "Zeus of the sea," and at Beirut the eight Kabirs ("great ones, mighty ones") were held to be the discoverers and patrons of navigation. The fact that in the names of the gods thus far known no allusions to trade or navigation appear seems to imply that the Phenicians developed their religion not on the coast or as seafarers, but in another region where their life was not unlike that of the other Canaanites to whom they were akin. ### 1 Deities. The Phenician divinities were primarily local gods. Besides the gods of the cities, there were gods of the mountains. As possessors they were called *ba'al; * as lords, *adon;* as rulers, *melekh *(see MOLOCH, MOLECH). Their worshipers were< I id="ii.xxiii.p6.12">gerim, "proteges," or *'abhadhim*, " servants." Sexual antitheses were prominent in their religious system. The divinities were usually named after the place where they were honored: *Ba'al Zor, *the god of Tyre; *Ba`al Zidon,* the god of Sidon; *Ba'alath Gebal*, the goddess of Byblus. When the Phenicians founded a new colony, they established there a new seat for the cult of their native gods, whose authority did not transcend the limits of the new settlement. In common parlance the Phenicians spoke of a *ba'al* or *ba'alath* without any qualifying phrase (cf. I Kings xviii. 19 sqq.), but there was no divinity so named. The feminine form *ba'atath* was relatively rare, its place being taken by *'ashtart*, so that Astarte, or Ashtoreth, appears in the Old Testament as the goddess *par excellence *of the Sidonians (i.e., Phenieians; cf. I Kings xi. 5, 33, xxiii. 13; see ASTARTE; ASHERA; BAAL). Few Phenician gods are known by specific names. The one most frequently mentioned was Melkarth (Hercules), the "King of the City (of Tyre)." Eshmun, greatly honored in Sidon, and compared with Æsculapius, seems to have been a god of health and healing. Proper names often contain the divine names Zd (" Hunter, Fisher "[?]; possibly connected with the name Sidon), Skn, Pmy, and P'm, as well as a goddess Tnt (usually pronounced Tanith). Among the foreign gods were the Egyptian Isis, Osiris, Horus, Bast, and Thoth; the Syrian Resheph and 'Anat; and the Babylonian Tammuz, Hadad, and Dagon. The Phenicians, like the Canaanites, were accustomed to place by the altars sacred stones as the abode of the deity, pillars being substituted later for natural stones. Such pillars were called *matzeba, nazib*, or *hammanim* (see MEMORIALS AND SACRED STONES), and were regarded as animate. In the cult of female divinities, the sacred stone was replaced by the sacred post (representing the sacred tree), called Asherah (q.v.). The two pillars in the temple of Melkarth at Tyre (Herodotus, ii. 44; Josephus, *Apion*, i. 18) doubtless connoted the dualism found in nature. Still other sacred sites had groups of three pillars, apparently typifying a threefold phenomenon of nature. ### 2. Cult. The narrow local cults were later transcended by the widely worshiped Ba'ad Shamem, or "Lord of Heaven," with his "goddess of the heaven of Baal" (cf. Herodotus, i. 105), who may be compared with the "queen of heaven" of Jer. vii. 18, and with the Carthaginian Cælestis. The Signification of the divinity El is uncertain. He seems to have been first honored in Byblus, and was equated with Kronos by the Greeks, who said that he was worshiped with sacrifices of children in Phenicia, Carthage, and Sardinia (see MOLOCH, MOLECH). An important list of Carthaginian divinities is given in the deities invoked by Hannibal to witness his treaty with Philip of Macedon (Polybius, vii. 9). In Phenician cult there was nothing to distinguish them from other Canaanites. Sacred enclosures with altars, stones, and trees (posts), a cell or larger house for the image of the divinity (the architecture strongly influenced by Egypt), the firstlings of all productions for the deity, animal sacrifices, sacred dances, "votaries," priests, ablutions, and circumcision---all were present. The cosmogony presupposed a tripartite division into heaven, earth, and sea. ### IV History ### 