_________________________________________________________________ Title: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 5: Diocese-Fathers of Mercy Creator(s): Herbermann, Charles George (1840-1916) Print Basis: 1907-1913 Rights: From online edition Copyright 2003 by K. Knight, used by permission CCEL Subjects: All; Reference LC Call no: BX841.C286 LC Subjects: Christian Denominations Roman Catholic Church Dictionaries. Encyclopedias _________________________________________________________________ THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA AN INTERNATIONAL WORK OF REFERENCE ON THE CONSTITUTION, DOCTRINE, DISCIPLINE, AND HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH EDITED BY CHARLES G. HERBERMANN, Ph.D., LL.D. EDWARD A. PACE, Ph.D., D.D. CONDE B PALLEN, Ph.D., LL.D. THOMAS J. SHAHAN, D.D. JOHN J. WYNNE, S.J. ASSISTED BY NUMEROUS COLLABORATORS IN FIFTEEN VOLUMES VOLUME 5 Diocese to Fathers of Mercy New York: ROBERT APPLETON COMPANY Imprimatur JOHN M. FARLEY ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK _________________________________________________________________ Diocese Diocese (Lat. diœcesis) A Diocese is the territory or churches subject to the jurisdiction of a bishop. I. ORIGIN OF TERM Originally the term diocese (Gr. dioikesis) signified management of a household, thence administration or government in general. This term was soon used in Roman law to designate the territory dependent for its administration upon a city (civitas). What in Latin was called ager, or territorium, namely a district subject to a city, was habitually known in the Roman East as a diœcesis. But as the Christian bishop generally resided in a civitas, the territory administered by him, being usually conterminous with the juridical territory of the city, came to be known ecclesiastically by its usual civil term, diocese. This name was also given to the administrative subdivision of some provinces ruled by legates (legati) under the authority of the governor of the province. Finally, Diocletian designated by this name the twelve great divisions which he established in the empire, and over each of which he placed a vicarius (Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart, 1903, V, 1, 716 sqq.). The original term for local groups of the faithful subject to a bishop was ekklesia (church), and at a later date, paroikia, i. e. the neighbourhood (Lat. porœcia, parochia). The Apostolic Canons (xiv, xv), and the Council of Nicæa in 325 (can. xvi) applied this latter term to the territory subject to a bishop. This term was retained in the East, where the Council of Constantinople (381) reserved the word diocese for the territory subject to a patriarch (can. ii). In the West also parochia was long used to designate an episcopal see. About 850 Leo IV, and about 1095 Urban II, still employed parochia to denote the territory subject to the jurisdiction of a bishop. Alexander III (1159-1181) designated under the name of parochiani the subjects of a bishop (c. 4, C. X, qu. 1; c. 10, C. IX, qu. 2; c. 9, X, De testibus, II, 20). On the other hand, the present meaning of the word diocese is met with in Africa at the end of the fourth century (cc. 50, 51, C. XVI, qu. 1), and afterwards in Spain, where the term parochia, occurring in the ninth canon of the Council of Antioch, held in 341, was translated by "diocese" (c. 2, C. IX, qu. 3). See also the ninth canon of the Synod of Toledo, in 589 (Hefele, ad h. an. and c. 6, C. X, qu. 3). This usage finally became general in the West, though diocese was sometimes used to indicate parishes in the present sense of the word (see PARISH). In Gaul, the words terminus, territorium, civitas, pagus, are also met with. II. HISTORICAL ORIGIN It is impossible to determine what rules were followed at the origin of the Church in limiting the territory over which each bishop exercised his authority. Universality of ecclesiastical jurisdiction was a personal prerogative of the Apostles; their successors, the bishops, enjoyed only a jurisdiction limited to a certain territory: thus Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch, and Polycarp, of Smyrna. The first Christian communities, quite like the Jewish, were established in towns. The converts who lived in the neighbourhood naturally joined with the community of the town for the celebration of the Sacred Mysteries. Exact limitations of episcopal territory could not have engrossed much attention at the beginning of Christianity; it would have been quite impracticable. As a matter of fact, the extent of the diocese was determined by the domain itself over which the bishop exercised his influence. It seems certain on the other hand, that, in the East at any rate, by the middle of the third century each Christian community of any importance had become the residence of a bishop and constituted a diocese. There were bishops in the country districts as well as in the towns. The chorepiscopi (en chora episkopoi), or rural bishops, were bishops, it is generally thought, as well as those of the towns; though from about the second half of the third century their powers were little by little curtailed, and they were made dependent on the bishops of the towns. To this rule Egypt was an exception; Alexandria was for a long time the only see in Egypt. The number of Egyptian dioceses, however, multiplied rapidly during the third century, so that in 320 there were about a hundred bishops present at the Council of Alexandria. The number of dioceses was also quite large in some parts of the Western Church, i. e. in Southern Italy and in Africa. In other regions of Europe, either Christianity had as yet a small number of adherents, or the bishops reserved to themselves supreme authority over extensive districts. Thus, in this early period but few dioceses existed in Northern Italy, Gaul, Germany, Britain, and Spain. In the last, however, their number increased rapidly during the third century. The increase of the faithful in small towns and country districts soon made it necessary to determine exactly the limits of the territory of each church. The cities of the empire, with their clearly defined suburban districts, offered limits that were easily acceptable. From the fourth century on it was generally admitted that every city ought to have its bishop, and that his territory was bounded by that of the neighbouring city. This rule was stringently applied in the East. Although Innocent I declared in 415 that the Church was not bound to conform itself to all the civil divisions which the imperial government chose to introduce, the Council of Chalcedon ordered (451) that if a civitas were dismembered by imperial authority, the ecclesiastical organization ought also to be modified (can. xvii). In the West, the Council of Sardica (344) forbade in its sixth canon the establishment of dioceses in towns not populous enough to render desirable their elevation to the dignity of episcopal residences. At the same time many Western sees included the territories of several civitates. From the fourth century we have documentary evidence of the manner in which the dioceses were created. According to the Council of Sardica (can. vi), this belonged to the provincial synod; the Council of Carthage, in 407, demanded moreover the consent of the primate and of the bishop of the diocese to be divided (canons iv and v). The consent of the pope or the emperor was not called for. In 446, however, Pope Leo I ruled that dioceses should not be established except in large towns and populous centres (c. 4, Dist. lxxx). In the same period the Apostolic See was active in the creation of dioceses in the Burgundian kingdom and in Italy. In the latter country many of the sees had no other metropolitan than the pope, and were thus more closely related to him. Even clearer is his rôle in the formation of the diocesan system in the northern countries newly converted to Christianity. After the first successes of St. Augustine in England, Gregory the Great provided for the establishment of two metropolitan sees, each of which included two dioceses. In Ireland, the diocesan system was introduced by St. Patrick, though the diocesan territory was usually coextensive with the tribal lands, and the system itself was soon peculiarly modified by the general extension of monasticism (see IRELAND). In Scotland, however, the diocesan organization dates only from the twelfth century. To the Apostolic See also was due the establishment of dioceses in that part of Germany which had been evangelized by St. Boniface. In the Frankish Empire the boundaries of the dioceses followed the earlier Gallo-Roman municipal system, though the Merovingian kings never hesitated to change them by royal authority and without pontifical intervention. In the creation of new dioceses no mention is made of papal authority. The Carlovingian kings and their successors, the Western emperors, notably the Ottos (936-1002), sought papal authority for the creation of new dioceses. Since the eleventh century it has been the rule that the establishment of new dioceses is peculiarly a right of the Apostolic See. St. Peter Damian proclaimed (1059-60) this as a general principle (c. 1, Dist. xxii), and the same is affirmed in the well-known "Dictatus" of Gregory VII (1073-1085). The papal decretals (see DECRETALS, PAPAL) consider the creation of a new diocese as one of the causœ majores, i. e. matters of special importance, reserved to the pope alone (c. 1, X, De translatione episcopi, I, 7; c. 1, X, De officio legati, I, 30) and of which he is the sole judge (c. 5, Extrav. communes, De præbendis et dignitatibus, III, 2). A word of mention is here due to the missionary or regionary bishops, episcopi gentium, episcopi (archiepiscopi) in gentibus, still found in the eleventh century. They had no fixed territory or diocese, but were sent into a country or district for the purpose of evangelizing it. Such were St. Boniface in Germany, St. Augustine in England, and St. Willibrord in the Netherlands. They were themselves the organizers of the diocese, after their apostolic labours had produced happy results. The bishops met with in some monasteries of Gaul in the earlier Middle Ages, probably in imitation of Irish conditions, had no administrative functions (see Bellesheim, Gesch. d. kath. Kirche in Irland, I, 226- 30, and Lôning, below). III. CREATION AND MODIFICATION OF DIOCESES We have noticed above that after the eleventh century the sovereign pontiff reserved to himself the creation of dioceses. In the actual discipline, as already stated, all that touches the diocese is a causa major, i. e. one of those important matters in which the bishop possesses no authority whatever and which the pope reserves exclusively to himself. Since the episcopate is of Divine institution, the pope is obliged to establish dioceses in the Catholic Church, but he remains sole judge of the time and manner, and alone determines what flock shall be entrusted to each bishop. Generally speaking, the diocese is a territorial circumscription, but sometimes the bishop possesses authority only over certain classes of persons residing in the territory; this is principally the case in districts where both the Western and the Eastern Rite are followed. Whatever, therefore, pertains to the creation or suppression of dioceses, changes in their boundaries, and the like is within the pope's exclusive province. As a general rule, the preparatory work is done by the Congregation of the Consistory, by Propaganda when the question relates to territories subject to this congregation, and by the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs when the establishment of a diocese is governed by concordats, or when the civil power of the country has the right to intervene in their creation. We shall take up successively (1) the creation of new dioceses (2) the various modifications to which they are subject, included by canonists under the term Innovatio. (1) Creation of Dioceses Strictly speaking, it is only in missionary countries that there can be question of the creation of a diocese, either because the country was never converted to Christianity or because its ancient hierarchy was suppressed, owing to conquest by infidels or the progress of heresy. Regularly, before becoming a diocese, the territory is successively a mission, a prefecture Apostolic, and finally a vicariate Apostolic. The Congregation of Propaganda makes a preliminary study of the question and passes judgment on the opportuneness of the creation of the diocese in question. It considers principally whether the number of Catholics, priests, and religious establishments, i. e. churches, chapels, schools, is sufficiently large to justify the establishment of the proposed diocese. These matters form the subject of a report to Propaganda, to which must be added the number of towns or settlements included in the territory. If there is a city suitable for the episcopal see, the fact is stated, also the financial resources at the disposal of the bishop for the works of religion. There is added, finally, a sketch, if possible accompanied by a map, indicating the territory of the future diocese. As a general rule, a diocese should not include districts whose inhabitants speak different languages or are subject to distinct civil powers (see Instructions of Propaganda, 1798, in Collectanea S. C. de P. F., Rome, 1907, no. 645). Moreover, the general conditions for, the creation of a diocese are the same as those required for dividing or "dismembering" a diocese. Of this we shall speak below. (2) Modification (Innovatio) of Dioceses Under this head come the division (dismembratio) of dioceses, their union, suppression, and changes of their respective limits. (a) Division or Dismemberment of a Diocese This is reserved to the Holy See. Since the pope is the supreme power in the Church, he is not bound to act in conformity with the canonical enactments which regulate the dismemberment of ecclesiastical benefices. The following rules, however, are those which he generally observes, though he is free to deviate from them. 0151; First, to divide a diocese, a sufficient reason must exist (causa justa). The necessity, or at least the utility, of the division must be demonstrated. There is sufficient reason for the subdivision of a diocese if it be too extensive, or the number of the faithful too great, or the means of communication too difficult, to permit the bishop to administer the diocese properly. The benefit which would result to religion (incrementum cultus divini) may also be brought forward as a reason for the change. In the main, these reasons are summed up in the one: the hope of forwarding the interests of Catholicism. Dissensions between inhabitants of the same diocese, or the fact that they belong to different nations, may also be considered a sufficient reason. Formerly, the mere fact that the endowment of a diocese was very large — a case somewhat rare at the present day — formed a legitimate reason for its division. The second condition is suitability of place (locucongruus). There should exist in the diocese to be created a city or town suitable for the episcopal residence; the ancient discipline which rules that sees should be established only in important localities is still observed. Third, a proper endowment (dos congrua) is requisite. The bishop should have at his disposal the resources necessary for his own maintenance and that of the ecclesiastics engaged in the general administration of the diocese, and for the establishment of a cathedral church, the expenses of Divine worship, and the general administration of the diocese. Formerly it was necessary that in part, at least, this endowment should consist in lands; at present this is not always possible. It suffices if there is a prospect that the new bishop will be able to meet the necessary expenses. In some cases, the civil government grants a subsidy to the bishop; in other cases, he must depend on the liberality of the faithful and on a contribution from the parishes of the diocese, known as the cathedraticum (q.v.). Fourth, generally for the division of a diocese the consent of the actual incumbent of the benefice is requisite; but the pope is not bound to observe this condition. John XXII ruled that the pope had the right to proceed to the division of a diocese in spite of the opposition of the bishop (c. 5, Extrav. common., De præbendis, III, 2). As a matter of fact, the pope asks the advice of the archbishop and of all the bishops of the ecclesiastical province in which the diocese to be divided is situated. Often, indeed, the division takes place at the request of the bishop himself. Fifth, theoretically the consent of the civil power is not required; this would be contrary to the principles of the distinction and mutual independence of the ecclesiastical and civil authority. In many countries, however, the consent of the civil authority is indispensable, either because the Government has pledged itself to endow the occupants of the episcopal sees, or because concordats have regulated this matter, or because a suspicious government would not permit a bishop to administer the new diocese if it were created without civil intervention (see Nussi, Conventiones de rebus ecclesiasticis, Rome, 1869, pp. 19 sqq.). At present, the creation or division of a diocese is done by a pontifical Brief, forwarded by the Secretary of Briefs. As an example, we may mention the Brief of 11 March, 1904, which divided the Diocese of Providence and established the new Diocese of Fall River. The motive prompting this division was the incrementum reliqionis and the majus bonum animarum; the Bishop of Providence himself requested the division, and this request was approved by the Archbishop of Boston and by all the bishops of that ecclesiastical province. The examination of the question was submitted to Propaganda and to the Apostolic Delegate at Washington. The pope then created, motu proprio, the new diocese, indicated its official title in Latin and in English, and determined its boundaries, which correspond to political divisions, and, finally, fixed the revenues of the bishop. In the case before us these consist in a moderate cathedraticum to be determined by the bishop (discreto arbitrio episcopi imponendum). According to the practice of Propaganda, all the priests who at the time of the division exercised the ministry in the dismembered territory belong to the clergy of the new diocese (Rescript of 13 April, 1891, in Collectanea S. C. de P. F., new ed., no. 1751). (b) Union of Dioceses As in the case of the division of a diocese, the union of several dioceses ought to be justified by motives of public utility, e. g. the small number of the faithful, the loss of resources. As in the case of division, the pope is influenced by the advice of persons familiar with the situation; sometimes he asks the advice of the Government, etc. It is a generally recognized principle in the union of benefices, that such union takes effect only after the death of the actual occupant of the see which is to be united to another; at least when he has not given his consent to this union. Though the pope is not bound by this rule, in practice it must be taken into account. The union of dioceses takes place in several ways. There is, first, the unio œque principalis or œqualis when the two dioceses are entrusted for the purpose of administration to a single bishop, though they remain in all other respects distinct; each of them has its own cathedral chapter, revenues, rights, and privileges, but the bishop of one see becomes the bishop of the other by the mere fact of appointment to one of the two. He cannot resign one without ipso facto resigning the other. This situation differs from that in which a bishop administers for a time, or even perpetually, another diocese; in this case there is no union between the two sees. It is in reality a case of plurality of ecclesiastical benefices; the bishop holds two distinct sees, and his nomination must take place according to the rules established for each of the two dioceses. On the contrary, in the case of two or more united dioceses, the election or designation of the candidate must take place by the agreement of those persons in both dioceses who possess the right of election or of designation. Moreover, in the case of united dioceses, the pope sometimes makes special rules for the residence of the bishop, e. g. that he shall reside in each diocese for a part of the year. If the pope makes no decision in this matter, the bishop may reside in the more important diocese, or in that which seems more convenient for the purposes of administration, or even in the diocese which he prefers as a residence. If the bishop resides in one of his dioceses he is considered as present in each of them for those juridical acts which demand his presence. He may also convoke at his discretion two separate diocesan synods for each of the two dioceses or only one for both of them. In other respects the administration of each diocese remains distinct. There are two classes of unequal unions of dioceses (uniones inœquales): the unio subjectiva or per accessorium, seldom put into practice, and the unio per confusionem. In the former case, the one diocese retains all its rights and the other loses its rights, obtains those of the principal diocese, and thus becomes a dependency. When a diocese is thus united to another there can be no question of right of election or designation, because such a dependent diocese is conferred by the very fact that the principal diocese possesses a titular. But the administration of the property of each diocese remains distinct and the titular of the principal diocese must assume all the obligations of the united diocese. The second kind of union (per confusionem) suppresses the two pre-existing dioceses in order to create a new one; the former dioceses simply cease to exist. To perpetuate the names of the former sees the new bishop sometimes assumes the titles of both, but in administration no account is taken of the fact that they were formerly separate sees. Such a union is equivalent to the suppression of the dioceses. (c) Suppression of Dioceses Suppression of dioceses, properly so called, in a manner other than by union, takes place only in countries where the faithful and the clergy have been dispersed by persecution, the ancient dioceses becoming missions, prefectures, or vicariates Apostolic. This has occurred in the Orient, in England, the Netherlands, etc. Changes of this nature are not regulated by canon law. (d) Change of Boundaries This last mode of innovatio is made by the Holy See, generally at the request of the bishops of the two neighbouring dioceses. Among the sufficient reasons for this measure are the difficulty of communication, the existence of a high mountain or of a large river, disputes between the inhabitants of one part of the diocese, also the fact that they belong to different countries. Sometimes a resettlement of the boundaries of two dioceses is necessary because the limits of each are not clearly defined. Such a settlement is made by a Brief, sometimes also by a simple decretum or decision of the Congregation of the Consistory approved by the pope, without the formality of a Bull or Brief. IV. DIFFERENT CLASSES OF DIOCESES There are several kinds of dioceses. There are dioceses properly so called and archdioceses. The diocese is the territorial circumscription administered by a bishop; the archdiocese is placed under the jurisdiction of an archbishop. Considered as a territorial circumscription, no difference exists between them; the power of their pastors alone is different. Generally, several dioceses are grouped in an ecclesiastical province and are subject to the authority of the metropolitan archbishop. Some, however, are said to be exempt, i. e. from any archiepiscopal jurisdiction, and are placed directly under the authority of the Holy See. Such are the dioceses of the ecclesiastical province of Rome, and several other dioceses or archdioceses, especially in Italy, also in other countries. The exempt archbishops are called titular archbishops, i. e. they possess only the title of archbishop, have no suffragan bishops, and administer a diocese. The term "titular archbishop", it is to be noted, is also applied to bishops who do not administer a diocese, but who have received with the episcopal consecration a titular archbishopric. For the better understanding of this it must be remembered that archdioceses and dioceses are divided into titular and residential. The bishop of a residential see administers his diocese personally and is bound to reside in it, whereas the titular bishops have only an episcopal title; they are not bound by any obligations to the faithful of the dioceses whose titles they bear. These were formerly called bishops or archbishops in partibus infidelium, i. e. of a diocese or archdiocese fallen into the power of infidels; but since 1882 they are called titular bishops or archbishops. Such are the vicars Apostolic, auxiliary bishops, administrators Apostolic, nuncios, Apostolic delegates, etc. (see TITULAR BISHOP). Mention must also be made of the suburbicarian dioceses (diœceses suburbicariœ), i. e. the six dioceses situated in the immediate neighbourhood of Rome and each of which is administered by one of the six cardinal-bishops. These form a special class of dioceses, the titulars or occupants of which possess certain special rights and obligations (see SUBURBICARIAN DIOCESES). V. NOMINATION, TRANSLATION, RENUNCIATION, AND DEPOSITION OF A BISHOP The general rules relating to the nomination of a residential bishop will be found in the article BISHOP. They are applicable whatever may have been the cause of the vacancy of the diocese, except in the case of a contrary order of the Holy See. The Church admits the principle of the perpetuity of ecclesiastical benefices. Once invested with a see the bishop continues to hold it until his death. There are, however, exceptions to this rule. The bishop may be allowed by the pope to resign his see when actuated by motives which do not spring from personal convenience, but from concern for the public good. Some of these reasons are expressed in the canon law; for instance, if a bishop has been guilty of a grave crime (conscientia criminis), if he is in failing health (debilitas corporis), if he has not the requisite knowledge (defectus scientiœ),if be meets with serious opposition from the faithful (malitia plebis), if he has been a cause of public scandal (scandalum populi), if he is irregular (irregularitas) — c. 10, X, De renuntiatione, I, 9; c. 18, X, De regularibus, III, 32. The pope alone can accept this renunciation and judge of the sufficiency of the alleged reasons. Pontifical authorization is also necessary for an exchange of dioceses between two bishops, which is not allowed except for grave reasons. The same principles apply to the transfer (translatio) of a bishop from one diocese to another. Canonical legislation compares with the indissoluble marriage tie the bond which binds the bishop to his diocese. This comparison, however, must not be understood literally. The pope has the power to sever the mystical bond which unites the bishop to his church, in order to grant him another diocese or to promote him to an archiepiscopal see. A bishop may also be deposed from his functions for a grave crime. In such a case the pope generally invites the bishop to resign of his own accord, and deposes him only upon refusal. As the Holy See alone is competent to try the crime of a bishop, it follows that the pope alone, or the congregation to which he has committed the bishop's trial (Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, the Propaganda, sometimes the Inquisition), can inflict this penalty or pronounce the declaratory sentence required when the law inflicts deposition as the sanction of a specified delinquency. Finally, the pope has always the right, strictly speaking, to deprive a bishop of his diocese, even if the latter is not guilty of crime; but for this act there must be grave cause. After the conclusion of the Concordat of 1801 with France, Pius VII removed from their dioceses all the bishops of France. It was, of course, a very extraordinary measure, but was justified by the gravity of the situation. VI. ADMINISTRATION OF THE DIOCESE The bishop is the general ruler of the diocese, but in his administration he must conform to the general laws of the Church (see BISHOP). According to the Council of Trent he is bound to divide the territory of his diocese into parishes, with ordinary jurisdiction for their titulars (Sess. XXIV, c. xiii, De ref.), unless circumstances render impossible the creation of parishes or unless the Holy See has arranged the matter otherwise (Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, nos. 31-33). The bishop needs also some auxiliary service in the administration of a diocese. It is customary for each diocese to possess a chapter (q. v.) of canons in the cathedral church; they are the counsellors of the bishop. The cathedral itself is the church where the bishop has his seat (kathedra). The pope reserves to himself the right of authorizing its establishment as well as that of a chapter of canons. In many dioceses, principally outside of Europe, the pope does not establish canons, but gives as auxiliaries to the bishop other officials known as consultores cleri diœcesani, i. e. the most distinguished members of the diocesan clergy, chosen by the bishop, often in concert with his clergy or some members of it. The bishop is bound to ask the advice of those counsellors, canons or consultors, in the most important matters. The canons possess, in some cases, the right to nullify episcopal action taken without their consent. The consultores cleri diœcesani, however, possess but a consultative voice (Third Plen. Council of Baltimore, nos. 17-22; Plen. Cone. Americæ Latinæ, no. 246. — See CONSULTORS, DIOCESAN). After the bishop, the principal authority in a diocese is the vicar-general (vicarius generalis in spiritualibus); he is the bishop's substitute in the administration of the diocese. The office dates from the thirteenth century. Originally the vicar-general was called the "official" (officialis); even yet officialis and vicarius generalis in spiritualibus are synonymous. Strictly speaking, there should be in each diocese only one vicar-general. In some countries, however, local custom has authorized the appointment of several vicars-general. The one specially charged with the canonical lawsuits (jurisdictio contentiosa), e. g. with criminal actions against ecclesiastics or with matrimonial cases, is still known as the "official" it must be noted that he is none the less free to exercise the functions of vicar-general in other departments of diocesan administration. A contrary custom prevails in certain dioceses of Germany, where the "official" possesses only the jurisdictio contentiosa, but this is a derogation from the common law. For the temporal administration of the church the bishop may appoint an œconomus, i. e. an administrator. As such functions do not require ecclesiastical jurisdiction, this administrator may be a layman. The choice of a layman fully acquainted with the civil law of the country may sometimes offer many advantages (Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, no. 75). In certain very extensive dioceses the pope appoints a vicarius generalis in pontificalibus, or auxiliary bishop, whose duty is to supply the place of the diocesan bishop in the exercise of those functions of the sacred ministry which demand episcopal order. In the appointment of this bishop the pope is not bound to observe the special rules for the appointment of a residential bishop. These titular bishops possess no jurisdiction by right of their office; the diocesan bishop, however, can grant them, e. g., the powers of a