1. Till the Assyrian Period. The earliest mention of the Phenician coast thus far known refers to its conquest by Sargon, king of Agade, in the middle of the third millennium B.C. Whether, however, this means the Phenicians proper is a problem, and Winckler holds that the campaign was waged against the pre-Phenician inhabitants, whose commercial activity and culture were later adopted by the Phenicians from the Arabian desert. About 1400 B.C.the Egyptian power, to which Thothmes III. had subjected the Phenicians a century previous, was waning, the Hittites were entering the country and the kings of the Amorites, Abdashirtu and Aziru, were attacking the Phenician cities, whose kings wrote in vain to Egypt for aid. Sethos I and Rameses II restored the Egyptian power, at least for the southern portion of Syria; but the supremacy of the Pharaohs came to an end, and the Philistines definitely settled in the land. The first prosperity of the Phenician cities began about 1000 B.C. Tyre became predominant, the supremacy of Sidon apparently being religious and civilizing rather than political. Hiram I of Tyre, after receiving a gift of twenty Israelitic cities from Solomon, engaged in trade with him (see O PHIR; T ARSHISH) and founded the colony of Citium in Cyprus, naming the town Karta Hadasht, or "new city" (Carthage). Under King Pygmalion the famous colony of Carthage is said to have been founded from Tyre, when what was probably an existing city received a new lord, a new cult, and a new name. Winckler holds that the impulse to migration which led the Phenicians to Canaan sent other emigrants from Arabia along the northern coast of Africa, and possibly into southern Europe, so that the "foundation" of Carthage was, in reality, merely its subjugation by Tyre. However this may be, the subordination of Carthage to Tyre led to the supremacy in the western Mediterranean of Tyre, which seems to have extended its sway over a number of Syrian cities also. While Hiram I. is always termed "king of Tyre" ( II Sam. v. 11; I Kings v. 15, ix. 10), Ethbaal is called "king of the Zidonians" ( I Kings xvi. 31), thus implying that Tyre and Sidon had meanwhile been united under the hegemony of the former. This is confirmed by the statement of Menander (cited by Josephus, *Ant.*, VIII., xiii. 2) that Ethbaal founded Botrys (and also Auza in Lybia). The northern cities around Aradus, however, were unaffected by this predominance of Tyre. 2 Assyrian to the Roman Period. The invasions of the Assyrian kings Assahurbanipal and Shalmaneser II in the ninth century were averted by the payment of tribute; but in 738 Tiglath-Pileser III formed the Assyrian province of Simyra from the cities in the Eleutherus valley. Sennacherib vainly besieged Tyre five years (701-696), though it lost its possessions on the mainland, while Sidon became tributary and received a new king from Sennacherib. Later Sidon revolted against Esarhaddon, only to be destroyed in 675 and replaced by an Assyrian city. Later still, Tyre was attacked and, with Aradus, forced to make peace with the Assyrians. The decline of the Assyrian power was probably favorable to the Phenician cities, and Egyptian attempts to regain supremacy were unsuccessful. The Egyptians were driven from Syria by the Babylonians under Nebuchadrezzar II, who beleaguered Tyre in vain (585-573). But internal strife broke out in Tyre, and after rule by suffetes, or "judges," the city was forced to ask Babylon for a king. Under Persian rule, which was accepted unresistingly by the Phenicians, Sidon became predominant. In the days of Herodotus, Sidon, Tyre, and Aradus made the "Three Cities" (Tripolis), but in the reign of Alexander the Great the chief Phenician centers were Tyre, Sidon, Byblus, and Aradus. In the Persian period, Aradus extended its power along the coast farther than before; in the south Acre, Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Carmel belonged to Tyre; Dor and Joppa to Sidon; and the entire coast to the fifth Persian satrapy. With the connivance of Nectanebo of Egypt, the Phenician cities, under Tennes of Sidon, revolted against Persia in 350, but were ruthlessly suppressed by Artaxerxes III. Alexander the Great found resistance only at Tyre, which he succeeded in reducing (see above). On the emergence of the Ptolemies and Seleucids from the confusion ensuing on the death of Alexander the Great, the Phenician cities came under Seleucus I. His successors also held Aradus and its vicinity, while the cities south of the Eleutherus were under the Ptolemies from 281 to 198. The kings of Sidon in the third century seem to have included Eshmunazar I, Tabnit, and Eshmunazar II, but on the death of the last-named Sidon apparently adopted a republican form of government, as Tyre did in 274. The other Phenician cities secured autonomy from the Seleucids, and these privileges were generally confirmed by the Romans. The Phenician language, however, was superseded by Aramaic, while the higher classes prided themselves on Greek or Roman culture. 3. Discovery and Trade. Phenician trade was carried on both by land and sea. Land traffic brought the products and treasures of Arabia, Babylonia, and Armenia, and later of Persia and India, to the Mediterranean. Commerce with Egypt was probably carried on chiefly by water, though the maritime commerce of Phenicia was scarcely as extensive as is commonly supposed. Colonies proper were to be found only in Cyprus and northern Africa, Gades in southern Spain probably being settled originally from Africa. The Phenician commercial settlements or factories along the shores of the Mediterranean do not deserve the name of colonies. The Phenicians were primarily merchants, ever eager to adorn their markets with the best and newest (cf. Ezek. xxvii.). Such a people would not be likely to develop an individual art, and Phenician remains, dating at the earliest from the Persian period, show a mixture of Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, and Greek elements. The Phenician coins were struck on Greek models, but in Aradus Persian weights were used, and Phenician in Byblus, Sidon, and Tyre. In architecture the Phenicians received their inspiration from the Egyptians, but they developed a marked individuality in the treatment of stone. The Phenicians were skilled in constructing aqueducts, as is shown by the stone pipes through which the island of Tyre was supplied with water. Their ability in building ships was famed in antiquity (cf. Ezek. xxvii.; Herodotus, vii. 96, 128). Their moral reputation, however, was indifferent, as the allusions of the Odyssey to their knavery amply prove. The Phenicians have won much unmerited fame as discoverers through the attribution to them by the Greeks of the invention of things which they merely transmitted. In Rome purple fabrics were called *sarranus* (from Sarra, "Tyre"), and the Tyrians are described as the best skilled in dyeing in purple. The art, however, was perhaps Babylonian. In like manner the Greeks thought that the alphabet originated in Tyre, especially in view of the power of the city about 1000 B.C. As a matter of fact Phenicia merely transmitted the alphabet, which probably originated in Babylonia like the cuneiform writing. And finally it may be noted that glass and faience, the invention of which was popularly ascribed to the Phenicians, were known in Egypt earlier than in Phenicia. (H. GUTHE.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: The articles in the dictionaries are general, covering the whole topic. The best are: *DB*, iii. 683-885, 855-862, 823-825, 980-981; *EB*, iii. 3730-65; *JE,* ix. 687-870; Vigouroux, *Dictionnaire*, part xxxi. 228-247; Jacobus, *Dictionary*, pp. 674-676. On the geography consult: V. Guèrin, *Description de la Palestine*, III., *Galilee*, part 2, Paris, 1880; *Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs*, vol. i., Galilee, London, 1881; G. Ebers and H. Guthe, *Pälestina in Bild and Wort*, vol. ii., Stuttgart, 1884. On the art, language, and inscriptions: Inscriptions are collected in the *CIS*, part 1, vols., i-ii., Paris, 