vicar-general. The common ecclesiastical law contains no enactments relating to the rights and powers of the chancellor, an official met with in many dioceses (see DIOCESAN CHANCERY). The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore (no. 71) advises the establishment of a chancery in every diocese of the United States. The chancellor is specially charged with the affixing of the episcopal seal to all acts issued in the name of the bishop, in order to prove their authenticity. He appears also in the conduct of ecclesiastical lawsuits, e. g. in matrimonial cases, to prove the authenticity of the alleged documents, to vouch for the depositions of witnesses, etc. Because of the importance of his functions, the chancellor sometimes holds the office of vicar-general in spiritualibus. By episcopal chancery is sometimes understood the office where are written the documents issued in the name of the bishop and to which is addressed the correspondence relating to the administration of the diocese sometimes also the term signifies the persons employed in the exercise of these functions. The taxes or dues which the episcopal chancery may claim for the issuing of documents were fixed by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXI, c. i, De ref.); afterwards by Innocent XI (hence their name Taxa Innocentiana), 8 Oct., 1678; finally by Leo XIII, 10 June, 1896. The fiscal of the bishop, also known as promotor or procurator fiscalis, is the ecclesiastic charged with attending to the interests of the diocese in all trials and especially with endeavouring to secure the punishment of all offences cognizable in the ecclesiastical tribunals. An assistant, who is called fiscal advocate (advocatus fiscalis), may be appointed to aid this officer. Formerly the diocese was divided into a number of archdeaconries, each administered by an archdeacon, who possessed considerable authority in that part of the diocese placed under his jurisdiction. The Council of Trent restricted very much their authority, and since then the office of the archdeacon has gradually disappeared. It exists at the present day only as an honorary title, given to a canon of the cathedral chapter (see ARCHDEACON). On the other hand, the ancient office of vicarii foranei, decani rurales, or archipresbyteri still exists in the Church (see ARCHPRIEST; DEAN). The division of the diocese into deaneries is not obligatory, but in large dioceses the bishop usually entrusts to certain priests known as deans or vicars forane the oversight of the clergy of a portion of his diocese, and generally delegates to them special jurisdictional powers (Third Plen. Council of Baltimore, nos. 27-30). Finally, by means of the diocesan synod all the clergy participates in the general administration of the diocese. According to the common law, the bishop is bound to assemble a synod every year, to which he must convoke the vicar-general, the deans, the canons of the cathedral, and at least a certain number of parish priests. Here, however, custom and pontifical privileges have departed in some points from the general legislation. At this meeting, all questions relating to the moral and the ecclesiastical discipline of the diocese are publicly discussed and settled. In the synod the bishop is the sole legislator; the members may, at the request of the bishop, give their advice, but they have only a deliberative voice in the choice of the examinatores cleri diœcesani, i. e. the ecclesiastics charged with the examination of candidates for the parishes (Third Plen. Council of Baltimore, nos. 23-26). It is because the diocesan statutes are generally elaborated and promulgated in a synod that they are sometimes known as statuta synodalia. In addition to the general laws of the Church and the enactments of national or plenary and provincial synods, the bishop may regulate by statutes, that are often real ecclesiastical laws, the particular discipline of each diocese, or apply the general laws of the Church to the special needs of the diocese. Since the bishop alone possesses all the legislative power, and is not bound to propose in a synod these diocesan statutes, he may modify them or add to them on his own authority. VII. VACANCY OF THE DIOCESE We have already explained how a diocese becomes vacant (see V above); here it will suffice to add a few words touching the administration of the diocese during such vacancy. In dioceses where there is a coadjutor bishop with right of succession, the latter, by the fact of the decease of the diocesan bishop, becomes the residential bishop or ordinary (q. v.) of the diocese. Otherwise the government of the diocese during the vacancy belongs regularly to the chapter of the cathedral church. The chapter must choose within eight days a vicar capitular, whose powers, although less extensive, are in kind like those of a bishop. If the chapter does not fulfil this obligation, the archbishop appoints ex officio a vicar capitular. In dioceses where a chapter does not exist, an administrator is appointed, designated either by the bishop himself before his death, or, in case of his neglect, by the metropolitan or by the senior bishop of the province (see ADMINISTRATOR). VIII. CONSPECTUS OF THE DIOCESAN SYSTEM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH The accompanying table of the diocesan system of the Church shows that there are at present throughout the world: 9 patriarchates of the Latin, 6 of the Oriental Rites; 6 suburbicarian dioceses; 163 (or 166 with the Patriarchates of Venice, Lisbon, and Goa, in reality archdioceses) archdioceses of the Latin, and 20 of the Oriental Rites; 675 dioceses of the Latin, and 52 of the Oriental Rites; 137 vicariates Apostolic of the Latin, and 5 of the Oriental Rites; 58 prefectures Apostolic of the Latin Rite; 12 Apostolic delegations; 21 abbeys or prelatures nullius diœcesis, i. e. exempt from the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop. There are also 89 titular archdioceses and 432 titular dioceses. TABLE OF THE DIOCESAN SYSTEM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (1910) Patriarchates=A Archdioceses=B Dioceses=C Exempt Dioceses=D Apostolic Delagations=E Vicariates Apostolic=F Prefectures Apostolic=G Prelatures and Abbeys Nullius=H A B C D E F G H Latin Rite - EUROPE Austria-Hungary - 11 40 1 - - - 2 Belgium - 1 5 - - - - - Bosnia-Herzegovina - 1 3 - - - - - Bulgaria - - - 1 - 1 - - Denmark - - - - - 1 - - England - 1 15 - - - - - France - 17 67 - - - - - Germany - 5 14 6 - 3 2 - Greece - 2 6 1 1 - - - Ireland - 4 25 - - - - - Italy 2* 37 156† 75 - - - 11 Luxemburg - - - 1 - - - - Malta - - - 2 - - - - Monaco - - - 1 - - - - Montenegro - - - 1 - - - - Netherlands - 1 4 - - - - - Norway - - - - - 1 - - Portugal 1 2 9 - - - - - Rumania - 1 - 1 - - - - Russia - 2 14‡ - - - - - Scotland - 1 4 1 - - - - Servia - - 1 - - - - - Spain 1§ 9 47 - - 1 - 1 Sweden - - - - - 1 - - Switzerland - - - 5 - - 2 2 Turkey - 1 4 2 1 1 - 1 Total 4 96 414 98 2 9 4 17 * Also three titular patriarchs of the Latin Rite reside in Rome. † The six suburbicarian dioceses must be added to these. ‡ The Russian Government has suppressed three of these. § Titular Patriarchate of the West Indies. Latin Rite - AMERICA Argentine Republic - 1 7 - - 1 1 - Bolivia - 1 3 - - - - - Brazil - 4 20 - - - - 2 Canada - 8 20 - 1 4 - - Lesser Antilles - 1 3 - - 1 - - Chile - 1 3 - - 1 1 - Columbia - 4 10 - - 2 3 - Greater Antilles - 2 7 2 1 1 - - Ecuador - 1 6 - - 4 - - Central America - 1 4 - - 1 - - Guianas - - - - - 2 1 - Mexico - 8 22 - 1 1 - - Newfoundland - 1 2 - - - - - Paraguay - - 1 - - - - - Peru - 1 8 - - 1* 3 - Saint-Pierre and Miquelon Islands - - - - - - 1 - United States - 14 76 - 1 2 1 - Uruguay - 1 2† - - - - - Venezuela - 1 5 - - - - - Total - 50 199 2 4 21 11 2 * Includes also some Chilean territory. † Bulls have been issued but these dioceses have not been erected. Latin Rite - ASIA China - - 1 - - 36 4 - Corea - - - - - 1 - - India and Indo-China 1 7 22 1 1 15 4 - Japan - 1 3 - - - 1 - Persia - - - 1 1 - - - Turkey 1 1 1 1 3* 3 1 - Total 2 9 27 3 5 55 10 - * The Apostolic Delegation of Arabia also includes Egypt. Latin Rite - OCEANICA Australia - 4 14 1 - 3 - 1 Malay Archipelagp - - - - - 1 3 - New Zealand - 1 3 - - - - - Philippine Islands and Hawaii - 1 8* - 1 1 1 - Polynesia - - - - - 11 5 - Total - 6 25 1 1 16 9 1 * Though Bulls have been issued four of these dioceses have not been erected. Latin Rite - AFRICA Africa - 2 10* 2 1† 36 24 1 * The Diocese of Ceuta is not enumerated, as it belongs to Cadiz, Spain. † Delegation of Arabia and Egypt. See above, foot-note to Asia. Oriental Rite - ARMENIAN Austria - 1 - - - - - - Russia - - 1 - - - - - Asia 1 3 13 - - - - - Africa - - 1 - - - - - Oriental Rite - COPTIC Africa 1 - 2 - - - - - Oriental Rite - GREEK BULGARIAN Macedonia - - - - - 1 - - Thrace - - - - - 1 - - Oriental Rite - GREEK MELCHITE Asia 1 3 9 - - - - - Oriental Rite - GREEK RUMANIAN Austria - 1 3 - - - - - Oriental Rite - GREEK RUTHENIAN Austria - 1 6 - - - - - Russia - - 1 2† - - - - Oriental Rite - SYRIAN Asia 1 3 5 - - - - - Oriental Rite - SYRO-CHALDEAN Asia 1 2 9 - - - - - Oriental Rite - SYRO-MALABAR Asia - - - - - 3 - - Oriental Rite - SYRO-MARONITE Asia 1 6 2 - - - - - Total 6 20 52 2 - 5 - - * The Ruthenian bishop for the United States has neither a diocese, properly so called, nor ordinary jurisdiction. † One of these dioceses has been suppressed by the Russian Government. THOMASSIN, Vetus et nova disciplina ecclesiœ, etc. (Paris, 1691), Part. I, Bk. I, nos. 54-59; LÖNING, Gesch. des deutschen Kirchenrechts (Strasburg, 1878), i, 410; II, 129 sqq.; HANNACK, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (Leipzig, 1907). 319 sqq.; DUCHESNE, Origines du culte chrétien (Paris, 1902), 11 sqq.; IDEM, Hist. ancienne de l'Eglise (Paris, 1906), I, 524; IDEM, Fastes épiscopaux de l'ancienne Gaule (Paris, 1907); SAVIO, Gli antichi vescovi d'Italia (Turin, 1899), I; WERMINGHOFF, Gesch. der Kirchenverfassung Deutschl. im M. A. (leipzig, 1906); HAUCK, Kirchengesch. Deutschl. (Leipzig, 1896-1903); LINGARD, Hist. and Anyiq. of the Anglo-Saxon Church (reprint. London, 1899); LANIGAN, Eccl. History of Ireland (Dublin, 1829); BELLESHEIM, Gesch. der kathol. Kirche in Irland (Mainz, 1890-91); IDEM, Gesch. der kathol. Kirche in Schottland (Mainz, 1883); tr. HUNTER-BLAIR, History of the Catholic Church in Scotland (London. 1889); HINSCHIUS, System des kathol. Kirchenrechts (Berlin, 1878), II, 378 sqq.; VON SCHERER, Handbuch des Kirchenrechts (Graz, 1886), I, 553 sqq.; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1899), II, 348 sqq.; SÄGMÜLLER, Lehrbuch des kathol. Kirchenrechts (Freiburg, 1900-1904), 231, 346, and bibliography under Bischof; BATTANDIER, Ann. pont. cath. (Paris, 1908); La Gerarchia Cattolica (Rome, 1908); Missiones Catholicœ (Rome, 1907): BAUMGARTEN AND SWOBODA, Die kathol. Kirche auf dem Erdenrund (Munich 1907). For a catalogue of all known Catholic dioceses to 1198, with names and regular dates of occupants, see GAMS, Series episc. eccl. Cath. (Ratisbon, 1873-86), and his continuator EUBEL, Hierarchia Catholica Medii Ævi, 1l98-1431 (Münster, 1899). Cf. also the alphabetical list of all known dioceses, ancient and modern, in MAS-LATRIE, Trésor de chronol. d'hist. et de géog. (Paris, 1889), and the descriptive text of WERNER, Orbis terrar. Catholicus (Freiburg, 1890). For the dioceses, etc. in the missionary territories of the Catholic Church see STREIT, Katholischer Missionsatlas (Steyl, 1906). For details of dioceses in English-speaking countries see Directories, Catholic for United States, England, Ireland, Australia, Canada, India. A. VAN HOVE. Dioclea Dioclea A titular see of Phyrgia in Asia Minor. Diocleia is mentioned by Ptolemy (V, ii, 23), where the former editions read Dokela; this is probably the native name, which must have been hellenized at a later time; in the same way Doclea in Dalmatia is more commonly called Dioclea. The autonomous rights of Dioclea are proved by its coins struck in the reign of Elagabalus (Head, Hist. Num., 562). It figures in the "Synecdemus" of Hierocles, in Parthey, "Notitiae Episcopatuum" (III, X, XIII), and in Gelzer, "Nova Tactica", i.e. as late as the twelfth or thirteenth century, as a bishopric in Phrygia Pacatiana, the metropolis of which was Laodicea. Only two bishops are known, in 431, and 451 (Lequien, Or. Christ., I, 823). An inscription found nearDoghla, or Dola, a village in the vilayet of Smyrna, shows that it must be the site of Dioclea, though there are no ruins. RAMSAY, Hist. Geogr. of Asia Minor, 139; IDEM, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, 632, 652, 660, 663. S. PÉTRIDÈS Diocletian Diocletian (Valerius Diocletianus). Roman Emperor and persecutor of the Church, b. of parents who had been slaves, at Dioclea, near Salona, in Dalmatia, a.d. 245; d. at Salona, a.d. 313. He entered the army and by his marked abilities attained the offices of Governor of Mœsia, consul, and commander of the guards of the palace. In the Persian war, under Carus, he especially distinguished himself. When the son and successor of Carus, Numerian, was murdered at Chalcedon, the choice of the army fell upon Diocletian, who immediately slew with his own hand the murderer Aper (17 Sept., 284). His career as emperor belongs to secular history. Here only a summary will be given. The reign of Diocletian (284-305) marked an era both in the military and political history of the empire. The triumph which he celebrated together with his colleague Maximian (20 Nov., 303) was the last triumph which Rome ever beheld. Britain, the Rhine, the Danube, and the Nile furnished trophies; but the proudest boast of the conqueror was that Persia, the persistent enemy of Rome, had at last been subdued. Soon after his accession to power Diocletian realized that the empire was too unwieldy and too much exposed to attack to be safely ruled by a single head. Accordingly, he associated with himself Maximian, a bold but rude soldier, at first as Cæsar and afterwards as Augustus (286). Later on, he further distributed his power by granting the inferior title of Cæsar to two generals, Galerius and Constantius (292). He reserved for his own portion Thrace, Egypt, and Asia; Italy and Africa were Maximian's provinces, while Galerius was stationed on the Danube, and Constantius had charge of Gaul, Spain, and Britain. But the supreme control remained in Diocletian's hands. None of the rulers resided in Rome, and thus the way was prepared for the downfall of the imperial city. Moreover, Diocletian undermined the authority of the Senate, assumed the diadem, and introduced the servile ceremonial of the Persian court. After a prosperious reign of nearly twenty-one years, he abdicated the throne and retired to Salona, where he lived in magnificent seclusion until his death. Diocletian's name is associated with the last and most terrible of all the ten persecutions of the early Church. Nevertheless it is a fact that the Christians enjoyed peace and prosperity during the greater portion of his reign. Eusebius, who lived at this time, describes in glowing terms "the glory and the liberty with which the doctrine of piety was honoured", and he extols the clemency of the emperors towards the Christian governors whom they appointed, and towards the Christian members of their households. He tells us that the rulers of the Church "were courted and honoured with the greatest subserviency by all the rulers and governors". He speaks of the vast multitudes that flocked to the religion of Christ, and of the spacious and splendid churches erected in the place of the humbler buildings of earlier days. At the same time he bewails the falling from ancient fervour "by reason of exccessive liberty" (Hist. Eccl., VIII, i). Had Diocletian remained sole emperor, he would probably have allowed this toleration to continue undisturbed. It was his subordinate Galerius who first induced him to turn persecutor. These two rulers of the East, at a council held at Nicomedia in 302, resolved to suppress Christianity throughout the empire. The cathedral of Nicomedia was demolished (24 Feb., 303). An edict was issued "to tear down the churches to the foundations and to destroy the Sacred Scriptures by fire; and commanding also that those who were in honourable stations should be degraded if they persevered in their adherence to Christianity" (Euseb., op. cit., VIII, ii). Three further edicts (303-304) marked successive stages in the severity of the persecution: the first ordering that the bishops, presbyters, and deacons should be imprisoned; the second that they should be tortured and compelled by every means to sacrifice; the third including the laity as well as the clergy. The atrocious cruelty with which these edicts were enforced, and the vast numbers of those who suffered for the Faith are attested by Eusebius and the Acts of the Martyrs. We read even of the massacre of the whole population of a town because they declared themselves Christians (Euseb., loc. cit., xi, xii; Lactant., "Div. Instit.", V, xi). The abdication of Diocletian (1 May, 305) and the subsequent partition of the empire brought relief to many provinces. In the East, however, where Galerius and Maximian held sway, the persecution continued to rage. Thus it will be seen that the so-called Diocletian persecution should be attributed to the influence of Galerius; it continued for seven years after Diocletian's abdication. (See PERSECUTIONS.) Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. in P.G., XX; De Mart. Palæstinæ, P.G., XX, 1457-1520; Lactantius, Divinæ Institutiones, V, in P.L., VI; De Mortibus Persecutorum, P.L., VII; Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, xiii, xvi; Allard, Le persécution de Dioclétien et le triomphe de l'eglise (Paris, 1890); Idem, Le christianisme et l'empire romain (Paris, 1898); Idem, Ten Lectures on the Martyrs, tr. (London, 1907); Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l'eglise (Paris, 1907), II. T.B. Scannell Diocletianopolis Diocletianopolis A titular see of Palaestina Prima. This city is mentioned by Hierocles (Synecdemus, 719, 2), Georgius Cyprius (ed. Gelzer, 1012), and in some "Notitiae Episcopatuum", as a suffragan of Caesarea. Its native name is unknown, and its site has not been identified. One bishop is known, Elisaeus, in 359 (Lequien, Oriens Christianus, III, 646). (2) Another Diocletianopolis was a suffragan see of Philippopolis in Thrace. Its site is unknown. Two bishops are mentioned, Cyriacus in 431, and Epictetus in 451 and 458. A third, Elias, in 553, is doubtful (Lequien, op. cit., I, 1161). (3) Still another Diocletianopolis was a suffragan of Ptolemais in Thebais Secunda (Parthey, Notit. Episc., I). This city also mentioned by Hierocles (op. cit., 732, 3), and by Georgius Cyprius, 772. Gelzer thinks that Diocletianopolis is a later name of Apollinopolis Minor, the Coptic Kos Bebir, and the Arabian Kûs, still existing near Keft (Coptus). (Amélineau, "Géographie de l'Egypte", 490, 573, 576) One bishop of Apollinopolis Minor is known, Pabiscus, mentioned in 431 (Lequien, II, 603). S. PÉTRIDÈS Diodorus of Tarsus Diodorus of Tarsus Date of birth uncertain; d. about A.D. 392. He was of noble family, probably of Antioch. St. Basil calls him a "nursling" of Silvanus, Bishop of Tarsus, but whether this discipleship was at Antioch or at Tarsus is not known. He studied at Athens, then embraced the monastic state. He became head of a monastery in or near Antioch, and St. Chrysostom was his disciple. When Antioch groaned under Arian bishops, he did not join the small party of irreconcilables headed by Paulinus, yet when Bishop Leontius made Aetius a deacon Diodorus and Flavian threatened to leave his communion and retire to the West, and the bishop yielded. These two holy men, though not priests taught the people to sing the Psalms in alternate choirs (a practice which quickly spread throughout the Church), at first in the chapels of the martyrs, then, at Leontius's invitation, in the churches. When at length, in 361, the Arian party appointed an orthodox bishop in the person of St. Meletius, Diodorus was made priest. He seems to have written some of his works against the pagans as early as the reign of Julian, for that emperor declared that Diodorus had used the learning and eloquence of Athens against the immortal gods, who had punished him with sickness of the throat, emaciation, wrinkles, and a hard and bitter life. In the persecution of Valens (364-78), Flavian and Diodorus, now priests, during the exile of Meletius kept the Catholics together, assembling them on the northern bank of the Orontes, since the Arian emperor did not permit Catholic worship within the city. Many times banished, Diodorus, in 372, made the acquaintance of St. Basil in Armenia, whither that saint had come to visit Meletius. On the return of the latter to his flock, he made Diodorus Bishop of Tarsus and Metropolitan of Cilicia. Theodosius soon after, in a decree, named Diodorus and St. Pelagius of Laodicea as norms of orthodoxy for the whole East. Diodorus was at the Councils of Antioch in 379 and of Constantinople in 381. Sozomen makes him responsible at the latter council for the proposal of Nectarius as bishop of that city, and represents him as one of the chief movers in the appointment of St. Flavian as successor to Meletius, by which the unhappy schism at Antioch was prolonged. Diodorus came to Antioch in 386 or later, when St. Chrysostom was already a priest. In a sermon he spoke of Chrysostom as a St. John the Baptist, the Voice of the Church, the Rod of Moses. Next day Chrysostom ascended the pulpit and declared that when the people had applauded, he had groaned; it was Diodorus, his father, who was John the Baptist, the Antiochenes could bear witness how he had lived without possessions, having his food from alms, and persevering in prayer and preaching; like the Baptist he had taught on the other side of the river, often he had been imprisoned--nay, he had been often beheaded, at least in will, for the Faith. In another sermon he likens Diodorus to the martyrs: "See his mortified limbs, his face, having the form of a man, but the expression of an Angel!" St. Basil in 375 asked Diodorus to disown a fictitious letter circulated in his name, permitting marriage with a deceased wife's sister. In the following year he criticizes the rhetorical style of the longer of two treatises sent him by Diodorus, but gives warm praise to the shorter. Diodorus's style is praised by Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Photius, but of his very numerous writings of a few unimportant fragments have been preserved, chiefly in Catenae (q.v). He wrote against some of the heresies and still more against heathen philosophy. Photius gives a detailed summary of his eight books "de Fato"; they were evidently very dull from a modern point of view. According to Leontius he composed commentaries on the whole Bible. St. Jerome says that these were imitations of those of Eusebius of Emesa, but less distinguished by secular learning. Diodorus rejected the allegorical interpretation of the Alexandrians, and adhered to the literal sense. In this he was followed by his disciple Theodore of Mopsuestia, and by Chrysostom in his unequalled expositions. The Antiochene School of which he was the leader was discredited by the subsequent heresies of Nestorius, of whom his disciple Theodore of Mopsuestia was the precursor. Theodoret wrote to exculpate Diodorus, but St. Cyril declared him a heretic. The damning passages cited by Darius Mercator and Leontius seem, however, to belong to a work of Theodore, not of Diodorus; nor was the latter condemned when Theodore and passages of Theodoret and Ibas (the Three Chapters) were condemned by the Fifth General Council (553). It seems certain that Diodorus went too far in his opposition to (the younger) Apollinarius of Laodicea, according to whom the rational soul in Christ was supplied by the Logos. Diodorus, in emphasizing the completeness of the Sacred Humanity, appears to have asserted two hypostases, not necessarily in a heretical sense. If the developments by Theodore throw a shade on the reputation of Diodorus, the praise of all his contemporaries and especially of his disciple Chrysostom tend yet more strongly to exculpate him. It will be best to look upon Diodorus as the innocent source of Nestorianism (q.v.) only in the sense that St. Cyril of Alexandria is admittedly the unwilling origin of Monophysitism through some incorrect expressions. Against this view are Julicher [in Theol. lit. Z. (1902), 82-86] and Funk [in "Rev. d' hist. eccl.", III (1902), 947-71; reprinted with improvements in "Kirchengesch, Abhandl." (Paderborn, 1907), III, 323]. The fragments of his Commentaries on the Old Testament are collected in Migne, P.G., XXXIII, from the Catena of Nicephorus and that published by Corderius (Antwerp, 1643-6), also from Mai, "Nova Patrum Bibl.", VI. A few more are found in Pitra "Spicilegium Solesmense" (Paris, 1852), I. A long list of the lost works is in Fabricius, "Bibl. Gr.", V, 24 (reprinted in Migne loc. cit.). Some Syriac dogmatic fragments are in Lagarde, Analecta Syriaca", (Leipzig and London, 1858). Four treatises of Pseudo-Justin Martyr have been attributed to Diodorus by Harnack ("Texte und Unters.", N.F., VI, 4, 1901). JOHN CHAPMAN Epistle To Diognetus Epistle to Diognetus (EPISTOLA AD DIOGNETUM). This beautiful little apology for Christianity is cited by no ancient or medieval writer, and came down to us in a single manuscript which perished in the siege of Strasburg (1870). The identification of Diognetus with the teacher of Marcus Aurelius, who bore the same name, is at most plausible. The author's name is unknown, and the date is anywhere between the Apostles and the age of Constantine. It was clearly composed during a severe persecution. The manuscript attributed it with other writings to Justin Martyr; but that earnest philosopher and hasty writer was quite incapable of the restrained eloquence, the smooth flow of thought, the limpid clearness of expression, which mark this epistle as one of the most perfect compositions of antiquity. The last two chapters (xi, xii) are florid and obscure, and bear no relation to the rest of the letter. They seem to be a fragment of a homily of later date. The writer of this addition describes himself as a "disciple of the Apostles", and through a misunderstanding of these words the epistle has, since the eighteenth century, been classed with the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. The letter breaks off at the end of chapter x; it may have originally been much longer. The writer addresses the "most excellent Diognetus", a well-disposed pagan, who desires to know what is the religion of Christians. Idol-worship is ridiculed, and it is shown that Jewish sacrifices and ceremonies cannot cause any pleasure to the only God and creator of all. Christians are not a nation nor a sect, but are diffused throughout the world, though they are not of the world but citizens of heaven; yet they are the soul of the world. God, the invisible Creator, has sent His Child, by whom He made all things, to save man, after He has allowed man to find out his own weakness and proneness to sin and his incapacity to save himself. The last chapter is an exposition, "first" of the love of the Father, evidently to be followed "secondly" by another on the Son, but this is lost. The style is harmonious and simple. The writer is a practiced master of classical eloquence, and a fervent Christian. There is no resemblance to the public apologies of the second century. A closer affinity is with the "Ad Donatum" of St. Cyprian, which is similarly addressed to an inquiring pagan. The writer does not refer to Holy Scripture, but he uses the Gospels, I Peter, and I John, and is saturated with the Epistles of St. Paul. Harnack seems to be right in refusing to place the author earlier than Irenaeus. One might well look for him much later, in the persecutions of Valerian or of Diocletian. He cannot be an obscure person, but must be a writer otherwise illustrious; and yet he is certainly not one of those writers whose works have come down to us from the second or third centuries. The name of Lucian the Martyr would perhaps satisfy the conditions of the problem; and the loss of that part of the letter where it spoke more in detail of the Son of God would be explained, as it would have been suspected or convicted of the Arianism of which Lucian is the reputed father. The so-called letter may be in reality the apology presented to a Judge. The editio princeps is that of Stephanus (Paris, 1592), and the epistle was included among the works of St. Justin by Sylburg (Heidelberg, 1593) and subsequent editors, the best of such editions is in Otto, "Corpus Apologetarum Christ." (3d ed., Jena, 1879), III. Tillemont followed a friend's suggestion in attributing it to an earlier date, and Gallandi included it in his "Bibl. Vett. PP.", I, as the work of an anonymous Apostolic Father. It has been given since then in the editions of the Apostolic Fathers, especially those of Hefele, Funk (2d ed., 1901), Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn (1878), Lightfoot and Harmer (London, 1891, with English tr.). Many separate editions have appeared in Germany. There is an English translation in the Ante-Nicene Library (London, 1892), I. The dissertations on this treatise are too numerous to catalogue; they are not as a rule of much value. Baratier and Gallandi attributed the letter to Clement of Rome, Bohl to an Apostolic Father, and he was followed by the Catholic editors or critics, Mohler, Hefele, Permaneder, Alzog; whereas Grossheim, Tzsehirner, Semisch, placed it in the time of Justin; Dorner referred it to Marcion; Zeller to the end of the second century, while Ceillier, Hoffmann, Otto, defended the manuscript attribution to Justin; Fessler held for the first or second century. These definite views are now abandoned, likewise the suggestions of Kruger that Aristides was the author, of Draseke that it is by Apelles, of Overbeck that it is post-Constantinian, and of Donaldson that it is a fifteenth-century rhetorical exercise (the manuscript was thirteenth- or fourteenth-century). Zahn has sensibly suggested 250-310. Harnack gives 170-300. JOHN CHAPMAN Dionysias Dionysias A titular see in Arabia. This city, which figures in the "Synecdemos" of Hierocles (723, 3) and Georgius Cyprius (1072), is mentioned only in Parthey's "Prima Notitia", about 840, as a suffragan of Bostra. Lequien (Or christ., II, 865) gives the names of three Greek bishops, Severus, present at Nicaea in 325, Elpidius at Constantinople in 381, and Maras at Chalcedon in 451. Another, Peter, is known by an inscription (Waddington, Inscriptlons . . . de Syrie, no. 2327). Fifteen or sixteen titular Latin bishops are known throughout the fifteenth century (Lequien, op. cit., III 1309; Eubel, I, 232, II, 160). Waddington (op. cit. 529 sqq.) identifies Dionysias with Soada, now es-Sûwêda, the chief town of a caza in the vilayet of Damascus, where many inscriptions have been found. Soada, though an important city, is not alluded to in ancient authors under this name; inscriptions prove that it was built by a "lord builder Dionysos" and that it was an episcopal see. Noldeke admits this view. Gesenius identifies Dionysias with Shohba (Philippopolis), but this is too far from Damascus. Gelzer, ed., Georgii Cyprii descriptio orbis Romani, 206. S. PÉTRIDÈS Pope St. Dionysius Pope St. Dionysius Date of birth unknown; d. 26 or 27 December, 268. During the pontificate of Pope Stephen (254-57) Dionysius appears as a presbyter of the Roman Church and as such took part in the controversy concerning the validity of heretical baptism (see BAPTISM under sub-title Rebaptism). This caused Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria to write him a letter on baptism in which he is described as an excellent and learned man (Eusebius, Hist eccl. VII, vii). Later, in the time of Pope Sixtus II (257-58), the same Bishop of Alexandria addressed Dionysius a letter concerning Lucianus (ibid., VII, ix), who this Lucianus was is not known. After the martyrdom of Sixtus II (6 August, 258) the Roman See remained vacant for nearly a year, as the violence of the persecution made it impossible to elect a new head. It was not until the persecution had begun to subside that Dionysius was raised (22 July, 259) to the office of Bishop of Rome. Some months later the Emperor Gallienus issued his edict of toleration, which brought the persecution to an end and gave a legal existence to the Church (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VII, xiii). Thus the Roman Church came again into possession of its buildings for worship, its cemeteries, and other properties, and Dionysius was able to bring its administration once more into order. About 260 Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria wrote his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor against Sabellianism in which he expressed himself with inexactness as to the Logos and its relation to God the Father (see DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA). Upon this an accusation against him was laid before Pope Dionysius who called a synod at Rome about 260 for the settlement of the matter. The pope issued, in his own name and that of the council, an important doctrinal letter in which, first, the erroneous doctrine of Sabellius was again condemned and, then, the false opinions of those were rejected who, like the Marcionites, in a similar manner separate the Divine monarchy into three entirely distinct hypostases or who represent the Son of God as a created being, while the Holy Scriptures declare Him to have been begotten passages in the Bible, such as Deut., xxxii, 6, Prov., viii, 22, cannot be cited in support of false doctrines such as these. Along with this doctrinal epistle Pope Dionysius sent a separate letter to the Alexandrian Bishop in which the latter was called on to explain his views. This Dionysius of Alexandria did in his "Apologia" (Athanasius, De sententia Dionysii, V, xiii, De decretis Nicaenae synodi, xxvi). According to the ancient practice of the Roman Church Dionysius also extended his care to the faithful of distant lands. When the Christians of Cappadocia were in great distress from the marauding incursions of the Goths, the pope addressed a consolatory letter to the Church of Caesarea and sent a large sum of money by messengers for the redemption of enslaved Christians (Basilius, Epist. lxx, ed. Garnier). The great synod of Antioch which deposed Paul of Samosata sent a circular letter to Pope Dionysius and Bishop Maximus of Alexandria concerning its proceedings (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VII, xxx). After death the body of Dionysius was buried in the papal crypt in the catacomb of Callistus. J.P. KIRCH Dionysius St. Dionysius Bishop of Corinth about 170. The date is fixed by the fact that he wrote to Pope Soter (c. 168 to 176; Harnack gives 165-67 to 173-5). Eusebius in his Chronicle placed his "floruit" in the eleventh year of Marcus Aurelius (171). When Hegesippus was at Corinth in the time of Pope Anicetus, Primus was bishop (about 150-5), while Bacchyllus was Bishop of Corinth at the time of the Paschal controversy (about 190-8). Dionysius is only known to use through Eusebius, for St. Jerome (De viris ill., xxvii) has used no other authority. Eusebius knew a collection of seven of the "Catholic Letters to the Churches" of Dionysius, together with a letter to him from Pinytus, Bishop of Cnossus, and a private letter of spiritual advice to a lady named Chrysophora, who had written to him. Eusebius first mentions a letter to the Lacedaemonians, teaching orthodoxy, and enjoining peace and union. A second was to the Athenians, stirring up their faith exhorting them to live according to the Gospel, since they were not far from apostasy. Dionysius spoke of the recent martyrdom of their bishop, Publius (in the persecution of Marcus Aurelius), and says that Dionysius the Areopagite was the first Bishop of Athens. To the Nicomedians he wrote against Marcionism. Writing to Gortyna and the other dioceses of Crete, he praised the bishop, Philip, for his aversion to heresy. To the Church of Amastris in Pontus he wrote at the instance of Bacchylides and Elpistus (otherwise unknown), mentioning the bishop's name as Palmas; he spoke in this letter of marriage and continence, and recommended the charitable treatment of those who had fallen away into sin or heresy. Writing to the Cnossians, he recommended their bishop, Pinytus, not to lay the yoke of continence too heavily on the brethren, but to consider the weakness of most. Pinytus replied, after polite words, that he hoped Dionysius would send strong meat next time, that his people might not grow up on the milk of babes. This severe prelate is mentioned by Eusebius (IV, xxi) as an ecclesiastical writer, and the historian praises the tone of his letter. But the most important letter is that to the Romans, the only one from which extracts have been preserved. Pope Soter had sent alms and a letter to the Corinthians: For this has been your custom from the beginning, to do good to all the brethren in many ways, and to send alms to many Churches in different cities, now relieving the poverty of those who asked aid, now assisting the brethren in the mines by the alms you send, Romans keeping up the traditional custom of Romans, which your blessed bishop, Soter, has not only maintained, but has even increased, by affording to the brethren the abundance which he has supplied, and by comforting with blessed words the brethren who came to him, as a father his children. Again: You also by this instruction have mingled together the Romans and Corinthians who are the planting of Peter and Paul. For they both came to our Corinth and planted us, and taught alike; and alike going to Italy and teaching there, were martyred at the same time. Again: Today we have kept the holy Lord's day, on which we have read your letter, which we shall ever possess to read and to be admonished, even as the former one written to us through Clement. The testimony to the generosity of the Roman Church is carried on by the witness of Dionysius of Alexandria in the third century; and Eusebius in the fourth declares that it was still seen in his own day in the great persecution. The witness to the martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul, kata ton auton kairon, is of first-rate importance, and so is the mention of the Epistle of Clement and the public reading of it. The letter of the pope was written "as a father to his children". Dionysius's own letters were evidently much prized, for in the last extract he says that he wrote them by request, and that they have been falsified "by the apostles of the devil". No wonder, he adds, that the Scriptures are falsified by such persons. JOHN CHAPMAN Dionysius Exiguus Dionysius Exiguus The surname Exiguus, or "The Little", adopted probably in self-deprecation and not because he was small of stature; flourished in the earlier part of the sixth century, dying before the year 544. According to his friend and fellow-student, Cassiodorus (De divinis Lectionibus, c. xxiii), though by birth a Scythian, he was in character a true Roman and thorough Catholic, most learned in both tongues–i.e., Greek and Latin–and an accomplished Scripturist. Much of his life was spent in Rome, where he governed a monastery as abbot. His industry was very great and he did good service in translating standard works from Greek into Latin, principally the "Life of St. Pachomius", the "Instruction of St. Proclus of Constantinople" for the Armenians, the "De opificio hominis" of St. Gregory of Nyssa, the history of the discovery of the head of St. John the Baptist. The translation of St. Cyril of Alexandria's synodical letter against Nestorius, and some other works long attributed to Dionysius are now acknowledged to be earlier and are assigned to Marius Mercator. Of great importance were the contributions of Dionysius to the science of canon law, the first beginnings of which in Western Christendom were due to him. His "Collectio Dionysiana" embraces (1) a collection of synodal decrees, of which he has left two editions:–(a) "Codex canonum Ecclesiæ Universæ". This contains canons of Oriental synods and councils only in Greek and Latin, including those of the four œcumenical councils from Nicæa (325) to Chalcedon (451).–(b) "Codex canonum ecclesiasticarum". This is in Latin only; its contents agree generally with the other, but the Council of Ephesus (431) is omitted, while the so-called "Canons of the Apostles" and those of Sardica are included, as well as 138 canons of the African Council of Carthage (419).–(c) Of another bilingual version of Greek canons, undertaken at the instance of Pope Hormisdas, only the preface has been preserved. (2) A collection of papal Constitutions (Collectio decretorum Pontificum Romanorum) from Siricius to Anastasius II (384-498). In chronology Dionysius has left his mark conspicuously, for it was he who introduced the use of the Christian Era (see Chronology ) according to which dates are reckoned from the Incarnation, which he assigned to 25 March, in the year 754 from the foundation of Rome (a.d.). By this method of computation he intended to supersede the "Era of Diocletian" previously employed, being unwilling, as he tells us, that the name of an impious persecutor should be thus kept in memory. The Era of the Incarnation, often called the Dionysian Era, was soon much used in Italy and, to some extent, a little later in Spain; during the eighth and ninth centuries it was adopted in England. Charlemagne is said to have been the first Christian ruler to employ it officially. It was not until the tenth century that it was employed in the papal chancery (Lersch, Chronologie, Freiburg, 1899, p. 233). Dionysius also gave attention to the calculation of Easter, which so greatly occupied the early Church. To this end he advocated the adoption of the Alexandrian Cycle of nineteen years, extending that of St. Cyril for a period of ninety-five years in advance. It was in this work that he adopted the Era of the Incarnation. Dionysius, works in P.L., LXVII, and the testimony of Cassiodorus, ibid, LXX. See also Maasen, Quellen der Lit. des can. Rechts im Abendlande (Graz, 1870); Bardenhewer, Gesch. der altkirch. Lit. (Freiburg im Br., 1902). John Gerard. Dionysius of Alexandria Dionysius of Alexandria (Bishop from 247-8 to 264-5.) Called "the Great" by Eusebius, St. Basil, and others, was undoubtedly, after St. Cyprian, the most eminent bishop of the third century. Like St. Cyprian he was less a great theologian than a great administrator. Like St. Cyprian his writings usually took the form of letters. Both saints were converts from paganism; both were engaged in the controversies as to the restoration of those who had lapsed in the Decian persecution, about Novatian, and with regard to the iteration of heretical baptism; both corresponded with the popes of their day. Yet it is curious that neither mentions the name of the other. A single letter of Dionysius has been preserved in Greek canon law. For the rest we are dependent on the many citations by Eusebius, and, for one phase, to the works of his great successor St. Athanasius. Dionysius was an old man when he died, so that his birth will fall about 190, or earlier. He is said to have been of distinguished parentage. He became a Christian when still young. At a later period, when he was warned by a priest of the danger he ran in studying the books of heretics, a vision–so he informs us–assured him that he was capable of proving all things, and that this faculty had in fact been the cause of his conversion. He studied under Origen. The latter was banished by Demetrius about 231, and Heraclas took his place at the head of the catechetical school. On the death of Demetrius very soon afterwards, Heraclas became bishop, and Dionysius took the headship of the famous school. It is thought that he retained this office even when he himself had succeeded Heraclas as bishop. In the last year of Philip, 249, although the emperor himself was reported to be a Christian, a riot at Alexandria, roused by a popular prophet and poet, had all the effect of a severe persecution. It is described by Dionysius in a letter to Fabius of Antioch. The mob first seized an old man named Metras, beat him with clubs when he would not deny his faith, pierced his eyes and face with reeds, dragged him out of the city, and stoned him. Then a woman named Quinta, who would not sacrifice, was drawn along the rough pavement by the feet, dashed against millstones, scourged, and finally stoned in the same suburb. The houses of the faithful were plundered. Not one, so far as the bishop knew, apostatized. The aged virgin, Apollonia, after her teeth had been knocked out, sprang of her own accord into the fire prepared for her rather than utter blasphemies. Serapion had all his limbs broken, and was dashed down from the upper story of his own house. It was impossible for any Christian to go into the streets, even at night, for the mob was shouting that all who would not blaspheme should be burnt. The riot was stopped by the civil war, but the new Emperor Decius instituted a legal persecution in January, 250. St. Cyprian describes how at Carthage the Christians rushed to sacrifice, or at least to obtain false certificates of having done so. Similarly Dionysius tells us that at Alexandria many conformed through fear, others on account of official position, or persuaded by friends; some pale and trembling at their act, others boldly asserting that they had never been Christians. Some endured imprisonment for a time; others abjured only at the sight of tortures; others held out until the tortures conquered their resolution. But there were noble instances of constancy. Julian and Kronion were scourged through the city on camels, and then burnt to death. A soldier, Besas, who protected them from the insults of the people, was beheaded. Macar, a Libyan, was burnt alive. Epimachus and Alexander, after long imprisonment and many tortures, were also burnt, with four women. The virgin Ammomarion also was long tortured. The aged Mercuria and Dionysia, a mother of many children, suffered by the sword. Heron, Ater, and Isidore, Egyptians, after many tortures were given to the flames. A boy of fifteen, Dioscorus, who stood firm under torture, was dismissed by the judge for very shame. Nemesion was tortured and scourged, and then burnt between two robbers. A number of soldiers, and with them an old man named Ingenuus, made indignant signs to one who was on his trial and about to apostatize. When called to order they cried out that they were Christians with such boldness that the governor and his assessors were taken aback; they suffered a glorious martyrdom. Numbers were martyred in the cities and villages. A steward named Ischyrion was pierced through the stomach by his master with a large stake because he refused to sacrifice. Many fled, wandered in the deserts and the mountains, and were cut off by hunger, thirst, cold, sickness, robbers, or wild beasts. A bishop named Chæremon escaped with his súmbios (wife?) to the Arabian mountain, and was no more heard of. Many were carried off as slaves by the Saracens and some of these were later ransomed for large sums. Some of the lapsed had been readmitted to Christian fellowship by the martyrs. Dionysius urged upon Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, who was inclined to join Novatian, that it was right to respect this judgment delivered by blessed martyrs "now seated with Christ, and sharers in His Kingdom and assessors in His judgment". He adds the story of an old man, Serapion, who after a long and blameless life had sacrificed, and could obtain absolution from no one. On his death-bed he sent his grandson to fetch a priest. The priest was ill, but he gave a particle of the Eucharist to the child, telling him to moisten it and place it in the old man's mouth. Serapion received it with joy, and immediately expired. Sabinus, the prefect, sent a frumentarius (detective) to search for Dionysius directly the decree was published; he looked everywhere but in Dionysius's own house, where the saint had quietly remained. On the fourth day he was inspired to depart, and he left at night, with his domestics and certain brethren. But it seems that he was soon made prisoner, for soldiers escorted the whole party to Taposiris in the Mareotis. A certain Timotheus, who had not been taken with the others, informed a passing countryman, who carried the news to a wedding-feast he was attending. All instantly rose up and rushed to release the bishop. The soldiers took to flight, leaving their prisoners on their uncushioned litters. Dionysius, believing his rescuers to be robbers, held out his clothes to them, retaining only his tunic. They urged him to rise and fly. He begged them to leave him, declaring that they might as well cut off his head at once, as the soldiers would shortly do so. He let himself down on the ground on his back; but they seized him by the hands and feet and dragged him away, carrying him out of the little town, and setting him on an ass without a saddle. With two companions, Gaius and Peter, he ramained in a desert place in Libya until the persecution ceased in 251. The whole Christian world was then thrown into confusion by the news that Novatian claimed the Bishopric of Rome in opposition to Pope Cornelius. Dionysius at once took the side of the latter, and it was largely by his influence that the whole East, after much disturbance, was brought in a few months into unity and harmony. Novatian wrote to him for support. His curt reply has been preserved entire: Novatian can easily prove the truth of his protestation that he was consecrated against his will by voluntarily retiring; he ought to have suffered martyrdom rather than divide the Church of God; indeed it would have been a particularly glorious martyrdom on behalf of the whole Church (such is the importance attached by Dionysius to a schism at Rome); if he can even now persuade his party to make peace, the past will be forgotten; if not, let him save his own soul. St. Dionysius also wrote many letters on this question to Rome and to the East; some of these were treatises on penance. He took a somewhat milder view than Cyprian, for he gave greater weight to the "indulgences" granted by the martyrs, and refused forgiveness in the hour of death to none. After the persecution the pestilence. Dionysius describes it more graphically than does St. Cyprian, and he reminds us of Thucydides and Defoe. The heathen thrust away their sick, fled from their own relatives, threw bodies half dead into the streets; yet they suffered more than the Christians, whose heroic acts of mercy are recounted by their bishop. Many priests, deacons, and persons of merit died from succouring others, and this death, writes Dionysius, was in no way inferior to martyrdom. The baptismal controversy spread from Africa throughout the East. Dionysius was far from teaching, like Cyprian, that baptism by a heretic rather befouls than cleanses; but he was impressed by the opinion of many bishops and some councils that repetition of such a baptism was necessary, and it appears that he besought Pope Stephen not to break off communion with the Churches of Asia on this account. He also wrote on the subject to Dionysius of Rome, who was not yet pope, and to a Roman named Philemon, both of whom had written to him. We know seven letters from him on the subject, two being addressed to Pope Sixtus II. In one of these he asks advice in the case of a man who had received baptism a long time before from heretics, and now declared that it had been improperly performed. Dionysius had refused to renew the sacrament after the man had so many years received the Holy Eucharist; he asks the pope's opinion. In this case it is clear that the difficulty was in the nature of the ceremonies used, not in the mere fact of their having been performed by heretics. We gather than Dionysius himeself followed the Roman custom, either by the tradition of his Church, or else out of obedience to the decree of Stephen. In 253 Origen died; he had not been at Alexandria for many years. But Dionysius had not forgotten his old master, and wrote a letter in his praise to Theotecnus of Cæsarea. An Egyptian bishop, Nepos, taught the Chiliastic error that there would be a reign of Christ upon earth for a thousand years, a period of corporal delights; he founded this doctrine upon the Apocalypse in a book entitled "Refutation of the Allegorizers". It was only after the death of Nepos that Dionysius found himself obliged to write two books "On the Promises" to counteract this error. He treats Nepos with great respect, but rejects his doctrine, as indeed the Church has since done, though it was taught by Papias, Justin, Irenæus, Victorinus of Pettau, and others. The diocese proper to Alexandria was still very large (though Heraclas is said to have instituted new bishoprics), and the Arsinoite nome formed a part of it. Here the error was very prevalent, and St. Dionysius went in person to the villages, called together the priests and teachers, and for three days instructed them, refuting the arguments they drew from the book of Nepos. He was much edified by the docile spirit and love of truth which he found. At length Korakion, who had introduced the book and the doctrine, declared himself convinced. The chief interest of the incident is not in the picture it gives of ancient Church life and of the wisdom and gentleness of the bishop, but in the remarkable disquisition, which Dionysius appends, on the authenticity of the Apocalypse. It is a very striking piece of "higher criticism", and for clearness and moderation, keenness and insight, is hardly to be surpassed. Some of the brethren, he tells us, in their zeal against Chiliastic error, repudiated the Apocalypse altogether, and took it chapter by chapter to ridicule it, attributing the authorship of it to Cerinthus (as we know the Roman Gaius did some years earlier). Dionysius treats it with reverence, and declares it to be full of hidden mysteries, and doubtless really by a man called John. (In a passage now lost, he showed that the book must be understood allegorically.) But he found it hard to believe that the writer could be the son of Zebedee, the author of the Gospel and of the Catholic Epistle, on account of the great contrast of character, style and "what is called working out". He shows that the one writer calls himself John, whereas the other only refers to himself by some periphrasis. He adds the famous remark, that "it is said that there are two tombs in Ephesus, both of which are called that of John". He demonstrates the close likeness between the Gospel and the Epistle, and points out the wholly different vocabulary of the Apocalypse; the latter is full of solecisms and barbarisms, while the former are in good Greek. This acute criticism was unfortunate, in that it was largely the cause of the frequent rejection of the Apocalypse in the Greek-speaking Churches, even as late as the Middle Ages. Dionysius's arguments appeared unanswerable to the liberal critics of the nineteenth century. Lately the swing of the pendulum has brought many, guided by Bousset, Harnack, and others, to be impressed rather by the undeniable points of contact between the Gospel and the Apocalypse, than by the differences of style (which can be explained by a different scribe and interpreter, since the author of both books was certainly a Jew), so that even Loisy admits that the opinion of the numerous and learned conservative scholars "no longer appears impossible". But it should be noted that the modern critics have added nothing to the judicious remarks of the third-century patriarch. The Emperor Valerian, whose accession was in 253, did not persecute until 257. In that year St. Cyprian was banished to Curubis, and St. Dionysius to Kephro in the Mareotis, after being tried together with one priest and two deacons before Æmilianus, the prefect of Egypt. He himself relates the firm answers he made to the prefect, writing to defend himself against a certain Germanus, who had accused him of a disgraceful flight. Cyprian suffered in 258, but Dionysius was spared, and returned to Alexandria directly toleration was decreed by Gallienus in 260. But not to peace, for in 261-2 the city was in a state of tumult little less dangerous than a persecution. The great thoroughfare which traversed the town was impassable. The bishop had to communicate with his flock by letter, as though they were in different countries. It was easier, he writes, to pass from East to West, than from Alexandria to Alexandria. Famine and pestilence raged anew. The inhabitants of what was still the second city of the world had decreased so that the males between fourteen and eighty were now scarcely so numerous as those between forty and seventy had been not many years before. A controversy arose in the latter years of Dionysius of which the half-Arian Eusebius has been careful to make no mention. All we know is from St. Athanasius. Some bishops of the Pentapolis of Upper Libya fell into Sabellianism and denied the distinctness of the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. Dionysius wrote some four letters to condemn their error, and sent copies to Pope Sixtus II (257-8). But he himself fell, so far as words go, into the opposite error, for he said the Son is a poíema (something made) and distinct in substance, xénos kat’ oùsian, from the Father, even as is the husbandman from the vine, or a shipbuilder from a ship. These words were seized upon by the Arians of the fourth century as plain Arianism. But Athanasius defended Dionysius by telaling the sequel of the history. Certain brethren of Alexandria, being offended at the words of their bishop, betook themselves to Rome to Pope St. Dionysius (259- 268), who wrote a letter, in which he declared that to teach that the Son was made or was a creature was an impiety equal, though contrary, to that of Sabellius. He also wrote to his namesake of Alexandria informing him of the accusation brought against him. The latter immediately composed books entitled "Refutation" and "Apology"; in these he explicitly declared that there never was a time when God was not Father, that Christ always was, being Word and Wisdom and Power, and coeternal, even as brightness is not posterior to the light from which it proceeds. He teaches the "Trinity in Unity and the Unity in Trinity"; he clearly implies the equality and eternal procession of the Holy Ghost. In these last points he is more explicit than St. Athanasius himself is elsewhere, while in the use of the word consubstantial, ‘omooúsios, he anticipates Nicæa, for he bitterly complains of the calumny that he had rejected the expression. But however he himself and his advocate Athanasius may attempt to explain away his earlier expressions, it is clear that he had been incorrect in thought as well as in words, and that he did not at first grasp the true doctrine with the necessary distinctness. The letter of the pope was evidently explicit and must have been the cause of the Alexandrian's clearer vision. The pope, as Athanasius points out, gave a formal condemnation of Arianism long before that heresy emerged. When we consider the vagueness and incorrectness in the fourth century of even the supporters of orthodoxy in the East, the decision of the Apostolic See will seem a marvellous testimony to the doctrine of the Fathers as to the unfailing faith of Rome. We find Dionysius issuing yearly, like the later bishops of Alexandria, festal letters announcing the date of Easter and dealing with various matters. When the heresy of Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, began to trouble the East, Dionysius wrote to the Church of Antioch on the subject, as he was obliged to decline the invitation to attend a synod there, on the score of his age and infirmities. He died soon afterwards. St. Dionysius is in the Roman Martyrology on 17 Nov., but he is also intended, with the companions of his flight in the Decian persecution, by the mistaken notice on 3 Oct.: Dionysius, Faustus, Gaius, Peter, and Paul, Martyrs(!). The same error is found in Greek menologies. The principal remains of Dionysius are the citations in Eusebius, H. E., VI-VII, a few fragments of the books On Natrure in Idem, Præp. Evang., xiv, and;the quotations in Athanasius, De Sententiâ Dionysii, etc. A collection of these and other fragments is in Gallandi, Bibl. Vett. Patrum, III XIV, reprinted in P.G., X. The fullest ed. is by Simon de Magistris, S. Dion. Al. Opp. omnia (Rome, 1796); also Routh, Reliquiæ Sacræ III-IV. Syriac and Armenian fragments in Pitra, Analecta Sacra, IV. A complete list of all the fragments is in Harnack, Gesch. der altchr. Litt., I, 409-27, but his account of the passages from the Catena on Luke (probably from a letter to Origen, On Martyrdom) needs completing from Sickenberger, Die Lucaskatene des Niketas von Heracleia (Leipzig, 1902). For the life of Dionysius see Tillemont, IV; Acta SS., 3 Oct.; Dittrich, Dionysius der Grosse, eine Monographie (Freiburg im Br., 1867); Morize, Denys d'Alexandrie (Paris, 1881). Dom Morin tried unsuccessfully to identify the Canons of Hippolytus with Dionysius" ’Epistóle diokonikè dià ‘Ippolútou (Euseb., H. E., VI, 45-6) in Revue Bénédictine (1900), XVII, 241. Also Mercati, Note di letteratura bibl. et crist. ant.: Due supposte lettere di Dionigi Aless. (Rome, 1901). For chronology see Hanack, Chronol., I, 202, II, 57. A very good account, with full bibliography, is in Bardenhewer, Gesch. der altkirchl. Litt., II. On the Chiliastic question see Gry, Le Millénarisme (Paris, 1904), 101. John Chapman Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite By "Dionysius the Areopagite" is usually understood the judge of the Areopagus who, as related in Acts, xvii, 34, was converted to Christianity by the preaching of St. Paul, and according to Dionysius of Corinth (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., III, iv) was Bishop of Athens. In the course of time, however, two errors of far-reaching import arose in connection with this name. In the first place, a series of famous writings of a rather peculiar nature was ascribed to the Areopagite and, secondly, he was popularly identified with the holy martyr of Gaul, Dionysius, the first Bishop of Paris. It is not our purpose to take up directly the latter point; we shall concern ourselves here (1) with the person of the Peudo-Areopagite; (2) with the classification, contents, and characteristics of his writing; (3) with their history and transmission; under this head the question as to the genuineness of, origin, first acceptance, and gradual spread of these writings will be answered. Deep obscurity still hovers about the person of the Pseudo-Areopagite. External evidence as to the time and place of his birth, his education, and latter occupation is entirely wanting. Our only source of information regarding this problematic personage is the writings themselves. The clues furnished by the first appearance and by the character of the writings enable us to conclude that the author belongs at the very earliest to the latter half of the fifth century, and that, in all probability, he was a native of Syria. His thoughts, phrases, and expressions show a great familiarity with the works of the neo-Platonists, especially with Plotinus and Proclus. He is also thoroughly versed in the sacred books of the Old and New Testament, and in the works of the Fathers as far as Cyril of Alexandria. (Passages from the Areopagitic writings are indicated by title and chapter. in this article D.D.N. stands for "De