1881-89. Consult: G. Perrot and C. Chipies, *Histoire de l'art dans l'antiquitè*, vol. 3, *Phénicie*, Paris, 1885, Eng. transl., *Hist. of Art in Phænicia, *2 vols., London, 1885; W. Gesenius, *Scripturæes lingægue Phænicia monumenta*, Leipsic, 1857; P. Schroder, *Die phönizische Sprache*, Halle, 1869 (grammar); B. Stade, *Morgenländische Forschungen*, pp. 167 sqq., Leipsic, 1875; C. Clermont-Ganneau; *Sceaux et cachets phéniciens*, Paris, 1883; E. Ledrain, *Notice des monmuments phéniciens* (i.e., in the Louvre), Paris, 1888; A. Bloch, *Phönicische's Glossar*, Berlin, 1890; J. G. E. Hoffmann, *Ueber einige phönikische Inschriften*, Göttingen, 1890; A. Pellegrini, *Studii d'Epigrafia fenícia,* Palermo, 1891; O. Hamdi, *Une Necropole royals à Sidon*, Paris, 1892-96; M. Lidzbarski, *Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik*, Weimar, 1898; idem, *Ephemeris fur semitische Epigraphik*, Giessen, 1900 sqq.; A. Mayr, *Aus den phönizischen Nekropolen von Malta*, Munich, 1905; Sehrader, *KAT*, pp. 126 sqq., et passim; W. F. von Landau, *Die phönizischen Inschriften*, Leipsic, 1907. On the alphabet: E. de Rough, *Mémoires sue l'origine égyptienne de l'alphabet phènicien*, Paris, 1874; Deecke, in *ZDMG*, xxxi (1877), 102 sqq.; P. Berger, *Hist. de l'ècreture dans l'antiquitè*, Paris, 1892; Ball, in *PSBA*, 1893, pp. 392-408; C. R. Condor, *Bible and the East*, pp. 74 sqq., Edinburgh, 1896; H. Zimmern, in *ZDMG*, 1 (1896), 667 sqq.; J. Alvarez de Peralta, *lconografia de los Alfabetos fenicio y hebraico*, Madrid, 1898. On the history: R. Pietschmann, *Geschichte der Phönisier*, Berlin, 1889; G. Rawlinson, *Hist. of Phænicia*, London, 1889; idem, *Phænicia*, ib. 1889; F. C. Movers, *Die Phönisier*, Bonn, 1841-56; J. Kenrick, *Hist. of Phænicia*, London, 1855; E. Renan, *Mission de Phénicie*, Paris, 1864; G. Maspero, *Hist. ancienne des peuples de l'orient*, Paris, 1875; idem, *Struggle of the Nations*, London, 1896; H. Prutz, *Aus Phönizien*, Leipsic, 1876; F. Bovet, *Egypt, Palestine, and Phænicia*, London, 1882; E. Oberhummer, *Phönizier in Akarnanien*, Munich, 1882; E. Meyer, *Geschichte des Altertums*, vol. i., Stuttgart, 1884; A. von Gutschmid, in *Encyclopædia Britannica*, Germ. trans., in his *Kleine Schriften, *ii. 36-80, Leipsic, 1889; W. M. Müller, *Asien und Europe, *Leipsic, 1893; C. Peters, *Das goldene Ophir Salomo's. *Eine Studie sur Geschichte der phönikischen Weldtpolitik*, Munich, 1895; H. Winckler, *Altorientalische Forschungen*, i. 5 (1897), 421 sqq., ii. 1 (1898), 65-70, ii. 2 (1899), 295 sqq.; idem, Geschichte lsraels*, i. 104 sqq., Leipsic, 1895; W. von Landau, *Die Phönizier*, Leipsic, 1901; idem, *Die Bedeutung der Phönizier im Völkerleben*, ib. 1905; V. Bèrard, *Les Phéniciens et 'Odyssèe*, 2 vols., Paris, 1902--03; idem, in *RHR*, xxxix. 173-228, 419-460; C. A. Bruston, <Ètudes phèniciennes, Paris, 1903; W. M. Müller, *Neue Darstellungen " mykenischer " Gesandter und phönizischer Schiffe in altägyptischen Wandgemälden*, Berlin, 1904; A. D. Mordtmann, *Historische Bilder vom Bosporus*, part 2, Constantinople, 1907; F. C. Eiselen, *Sidon: a Study in Oriental History,* New York, 1907. On the religion: C. and T. Muller, *Fragmenta historicum Græcorum*, iii. 560 sqq., 4 vols., Paris, 1841-51; W. von Baudissin, *Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte*, Leipsic, 1878; F. Baethgen, *Beiträge zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte*, Berlin, 1888; P. D. Chantepie de la Saussaye, *Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte*, i. 348-383, Tübingen, 1905; Smith, *Rel. of Sem.* Consult also the article SANCHUNIATHON and the literature given there.
PHILADELPHIA Philadelphia

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PHILADELPHIA.** See ASIA MINOR, IV.
PHILADEPHIAN SOCIETY Philadelphian Society

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PHILADELPHIAN SOCIETY.** See LEAD, JANE.
PHILANTHROPY Philanthropy

KO

Aucun texte traduit disponible pour le moment.

EN

**PHILANTHROPY.** See SOCIAL SERVICE OF THE CHURCH.
Source: public_domain