divinus nominibus"; C.H. for "Caelestis hierarchia"; E.H. for "Ecclesiastica hierarchia"; Th.M. for "Theologia mystica", which are all found in Migne, P.G., vol. III) In a letter to Polycarp (Ep. vii; P.G., III, 1080 A) and in "Cael. hier." (ix, 3; P.G. III, 260 D) he intimates that he was formerly a pagan, and this seems quite probable, considering the peculiar character of his literary work. But one should be more cautious in regard to certain other personal references, for instance, that he was chosen teacher of the "newly-baptized" (D.D.N., iii, 2; P.G., III, 681 B); that his spiritual father and guide was a wise and saintly man, Hierotheus by name; that he was advised by the latter and ordered by his own superiors to compose these works (ibid., 681 sq.). And it is plainly for the purpose of deceiving that he tells of having observed the solar eclipse at Christ's Crucifixion (Ep., vii, 2; P.G., III, 1081 A) and of having, with Hierotheus, the Apostles (Peter and James), and other hierarchs, looked upon "the Life-Begetting, God-Receiving body, i.e., of the Blessed Virgin" (D.D.N., iii, 2; P.G., III, 681 C). The former of these accounts is based on Matt., xxvii, 45, and Mark, xv,33; the latter refers to the apocryphal descriptions of the "Dormitio Mariae". For the same purpose, i.e., to create the impression that the author belonged to the times of the Apostles and that he was identical with the Areopagite mentioned in the Acts, different persons, such as John the Evangelist, Paul, Timothy, Titus, Justus, and Carpus, with whom he is supposed to be on intimate terms, figure in his writings. The doctrinal attitude of the Pseudo-Areopagite is not clearly defined. A certain vagueness, which was perhaps intended, is characteristic of his Christology, especially in the question concerning the two natures in Christ. We may well surmise that he was not a stranger to the latter, and rather modified, form of Monophysitism and that he belonged to that conciliatory group which sought, on the basis of the Henoticon issued in 482 by Emperor Zeno (Evagrius, Hist. Eccl., III, iv), to reconcile the extremes of orthodoxy and heresy. This reserved, indefinite attitude of the author explains the remarkable fact that opposite factions claimed him as an adherent. As to his social rank, a careful comparison of certain details scattered through his works shows that he belonged to the class of scholars who were known at the time as scholastikoi. The writings themselves form a collection of four treatises and ten letters. The first treatise, which is also the most important in scope and content, presents in thirteen chapters an explanation of the Divine names. Setting out from the principle that the names of God are to be learned from Scripture only, and that they afford us but an imperfect knowledge of God, Dionysius discusses, among other topics, God's goodness, being, life, wisdom, power, and justice. The one underlying thought of the work, recurring again and again under different forms and phrases, is: God, the One Being (to hen), transcending all quality and predication, all affirmation and negation, and all intellectual conception, by the very force of His love and goodness gives to beings outside Himself their countless gradations, unites them in the closest bonds (proodos), keeps each by His care and direction in its appointed sphere, and draws them again in an ascending order to Himself (epistrophe). While he illustrates the inner life of the Trinity by metaphors of blossom and light applied to the Second and Third Persons (D.D.N., ii, 7 in P.G., III, 645 B), Dionysius represents the procession of all created things from God by the exuberance of being in the Godhead (to hyperpleres), its outpouring and overflowing (D.D.N., ix, 9, in P.G., III, 909 C; cf. ii, 10 in P.G., III, 648 C; xiii, 1 in P.G., III, 977 B), and as a flshing forth from the sun of the Deity (D.D.N., iv, 6 in P.G., III,701 A; iv, 1 in P.G., III, 693 B). Exactly according to their physical nature created things absorb more or less of the radiated light, which, however, grows weaker the farther it descends (D.D.N., xi, 2 in P.G., III, 952 A; i, 2 in P.G., III., 588 C). As the mighty root sends forth a multitude of plants which it sustains and controls, so created things owe their origin and conservation to the All-Ruling Deity (D.D.N., x, 1 in P.G., III, 936 D). Patterned upon the original of Divine love, righteousness, and peace, is the harmony that pervades the universe (D.D.N., chapters iv, viii, xi). All things tend to God, and in Him are merged and completed, just as the circle returns into itself (D.D.N., iv, 14 in P.G., III, 712 D), as the radii are joined in the centre, or as the numbers are contained in unity (D.D.N., v, 6 in P.G., III., 820 sq.). These and many similar expressions have given rise to frequent charges of Pantheism against the author. He does not, however, a assert a necessary emanation of things from God, but admits a free creative act on the part of God (D.D.N., iv, 10, in P.G., III, 708 B; cf. C.H., iv, 1 in P.G., III, 177 C); still the echo of neo-Platonism is unmistakable. The same thoughts, or their applications to certain orders of being, recur in his other writings. The second treatise develops in fifteen chapters the doctrine of the celestial hierarchy, comprising nine angelic choirs which are divided into closer groupings of three choirs each (triads). The names of the nine choirs are taken from the canonical books and are arranged in the following order. First triad: seraphim, cherubim, thrones; second triad: virtues, dominations, powers; third triad: principalities, archangels, angels (C.H., vi, 2 in P.G., III, 200 D). The grouping of the second triad exhibits some variations. From the etymology of each choir-name the author labours to evolve a wealth of description, and, as a result, lapses frequently into tautology. Quite characteristic is the dominant idea that the different choirs of angels are less intense in their love and knowledge of God the farther they are removed from him, just as a ray of light or of heat grows weaker the farther it travels from its source. To this must be added another fundamental idea peculiar to the Pseudo-Areopagite, namely, that the highest choirs transmit the light received from the Divine Source only to the intermediate choirs, and these in turn transmit it to the lowest. The third treatise is but a continuation of the other two, inasmuch as it is based upon the same leading ideas. It deals with the nature and grades of the "ecclesiastical hierarchy" in seven chapters, each of which is subdivided into three parts (prologos, mysterion, theoria). After an introduction which discusses God's purpose in establishing the hierarchy of the Church, and which pictures Christ as its Head, holy and supreme, Dionysius treats of three sacraments (baptism, the Eucharist, extreme unction), of the three grades of the Teaching Church (bishops, priests, deacons), of three grades of the "Learning Church" (monks, people, and the class composed of catechumens, energumens, and penitents), and, lastly, of the burial of the dead [C.H., iii, (3), 6 in P.G., III, 432 sq.; vi, in P.G., III, 529 sq.] The main purpose of the author is to disclose and turn to the uses of contemplation the deeper mystical meaning which underlies the sacred rites, ceremonies, institutions, and symbols. The fourth treatise in entitled "Mystical Theology", and presents in five chapters guiding principles concerning the mystical union with God, which is entirely beyond the compass of sensuous or intellectual perception (epopteia). The ten letters, four addressed to a monk, Caius, and one each to a deacon, Dortheus, to a priest, Sopater, to the bishop of Polycarp, to a monk, Demophilus, to the bishop Titus, and to the Apostle John, contain, in part, additional or supplementary remarks on the above-mentioned principal works, and in part, practical hints for dealing with sinners and unbelievers. Since in all of these writings the same salient thoughts on philosophy and theology recur with the same striking peculiarities of expression and with manifold references, in both form and matter, from one work to another, the assumption is justified that they are all to be ascribed to one and the same author. In fact, at its first appearance in the literary world the entire corpus of these writings was combined as it is now. An eleventh letter to Apollophanes, given in Migne, P.G., III, 1119, is a medieval forgery based on the seventh letter. Apocryphal, also, are a letter to Timothy and a second letter to Titus. Dionysius would lead us to infer that he is the author of still other learned treatises, namely: "Theological Outlines" (D.D.N., ii, 3, in P.G., III 640 B); "Sacred Hymns" (C.H., vii, 4 in P.G., III, 212 B); "Symbolic Theology" C.H., xv, 6 in P.G., III,336 A); and treatises on "The Righteous Judgment of God" (D.D.N., iv, 35 in P.G., III, 736 B); on "The Soul" (D.D.N., iv, 2 in P.G., III, 696 C); and on "The objects of Intellect and Sense" (E. H., i, 2 in P.G., III, 373 B). No reliable trace, however, of any of these writings has ever been discovered, and in his references to them Dionysius is as uncontrollable as in his citations from Hierotheus. It may be asked if these are not fictions pure and simple, designed to strengthen the belief in the genuineness of the actually published works. This suspicion seems to be more warranted because of other discrepancies, e.g., when Dionysius, the priest, in his letter to Timothy, extols the latter as a theoeides, entheos, theios ierarches, and nevertheless seeks to instruct him in those sublime secret doctrines that are for bishops only (E.H., i, 5 in P.G., III, 377 A), doctrines, moreover, which, since the cessation of the Disciplina Arcani, had already been made public. Again, Dionysius points out (D.D.N., iii, 2 in P.G., III, 681 B; cf. E.H., iv, 2 in P.G., III, 476 B) that his writings are intended to serve as catechetical instruction for the newly-baptized. This is evidently another contradiction of his above-mentioned statement. We may now turn to the history of the Pseudo-Dionysian writings. This embraces a period of almost fifteen hundred years, and three distinct turning points in its course have divided it into as many distinct periods: first, the period of the gradual rise and settlement of the writings in Christian literature, dating from the latter part of the fifth century to the Lateran Council, 649; second, the period of their highest and universally acknowledged authority, both in the Western and Eastern Church, lasting till the beginning of the fifteenth century; third, the period of sharp conflict waged about their authenticity, begun by Laurentius Valla, and closing only within recent years. The Areopagitica were formerly were supposed to have made their first appearance, or rather to have been first noticed by Christian writers, in a few pseudo-epigraphical works which have now been proved to be the products of a much later period; as, for instance, in the following: Pseudo-Origenes, "Homilia in diversos secunda"; Pseudo-Athanasius, "Quaestiones ad Antiochum ducem", Q. viii; Pseudo-Hippolytus, against the heretic Beron; Pseudo-Chrysostom, "sermo de pseudo-prophetis." Until more recently more credit was given to other lines of evidence on which Franz Hipler endeavoured to support his entirely new thesis, to the effect that the author of the writings lived about the year 375 in Egypt, as Abbot of Rhinokorura. Hipler's attempts, however, at removing the textual difficulties, ekleipsis, adelphotheos, soma, proved to be unsuccessful. In fact, those very passages in which Hipler thought that the Fathers had made use of the Areopagite (e.g., in Gregory of Nazianzus and Jerome) do not tell in favor of this hypothesis; on the contrary, they are much better explained if the converse be assumed, namely, that Pseudo-Dionysius drew from them. Hipler himself, convinced by the results of recent research, has abandoned his opinion. Other events also, both historical and literary, evidently exerted a marked influence on the Areopagite: (1) the Council of Chalcedon (451), the Christological terminology of which was studiously followed by the Dionysius; (2) the writings of the neo-Platonist Proclus (411-485), from whom Dionysius borrowed to a surprising extent; (3) the introduction (c. 476) of the Credo into the liturgy of the Mass, which is alluded to in the "Ecclesiastical Hierarchy" [iii, 2, in P.G., III, 425 C, and iii, (3), 7 in P.G., III, 436 C; cf. the explanation of Maximus in P.G., IV, 144 B]; (4) the Henoticon of the Emperor Zeno (482), a formula of union designed for the bishops, clerics, monks, and faithful of the Orient, as a compromise between Monophystism and orthodoxy. Both in spirit and tendency the Areopagitica correspond fully to the sense of the Henoticon; and one might easily infer that they were made to further the purpose of the Henoticon. The result of the foregoing data is that the first appearance of the pseuodo-epigraphical writings cannot be placed earlier than the latter half, in fact at the close, of the fifth century. Having ascertained a terminus post quem, it is possible by means of evidence taken from Dionysius himself to fix a terminus ante quem, thus narrowing to about thirty years the period within which these writings must have originated. The earliest reliable citations of the writings of Dionysius are from the end of the fifth and the beginning of the sixth century. The first is by Severus, the head of a party of moderate Monophysites named after him, and Patriarch of Antioch (512-518). In a letter addressed to a certain abbot, John (Mai, Script. vett. nov. coll., VII, i, 71), he quotes in proof of his doctrine of the mia synthetos physis in Christ the Dionysian Ep. iv (P.G., III, 1072 C), where a kaine theandrike energeia is mentioned. Again, in the treatise "Adversus anathem. Juliani Halicarn" (Cod. Syr. Vat. 140, fol. 100 b), Severus cites a passage from D.D.N., ii, 9, P.G., III, 648A (abba kai to pases -- thesmo dieplatteto), and returns once more to Ep. iv. In the Syrian "History of the Church" of Zacharias (e. Ahrens-Kruger, 134-5) it is related that Severus, a man well-versed in the writings of Dionysius (Areop.), was present at the Synod in Tyre (513). Andreas, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappodocia, wrote (about 520) a commentary on the Apocalypse wherein he quotes the Areopagite four times and makes use of at least three of his works (Migne, P.G., CVI, 257, 305, 356, 780; cf. Diekamp in "Hist. Jahrb", XVIII, 1897, pp. 1-36). Like Severus, Zacharias Rhetor and, in all probability, also Andreas of Cappodocia,. inclined to Monophysitism (Diekamp, a "Book of Hierotheus"---Hierotheus had come to be regarded as the teacher of Dionysius---existed in the Syrian literature of that time and exerted considerable influence in the spread of Dionysian doctrines. Frothingham (Stephen Bar Sudaili, p. 63 sq.) considers the pantheist Stephen Bar Sudaili as its author. Jobius Monachus, a contemporary of the writers just mentioned, published against Severus a polemical treatise which has since been lost, but claims the Areopagite as authority for the orthodox teaching (P.G., CIII, 765). So also Ephraem, Archbishop of Antioch (527-545), interprets in a right sense the well-known passage from D.D.N., i, 4, P.G., III., 529 A: ho haplous Iesous synetethe, by distinguishing between synthetos hypostasis and synthetos ousia. Between the years 532-548, if not earlier, John of Scythopolis in Palestine wrote an interpretation of Dionysius (Pitra, "Analect. sacr.", IV, Proleg., p. xxiii; cf. Loof's, "Leontius of Byzantium" (p. 270 sq.) from an anti-Severan standpoint. In Leontius of Byzantium (485-543) we have another important witness. This eminent champion of Catholic doctrine in at least four passages of his works builds on the megas Dionysios (P.G., LXXXVI, 1213 A; 1288 C; 1304 D; Canisius-Basnage, "Thesaur. monum. eccles.", Antwerp, 1725, I, 571). Sergius of Resaina in Mesopotamia, archiater and presbyter (d. 536), at an early date translated the works of Dionysius into Syriac. He admitted their genuineness, and for their defence also translated into Syriac the already current "Apologies" (Brit. Mus. cod. add. 1251 and 22370; cf. Zacharias Rhetor in Ahrens-Kruger, p. 208). He himself was a Monophysite. By far the most important document in the case is the report given by Bishop Innocent of Maronia of the religious debate held at Constantinople in 533 between seven orthodox and seven Severian spaekers (Hardouin, II, 1159 sq.). The former had as leader and spokesman, Hypatius, Bishop of Ephesus, who was thoroughly versed in the literature of the subject. On the second day the "Orientals" (Severians) alleged against the Council of Chalcedon, that it had by a novel and erroneous expression decreed two natures in Christ. Besides Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Felix and Julius of Rome, they also quoted Dionysius the Areopagite as an exponent of the doctrine of one nature. Hypatius rejected as spurious all these citations, and showed that Cyril never made the slightest use of them, though on various occasions they would have served his purpose admirably. He suspects that these falsifiers are Apollinarists. When the Severians rejoined that they could point out in the polemical writings of Cyril against Diodorus and Theodore the use made of such evidence, Hypatius persisted in the stand he had taken: "sed nunc videtur quoniam et in illis libris [Cyrilli] haeretici falsantes addiderunt ea". The references to the archives of Alexandria had just as little weight with him, since Alexandria, with its libraries, had long been in the hands of the heretics. How could an interested party of the opposition be introduced as a witness? Hypatius refers again especially to Dionysius and successfully puts down the opposition: "Illa enim testimonia quae vos Dionysii Areopagitae dicitis, unde potestis ostendere vera esse, sicut suspicamini? Si enim eius erant, non potuissent latere beatum Cyrillum. Quis autem de beato Cyrillo dico, quando et beatus Athanasius, si pro certo scisset eius fuisse, ante omnia in Nicaeno concilio de consubstantiali Trinitate eadem testimonia protulisset adversus Arii diversae substantiae blasphemias". Indeed, as to the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son the Areopagite has statements that leave no room for misinterpretation; and had these come from a disciple of the Apostles, they would have been all the more valuable. Hereupon the Severians dropped this objection and turned to another. The fact must, indeed, appear remarkable that these very writings, though rejected outright by such an authority as Hypatius, were within little more than a century looked upon as genuine by Catholics, so that they could be used against the heretics during the Lateran Council in 649 (Hardouin, III, 699 sqq.). How had this reversion been brought about? As the following grouping will show, it was chiefly heterodox writers, Monophysites, Nestorians, and Monothelites, who during several decades appealed to the Areopagite. But among Catholics also there were not a few who assumed the genuineness, and as some of these were persons of consequence, the way was gradually paved for the authorization of his writings in the above-mentioned council. To the group of Monophysites belonged: Themistius, deacon in Alexandria about 537 (Hardoiun, III, 784, 893 sq., 1240 sq.); Colluthus of Alexandria (Hardouin, III, 786, 895, 898); John Piloponus, an Alexandrian grammarian, about 546-549 (W. Reichardt, "Philoponus, de opificio mundi"); Petrus Callinicus, Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, in the latter half of the sixth century, cited Dionysius in his polemic against the Patriarch Damianus of Alexandria (II, xli, and xlvii; cf. Frothingham, op. cit., after Cod. Syr. Vat., 108, f. 282 sqq.). As examples of the Nestorian group may be mentioned Joseph Huzaja, a Syrian monk, teacher about 580 at the school of Nisibis (Assemani, Bibl. orient., vol. III, pt. I, p.103); aloso Ischojeb, catholicos, from 580 or 581 to 594 or 595 (Braun, "Buch der Synhados", p. 229 sq.); and John of Apamea, a monk in one of the cloisters situated on the Orontes, belonging most probably to the sixth century (Cod. Syr. Vat., 93). The heads of the Monothelites, Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople (610-638), Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria (630-643), Pyrrhus, the successor of Sergius in Constantinople(639-641), took as the starting point in their heresy the fourth letter of Dionysius to Caius, wherein they altered the oft-quoted formula, theandrike energeia into mia theandrike energeia. To glance briefly at the Catholic group we find in the "Historia Euthymiaca", written about the middle of the sixth century, a passage taken, according to a citation of John Damascene (P.G., XCVI, 748), from D.D.N., iii, 2, P.G., III, 682 D: paresan de -- epakousas. Another witness, who at the same time leads over to the Latin laiterature, is Liberatus of Carthage (Breviarium causae Nestor. et Euthych., ch. v). Johannes Malalas, of Antioch, who died about 565, narrates, in his "Universal Chronicle", the conversion of the judge of the Areopagus through St. Paul (Acts, xvii, 34), and praises our author as a powerful philosopher and antagonist of the Greeks (P.G., XCVII, 384; cf. Krumbacher, Gesch. d. byz. Lit.", 3rd ed., p. 112 sq.). Another champion was Theodore, presbyter. Though it is difficult to locate him chronologically, he was, according to Le Nourry (P.G., III, 16), an "auctor antiquissimus" who flourished, at all events, before the Lateran Council in 649 and, as we learn from Photius (P.G., CIII, 44 sq.), undertook to defend the genuineness of the Areopagitic writings. The repute, moreover, of these writings was enhanced in a marked degree by the following eminent churchmen: Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria (580-607), knew and quoted, among others, the D.D.N., xiii, 2, verbatim (P.G., CIII, 1061; cf. Der Katholic, 1897, II, p. 95). From Eulogius we naturally pass to Pope Gregory the Great, with whom he enjoyed a close and honourable friendship. Gregory the Great (590-604), in his thirty-fourth homily on Like, xv, 1-10 (P.L.L. XXVI, 1254), distinctly refers to the Areopagite's teaching regarding the Angels: "Fertur vero Dionysius Areopagitica, antiquus videlicet et venerabilis Pater, dicere" etc. (c.f. C.H., vii, ix, xiii). As Gregory admits that he is not versed in Greek (Ewald, Reg., I,28; III, 63; X, 10, 21) he uses fertur not to express his doubt of the genuineness, but to imply that he had to rely on the testimony of others, since at the time no Latin version existed. It is, indeed, most probable that Eulogius directed his attention to the work. About the year 620, Antiochus Monachus, a member of the Sabas monastery near Jerusalem, compiled a collection of moral "sentences" designed for the members of his order (P.G., LXXXIX, 1415 sqq.0. In the "Homilia (capitulum) LII" we discover a number of similar expressions and Biblical examples which are borrowed from the eighth letter of Dionysius "ad Demophilum" (P.G., III, 1085 sq.). In other passages frequent reference is made to the D.D.N. In the following years, two Patriarchs of Jerusalem, both from monasteries, defend Dionysius as a time-honoured witness of the true doctrines. The first is the Patriarch Modestus (631-634), formerly abbot of the Theodosius monastery in the desert of Judah. In a panegyric on the Assumptio Mariae (P.G., LXXXVI, 3277 sq.) he quotes sentences from the D.D.N., i, 4; ii,10; from the "Theologia Mystica", i, 1; and from Ep. ii The second, a still brighter luminary in the Church, is the Patriarch Sophronius (634-638), formerly a monk of the Theodosius monastery near Jerusalem. Immediately after his installation he published an epistula synodica, "perhaps the most important document in the Monothelitic dispute". It gives, among other dogmas, a lengthy exposition of the doctrine of two energies in Christ (Hefele, Conciliengesch., 2nd ed., III, 140 sqq.). Citing from "Eph. iv ad Caium" (theandrike energeia), he refers to our author as a man through whom God speaks and who was won over by the Divine Paul in a Divine manner (P.G., LXXXVII, 3177). Maximus Confessor evidently rests upon Sophronius, whose friendship he had gained while abbot of the monastery of Chrysopolis in Alexandria (633). In accordance with Sophronius he explains the Dionysian term theandrike energeia in an orthodox sense, and praises it as indicating both essences and natures in their distinct properties and yet in closest union (P.G., XCI, 345). Following the example of Sophronius, Maximus also distinguishes in Christ three kinds of actions (theoprepeis, anthropoprepeis and miktai) (P.G., IV, 536). Thus the Monothelites lost their strongest weapon, and the Lateran Council found the saving word (Hefele, op. cit., 2nd ed., III, 129). In other regards also Maximus plauys an important part in the authorization of the Areopagitica. A lover of theologico-mystical speculation, he showed an uncommon reverence for these writings, and by his glosses (P.G., IV), in which he explained dubious passages of Dionysius in an orthodox sense, he contributed greatly towards the recognition of Dionysius in the Middle Ages. Another equally indefatigable of Dyophysitism was Anastasias, a monk from the monastery of Sinai, who in 640 began his chequered career as a wondering preacher. Not only in his "Guide" (hodegos), but also in the "Quaestiones" and in the seventh book of the "Mediations on the Hexaemeron", he unhesitatingly makes use of different passages from Dionysius (P.G. LXXXIX). By this time a point had been reached at which the official seal, so to speak, could be put on the Dionysian writings. The Lateran Council of 649 solemnly rejected the Monothelite heresy (Hardouin, III, 699 sq.). Pope Martin I quotes from D.D.N., ii, 9; iv, 20 and 23; and the "Ep. ad Caium"; speaks of the author as "beatae memoriae Dionysius", "Dionysius egregius, sanctus, beatus, and vigorously objects to the perversion of the text: una instead of nova Dei et viri operatio. The influence which Maximus exerted by his personal appearance at the council and by his above-mentioned explanation of theandrike energeia is easily recognized ("Dionysius duplicem [operationem] duplicis naturae compositivo sermone absus est"---Hardouin, III, 787). Two of the testimonies of the Fathers which were read in the fifth session are taken from Dionysius. Little wonder, then, that thenceforth no doubt was expressed concerning the genuineness of the Areopagitica. Pope Agatho, in a dogmatic epistle directed to the Emperor Constantine (680) cites among other passages from the Fathers also the D.D.N., ii, 6. The Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (680) followed in the footsteps of the Lateran Synod, again defended "Eph. iv ad. Caium" against the falsification of Pyrrhus, and rejected the meaning which the Monothelite Patriarch Macarius assigned to the passage (Hardouin, III, 1099, 1346, 1066). In the second Council of Nicaea (787) we find the "Celestial Hierarchy" of the "deifer Dionysius" cited against the Iconoclasts (Hardouin,IV, 362). This finishes the first and darkest period in the history of the Areopagitica; and it may be summarized as follows. The Dionysian writings appeared in public for the first time in the Monophysite controversies. The Severians made use of them first and were followed by the orthodox. After the religious debate at Constantinople in 533 witnesses for the genuineness of the Areopagitica began to increase among the different heretics. Despite the opposition of Hypatias, Dionysius did not altogether lose his authority even among Catholics, which was due chiefly to Leontius and Ephraem of Antioch. The number of orthodox Christians who defended him grew steadily, comprising high ecclesiastical dignitaries who had come from monasteries. Finally, under the influence of Maximus, the Lateran Council (649) cited him as a competent witness against Monothelism. As to the second period, universal recognition of the Areopagitic writings in the Middle Ages, we need not mention the Greek Church, which is especially proud of him; but neither in the West was a voice raised in challenge down to the first half of the fifteenth century; on the contrary, his works were regarded as exceedingly valuable and even as sacred. It was believed that St. Paul, who had communicated his revelations to his disciple in Athens, spoke through these writings ((Histor.-polit. Blatter, CXXV, 1900, p. 541). As there is no doubt concerning the fact itself, a glance at the main divisions of the tradition may suffice. Rome received the original text of the Areopagitica undoubtedly through Greek monks. The oppressions on the part of Islam during the sixth and seventh centuries compelled many Greek and Oriental monks to abandon their homes and settle in italy. In Rome itself, a monastery for Greek monks was built under Stephen II and Paul I. It was also Paul I (757-767) who in 757 sent the writings of Dionysius together with other books, to Pepin in France. Adrian I (772-795) also mentioned Dionysius as a testis gravissimus in a letter accompanying the Latin translation of the Acts of the Nicaean Council (787) which he sent to Charlemagne. During the first half of the ninth century the facts concerning Dionysius are mainly grouped around the Abbot Hilduin of Saint-Denys at Paris. Through the latter the false idea that the Gallic martyr Dionysius of the third century, whose relics were preserved in the monastery of Saint-Denys, was identical with the Areopagite rose to an undoubted certainty, while the works ascribed to Dionysius gained in repute. Through a legation from Constantinople, Michael II had sent several gifts to the Frankish Emperor Louis the Pious (827), and among them were the writings of the Areopagite, which gave particular joy and honour to Hilduin, the influential arch-chaplain of Louis. Hilduin took care to have them translated into Latin and he himself wrote a life of the saint (P.L., CVI, 13 sq.). About the year 858 Scotis Eriugena, who was versed in Greek, made a new Latin translation of the Areopagite, which became the main source from which the Middle Ages obtained a knowledge of Dionysius and his doctrines. The work was undertaken at the instance of Charles the Bald, at whose court Scotus enjoyed great influence (P.L., CXXII, 1026 sq.; cf. Traube, "Poet. lat. aev. Carol.", II, 520, 859 sq.). Compared with Hilduin's, this second translation marks a decided step in advance. Scotus, with his keen dialectical skill and his soaring speculative mind, found in the Areopagite a kindred spirit. Hence, despite many errors of translation due to the obscurity of the Greek original, he was able to grasp the connections of thought and to penetrate the problems. As he accompanied his translations with explanatory notes and as, in his philosophical and theological writings, particularly in the work "De divisione naturae", (P.L., CXXII), he recurs again and again to Dionysius, it is readily seen how much he did towards securing recognition for the Areopagite. The works of Dionysius, thus introduced into Western literature, were readily accepted by the medieval Scholastics. The great masters of Saint-Victor at Paris, foremost among them the much admired Hugh, based their teaching on the doctrine of Dionysius. Peter Lombard and the great Dominican and Franciscan scholars, Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, adopted his theses and arguments. Master poets, e.g. Dante, and historians, e.g. Otto of Freising, built on his foundations. Scholars as renowned as Robert Grosseteste of Lincoln and Vincent of Beauvais drew upon him freely. Popular religious books, such as the "Legenda aurea" of Giacommo da Varagine and the "Life of Mary" by Brother Philip, gave him a cordial welcome. The great mystics, Eckhadt, Tauler, Suso, and others, entered the mysterious obscurity of Dionysius with holy reverence. In rapid succession there appeared a number of translations: Latin translations by Joannes Sarrazenus (1170), Robert Grosseteste (about 1220), Thomas Vercellensis (1400), Ambrosius Camaldulensis (1436), Marsilius Ficinus (1492); in the sixteenth century those of Faber Stapulensis, Perionius, etc. Among the commentaries that of Hugh of Saint-Victor is notable for its warmth, that of Albertus Magnus for its extent, that of St. Thomas for its accuracy, that of Denys the Carthusian for its pious spirit and its masterly inclusion of all previous commentaries. It was reserved for the period of the Renaissance to break with the time-honoured tradition. True, some of the older Humanists, as Pico della Mirandola, Marsilius Ficinus, and the Englishmen John Colet, were still convinced of the genuineness of the writings; but the keen and daring critic, Laurentius Valla (1407-1457) in his glosses to the New Testament, expressed his doubts quite openly and thereby gave the impulse, at first for the scholarly Erasmus (1504), and later on for the entire scientific world, to take sides either with or against Dionysius. The consequence was the formation of two camps; among the adversaries were not only Protestants (Luther, Scultetus, Dallaeus, etc.) but also prominent Catholic theologians (Beatus Rhenanus, Cajetan, Morinus, Sirmond, Petavius, Lequien, Le Nourry); among the defenders of Dionysius were Baronius, Bellarmine, Lansselius, Corderius, Halloix, Delario, de Rubeis, Lessius, Alexander Netalis, and others. The literary controversy assumed such dimensions and was carried on so vehemently that it can only be compared to the dispute concerning the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals and the pseudo-Constantinian donation. In the nineteenth century the general opinion inclined more and more towards the opposition; the Germans especially, Mohler, Fessler, Dollinger, Hergenrother, Alzog, Funk, and others made no reserve of their decision for the negative. At this juncture the scholarly professor Franz Hipler came forward and attempted to save the honor of Dionysius. He finds in Dionysius not a flasifier, but a prominent theologian of the fourth century who, through no fault of his own, but owing to the misinterpretation of some passages, was confounded with the Areopagite. Many Catholics, and many Protestants as well, voiced their approval. Finally, in 1895 there appeared almost simultaneously two independent researches, by Hugo Koch and by Joseph Stiglmayr, both of whom started from the same point and arrived at the same goal. The conclusion reached was that extracts from the treatise of the neo-Platonist Proclus, "De malorum subsistentia" (handed down in the Latin translation of Morbeka, Cousin ed., Paris, 1864), had been used by Dionysius in the treatise "De div. nom." (c. iv, sections 19-35) A careful analysis brought to light an astonishing agreement of both works in arrangement, sequence of thought, examples, figures, and expressions. It is easy to point out many parallelisms from other and later writings of Proclus, e.g. from his "Institutio theologica", "theologia Platonica", and his commentary on Plato's "Parmenides", "Alcibiades I", and "Timaeus" (these five having been written after 462). Accordingly, the long-standing problem seem to be solved in its most important phase. As a matter of fact, this is the decision pronounced by the most competent judges, such as Bardenhewer, Erhard, Funk, Diekamp, Rauschen, De Smedt, S.J., Duchesne, Battifol,; and the Protestant scholars of early Christian literature, Gelzer, Harnack, Kruger, Bonwetsch. The chronology being thus determined, an explanation was readily found for the various objections hitherto alleged, viz. the silence of the early Fathers, the later dogmatic terminology, a developed monastic, ceremonial, and penitential system, the echo of neo-Platonism, etc. On the other hand it sets at rest many hypotheses which had been advanced concerning the author and his times and various discussions---whether, eg., a certain Apollinaris, or Synesius, or Dionysius Alexandrinus, or a bishop of Ptolemais, or a pagan hierophant was the writer. A critical edition of the text of the Areopagite is urgently needed. The Juntina (1516), that of Basle (1539), of Paris (1562 and 1615), and lastly the principal edition of Antwerp (1634) by Corderius, S.J., which was frequently reprinted (Paris, 1644, 1755, 1854) and was included in the Migne collection (P.G., III and IV with Lat. trans. and additions), are insufficient because they make use of only a few of the numerous Greek manuscripts and take no account of the Syriac, Armenian, and Arabic translations. The following translations have thus far appeared in modern languages: English, by Lupton (London, 1869) and Parker (London, 1894), both of which contain only the "Cael. Hierarchia" and the "Eccles. Hier."; German, by Engelhardt (Sulzbach, 1823) and Storf, "Kirkliche Hierarchie" (Kempten, 1877); French, by Darboy (Paris, 1845) and Dulac (Paris, 1865). For the older literature, cf. CHEVALIER, Bio. bibl. (Paris, 1905). Recent works treating of Dionysius: HIPLER, Dionysius der Areopagite, Untersuchungen (Ratisbon, 1861); IDEM in Kirkchenlex., s.v.; SCHNEIDER, Areopagitica, Verteiligung ihrer Echteit (Ratisbon, 1886); FROTHINGHAM, Stephen Bar Sudaili (Leyden, 1886); STIGLMAYR, Der Neuplatoniker Proklus als Vorlage des sog. Dionysius Areopagita in der Lehre vom Uebel in Hist. Jahrb. der Gorres-Gesellschaft (1895), pp. 253-273 and 721-748: IDEM, Das Aufkommen der pseudo-dionysischen Scriften und ihr Eindringen in die christliche Literatur bis zum Laterankonzil (Feldkirch, Austria, 1895); KOCH, Der pseudepigraphische Charakter der dionysischen Schriften in Theol. Quartalscrift (Tubingen, 1895), pp. 353-420; IDEM, Proklus, als Quelle des Pseudo-Dionysius, Areop. in der Lehrer vom Bosen in Philologus (1895), pp. 438-454; STIGLMAYR, Controversy with DRASEKE, LANGEN, and NIRSCHL in Byzantinische Zeitschrift (1898), pp. 91-110, and (1899), pp. 263-301, and Histor.-polit. Blatter (1900), CXXV, pp. 541-550 and 613-627; IDEM, Die Lehrer von den Sakramenten und der Kirche nach Pseudo-Dionysius in Zeitschrift fur kath. Theol. (Innsbruck, 1898), pp. 246-303; IDEM, Die Eschatologie des Pseudo-Dionysius, ibid. (1899), pp. 1-21; KOCH, Ps.-Dionysius Areop. in seinen Beziehungen zum Neoplatonismus und Mysterienwesen (Mainz, 1900). See also the articles on Dionysius in the Patrologie of BARDENHEWER (Freiburg, 1901), in the Realencyk. fur prot. Theol., and in the Dict. of Christian Biography. JOS. STIGLMAYR Dioscorus Dioscorus Antipope, b. at Alexandria, date unknown; d. 14 October, 530. Originally a deacon of the Church of Alexandria he was adopted into the ranks of the Roman clergy, and by his commanding abilities soon acquired considerable influence in the Church of Rome. Under Pope Symmachus he was sent to Ravenna on an important mission to Theodoric the Goth, and later, under Pope Hormisdas, served with great distinction as papal apocrisiarius, or legate, to the court of Justinian at Constantinople. During the pontificate of Felix IV he became the recognized head of the Byzantine party -- a party in Rome which opposed the growing influence and power of a rival faction, the Gothic, to which the pope inclined. To prevent a possible contest for the papacy, Pope Felix IV, shortly before his death, had taken the unprecedented step of appointed his own successor in the person of the aged Archdeacon Boniface, his trusted friend and adviser. When, however on the death of Felix (Sept. 530) Boniface II succeeded him, the great majority of the Roman priests -- sixty out of sixty-seven -- refused to accept the new pope and elected in his stead the Greek Dioscorus in the basilica of Constantine (the Lateran) and Boniface in the aula (hall) of the Lateran Palace, know as basilica Julii. Fortunately for the Roman Church, the schism which followed was but of short duration, for in less than a month (14 Oct., 530) Dioscorus died and the presbyters who had elected him wisely submitted to Boniface. In December, 530, Boniface convened a synod at Rome and issued a decree anathematizing Dioscorus as an intruder. He at the same time (it is not known by what means) secured the signatures of the sixty presbyters to his late rival's condemnation, and caused the caused the document to be deposited in the archives of the church. The anathema against Diocorus was however, subsequently removed, and the document burned by Pope Agapetus I (535). Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE (Paris, 1886), I, 281 sq.; JAFFE, Regesta Romanorum Pontificum (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1885), I, 111-12 In 1883 Amelli discovered the documents bearing on the election of 530, in the chapter library of Novara, and published them with his comments in Scuola Cattolica (Milan), XXI,fascic. 123; CREAGH in Amer. Eccl. Rev., XXVIII (Jan., 1903), 41-50; Theologische Quartalschrift (1903), 91 sq.; GRISAR, Gesch. Roms und der Papste (Freiburg im Br., 1901), I, 494 sq.; WURM, Papstwahl (Cologne, 1902), 12 sq. THOMAS OESTREICH Dioscurus Dioscurus (Also written Dioscorus; Dioscurus from the analogy of Dioscuri). Bishop of Alexandria; date of birth unknown; d. at Gangra, in Asia Minor, 11 Sept., 454. He had been archdeacon under St. Cyril, whom he succeeded in 444. Soon afterward Theodoret, who had been on good terms with Cyril since 433, wrote him a polite letter, in which he speaks of the report of Dioscurus's virtues and his modesty. In such a letter no contrary report would be mentioned, and we cannot infer much from these vague expressions. The peace establish between John of Antioch and Cyril seems to have continued between their successors until 448, when Domnus, the successor and nephew of John, had to judge the case of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, who was accused of heresy and many crimes by the Cyrillian party. Domnus awcquited Ibas. The Cyrillian monks of Osrhoene were furious and betook themselves to Dioscurus as their natural protector. Dioscurus wrote to Domnus, complaining that he championed the Nestorian Ibas and Theodoret. Domnus and Theodoret both replied defending themselves, and showing their perfect orthodoxy. The accusers of Ibas went to the court at Constantinople, where the feeble Theodorius II was only too ready to mix in ecclesiastical quarrels. From him the Cyrillians obtain a decree against the Nestorians, in particular against Irenaeus, who had befriended the Nestorians at the Council iof Ephesus, where he was in authority as imperial representative; he was now deposed from the Bishopric of Tyre which he had obtained. Tyheodoret was forbidden to leave his Diocese of Cyrrus. In September a new Bishop of Tyre was appointed, and the Patriarch Domnus, feeling that Dioscurus was about to triumph, wrote to Flavian of Constantinople in order to get his support. Alexandria had of old been the first see of the East and was now only surpassed in power by the imperial city. The Egyptian patriarch had vast civil and political influence, as well as an almost autocratic sway over a hundred bishops and a great army of monks, who were heart and soul devoted to the memory of Cyril, and rather fervent than discriminating in their orthodoxy. Constantinople had been granted the next dignity after Rome by the great Council of 381, and the humiliation of Alexandria had embittered the long standing rivalry between the two sees. Antioch had always tended to support Constantinople, and Domnus was now ready to grant precedence to Flavian. Dioscurus, he said, had already complained that he, Domnus, was betraying the rights of Antioch and Alexandria in admitting the canon of 381, which had never been accepted by Alexandria or Rome. But Flavian was not a helpful ally, for he had neglected to obtain the favour of the eunich Chrysaphiuus, who was all powerful at court. An unforseen incident was now to set the world in a blaze. At a council held by Flavian in November of the same year, 448, Eusebius of Dorylaeum accused the Archimandrite Eusebius of teaching of one nature only in Christ. He was treated with all consideration, but his obstinacy made it unavoidable that he should be deposed and excommunicated. Now Eutyches was godfather to Chrysaphius, and "one nature" was precisely the unfortunate expression of St. Cyril, which his followers were already interpreting in a heretical sense. Eutyches at once therefore became the martyr of Cyrillianism; and though he was not a writer nor a theologian, he has given his name to Monophysite heresy, into which the whole Cyrillian party now plunged once for all. The Cyrillians were further incensed by the failure of their second attempt to convict Ibas. They had procured an order from the emperor, 25 Oct., 448, for a fresh trial. The bishops who met for this purpose at Tyre in Feb., 449, were obliged by the violence of the Eastern monks to transfer some of their sittings to Berytus. At the end of the month Ibas was exculpated, though the emperor was known to be against him. Dioscurus and his party replied by an unexpected stroke; in March they induced the emperor to issue an invitation to all the greater bishops to attend with their suffragans a general council to be held at Ephesus in August. It was indeed not unreasonable to desire some permanent settlement of the intermittent war, and the pope, St. Leo I, warmly accepted the emperor's proposition, or rather order. Eutyches had written to him, pretending that he had appealed at the time of his comdemnation, and promising to abide by his judgement. He wrote also to other bishops, and we still possess the reply sent to him by St. Peter Chrysologus, Bishop of Ravenna, where the court of Valentinian III, the Western emperor, had its headquarters. St. Peter tells him to await the decision of the pope, who alone can judge a case concerning the Faith. St. Leo at first had complained that the matter had not at once been referred to him, then, on finding that a full account sent by St. Flavian had been accidentally delayed, wrote a compendious explanation of the whole doctrine involved, and sent it to St. Flavian as a formal and authoritative decision of the question. He reproves Flavian's council for want of severity to an expression of Eutyches, but adds that the archimandrite may be restored if he repent. This letter, the most famous of all Christian antiquity, is known as "St. Leo's Tome". He sent as legates to the council, a bishop named Julius, a priest, Renatus (he died on the way), and the deacon Hilarus, afterwards pope. St. Leo expresses his regret that the shortness of the notice must prevent the presence of any other bishop of the West. It is probable that his difficulty had been anticipated by Dioscurus, who had answered an appeal from Eutyches in a different strain. He regarded him as a downtrdden disciple of the great Cyril, persecuted by the Nestorian Flavian. As his predecessor Peter had appointed a bishop for Constantinople, and as Theophilus had judged St. Chrysostom, so Dioscurus, with the air of a superior, actually declared Etyches absoved and restored. In April Etyches obtained a slight revision of the Acts of the council which had condemned him. In the same month the case of Ibas was again examined, by the emperor's order, this time at Edessa itself, and by a lay inquisitor, Cheraeas, the Governor of Osrhoene. The people received him shouts against Ibas. No defense was heard. On the arrival of Cheraeas's report, the emperor wrote demanding the presence of Ibas's most famous accuser, the monk Bar Tsaouma (Barsumas), and other monks at the approaching council. In all this we see the influence of Dioscurus dominant. In March Theodosius had prohibited Theodoret from coming to the council. On 6 August he shows some fear that his order may be disregarded, in a letter in which he constitutes Dioscurus president of the synod. The council met at Ephesus on 8 Aug., 449. It was to have been ecumenical in authority, but it was dubbed by St. Leo a latrocinium, and "The Robber Council" has been its title ever since. A full history of it would be out of place here (see EPHESUS, ROBBER COUNCIL OF). It is only necessary to say that the assembly was wholly dominated by Dioscurus. Flavian was not allowed to sit as a bishop, but was on lis trial. When Stephen, Bishop of Ephesus, wished to give Communion to Flavian's slergy, he was attacked by soldiers and monks of Eutyches, 300 in number, who cried out that Stephen was the enemy of the emperor, since he received the emperor's enemies. Eutyches was admitted to defend himself, but the other side was only so far heard that the Acts of the council which had condemned him were read in full. The soldiers and monks were brought into the council, and many bishops were forced to sign a blank paper. The papal legate Hilarus uttered the protest Contradictur, and saved himself by flight. Flavian and Eusebius of Dorylaeum appealed to the pope, and their letters, only lately discovered, were probably taken by Hilarus to Rome, which he reached by a devious route. St. Flavian was thrown into prison and died in three days of the blows and ill usage he received. The bishops who were present gave their testimony, when the Acts were publicly read at the Council of Chalcedon, to the violence used at Ephesus. No doubt they exaggerated somewhat, in order to excuse their own base compliance. But there were too many witnesses to allow them to falsify the whole affair; and we have also the witness of letters of Hilarus, of Eusebius, and of Flavian, and the martyrdom of the latter, to confirm the charges against Diosurus. No more was read at Chalcedon of the Acts. But at this point begin the Syriac Acts of The Robber Council, which tells us of the carrying out by Dioscurus of a thoroughgoing but short-sited policy. The papal legates came no more to the council, and Domnus excused himself through illness. A few other bishops withdrew or escaped, leaving 101 out of the original 128, and some nine new-comers raised the total to 110. The deposition of Ibas was voted with cries, such as "Let him be burned in the midst of Antioch". The accused was not present, and no witnesses for the defence were heard. Daniel, Bishop of Haran, nephew of Ibas, was degraded. Irenaeus of Tyre, already deposed, was anathematized. Then it was the turn of the leader of the Antiochene party. Ibas had been accused of immorality and a misuse of ecclesiastical property, as well as of heresy; no such charges could be made against the great Theo doret; his character was unblemished, and his orthodoxy had been admitted by St. Cyril himself. Never the less, his earlier writings, in which he had incautiously and with incorrect expressions attqcked St. Cyril and defended Nestorius, were now raked up against him. None ventured to dissent from the sentence of deposition pronounced by Discurus, which ordered his writings to be burnt. If we may bekieve the Acts, Domnus, from his bed of real or feigned sickness, gave a general assent to all the council had done. But this could not save him from the accusation of favouring Nestorians. He was deposed without a word of defence being heard, and a new patriarch, Maximus, was set up in his place.=20 So ended the council. Dioscurus proceeded to Constantinople, and there made his own secretary, Anatolius, bishop of the city. One foe remained. Dioscurus had avoided reading the pope's letter to the Council of Ephesus, though he promised more than once to do so. He evidently could not then venture to contest the pope's ruling as to the Faith. But now, with his own creatures on the thrones of Antioch and Constantinople, and sure of the support of Chrysaphius, he stopped at Nicea, and with ten bishops launched an excommunication of St. Leo himself. It would be vain to attribute all these acts to the desire of his own self aggrandizment. Political motives could not have led him so far. He must have known that in attacking the pope he could have no help from the bishops of the West or from the Western emperor. It is clear that he was genuinely infatuated with his heresy, and was fighting in its interest with all his might. The pope, on hearing the report of Hilarus, immediately annulled the Acts of the council, absolved all those whom it had excommunicated, and excommunicated the hundred bishops who had taken part in it. He wrote to Theodosius II insisting on the necessity of a council to be held in Italy, under his own direction. The emperor, with the obstinacy of a weak man, supported the council, and paid no attention to the intervention of his sister, St. Pulcheria, nor to that of his colleague, Valentinian III, who, with his mother Galla Placidia, and his wife, the daughter of Theodosius, wrote to him at St. Leo's suggestion. The reasons given to the pope for his conduct are unknown, for his letters to Leo are lost. In June or July, 450, he died of a fall from his horse, and was succeeded by his sister Pulcheria, who took for her colleague and nominal husband the excellent general Marcian. St. Leo, now sure of the support of the rulers of the East, declared a council unnecessary; many bishops had already signed his Tome, and the remainder would do so without difficulty. But the new emperor had already taken steps to carry out the pope's wish, by a council not indeed in Italy, which was outside his jurisdiction, but in the immediate neighborhood of Constantinople, where he himself could watch its proceedings and insure its orthodoxy. St. Leo therefore agreed and sent legates who this time were to preside. The council, in the intention of both pope and emperor, was to accept and enforce the definition given long since from Rome. Anatolius was ready enough to please the emperor by signing the Tome; and at Pulcheria's intercessiiion he was accepted as bishop by St. Leo. The latter permitted the restoration to communion of those bishops who repented after their conduct at the Robber Council, with the exception of Dioscurus and of the leaders of that synod, whose case he first reserved to the Apostolic See, and then commited to the council. The synod met at Chalcedon, and its six hundred bishops made it the largest of ancient councils (see Chalcedon, Ecumenical Council of). The papal legates presided, supported by lay commissioners supported by the emperor, who were in practice the real presidents, since the legates did not speak Greek. The first point raised was the position of Dioscurus. He had taken his seat, but the legates objected that he was on trial. The commissioners asked for the charge against him to be formulated, and it was replied that he had held a council without the permission of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never been permitted. This statement was difficult to explain, before the discovery of the Syriac Acts; but we now know that Dioscurus had continued his would be general council for many sessions after the papal legates had taken their departure. The commissioners ordered him to sit in the midst as accused. (A sentence in this passage of the Acts is wrongly translated in the old Latin version; this was carelessly followed by Hefele, who thus led Bright into the error of supposing that the commissioners addressed to the legates a rebuke they meant in reality for Dioscurus). The Alexandrian patriarch was now as much deserted by his own party as his victims had been deserted at Ephesus by their natural defenders. Some sixty bishops, Egyptian, Palestinian, and Illyrian, were on his side, but were afraid to say a word in his defence, though they raised a great commotion at the introduction into the assembly of Theodoret, who had been especially excluded from the Council of Ephesus. The Acts of the first session of the Robber Council were read, continually interrupted by the disclaimers of the bishops. The leaders of that council, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea, Maximus of Antioch, now declared that Flavian was orthodox; Anatolius had long since gone over to the winning side. Dioscurus alone stood his ground. He was at least no time-server, and he was a convinced heretic. After this session he refused to appear. At the second session (the third, according to the printed texts and Hefele, but the Ballerini are right in inverting the order of the second and third session) the case of Dioscurus was continued. Petitions against him from Alexandria were read. In these he was accused of injustice and cruelty by the family of Cyril and of many other crimes, even against the emperor and the State. How much of this is true it is impossible to say, as Dioscurus refused to appear or to make any defence. The accusations were dropped, and judgemnet must necessarily go against Diocurus, if only for contempt of court. The bishops therefore repeatedly demanded that the legates should deliver judgement. Paschasinus, therefore, the senior legate, recited the crimes of Dioscurus—he had absolved Eutyches contrary to the canons, even before the council; he was still contumacious when others asked for pardon; he had not had the pope's letter read; he had excommunicated the pope; he had been thrice formally cited and refused to appear—"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Archbishop of elder Rome, Leo, by us and the most holy council, together with the thrice blessed and praiseworthy Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and base of the Catholic Church and the foundation of the orthodox Faith, has stripped him of the episcopal and of all sacerdotal dignity. Wherefore this most holy and great council will decree that which is accordance with the canons against the aforesaid Dioscurus." All the bishops signified their agreement in a few words and then all signed the papal sentence. A short notice of his deposition was sent to Dioscurus. It is taken almost word for word from that sent to Nestorius by the Council of Ephesus twenty years before. With the rest of the council-its definition of the Faith imposed upon it Pope Leo, its rehabilitation of Theodoret and of Ibas, etc.,-- we have nothing to do. Dioscurus affected to ridicule his condemnation, saying that he should soon be restored. But the council decreed that he was incapable of restoration, and wrote in this sense to the emperors, reciting his crimes. He was banished to Gangra in Paphlagonia, where he died three years later. The whole of Egypt revered him as the true representative of Cyrillian teaching, and from this time forth the Patriarchate of Alexandrian was lost to the Church. Dioscurus has been honoured in it as its teacher, and it has remained Eutychian to the present day. The chief authority for the events which preceded the Robber Council (besides some letters of Theodoret) is the Syriac version of the Acts of that council, published from codex of 535in the Brit. Mus.; Secundam Synodum Ephesinam necnon excerpta quae ad eam pertinent. . . .,Perry ed. (Oxford, 1875); The Second Synod of Ephesus, from Syriac MSS., tr.. by Perry (Dartford, 1881); German tr. by Hoffman, Verhandlungen der Kirchenversammlung zu Ephesus am xxii. August CDXLIX aus einer syrischen HS. (Kiel, 1873); the best dissertations on it are Martin, Le Pseudo-Synode connu dans l'histoire sous le nom de brigandage d'Ephese, etudie d'apres ses actes, en syriaque (Paris, 1875), and articles by the same in Rev. des Qu. Hist., XVI (1874), and in Rev. des Sciences Eccl., IX-X; also Largent in Rev des Qu. Hist., XXVII (1880); RIVINGTON, The Roman Primacy, 450-451 (London, 1899). Dr. Rivington has well noted the mistakes of Bright, but he has fallen into some himself, e.g. when he calls Dioscurus the nephew of St. Cyril or blames him for ignoring the so-called Constantinopolitan Creed. The appeals of Flavian and Eusebius were first published by Amelli, San Leone Magno e l'Oriente (Rome, 1882, and Montecassino, 1890) and with other documents in his Spicileg. Cassin (Montecassino, 1893); also by MOMMSEN, in Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fur altere deutsche Geschichtskunde, XI (1886). The older historians, who wrote before the discovery of the Syriac Acts, are antiquated as regards Dioscurus, including Hefele (but we await the next volume of the new French edition by Leclercq), and Bright, with the exception of his posthumous The Age of the Fathers (London, 1903). For more general literature see CHALCEDON; a fragment of a letter of Dioscurus written from Gangra to the Alexandrians is found in the Antirrhetica of NICEPHORUS in PITRA, Spicileg, Solesm., IV, 380. A panegyric on Macarius of Tkhou, preserved in Coptic, is not genuine [published by AMELINEAU, monum. pour servir a l'hist. Den l'Egypte chr. au 4me et 5me siecles (Paris, 1888), see REVILLOUT in Rev. Egyptol., 1880-2]. A Coptic life has been published in French and Syriac by F. Nau, Histoire de Discore . . .par son disciple Theophiste, in Journal Asiatique, Xme serie (1903) 5,241; Coptic fragments of the Paneg. And the life pub. By Crum, in Proceeding of Soc. Of Bibl. Archaeol. (1907), XXV, 267. A letter to Dioscurus from St. Leo, 21 June, 445 (Ep. xi), is interesting. The Pope, politely but peremptorily, orders all ordinations of priests and deacons to be in the night between Saturday and Sunday; also on festivals when there is a great concourse the Sacrifice is to be repeated as often as the basilica is refilled, that none may be deprived of his devotion. JOHN CHAPMAN Papal Diplomatics Papal Diplomatics The word diplomatics, following a Continental usage which long ago found recognition in Mabillon's "De Re Diplomaticâ", has of late come to denote also in English the science of ancient official documents, more especially of those emanating from the chanceries of popes, kings, emperors, and other authorities possessing a recognized jurisdiction. Etymologically diplomatics should mean the science of diplomas, and diploma, in its classical acceptation, signified only a permit to use the cursus publicus (i. e. the public posting-service), or else a discharge accorded to veteran soldiers and imparting certain privileges. But the scholars of the Renaissance erroneously supposed that diploma was the correct classical term for an sort of charter, and from them the word came into use among jurists and historians and obtained general currency. HISTORY OF DIPLOMATICS There is abundant evidence that during the Middle Ages a certain watchfulness, necessitated unfortunately by the prevalence of forgeries of all kinds, was exercised over the authenticity of papal Bulls, royal charters, and other instruments. In this control of documents and in the precautions taken against forgery the Chancery of the Holy See set a good example. Thus we find Gregory VII refraining even from attaching the usual leaden seal to a Bull for fear it should fall into unscrupulous hands and be used for fraudulent purposes (Dubitavimus hic sigillum plumbeum ponere ne si illud inimici caperent de eo falsitatem aliquam facerent. — Jaffé-Löwenfeld, "Regesta", no. 5225; cf. no. 5242); while we owe to Innocent III various rudimentary instructions in the science of diplomatics with a view to the detection of forgeries (see Migne, P. L., CCXIV, 202, 322, etc.). Seeing that even an ecclesiastic of the standing of Lanfranc has been seriously accused of conniving at the fabrication of Bulls (H. Böhmer, "Die Fälschungen Erzbischof Lanfranks", 1902; cf. Liebermann's review in "Deutsche Literaturzeitung", 1902, p. 2798, and the defence of Lanfrane by L. Saltet in "Bulletin de litt. eccl.", Toulouse, 1907, 227 sqq.), the need of some system of tests is obvious. But the medieval criticism of documents was not very satisfactory even in the hands of a jurist like Alexander III (see his comments on two pretended privileges of Popes Zacharias and Leo, Jaffé-Löwenfeld, "Regesta", no. 11,896), and though Laurentius Valla, the humanist, was right in denouncing the Donation of Constantine, and though the Magdeburg Centuriator, Matthias Flacius, was right in attacking the Forged Decretals, their methods, in themselves, were often crude and inconclusive. The true science of diplomatics dates, in fact, only from the great Benedictine Mabillon (1632-1707), whose fundamental work, "De Re Diplomaticâ" (Paris, 1681), was written to correct the misleading principles advocated in the criticism of ancient documents by the Bollandist Father Papenbroeck (Papebroch). To the latter's credit be it said that he at once publicly recognized the value of his rival's work and adopted his system. Other scholars were not so discerning, and assailants, like Germon and Hardouin in France, and, in less degree, George Hickes in England, rejected Mabillon's criteria; but the verdict of posterity is entirely in his favour, so that M. Giry quotes with approval the words of Dom Toustain: "His system is the true one. Whoever follows any other road cannot fail to lose his way. Whoever seeks to build on any other foundation will build upon the sand." In point of fact., all that has been done since Mabillon's time has been to develop his methods and occasionally to modify his judgments upon some point of detail. After the issue of a "Supplement" in 1704, a second, enlarged and improved edition of the "De Re Diplomaticâ" was prepared by Mabillon himself and published in 1709, after his death, by his pupil, Dom Ruinart. Seeing, however, that this pioneer work had not extended to any documents later than the thirteenth century and had taken no account of certain classes of papers, such as the ordinary letters of the popes and privileges of a more private character, two other Benedictines of St-Maur, Dom Toustain and Dom Tassin, compiled a work in six large quarto volumes, with many facsimiles etc., known as the "Nouveau Traité de Diplomatique" (Paris, 1750-1765), which, though it marks but a small advance on Mabillon's own treatise, has been widely used, and has been presented in a more summary form by Dom Vaines and others. With the exception of some useful works specially consecrated to particular countries (e.g. Maffei, "Istoria diplomatica", Mantua, 1727, unfinished; and Muratori, "De Diplomatibus Antiquis", included in his "Antiquitates Italicæ", 1740, vol. III), as also the treatise of G. Marini on papyrus documents (I papiri diplomatici, Rome, 1805), no great advance was made in the science for a century and a half after Mabillon's death. The "Dictionnaire raisonné de diplomatique chrétienne", by M. Quentin, which forms part of Migne's "Encyclopedia", is a rather unskilful digest of older works, and the sumptuous "Eléments de paléographie" of de Wailly (2 vols., 4to, 1838) has little independent merit. But within the last fifty years immense progress has been made in all diplomatic knowledge, and not least of all in the study of papal documents. In the bibliography appended to the articles BULLS AND BRIEFS and BULLARIUM, the reader will find references to the more important works. Amongst the pioneers of this revival the names of Léopold Delisle, the chief librarian of the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, and of M. de Mas-Latrie, professor at the Ecole de Chartres, as well as that of Julius von Pflugk-Harttung, the editor of a magnificent series of facsimiles of papal Bulls, deserve to occupy a foremost place; but their work has been carried on in Germany and elsewhere, often by those who are not themselves Catholics. It must be obvious that the photographic reproductions of documents which can now be procured so easily and cheaply have enormously facilitated that process of minute comparison of documents which forms the basis of all palæographic studies. Further, the improvement in the cataloguing and the extension of facilities under Pope Leo XIII in such great libraries as that of the Vatican have made their contents much more accessible and have rendered possible such a calendar of early papal Bulls as has been appearing since 1902, being the results of the researches of Messrs. P. Kehr, A. Brackmann, and W. Wiederhold, in "Nachrichten der Göttingen Gesellsehaft der Wissenschaften". Of the series of papal regesta now being published by various scholars, especially by members of the Ecole Française de Rome, a sufficient account has been given in the second part of the article BULLARIUM. Still greater progress in the study of diplomatics is no doubt to be looked for from the facilities afforded by the recently founded journal, "Archiv für Urkundenforschung" (Leipzig, 1907), edited by Messrs. Karl Brandi, H. Bresslau, and M. Tangl, all acknowledged masters in this subject. SUBJECT-MATTER OF PAPAL DIPLOMATICS As this topic has already been treated in part in the article BULLS AND BRIEFS, it will be sufficient here to recall the principal elements in the process of expediting ancient papal documents, all of which need special attention. We have first of all the officials who are concerned in the preparation of such instruments and who collectively form the "Chancery". The constitution of the Chancery, which in the case of the Holy See seems to date back to a schola notariorum, with a primicerius at its head, of which we hear under Pope Julius I (337-352), varied from period to period, and the part played by the different officials composing it necessarily varied also. Besides the Holy See, each bishop also had some sort of chancery for the issue of his own episcopal Acts. An acquaintance with the procedure of the Chancery is clearly only a study preparatory to the examination of the document itself. Secondly, we have the text of the document. As the position of the Holy See became more fully recognized, the business of the Chancery increased, and we note a marked tendency to adhere strictly to the forms prescribed by traditional usage. Various collections of these formula, of which the "Liber Diurnus" is one of the most ancient, were compiled at an early date. Many others will be found in the "Receuil général des formules" by de Rozière (Paris, 1861-1871), though these, like the series published by Zeumer (Formulæ Merovingici et Karolini ævi, Hanover, 1886), are mainly secular in character. After the text of the document, which of course varies according to its nature, and in which not merely the wording but also the rhythm (the so-called cursus) has often to be considered, attention must be paid; + to the manner of dating, + to the signatures, + to the attestations of witnesses etc., + to the seals and the attachment of the seals, + to the material upon which it is written and to the manner of folding, as well as + to the handwriting Under this last heading the whole science of palæography may be said to be involved. All these matters fall within the scope of diplomatics, and all offer different tests for the authenticity of any given document. There are other details which often need to be considered, for example the Tironian (or shorthand) notes, which are of not infrequent occurrence in primitive Urkunden, both papal and imperial, and which have only begun of late years to be adequately investigated (see Tangl, "Die tironischen Noten", in "Archiv für Urkundenforschung", 1907, I, 87-166). A special section in any comprehensive study of diplomatics is also likely to be devoted to spurious documents, of which, as already stated, the number is surprisingly great. Besides the books referred to in the course of this article see the bibliography of the article BULLS AND BRIEFS. A larger selection of authorities may be found in such treatises as those of GIRY, Manuel de Diplomatique (Paris, 1894); and BRESSLAU, Handbuch der Urkundenlehre (Leipzig, 1889), I. One very useful work for the study of papal diplomatics, the Practica Cancellariœ Apostolicœ, ed. SCHMITZ-KALLENBERG (Munich, 1904), though confined to the working of the Chancery at the close of the fifteenth century, is valuable for the indirect light thrown on other periods. Consult also the important work of TANGL, Die päpstlichen Kanzlei-Ordnungen von 1200-1500 (Innsbruck, 1894); ERBEN, Urkundenlehre (Munich, 1907); and ROSEMUND, Die Fortschritte der Diplomatik seit Mabillon (Munich, 1897), though these last two books have little directly to do with papal documents. In A. MEISTER'S important work on early ciphers, Die Anfänge der modernen diplomatischen Geheimschrift (Paderborn, 1902), the papal Chancery is hardly mentioned (see, however, p. 34). Finally, the best summary account of papal diplomatics is to be found in the section contributed by SCHMITZ-KALLENBERG to the Grundriss der Geschichtswissenschaft (Leipzig, 1906). vol. I, pp. 172-230. HERBERT THURSTON. Diptych Diptych (Or diptychon, Greek diptychon from dis, twice and ptyssein, to fold). A diptych is a sort of notebook, formed by the union of two tablets, placed one upon the other and united by rings or by a hinge. These tablets were made of wood, ivory, bone. or metal. Their inner surfaces had ordinarily a raised frame and were covered with wax, upon which characters were scratched by means of a stylus. Diptychs were known among the Greeks from the sixth century before Christ. They served as copy-books for the exercise of penmanship, for correspondence, and various other uses. The Roman military certificates, privilegia militum, were a kind of diptych. Between the two tablets others were sometimes inserted and the diptych would then be called a triptych, polyptych, etc. The term diptych is often restricted to a highly ornamented type of notebooks. They were generally made out of ivory with carved work, and were sometimes from twelve to sixteen inches in height. In the fourth and fifth centuries a distinction arose between profane and ecclesiastical (liturgical) diptychs, the former being frequently given as presents by high-placed persons. It was customary to commemorate in this way one's elevation to a public office, or any event of personal importance, e.g. a marriage. The consuls, on the day of the installation, were wont to offer diptychs to their friends and even to the emperor. Those presented to the latter often had a border of gold and were quite large. Their tablets often exhibited on a central plate the portrait of the sovereign, surrounded by four other plates. The (undated) Barberini ivory at the Louvre is thus constructed and once served as an ecclesiastical diptych (see below). Some believe it to be the binding of a books offered to the emperor. Strzygowski holds it to be of Egyptian origin and thinks that the portrait is that of Constantine the Great, defender of the Faith. The oldest dated consular diptych is that of Probus (406); it is kept in the treasury of the cathedral of Aosta, Piedmont. The latest is that of the Eastern consul, Basilius (541), one tablet of which is at the Uffizi Museum in Florence and the other at the Brera in Milan. The Theodosian Code (384) forbade the offering of ivory diptychs to any but the regular (i.e. not honorary) consuls. The tablet at the Mayer Museum in Liverpool, bearing the image of Marcus Aurelius (d. l80), is prior to this enactment. The consular diptychs are recognizable by their inscriptions or by the figure of the consul which they bear. On the diptych of Boetius at Brescia (487) and several others of the same type the consul is clad in a trabea (a kind of toga); he holds in his left hand the scipio (consular sceptre) and in his right the mappa circensis, or white cloth which he used to wave as the signal for the games in the circus. These games (ludi) or other liberalities offered to the people by the consul were frequently represented on the tablets of the diptychs. There is less certainty concerning the diptychs of officials other than consuls, e.g. praetors, quaestors, etc. The diptych of Rufius Probianus V. C. (i.e. vir clarissimus) vicarius urbis Romae, in the Berlin Museum, is the most precious relic of this class, and probably dates from the end of the fourth century. Among the diptychs of private individuals that of Gallienus Concessus, discovered at Rome on the Esquiline, exhibits only the name of its owner. Others were richly ornamented and reproduced often some of the masterpieces of ancient art. Thus on a diptych in the Mayer Museum, Liverpool, are seen Aesculapius and Telesphorus Hygieia, and Amor. The most beautiful of the profane diptychs was carved at the time of a marriage between the Symmachi and the Nicomachi (392 to 394, or 401). It represents on each leaf (one of which is at the South Kensington Museum and the other, in a very damaged condition, at Cluny) a woman performing a sacrifice. Many of the profane diptychs were preserved in the treasuries of the churches, where they were eventually used for liturgical purposes or enshrined in bookbindings or in goldsmith work. The diptych of Boetius, among others bears on the interior, some liturgical texts and religious paintings, attributed to the seventh century. The Liege diptych of the consul Anastasius (517), one leaf of which is at Berlin and the other at South Kensington, bears an inscription of forty-two lines and the prayer Communicantes from the Canon of the Mass. Another of the same consul (in the BibliothèqueNationale, Paris) has a list of the bishops of Bourges. At the cathedral of Monza, Lombardy, a diptych represents in the dress of consuls king David and St. Gregory the Great. It is perhaps an ancient consular diptych, transformed in the eighth or ninth century; according to some it appears to be of ecclesiastical origin. Many carved diptychs reproduced purely religious subjects. On a diptych in the treasury of Rouen cathedral the figure of St. Paul is exactly the same as that on a sarcophagus in Gaul. A diptych leaf in the treasury of Tongres was evidently influenced by the carvings on the cathedra of St. Maximinus at Ravenna, and seems to have belonged to an ancient episcopal see. Certain diptychs with religious subjects, e.g. the Holy Sepulchre and the holy women at the Tomb of Christ (Milan), an angel (British Museum), probably date from the fourth or fifth century. Diptych leaves divided into five compartments have generally served as a cover for copies of the Gospels. The diptychs, though often clumsily executed, are important for the history of sculpture, there being a good number of them extant, and several being accurately dated. At different periods in the Middle Ages numerous diptychs or triptychs of ivory were made, to serve as little devotional panels. The liturgical use of diptychs offers considerable interest. In the early Christian ages it was customary to write on diptychs the names of those, living or dead, who were considered as members of the Church a signal evidence of the doctrine of the Communion of Saints. Hence the terms "diptychs of the living" and "diptychs of the dead." Such liturgical diptychs varied in shape and dimension. Their use (sacrae tabulae, matriculae, libri vivorum et mortuorum) is attested in the writings of St. Cyprian (third century) and by the history of St. John Chrysostom (fourth century), nor did they disappear from the churches until the twelfth century in the West and the fourteenth century in the East. In the ecclesiastical life of antiquity these liturgical diptychs served various purposes. It is probable that the names of the baptized were written on diptychs, which were thus a kind of baptismal register. The "diptychs of the living" would include the names of the pope, bishops, and illustrious persons, both lay and ecclesiastical, of the benefactors of a church, and of those who offered the Holy Sacrifice. To these names were sometimes added those of the Blessed Virgin, of martyrs, and of other saints. From such diptychs came the first ecclesiastical calendars and the martyrologies. The "diptychs of the dead" would include the names of persons otherwise qualified for inscription on the diptychs of the living, e.g. the bishops of the community (also other bishops), moreover priests and laymen who had died in the odour of sanctity. It is to this kind of diptychs that the later necrologies owe their origin. Occasionally special diptychs were made to contain only the names of a series of bishops; in this way arose at an early date the episcopal lists or catalogues of occupants of sees. Whatever their immediate purpose the liturgical diptychs admitted only the names of persons in communion with the Church; the names of heretics and of excommunicated members were never inserted. Exclusion from these lists was a grave ecclesiastical penalty; the highest dignity, episcopal or imperial, would not avail to save the offender from its infliction. The content of the diptychs was read out, either from the ambo (q. v.) or from the altar by a priest or a deacon. In this respect a variety of customs obtained in different churches and at different periods, sometimes the diptychs were simply laid on the altar during Mass, and when read publicly, such reading did not always occur at the same stage of the Mass. The order of which traces are now seen in the Roman Canon of the Mass was the fixed usage of the Roman Church as early as the fifth century. In that venerable document a long passage after the Sanctus corresponding to the ancient recitation of the diptychs of the living; it contains, as is well known, mention of those for whom the Mass is offered, of the pope, of the bishop of the diocese, of the Blessed Virgin, and of several saints. At Easter and at Pentecost the Hanc igitur furnished a proper occasion to mention the names of the newly baptized, now mentioned only as a body. Finally the recitation of the "diptychs of the dead" is still recalled by the Memento which for the consecration. R. MAERE Spiritual Direction Spiritual Direction In the technical sense of the term, spiritual direction is that function of the sacred ministry by which the Church guides the faithful to the attainment of eternal happiness. It is part of the commission given to her in the words of Christ: "Going, therefore, teach ye all nations . . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt., xxviii, 19 sq.). She exercises this function both in her public teaching, whether in word or writing, and in the private guidance of souls according to their individual needs; but it is the private guidance that is generally understood by the term "spiritual direction". I. In one way, the Church requires all her adult members to submit to such private direction, namely, in the Sacrament of Penance. For she entrusts to her priests in the confessional, not only the part of judge to absolve or retain the sins presently confessed, but also the part of a director of consciences. In the latter capacity he must instruct his penitents if ignorant of their duties, point out the wrong or the danger in their conduct, and suggest the proper means to be employed for amendment or improvement. The penitent, on his part, must submit to this guidance. He must also, in cases of serious doubt regarding the lawfulness of his action, ask the advice of his director. For a person who acts in a practical doubt, not knowing whether he is offending God or not, and yet consenting to do what he thinks to be morally wrong, thereby offends his Creator. Such consultation is the more necessary as no one is a good judge in his own cause: a business man is sometimes blind to the injustice of a tempting bargain, and passion often invents motives for unlawful indulgence. II. Still more frequently is spiritual direction required in the lives of Christians who aim at the attainment of perfection (see PERFECTION). All religious are obliged to do so by their profession; and many of the faithful, married and unmarried, who live amidst worldly cares aspire to such perfection as is attainable in their states of life. This striving after Christian perfection means the cultivation of certain virtues and watchfulness against faults and spiritual dangers. The knowledge of this constitutes the science of asceticism. The spiritual director must be well versed in this difficult science, as his advice is very necessary for such souls. For, as Cassian writes, "by no vice does the devil draw a monk headlong and bring him to death sooner than by persuading him to neglect the counsel of the Elders and trust to his own judgment and determination" (Conf. of Abbot Moses). III. Since, in teaching the Faith, the Holy Ghost speaks through the sovereign pontiff and the bishops of the Church, the work of the private spiritual director must never be at variance with this infallible guidance. Therefore the Church has condemned the doctrine of Molinos, who taught that directors are independent of the bishops, that the Church does not judge about secret matters, and that God and the director alone enter into the inner conscience (Denziger, Enchiridion, nos. 1152, 1153). Several of the most learned Fathers of the Church devoted much attention to spiritual direction, for instance, St. Jerome, who directed St. Paula and her daughter St. Eustochium; and some of them have left us learned treatises on ascetic theology. But while the hierarchy of the Church is Divinely appointed to guard the purity of faith and morals, the Holy Spirit, who "breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth" (John, iii, 8), has often chosen priests or religious, and even simple laymen and women, and filled them with supernatural wisdom in order to provide for the spiritual direction of others. IV. Whoever the director be, he will find the principal means of progress towards perfection to consist in the exercise of prayer (q. v.) and mortification (q. v.). But upon the special processes of these two means, spiritual guides have been led by the Holy Spirit in various directions. Different is the type for the solitary in the desert, the cenobite in the community, for a St. Louis or a Blanche of Castile in a palace, St. Frances of Rome in her family, or a St. Zita in her kitchen, for contemplative and for active religious orders and congregations. Another marked difference in the direction of souls arises from the presence or absence of the mystical element in the life of the person to be directed (see MYSTICISM). Mysticism involves peculiar modes of action by which the Holy Ghost illumines a soul in ways which transcend the normal use of the reasoning powers. The spiritual director who has such persons in charge needs the soundest learning and consummate prudence. Here especially sad mistakes have been made by presumption and imprudent zeal, for men of distinction in the Church have gone astray in this matter. V. Even in ordinary cases of spiritual direction in which no mysticism is involved, numerous errors must be guarded against; the following deserve special notice: (1) The false principles of the Jansenists, who demanded of their penitents an unattainable degree of purity of conscience before they allowed them to receive Holy Communion. Many priests, not members of the sect, were yet so far tainted with its severity as gradually to alienate large numbers of their penitents from the sacraments and consequently from the Church. (2) The condemned propositions summarized under the headings "De perfectione christianâ" in Denziger's "Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum" (Würzburg, 1900), page 485, which are largely the principles of Quietism. These are specimens: To obtain perfection a man ought to deaden all his faculties; he should take no vows, should avoid external work, ask God for nothing in particular, not seek sensible devotion, not study science, not consider rewards and punishments, not employ reasoning in prayer. (3) The errors and dangers pointed out in the Encyclical of Leo XIII, "Testem Benevolentiæ". In it the pope singles out for particular condemnation: "First, all external guidance is set aside for those souls which are striving after Christian perfection as being superfluous, or indeed not useful in any sense, the contention being that the Holy Spirit pours richer and more abundant graces into the soul than formerly; so that, without human intervention, He teaches and guides them by some hidden instinct of His own." In the same document warnings are given against inculcating an exaggerated esteem of the natural virtues, thus depreciating the supernatural ones; also against casting contempt on religious vows, "as if these were alien to the spirit of our times, in that they restrict the bounds of human liberty, and that they are more suitable to weak than to strong minds". VI. An important document of Leo XIII bearing specifically on the direction of religious souls is the decree "Quemadmodum" of 1890. It forbids all religious superiors who are not priests "the practice of thoroughly inquiring into the state of their subjects' consciences, which is a thing reserved to the Sacrament of Penance". It also forbids them to refuse to their subjects an extraordinary confessor, especially in cases where the conscience of the persons so refused stands greatly in need of this privilege; as also "to take it on themselves to permit at their pleasure their subjects to approach the Holy Table, or even sometimes to forbid them Holy Communion altogether". The pope abrogates all constitutions, usages, and customs so far as they tend to the contrary; and absolutely forbids such superiors as are here spoken of to induce in any way their subjects to make to them any such manifestations of conscience. (See the decree "Quemadmodum", with explanations, in the American Ecclesiastical Review, March, 1893.). VII. Catholic literature is rich in works of ascetic and mystical theology; of which we mention a few below. But it must be noticed that such works cannot be recommended for the use of all readers indiscriminately. The higher the spiritual perfection aimed at, especially when mysticism enters into the case, the more caution should be used in selecting and consulting the guide-books, and the more danger there is that the direction given in them may be misapplied. Spiritual direction is as much a matter for the personal supervision of an experienced living guide as is the practice of medicine; the latter deals with abnormal defects of the body, the former with the acquisition of uncommon perfection by the soul. SCARAMELLI, Directorium Asceticum, or Guide to the Spiritual Life (Dublin, 1870); IDEM, Directorium Mysticum, or Divine Asceticism; GUILLORÉ, Manière de Conduire les Ames (Lyons and Paris, 1853); FABER, Growth in Holiness (Baltimore); LANCOGNE, Manifestation of Conscience (New York, 1892); SCHRAM, Institutiones Theologiae Mysticae; NEUMAYR, Idea Theologiae Asceticae, or Science of the Spiritual Life (London, 1876); IDEM, Higher Paths in the Spiritual Life (London); ST. TERESA, The Interior Castle (London, 1859); IDEM, Way of Perfection (London, 1860); ST. IGNATIUS, Spiritual Exercises (London, 1900); ST. FRANCIS OF SALES, The Devout Christian (New York); SCRUPOLI, The Spiritual Combat (London); CLARE, Science of the Spiritual Life (London, 1896); ST. LIGUORI, The Christian Virtues (New York); GROU, Manual of Interior Souls (London, 1905); LALLEMANT, Spiritual Doctrine (New York, 1884); LEHMKUHL, Theologia Moralis (Friburg, 1889); SCHIELER-HEUSER, Theory and Practice of the Confessional, Part III, sect. 2, The Office of the Confessor; DUPONT, Guide Spirituel (Paris, 1866); CARDINAL BONA, Traité du Discernement des Esprits (Tournai, 1840); LEWIS OF GRANADA, Sinner's Guide (Philadelphia, 1877); BELLECIUS, Solid Virtue (New York, 1882). CHARLES COPPENS Catholic Directories Catholic Directories The ecclesiastical sense of the word directory, as will be shown later, has become curiously confused with its secular use, but historically speaking the ecclesiastical sense is the earlier. Directorium simply means guide, but in the later Middle Ages it came to be specially applied to guides for the recitation of Office and Mass. For example, in the early part of the fifteenth century one Clement Maydeston, probably following earlier foreign precedents, adopted the title "Directorium Sacerdotum" for his reorganized Sarium Ordinal. In this way the words "Directorium Sacerdotum" came to stand at the head of a number of books, some of them among the earliest products of the printing press in England, which were issued to instruct the clergy as to the form of Mass and Office to be followed from day to day throughout the year. This employment of the word directorium was by no means peculiar to England. To take one convenient example, though not the earliest that might be chosen, we find a very similar work published at Augsburg in 1501, which bears the title: "Index sive Directorium Missarum Horarumque secundum ritum chori Constanciensis diocesis dicendarumn". As this title suffices to show, a directorium or guide for the recitation of Office and Mass had to be constructed according to the needs of a particular diocese or group of dioceses, for as a rule each diocese has certain saints' days and feasts peculiar to itself, and these have all to be taken account of in regulating the Office, a single change often occasioning much disturbance by the necessity it creates of transferring coincident celebrations to other days. Out of the "Directorium Sacerdotum" which in England was often called the "Pye", and which seems to have come into almost general use about the time of the invention of printing, our present Directory, the "Ordo divini Officii recitandi Sacrique peragendi" has gradually developed. We may note a few of the characteristics both of the actual and the ancient usage. ACTUAL USAGE It is now the custom for every diocese, or, in cases where the calendar followed is substantially identical, for a group of dioceses belonging to the same province or country, to have a "Directory" or "Ordo recitandi" printed each year for the use of all the clergy. It consists simply of a calendar for the year, in which there are printed against each day concise directions concerning the Office and Mass to be said on that day. The calendar is usually provided with some indication of fast days, special indulgences, days of devotion, and other items of information which it may be convenient for the clergy to be reminded of as they occur. This Ordo is issued with the authority of the bishop or bishops concerned, and is binding upon the clergy under their jurisdiction. The religious orders have usually a Directory of their own, which, in the case of the larger orders, often differs according to the country in which they are resident. For the secular clergy the calendar of the Roman Missal and Breviary, apart from special privilege, always forms the basis of the "Ordo recitandi". To this the feasts and saints' days celebrated in the diocese are added, and, as the higher grade of these special celebrations often causes them to take precedence of those in the ordinary calendar, a certain amount of shifting and transposition is inevitable, even apart from the complications introduced by the movable feasts. All this has to be calculated and arranged beforehand in accordance with the rules supplied by the general rubrics of the Missal and Breviary. Even so; the clergy of particular churches have further to provide for the celebration of their own patronal or dedication feasts, and to make such other changes in the Ordo as these insertions may impose. The Ordo is always compiled in Latin, though an exception is sometimes made in the Directories drawn up for nuns who recite the Divine Office, and, as it is often supplemented with a few extra pages of diocesan notices, recent decrees of the Congregation of Rites, regulations for the saying of votive Offices, etc., matters only affecting the clergy, it is apt to acquire a somewhat professional and exclusive character. How long a separate and annual "Ordo recitandi" has been printed for the use of the English clergy it seems impossible to discover. Possibly Bishop Challoner, Vicar Apostolic from 1741 to 1781, had something to do with its introduction. But in 1759 a Catholic London printer conceived the idea of translating the official "Directorium", or Ordo, issued for the clergy, and accordingly published in that year: "A Lay Directory or a help to find out and assist at Vespers . . . . on Sundays and Holy Days". Strange to say, another Catholic printer, seemingly the publisher of the official Ordo, shortly afterwards, conceiving his privileges invaded, produced a rival publication: "The Laity's Directory or the Order of the (Catholic) Church Service for the year 1764". This "Laity's Directory" was issued year by year for three-quarters of a century, gradually growing in size, but in 1837 it was supplanted by "The Catholic Directory" which since 1855 has been published in London by Messrs. Burns & Lambert, now Burns and Oates. The earliest numbers of the "Laity's Directory" contained nothing save an abbreviated translation of the clerical "Ordo recitandi", but towards the end of the eighteenth century a list of the Catholic chapels in London, advertisements of schools, obituary notices, important ecclesiastical announcements, and other miscellaneous matters began to be added, and at a still later date we find an index of the names and addresses of the Catholic clergy serving the missions in England and Scotland. This feature has been imitated in the "Irish Catholic Director" and in the Catholic Directories of the United States. Hence the widespread idea that Catholic directories are so called because they commonly form an address book for the churches and clergy of a particular country, but an examination of the early numbers of the "Laity's Directory" conclusively shows that it was only to the calendar with its indication of the daily Mass and Office that the name originally applied. FORMER USAGE In the Middle Ages, and indeed almost down to the invention of printing, the books used in the service of the Church were much more divided up than they are at present. Instead of one book, our modern Breviary for example, containing the whole Office, we find at least four books — the Psalterium, the Hymnarium, the Antiphonarium, and the Legendarium, or book of lessons, all in separate volumes. Rubrics or ritual directions were rarely written down in connexion with the text to which they belonged (we are speaking here of the Mass and Office, not of the services of rarer occurrence such as those in the Pontifical), but they were probably at first communicated by oral tradition only, and when they began to be recorded they took only such summary form as we find in the "Ordines Romani" of Hittorp and Mabillon. However, about the eleventh century there grew up a tendency towards greater elaboration and precision in rubrical directions for the services, and at the same time we notice the beginning of a more or less strongly marked division of these directions into two classes, which in the case of the Sarum Use are conveniently distinguished as the Customary and the Ordinal. Speaking generally, we may say that the former of these rubrical books contains the principles and the latter their application; the former determines those matters that are constant and primarily the duties of persons, the latter deals with the arrangements which vary from day to day and from year to year. It is out of the latter of these books, i. e. the Ordinal (often called Ordinarium and Liber Ordinarius), that the "Directorium", or "Pye", and eventually also our own modern "Ordo recitandi" were in due time evolved. These distinctions are not clear-cut. The process was a gradual one. But we may distinguish in the English and also in the Continental Ordinals two different stages. We have, first, the type of book in common use from the twelfth to the fifteenth century, and represented by the "Sarum Ordinal" edited by W. H. Frere, or the "Ordinaria of Laon" edited by Chevalier. Here we have a great deal of miscellaneous information respecting feasts, the Office and Mass to be said upon them according to the changes necessitated by the occurrence of Easter and the shifting of the Sundays, as well as the "Incipits" of the details of the service, e. g. of the lessons to be read and the commemorations to be made. The second stage took the form of an adaptation of this Ordinal for ready use, an adaptation with which, in the case of Sarum, the name of Clement Maydeston is prominent connected. This was the "Directorium Sacerdotum" the complete "Pye" (known in Latin as Pica Sarum), abbreviated editions of which were afterwards published in a form which allowed it to be bound up with the respective portions of the Breviary. The idea of this great "Pye" was to give all the thirty-five possible combinations, five to each Dominical litter (q. v.), which the fixed and movable elements of the ecclesiastical year admitted of, assigning a separate calendar to each, more or less corresponding to our present "Ordo recitandi". This arrangement was not peculiar to England. One of the earliest printed books of the kind was that issued about 1475 for the Diocese of Constance, of which a rubricated copy is to be found in the British Museum. It is a small folio in size, of one hundred and twelve leaves, and after the ordinary calendar it supplies summary rules, under thirty-five heads, for drawing up the special calendar for each year according to the Golden Number and the Dominical Letter. Then the Ordo for each of the thirty-five possible combinations is set out in detail. The name most commonly given to these "Pyes" on the Continent was "Ordinarius", more rarely "Directorium Missæ". For example, the title of such a book printed for the Diocese of Liège in 1492 runs: "In nomine Domini Amen . . . Incipit liber Ordinarius ostendens qualiter legatur et cantetur per totum anni circulum in ecclesia leodiensi tam de tempore quam de festis sanctorum in nocturnis officiis divinis." Such books were also provided for the religious orders. An "Ordinarius Ordinis Præmonstratensis" exists in manuscript at Jesus College, Cambridge, and an early printed one in the British Museum. When the use of printing became universal, the step from these rather copious directories, which served for all possible years, to a shorter guide of the type of our modern "Ordo recitandi", and intended only for one particular year, was a short and easy one. Since, however, such publications are useless after their purpose is once served, they are very liable to destruction, and it seems impossible to say how early we may date the first attempt at producing an Ordo after our modern fashion. The fact that at the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, De Reform., cap. xviii) it was thought necessary to urge that ecclesiastical students should be trained in the understanding of the computus, by which they could determine the ordo recitandi in each year for themselves, seems to imply that such Ordos as we now possess were not in familiar use in the middle of the sixteenth century. MODERN DIRECTORIES At the present day it may be said that in every part of the world not only is a printed Ordo provided for the clergy of every diocese and religious institute, but that almost everywhere some adaptation of this is available for the use of the laity. The earliest English attempt at anything of the sort seems to have been a little "Catholic Almanac", which appeared for three or four years in the reign of James II (see The Month, vol. CXI, 1908). But this was a mere calendar of feasts without any directions for the Office and Mass. In Ireland the work which at present appears under the title "The Irish Catholic Directory and Almanac for 1909, with a complete Directory in English" seems to have existed under various names since 1837 or earlier. It was first called "A Complete Catholic Directory", and then, in 1846, "Battersby's Registry", from the name of the publisher. For Scotland, though the Scottish missions are included in the "Catholic Directory" published in London, there is also a separate "Catholic Directory for the Clergy and Laity of Scotland" which began under a slightly different name in 1868. Catholic Directories also exist for the Australian and Canadian provinces, and occasionally for separate dioceses, e. g. the Diocese of Birmingham, England, possesses an "Official Directory" of its own. Attention may briefly be called, also, to two Roman handbooks of a character somewhat analogous to our Directories, which supply names and details regarding the Catholic hierarchy throughout the world and especially regarding the cardinals, the Roman Congregations and their personnel, the prelates and camerieri, etc., in attendance upon the papal court. The first of these, called since 1872 "La Gerarchia Cattolica e la Famiglia Pontificia", was first published in 1716 and was long familiarly known as "Cracas" from the name of the publisher. Officially, the early numbers were simply called "Notizie per l'Anno 1716, etc." (see Moroni, Dizionario, XX, 26 sqq.). The other work, which is very similar in character, but somewhat more ample in its information, has appeared since 1898 under the title "Annuario Ecclesiastico". Finally we notice the existence of the "Directorium Chori", a work originally compiled by Guidetti in 1582, possessing a quasi-official character and often reprinted since. It is intended for the use of the hebdomadarius and cantors in collegiate churches, and is quite different in character from the works considered above. THE UNITED STATES These publications begin in the United States with an "Ordo Divini Officii Recitandi", published at Baltimore, in 1801, by John Hayes. It had none of the directory or almanac features. "The Catholic Laity's Directory to the Church Service with an Almanac for the year", an imitation of the English enterprise, was the next, in 1817. It was published in New York with the "permission of the Right Rev. Bishop Connolly" by Mathew Field, who was born in England of an Irish Catholic family and left there for New York in 1815. He died at Baltimore, 1832. His son, Joseph M. Field, was six years old when he arrived in New York, and became a prolific and brilliant writer, dying at Mobile in 1856. Joseph's daughter, Kate Field, was later the well-known author and lecturer. Though both were baptized, neither was a professed Catholic. This Field production, in addition to the ordinary almanac calendars, had a variety of pious and instructive reading-matter with an account of the churches, colleges, seminaries, and institutions of the United States. It made up a small 32mo book of sixty-eight pages. Among other things, it promised the preparation of a Catholic magazine which, however, was never started. Only one issue of this almanac was made. The next effort in the same direction, and on practically the same lines, was also at New York, in 1822, by W. H. Creagh. It was edited by the Rev. Dr. John Power, rector of St. Peter's church, and says in the preface that it was "intended to accompany the Missal with a view to facilitate the use of the same". The contents include "Brief Account of the Establishment of the Episcopacy in the United States"; "Present Status of religion in the respective Dioceses"; "A short account of the present State of the Society of Jesus in the U. S.", and obituaries of priests who had died from 1814 to 1821. This was the only number of this almanac. In 1834 Fielding Lucas of Baltimore took up the idea and brought out "The Metropolitan Catholic Calendar and Laity's Directory" for that year, to be published annually. He said in it that he had "intended to present it in 1832 but from circumstances over which he had no control it has been delayed to the present period". It prints a list of the hierarchy and the priests of the several dioceses, with their stations. In this publication and its various successors the title Directory is used in its purely secular meaning, as the issues include no ecclesiastical calendar or Ordo. James Meyers "at the Cathedral" is the publisher of the subsequent volumes until 1838, when Fielding Lucas, Jr., took hold and changed the name "U. S. Catholic Almanac", that Meyers had given it, back to "Metropolitan Catholic Almanac". In the issue of 1845 there is inserted a map of the United States, "prepared at much expense to exhibit at a glance the extent and relative situation of the different dioceses", with a table of comparative statistics, 1835 to 1845. A list of the clergy in England and Ireland was added in the volume for 1850. "Lucas Brothers" is the imprint on the almanac for 1856-57, and the Baltimore publication then ceased, to be taken up in 1858 by Edward Dunigan and Brother of New York, as "Dunigan's American Catholic Almanac and List of the Clergy". All general reading-matter was omitted in this almanac, publication of which was stopped the following year when John Murphy and Co. of Baltimore resumed there the compilation of the "Metropolitan Catholic Almanac". Owing to the Civil War no almanacs were printed during 1862 or 1863. In 1864 D. and J. Sadlier of New York started "Sadlier's Catholic Directory, Almanac and Ordo", which John Gilmary Shea compiled and edited for them. It made a volume of more than 600 pages and gave lists of the clergy in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, and Australasia, with diocesan statistics. This publication continued alone in the field until 1886, when Hoffman Brothers, a German firm of publishers of Milwaukee, brought out "Hoffman's Catholic Directory", which the Rev. James Fagan, a Milwaukee priest, compiled for them. In contents it was similar to the New York publication. This directory continued until 1896, when the Hoffman Company failed, and their plant was purchased by the Wiltzius Company, which has since continued the directory. The Sadlier "Directory" ceased publication in 1895. The Wiltzius "Catholic Directory, Almanac and Clergy List" has reports for all dioceses in the United States, Canada, Alaska, Cuba, Sandwich Islands, Porto Rico, Philippine Islands, Newfoundland, England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, together with statistics of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, Belgium, Costa Rica, Guatemala, British Honduras, Nicaragua, San Salvador, German Empire, Japan, Luxemburg, The United States of Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Oceanica, South Africa, The United States of Brazil, Curaçao, Dutch Guiana, Switzerland, and the West Indies. It contains also an alphabetical list of all clergymen in the United States and Canada, as well as a map of the ecclesiastical provinces in the United States. It gives a list of English-speaking confessors abroad, American colleges in Europe, and the leading Catholic societies; statistics of the Catholic Indian and Negro missions, and a list of Catholic papers and periodicals in the United States and Canada. In the almanac for 1837 it is noted, concerning the statistics, that "the numbers marked with an asterisk are not given as strictly exact, though it is believed they approximate to the truth, and are as accurate as could be ascertained from the statements forwarded to the editor from the several dioceses". On the same topic "Hoffman's Directory" for 1890 says: "It is much to be regretted that the statistics are not more carefully kept. In every diocese there are parishes that fail to report and many dioceses report statistics only partially, so that any general summary that can be made up at best is only an approximation." Dealing with this long-standing and well-founded complaint of inaccurate Catholic statistics, the archbishops of the United States, at their annual conference in 1907, resolved to co-operate with the United States Census Bureau in an effort to collect correct figures. Archbishop Glennon of St. Louis was appointed a special census official by the Government for this purpose, and under his direction an enumeration of the Catholics of every parish in the United States was made. The figures thus obtained were used in the "Directory" for 1909. It is the first, therefore, of these publications giving statistics of population on which any reliance can be placed in respect to accuracy of detail. CANADA In 1886 "Le Canada Ecclésiastique, Almanach Annuaire du clergé Canadien", printed in French. was begun in Montreal. The contents are similar to those of the directories in English. Recent issues have a number of illustrations of local and historical interest, such as a series of portraits of the Bishops of Quebec in the issue for 1908, in commemoration of the centenary celebrations. The Rev. Charles P. Beaubien edited the publication. See SCHROD in Kirchenlexikon, s. v. Directorium. For the Pye and Ordinal see especially FRERE, The Use of Sarum (Cambridge. 1901), II, Introduction; WORDSWORTH, The Directorium Sacerdotum of Clement Maydeston (Henry Bradshaw Society, London, 1902), especially the Appendixes to vol. II; and also, in the same series, The Tracts of Clement Maydeston (London, 1894); CHEVALIER, Bibliothèque liturgique (Paris, 1897-), in which series the editor has printed the Ordinaria of Laon, Reims, Bayeux, etc. On English directories, see THURSTON, An Old-Established Periodical in The Month (London, Feb., 1882). Files of these various publications; FINOTTI, Bibliographia Catholica Americana (New York, 1872). HERBERT THURSTON. THOMAS F. MEEHAN. Discalced Discalced (Lat. dis, without, and calceus, shoe). A term applied to those religious congregations of men and women, the members of which go entirely unshod or wear sandals, with or without other covering for the feet. These congregations are often distinguished of this account from other branches of the same order. The custom of going unshod was introduced into the West by St. Francis of Assissi for men and St. Clare for women. After the various modificiations of the Rule of St. Francis, the Observantines adhered to the primitative custom of going unshod, and in this they were followed by the Minims and Capuchins. The Discalced Franciscans or Alcantarines, who prior to 1897 formed a distinct branch of the Franciscan Order went without footwear of any kind. The followers of St. Clare at first went barefoot, but later came to wear sandals and even shoes. The Colettines and Capuchin Sisters returned to the use of sandals. Sandals were also adopted by the Camaldolese monks of the Congregation of Monte Corona (1522), the Maronite Catholic monks, the Poor Hermits of St. Jerome of the Congregation of Bl. Peter of Pisa, the Augustinians of Thomas of Jesus (1532), the Barefooted Servites (1593), the Discalced Carmelites (1568), the Feuillants (Cistercians, 1575), Trinitarians (1594), Mercedarians (1604), and the Passionists. (See FRIARS MINOR) STEPHEN M. DONOVAN Discernment of Spirits Discernment of Spirits All moral conduct may be summed up in the rule: avoid evil and do good. In the language of Christian asceticism, spirits, in the broad sense, is the term applied to certain complex influences, capable of impelling the will, the ones toward good, the others toward evil; we have the wordly spirit of error, the spirit of race, the spirit of Christianity, etc. However, in the restricted sense, spirits indicate the various spiritual agents which, by their suggestions and movements, may influence the moral value of our acts. Here we shall speak only of this second kind. They are reduced to four, including, in a certain way, the human soul itself, because in consequence of the original Fall, its lower faculties are at variance with its superior powers. Concupiscence, that is to say, disturbances of the imagination and errors of sensibility, thwart or pervert the operations of the intellect and will, by deterring the one from the true and the other from the good (Gen., viii, 21; James, i, 14). In opposition to our vitiated nature, or so to speak, to the flesh which drags us into sin, the Spirit of God acts within us by grace, a supernatural help given to our intellect and will to lead us back to good and to the observance of the moral law (Rom., vii, 22-25). Besides these two spirits, the human and the Divine, in the actual order of Providence, two others must be observed. The Creator willed that there should be communication between angels and men, and as the angels are of two kinds, good and bad, the latter try to win us over to their rebellion and the former endeavour to make us their companions in obedience. Hence four spirits lay siege to our liberty: the angelic and the Divine seeking its good, and the human (in the sense heretofore mentioned) and the diabolical its misery. In ordinary language they may, for brevity sake, be called simply the good and the evil spirit. "Discernment of spirits" is the term given to the judgment whereby to determine from what spirit the impulses of the soul emanate, and it is easy to understand the importance of this judgment both for self-direction and the direction of others. Now this judgment may be formed in two ways. In the first case the discernment is made by means of an intuitive light which infallibly discovers the quality of the movement; it is then a gift of God, a grace gratis data, vouchsafed mainly for the benefit of our neighbour (I Cor., xii, 10). This charisma or gift was granted in the early Church and in the course of the lives of the saints as, for example, St. Philip Neri. Second, discernment of spirits may be obtained through study and reflection. It is then an acquired human knowledge, more or less perfect, but very useful in the direction of souls. It is procured, always, of course, with the assistance of grace, by the reading of the Holy Bible, of works on theology and asceticism, of autobiographies, and the correspondence of the most distinguished ascetics. The necessity of self-direction and of directing others, when one had charge of souls, produced documents, preserved in spiritual libraries, from the perusal of which one may see that the discernment of spirits is a science that has always flourished in the Church. In addition to the special treatises enumerated in the bibliography the following documents may be cited for the history of the subject: + the "Shepherd of Hermas" (1, II, Mand. VI, c. 2); + St. Anthony's discourse to the monks of Egypt, in his life by St. Anthanasius; + the "De perfectione spirituali" (ch. 30-33) by Marcus Diadochus; + the "Confessions" of St. Augustine; + St. Bernard's XXIII sermon, "De discretione spirituum"; + Gerson's treatise, "De diversis diaboli tentationibus"; + St. Theresa's autobiography and "Castle of the Soul"; + St. Francis de Sales' letters of direction, etc. An excellent lesson is that given by St. Ignatius Loyola in his "Spiritual Exercises". Here we find rules for the discernment of spirits and, being clearly and briefly formulated, these rules indicate a secure course, containing in embryo all that is included in the more extensive treatises of later date. For a complete explanation of them the best commentaries on the "Exercises" of St. Ignatius may be consulted. Of the rules transmitted to us by a saint inspired by Divine light and a learned psychologist taught by personal experience, it will suffice to recall the principal ones. Ignatius gives two kinds and we must call attention to the fact that in the second category, according to some opinions, he sometimes considers a more delicate discernment of spirits adapted to the extraordinary course of mysticism. Be that as it may, he begins by enunciating this clear principle, that both the good and the evil spirit act upon a soul according to the attitude it assumes toward them. If it pose as their friend, they flatter it; if to resist them, they torment it. But the evil spirit speaks only to the imagination and the senses, whereas the good spirit acts upon reason and conscience. The evil labours to excite concupiscence, the good to intensify love for God. Of course it may happen that a perfectly well-disposed soul suffers from the attacks of the devil deprived of the sustaining consolations of the good angel; but this is only a temporary trial the passing of which must be awaited in patience and humility. St. Ignatius also teaches us to distinguish the spirits by their mode of action and by the end they seek. Without any preceding cause, that is to say, suddenly, without previous knowledge or sentiment, God alone, by virtue of His sovereign dominion, can flood the soul with light and joy. But if there has been a preceding cause, either the good or the bad angel may be the author of the consolation; this remains to be judged from the consequences. As the good angel's object is the welfare of the soul and the bad angel's its defects or unhappiness, if, in the progress of our thoughts all is well and tends to good there is no occasion for uneasiness; on the contrary, if we perceive any deviation whatsoever towards evil or even a slight unpleasant agitation, there is reason to fear. Such, then, is the substance of these brief rules which are nevertheless so greatly admired by the masters of the spiritual life. Although requiring an authorized explanation, when well understood, they act as a preservative against many illusions. PAUL DEBUCHY Disciple Disciple This term is commonly applied to one who is learning any art or science from one distinguished by his accomplishments. Though derived from the Latin discipulus, the English name conveys a meaning somewhat narrower than its Latin equivalent: disciple is opposed to master, as scholar to teacher, whilst both disciple and scholar are included under the Latin discipulus. In the English versions of the Old Testament the word disciple occurs only once (Is., viii, 16); but the idea it conveys is to be met with in several other passages, as, for instance, when the Sacred Writer speaks of the "sons" of the Prophets (IV K., ii, 7); the same seems, likewise, to be the meaning of the terms children and son in the Sapiential books (e.g. Prov., iv, 1, 10; etc.). Much more frequently does the New Testament use the word disciple in the sense of pupil, adherent, one who continues in the Master's word (John viii, 31). So we read disciples of Moses (John, ix, 28), of the Pharisees (Matt., xxii, 16; Mark, ii, 18; Luke, v, 33). of John the Baptist (Matt., ix, 14; Luke, vii, 18; John, iii, 25). These, however, are only incidental applications, for the word is almost exclusively used of the Disciples of Jesus. In the Four Gospels it is most especially applied to the Apostles, sometimes styled the "twelve disciples" (Matt., x, 1; xi, 1; xx, 17; xxvi, 20; the sixteenth verse of chapter xxviii, having reference to events subsequent to Christ's Passion, mentions only the "eleven disciples"), sometimes merely called "the disciples" (Matt., xiv, 19; xv, 33, 36; etc.). The expression "his disciples" frequently has the same import. Occasionally the Evangelists give the word a broader sense and make it a synonym for believer (Matt., x, 42; xxvii, 57; John, iv, 1; ix, 27, 28; etc.). Besides the signification of "Apostle" and that of "believer" there is finally a third one, found in St. Luke, and perhaps also in the other Evangelists. St. Luke narrates (vi, 13) that Jesus "called unto him his disciples, and he chose twelve of them (whom also he named apostles)". The disciples, in this disciples, in this context, are not the crowds of believers who flocked around Christ, but a smaller body of His followers. They are commonly identified with the seventy-two (seventy, according to the received Greek text, although several Greek manuscripts mention seventy-two, as does the Vulgate) referred to (Luke, x, 1) as having been chosen by Jesus. The names of these disciples are given in several lists (Chronicon Paschale, and Pseudo-Dorotheus in Migne, P.G., XCII, 521-524; 543-545; 1061-1065); but these lists are unfortunately worthless. Eusebius positively asserts that no such roll existed in his time, and mentions among the disciples only Barnabas, Sosthenes, Cephas, Matthias, Thaddeus and James "the Lord's brother" (His. Eccl., I, xii). In the Acts of the Apostles the name disciple is exclusively used to designate the converts, the believers, both men and women (vi, 1, 2, 7; ix, 1, 10, 19; etc.; in reference to the latter connotation see in particular ix, 36) even such as were only imperfectly instructed, like those found by St. Paul at Ephesus (Acts, xix, 1-5). CHARLES L. SOUVAY Disciples of Christ Disciples of Christ A sect founded in the United States of America by Alexander Campbell. Although the largest portion of his life and prodigious activity was spent in the United States, Alexander Campbell was born, 12 September, 1788, in the County Antrim, Ireland. On his father's side he was of Scottish extraction; his mother, Jane Corneigle, was of Huguenot descent. Both parents are reported to have been persons of deep piety and high literary culture. His father, after serving as minister to the Anti-Burgher Church in Ahorey and director of a prosperous academy at Richhill, emigrated to the United States and engaged in the oft-attempted and ever futile effort "to unite All Christians as one communion on a purely scriptural basis", the hallucination of so many noble minds, the only outcome of which must always be against the will of the Founder, to increase the discord of Christendom by the creation of a new sect. In 1808 Alexander embarked with the family to join his father, but was shipwrecked on the Scottish coast and took the opportunity to prepare himself for the ministry at the University of Glasgow. In 1809 he migrated to the United States, and found in Washington County, Pennsylvania, the nucleus of the new movement in the "Christian Association of Washington", under the auspices of which was issued a "Declaration and Address", setting forth the objects of the association. It was proposed "to establish no new sect, but to persuade Christian to abandon party names and creeds, sectarian usages and denominational strifes, and associate in Christian fellowship, in the common faith in a divine Lord, with no other terms of religious communion than faith in and obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ". An independent church was formed at Brush Run on the principles of the association, and, 1 January, 1812, Alexander was "ordained". His earnestness is attested by the record of one hundred and six sermons preached in one year; but he wrecked every prospect of success by finding in his reading of the Scriptures the invalidity of infant baptism, and the necessity of baptism by immersion, thus excluding from the Christian discipleship the vast majority of believing Christians. On 12 June, 1812, with his wife, father, mother, and three others, Alexander was rebaptized by immersion. Nothing was left him now but to seek association with one or other of the numerous Baptist sects. This he did, but with the proviso that he should be allowed to preach and teach whatever he learned from the Holy Scriptures. The Baptists never took him cordially; and in 1817, after five years of herculean labours, his followers, whom he wished to be known by the appellation of "Disciples of Christ", but who were generally styled "Campbellites", numbered only one hundred and fifty persons. Campbell's mission as a messenger of peace was a failure; as time went on he developed a polemical nature, and became a sharp critic in speech and in writing of the weaknesses and vagaries of the Protestant sects. Only once did he come in direct contact with the Catholics, on the occasion of his five days' debate, in 1837, with Archbishop Purcell of Cincinnati, which excited great interest at the time but is now forgotten. His sixty volumes are of no interest. Campbell was twice married and was the father of twelve children. He died at Bethany, West Virginia, where he had established a seminary, 4 March, 1866. According to their census prepared in 1906 the sect then had 6475 ministers, 11,633 churches, and a membership of 1,235,294. It is strongest in the West and Southwest, Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, and Ohio having the largest bodies. J.H. Garrison, editor of their organ "The Christian Evangelist", outlined (1906) the belief of his sect. + According to their investigations of the New Testament the confession of faith made by Simon Peter, on which Jesus declared he would build His Church, namely "Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God", was the creed of Christianity and the essential faith, and that all those who would make this confession from the heart, being penitent of their past sins, were to be admitted by baptism into the membership of the early Church; + that baptism in the early Church consisted of a burial of a penitent believer in the water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and that only such were fit subjects for baptism; + that the form of church government was congregational; + that each congregation had its deacons and elders or bishops, the former to look after the temporal and the latter the spiritual interests of the church. + They practise weekly communion and consider it not as a sacrament but as a memorial feast. + While they hold both New and Old Testaments to be equally inspired, both are not equally binding upon Christians. + Accepting the Bible as an all-sufficient revelation of the Divine will, they repudiate all authoritative creeds and human grounds of fellowship. JAMES F. LOUGHLIN Ecclesiastical Discipline Ecclesiastical Discipline Etymologically the word discipline signifies the formation of one who places himself at school and under the direction of a master. All Christians are the disciples of Christ, desirous to form themselves at His school and to be guided by His teachings and precepts. He called Himself, and we, too, call Him, Our Master. Such, then, is evangelical discipline. However, in ecclesiastical language the word discipline has been invested with various meanings, which must here be enumerated and specified. I. MEANING OF DISCIPLINE All discipline may be considered first in its author, then in its subject, and finally in itself. In its author it is chiefly the method employed for the formation and adaptation of the precepts and directions to the end to be attained, which is the perfect conduct of subjects; in this sense discipline is said to be severe or mild. In those who receive it discipline is the more or less perfect conformity of acts to the directions and formation received; it is in this sense that discipline may be said to flourish in a monastery. Or, again, it is the obligation of subjects to conform their acts to precepts and directions, and is thus defined by Cardinal Cavagnis: Praxis factorum fidei consona — "conduct conforming itself to faith" (Inst. jur. publ. eccl., Bk. IV, n. 147). More frequently, however, discipline is considered objectively, that is, as being the precepts and measures for the practical guidance of subjects. Thus understood ecclesiastical discipline is the aggregate of laws and directions given by the Church to the faithful for their conduct both private and public. This is discipline in its widest acceptation, and includes natural and Divine as well as positive laws, and faith, worship, and morals; in a word, all that affects the conduct of Christians. But if we eliminate laws merely formulated by the Church as the exponent of natural or Divine law, there remain the laws and directions laid down and formulated by ecclesiastical authority for the guidance of the faithful; this is the restricted and more usual acceptation of the word discipline. Nevertheless, it must be understood that this distinction, however justified, is not made for the purpose of separating ecclesiastical laws into two clearly divided categories in so far as practice is concerned; the Church does not always make known to what extent she speaks in the name of natural or of Divine law and with this corresponds the observance of laws by her subjects. II. OBJECT OF DISCIPLINE Since ecclesiastical discipline should direct every Christian life, its object must differ according to the obligations incumbent on each individual. The first duty of a Christian is to believe; hence dogmatic discipline, by which the Church proposes what we should believe and so regulates our conduct that it shall not fail to assist our faith. Dogmatic discipline springs from the power of magisterium, i. e. the teaching office, in the exercise of which power the Church can proceed only by declaration; therefore it is ecclesiastical discipline only in a broad sense. The second duty of Christians is to observe the Commandments, hence moral discipline (disciplina morum). Strictly understood the latter does not depend much more upon the Church than does dogmatic discipline, as the natural law is anterior and superior to ecclesiastical law; however, the Church authoritatively proposes to us the moral law, she specifies and perfects it; hence it is that we generally call moral discipline whatsoever directs the Christian in those acts that have a moral value, including the observance of positive laws, both ecclesiastical and secular. Among the chief duties of a Christian the worship of God must be assigned a place apart. The rules to be observed in this worship, especially public worship, constitute liturgical discipline. This cannot be said to depend absolutely upon the Church, as it derives the essential part of the Holy Sacrifice and the sacraments from Jesus Christ; however, for the greater part, liturgical discipline has been regulated by the Church and includes the rites of the Holy Sacrifice, the administration of the sacraments and of the sacramentals, and other ceremonies. There still remain the obligations incumbent on the faithful considered individually, either on the members of different groups or classes of ecclesiastical society, or, finally, on those who are to any extent whatever depositaries of a portion of the authority. This is discipline properly so called, exterior discipline, established by the free legislation of the Church (not, of course, in a way absolutely independent of natural or Divine law, but outside of, yet akin to this law) for the good government of society and the sanctification of individuals. On individuals it imposes common precepts (the Commandments of the Church); then it states their mutual obligations, in conjugal society by matrimonial discipline, in larger societies by determining relations with ecclesiastical superiors, parish priests, bishops, etc. Special classes also have their own particular discipline, there being clerical discipline for the clergy and religious or monastic discipline for the religious. The government of Christian society is in the hands of prelates and superiors who are subject to a special discipline either for the conditions of their recruitment, for the determining of their privileges and duties, or for the manner in which they should fulfil their functions. We may include here the rules for the administration of temporal goods. Finally, any authority from which emanate orders or prohibitions should have power to ratify the same by penal measures applicable to all transgressors; hence, another object of discipline is the imposing and inflicting of disciplinary sanctions. It must be noted, however, that the object of these measures is to ensure observance or to chastise infractions of the natural and Divine as well as of ecclesiastical laws. III. DISCIPLINARY POWER OF THE CHURCH It is evident, therefore, that the disciplinary power of the Church is a phase, a practical application, of its power of jurisdiction, and includes the various forms of the latter, namely, legislative, administrative, judicial, and coercive power. As for the power of order (potestas ordinis), it is the basis of liturgical discipline by which its exercise is regulated. For the proof that the Church is a society and that, as such, it necessarily has the power of jurisdiction which it derives from Divine institution through the Apostolic succession, see CHURCH. Disciplinary power is proved by the very fact of its exercise; it is an organic necessity in every society whose members it guides to their end by providing them with rules of action. Historically it can be shown that a disciplinary power has been exercised by the Church uninterruptedly, first by the Apostles and then by their successors. The Apostles in the first council at Jerusalem formulated rules for the conduct of the faithful (Acts, xv). St. Paul gave moral advice to the Christians of Corinth on virginity, marriage, and the agape (I Cor., vii, xi). The Pastoral Epistles of St. Paul are a veritable code of clerical discipline. The Church, moreover, has never ceased to represent herself as charged by Christ with the guidance of mankind in the way of eternal salvation. The Council of Trent expressly affirms the disciplinary power of the Church in all that concerns liturgical discipline and Divine worship (Sess. XXI, c. ii): "In the administration of the sacraments, the substance of the latter remaining intact, the Church has always had power to establish or to modify whatever she considered most expedient for the utility of those who receive them, or best calculated to ensure respect for the sacraments themselves according to the various circumstances of time and place." In fact, we need only to recall the numerous laws enacted by the Church in the course of centuries for the maintenance, development, or restoration of the moral and spiritual life of Christians. IV. MUTABILITY OF DISCIPLINE That ecclesiastical discipline should be subject to change is natural since it was made for men and by men. To claim that it is immutable would render the attainment of its end utterly impossible, since, in order to form and direct Christians, it must adapt itself to the variable circumstances of time and place, conditions of life, customs of peoples and races, being, in a certain sense, like St. Paul, all things to all men. Nevertheless, neither the actual changes nor the possibility of further alteration must be exaggerated. There is no change in those disciplinary measures through which the Church sets before the faithful and confirms the natural and the Divine law, nor in those strictly disciplinary regulations that are closely related to the natural or Divine law. Other disciplinary rules may and must be modified in proportion as they seem less efficacious for the social or individual welfare. Thomassin aptly says [Vetus et nova Ecclesiæ disciplina (ed. Lyons, 1706), preface, n. xvii]: "Whoever has the least idea of ecclesiastical laws, those that concern government as well as those that regulate morals, knows well that they are of two kinds. Some represent immutable rules of eternal truth, itself the fundamental law, the source and origin of these laws, from the observance of which there is no dispensation, against which no prescription obtains, and which are not modified either by diversity of custom or vicissitudes of time. Other ecclesiastical rules and customs are by nature temporary, indifferent in themselves, more or less authoritative, useful, or necessary according to circumstances of time and place, having been established only to facilitate the observance of the fundamental and eternal law." As to the variations of discipline concerning these secondary laws, the same author describes them in these terms (loc. cit., n. xv): "While the Faith of the Church remains the same in all ages, it is not so with her discipline. This changes with time, grows old with the years, is rejuvenated, is subject to growth and decay. Though in its early days admirably vigorous, with time defects crept in. Later it overcame these defects and although along some lines its usefulness increased, in other ways its first splendour waned. That in its old age it languishes is evident from the leniency and indulgence which now seem absolutely necessary. However, all things fairly considered, it will appear that old age and youth have each their defects and good qualities." Were it necessary to exemplify the mutability of ecclesiastical discipline it would be perplexing indeed to make a choice. The ancient catechumenate exists only in a few rites; the Latin Church no longer gives Communion to the laity under two kinds; the discipline relating to penance and indulgences has undergone a profound evolution; matrimonial law is still subject to modifications; fasting is not what it formerly was; the use of censures in penal law is but the shadow of what it was in the Middle Ages. Many other examples will easily occur to the mind of the well-informed reader. V. DISCIPLINARY INFALLIBILITY What connexion is there between the discipline of the Church and her infallibility? Is there a certain disciplinary infallibility? It does not appear that the question was ever discussed in the past by theologians unless apropos of the canonization of saints and the approbation of religious orders. It has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church (De Ecclesiâ}. The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i. e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching. It is quite permissible, however, to inquire how far this infallibility extends, and to what extent, in her disciplinary activity, the Church makes use of the privilege of inerrancy granted her by Jesus Christ when she defines matters of faith and morals. Infallibility is directly related to the teaching office (magisterium), and although this office and the disciplinary power reside in the same ecclesiastical authorities, the disciplinary power does not necessarily depend directly on the teaching office. Teaching pertains to the order of truth; legislation to that of justice and prudence. Doubtless, in last analysis all ecclesiastical laws are based on certain fundamental truths, but as laws their purpose is neither to confirm nor to condemn these truths. It does not seem, therefore, that the Church needs any special privilege of infallibility to prevent her from enacting laws contradictory of her doctrine. To claim that disciplinary infallibility consists in regulating, without possibility of error, the adaptation of a general law to its end, is equivalent to the assertion of a (quite unnecessary) positive infallibility, which the incessant abrogation of laws would belie and which would be to the Church a burden and a hindrance rather than an advantage, since it would suppose each law to be the best. Moreover, it would make the application of laws to their end the object of a positive judgment of the Church; this would not only be useless but would become a perpetual obstacle to disciplinary reform. From the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, correctly understood as an indirect consequence of her doctrinal infallibility, it follows that she cannot be rightly accused of introducing into her discipline anything opposed to the Divine law; the most remarkable instance of this being the suppression of the chalice in the Communion of the laity. This has often been violently attacked as contrary to the Gospel. Concerning it the Council of Constance (1415) declared (Sess. XIII): "The claim that it is sacrilegious or illicit to observe this custom or law [Communion under one kind] must be regarded as erroneous, and those who obstinately affirm it must be cast aside as heretics." The opinion, generally admitted by theologians, that the Church is infallible in her approbation of religious orders, must be interpreted in the same sense; it means that in her regulation of a manner of life destined to provide for the practice of the evangelical counsels she cannot come into conflict with these counsels as received from Christ together with the rest of the Gospel revelation. (See ROMAN CONGREGATIONS.) THOMASSIN, Vetua et nova Ecclesiœ disciplina (ed. Lyons, 1706), preface; JEILER in Kirchenlex., s. v. Disciplin; all treatises on public ecclesiastical law, especially that by CAVAGNIS, Inst. jur. publ. eccl. (Rome, 1906), I. III, ch. ii; the treatise de Ecclesiâ in theological works, especially in HURTER, Theol. dogm. comp. (Innsbruck, 1878), I, thesis xlvi, and WILMERS, De Christi Ecclesiâ (Ratishon, 1897), 469 sq. A. BOUDINHON. Discipline of the Secret Discipline of the Secret (Latin Disciplina Arcani; German Arcandisciplin). A theological term used to express the custom which prevailed in the earliest ages of the Church, by which the knowledge of the more intimate mysteries of the Christian religion was carefully kept from the heathen and even from those who were undergoing instruction in the Faith. The custom itself is beyond dispute, but the name for it is comparatively modern, and does not appear to have been used before the controversies of the seventeenth century, when special dissertations bearing the title "De disciplinâ arcani" were published both on the Protestant and the Catholic side. The origin of the custom must be looked for in the recorded words of Christ: "Give not that which holy to dogs; neither cast your pearls before swine; lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you" (Matt., vii, 6), while the practice in Apostolic times is sufficiently vouched for by St. Paul's assurance that he fed the Corinthians "as . . . little ones in Christ", giving them "milk to drink, not meat", because they were not yet able to bear it (I Cor., iii, 1-2). With this passage we may compare also Heb., v. 12-14, where the same illustration is used, and it is declared that "solid food is for the perfect; for them who by custom have their senses exercised to the discerning of good and evil." Although the origin of the custom is thus to be traced back to the very beginnings of Christianity, it does not appear to have been so general, or to have been carried out with so much strictness in the earlier centuries as it was immediately after the persecutions had ceased. This may be due in part to the absence of detailed information with regard to the earlier period, but it is probable enough that the discipline was growing more strict all through the second and third centuries on account of the pressure of persecution, and that, when persecution was at last relaxed, the need for reserve was felt at first, while the Church was still surrounded by hostile Paganism, to be increased rather than diminished. After the fifth or sixth century, when Christianity was thoroughly established and secure, the need of such a discipline was no longer felt, and it passed rapidly away. The practice of reserve (oikonomia) was exercised mainly in two directions, in dealing with catechumens, and with the heathen. It will be convenient to treat of these separately, as the reasons for the practice, and the mode in which it was carried out, differ somewhat in the two cases. (1) Catechumens It was desirable to bring learners slowly and by degrees to a full knowledge of the Faith. A convert from heathenism could not profitably assimilate the whole Catholic religion at once, but must be taught gradually. It would be necessary for him to learn first the great truth of the unity of God, and not until this had sunk deep into his heart could he safely be instructed concerning the Blessed Trinity. Otherwise tritheism would have been the inevitable result. So again, in times of persecution, it was necessary to be very careful about those who offered themselves for instruction, and who might be spies wishing to be instructed only that they might betray. The doctrines to which the reserve was more especially applied were those of the Holy Trinity and the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. The Lord's Prayer, too, was jealously guarded from the knowledge of all who were not fully instructed. With regard to the Holy Eucharist and the Lord's Prayer some relics of the practice still survive in the Church. The Mass of Catechumens, that earlier portion of the Eucharistic service to which learners and neophytes were admitted, and which consisted of prayers or readings from Holy Scripture and sometimes included a sermon, is still quite distinguishable, though the custom no longer survives in the Western Liturgy, as it does in the Eastern, of formally bidding the uninitiated to depart when the more solemn part of the service is about to begin. So also the custom of saying the Lord's Prayer in silence in all public services, except the latter part of the Mass, when catechumens would according to the ancient use no longer have been present, owes its origin to this discipline. The earliest formal witness for the custom seems to be Tertullian (Apol. vii): Omnibus mysteriis silentii fides adhibetur. Again, speaking of heretics, he complains bitterly that their discipline is lax in this respect, and that evil results have followed: "Among them it is doubtful who is a catechumen and who a believer; all can come in alike; they hear side by side and pray together; even heathens, if any chance to come in. That which is holy they cast to the dogs, and their pearls, although they are not real ones, they fling to the swine" (Praescr. adv. Haer., xii). Other passages from the Fathers which may be cited are St. Basil (De Spir. Sanct., xxvii): "These things must not be told to the uninitiated"; St. Gregory Nazianzen (Oratio xi, in s. bapt.) where he speaks of a difference of knowledge between those who are without and those who are within, and St. Cyril of Jerusalem whose "Catechetical Discourses" are entirely built upon this principle, and who in his first discourse cautions his hearers not to tell what they have heard. "Should a catechumen ask what the teachers have said, tell nothing to a stranger; for we deliver to thee a mystery . . . see thou let out nothing, not that what is said is not worth telling, but because the ear that hears does not deserve to receive it. Thou thyself wast once a catechumen, and then I told thee not what was coming. When thou hast come to experience the hieght of what is taught thee, thou wilt know that the catechumens are not worthy to hear them" (Cat., Lect. i, 12). St. Augustine and St. Chrysostom in like manner stop short in their public addresses, and, after a more or less veiled reference to the mysteries, continue with: "The initiated will understand what I mean". The Lord's Prayer was in St. Augustine's time taught eight days before baptism (Hom. xlii; cf. "Enchir.", lxxi, and the "Apostolic Constitutions", VII, xliv; St. Chrys. Hom. cc, al. xix, in Matt.). The Creed in like manner was taught just before baptism. So St. Ambrose, writing to his sister Marcellina (Epist xx, Benedict, ed.) says that on Sunday, after the catechumens had been dismissed, he was teaching the Creed in the baptistery of the basilica to those who were sufficiently advanced. (Cf. aslo St. Jerome, Epist. xxxciii, ad. Pammach.) More detailed teaching about the Holy Trinity and about the other sacraments was only given after baptism. Other passages which may be consulted are: Chrys., "Hom. in Matt.", xxiii, "Hom. xviii, in II Cor."; Pseud. Augustine, "Serm. ad Neoph.", i; St. Ambrose, "De his qui mysteriis initiantur"; Gaudentius, "Ser. ii ad Neoph."; Apost. Constit., III, v, and VIII, xi. The rule of reticence applied to all the sacraments, and no catechumen was ever allowed to be present at their celebration. St. Basil (De Spir. S. ad Amphilochium, xxvii) speaking of the sacraments says: "One must not circulate in writing the doctrine of mysteries which none but the initiated are allowed to see." For baptism reference may be made to Theodoret (Epitom. Decret., xcviii), St. Cyril of Alexandria (Contr. Julian., i), and St. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. xl, de bapt.). The discipline with respect to the Holy Eucharist of course requires no proof. It is in involved in the very name of the Missa Catechumenorum, and one can scarcely turn to any passage of the Fathers which deals with the subject in which the reticence to be observed is not expressly stated. Confirmation was never spoken of openly. St. Basil, in the treatise already spoken of (De Spir. S., xxv, 11), says that no one has ever ventured to speak openly in writing of the holy oil of unction, and Innocent I, writing to the Bishop of Gubbio on the sacramental "form" of the ordinance answers: "I dare not speak the words, but I should seem rather to betray a trust than to respond to a request for information" (Epist. i, 3). Holy orders in the same way were never given publicly. The Council of Laodicea forbade it definitely in its speaking of the practice of begging the prayers of the faithful for those who are to be ordained, says that those who understand co-operate with and assent to what is done. "For it is not lawful to reveal everything to those who are yet uninitiated." So also St. Augustine (Tract xi. in Joann.): "If you say to a catechumen, Dost thou believe in Christ? he will answer, I do, and will sign himself with the Cross . . . Let us ask him, Dost thou eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink the Blook of the Son of Man? He will not know what we mean, for Jesus has not trusted himself to him." (2) The Heathen The evidence for the reserve of Christian writers when dealing with religious questions in books which might be accessible to the heathen is, naturally, to a large extent of a negative character, and therefore difficult to produce. Theodoret (Quaest. xv in Num.) lays down the general principle in terms which are quote clear and unmistakable: "We speak in obscure terms concerning the Divine Mysteries, on account of the uninitiated, but when they have withdrawn we teach the initiated plainly." That passage alone would suffice to refute the allegation not unfrequently made that the Discipline of the Secret was a confinement of the knowledge introduced in imitation of the heathen "mysteries". On the contrary all Christians were taught the whole truth, there was no esoteric doctrine, but they were brought to full knowledge slowly, and precautions were taken, as was very necessary, to prevent heathens from learning anything of which they might make an evil use. A very striking example of the way in which the discipline worked may be found in the writings of St. Chrysostom. He writes to Pope Innocent I to say that in the course of a disturbance at Constantinople an act of irreverence had been committed, and "the blood of Christ had been spilt upon the ground." In a letter to the pope there was no reason for not speaking plainly. But Palladius, his biographer, speaking of the same incident in a book for general reading, says only, "They overturned the symbols" (Chrys. ad Inn., i, 3 in P.G., LII, 534; cf. Döllinger, "Lehre der Eucharistie", 15). It is, no doubt, on this account that almost all the early apologists, as Minucius Felix Athenagoras, Arnobius, Tatian, and Theophilus, are absolutely silent on the Holy Eucharist. Justin Martyr and to a less degree Tertullian are more outspoken; the frankness of the former has been unduly urged to prove the non-existence of this institution in the first half of the second century. So again, as Cardinal Newman has observed (Development, 87), both Minucius Felix and Arnobius in controversy with heathens deny absolutely that Christians used altars in their churches. The obvious meaning was that they did not use altars in the heathen sense, and they must not be taken as denying the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that, in a Christian sense, "we have an altar". The controversial importance of this subject in more recent times is, of course, obvious. The Catholics answered the accusation of Protestant writers, that their special doctrines could not be found in the writings of the early Fathers, by showing the existence of this practice of reserve. If it was forbidden to speak or write publicly of these doctrines, silence was completely accounted for. So again, if here and there in early writings terms were used which seemed to countenance Protestant teaching -- as for instance by speaking of the Holy Eucharist as symbols -- it became necessary always to examine whether these terms were not used intentionally to conceal the true doctrine from the uninitiated, and whether the same writers did not, under other circumstances, use much more definite language. Protestant controversialists, therefore, endeavoured first of all to deny that the practice had ever really existed, and then when they were driven from this position, they asserted that it was unknown to the earliest Christians, as shown by the freedom with which Justin Martyr speaks on the subject of the Holy Eucharist, and that it was the result of persecution. They alleged therefore that Catholics could not use it to account for the silence of any writer before the latter part of the second century at the earliest. To this Catholics responded that, although no doubt the practice may have been intensified through persecution, it goes back to the very beginnings of Christianity, and to Christ's own words. Moreover it can be shown to have been in force before St. Justin's time, and his action must be regarded as an exception, rendered necessary by the need for putting before the emperor an account of the Christian religion which should be true and full. The monuments of the earliest centuries afford interesting examples of the principle of the Discipline of the Secret. Monuments which could be seen by all could only speak of the mysteries of religion under veiled symbols. So in the catacombs there is scarcely any instance of a painting the subject of which is directly Christian, although all spoke of Christian truth to those who were instructed in their meaning. Jewish subjects typical of Christian truths were commonly chosen, while the representation of Christ under the name and form of a fish made the allusion to the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist possible and plain. There is, for example, the famous Autun inscription (see PECTORIUS): "Take the food, honey-sweet, of the redeemer of the saints, eat and drink holding the Fish in they hands"; words which every Christian would understand at once, but which conveyed nothing to the uninitiated. The inscription of Abercius offers another notable instance. The need for this reticence became less pressing after the fifth century, as Europe became Christianized and the discipline gradually passed away. We may, however, still trace its effects in the seventh century in the absurd understatements contained in the Koran on the subject of the Blessed Trinity and the Holy Eucharist. This, perhaps, is almost the last instance which could be brought forward. Once the doctrines of the Church had been publicly set forth, any such discipline became impossible and no return to it was practicable. For a refutation of the theory of G. Anrich (Das Antike Mysterienwesen, 1894), that the primitive Christians borrowed this practice from the mysteries of Mithra, see Cumont, "The Mysteries of Mithra" (London, 1903), 196-99. Schelstrate, De Disciplinâ arcani (Antwerp, 1678); Meier, De reconditâ vet. Eccl. theol. (Helmstedt, 1670); Shollinger, Dissert. de Disc. arc. (Venice, 1756); Lienhardt, De. antiq. liturg. et de disc. arc. (Strasburg, 1823); Toklot, De Disc. arc. (Cologne, 1836); Newman, Arians, i, 3. Among Protestant works: Fromann, De Disc. arc. in vet. Eccl., (Jena, 1833); Rothe, De disc. arc. (Heidelberg, 1841); Credner in Jenaer Literaturzeitung (1844); Bonwetsch, Ueber Wesen, Entstehung u. Fortgang d. Arckanidisziplin in Zeitschr. für hist. hist. Theol. (1873), II, 203-299; cf. also BINGHAM, Antiq. Eccl., and Haddan in Dict. of Christ. Antiq., s.v. The doubts raised by Abbé Batiffol in Etudes d'Hist. et de Théologie positive (Paris, 1902), 1-42, as to the antiquity and customary view of the Disciplina Arcani seem to have been satisfactorily quited by the learned treatise of Ignaz von Funk, Das Alter der Arkanidisziplin in his Theologische Abhandlungen (Paderborn, 1907), III, 42-57; MacDonald, The Discipline of the Secret in The Am. Eccl. Rev. (Philadelphia, 1904), xxx. ARTHUR S. BARNES Religious Discussions Religious Discussions (CONFERENCES, DISPUTATIONS, DEBATES) Religious discussions, as contradistinguished from polemical writings, designate oral dialectical duels, more or less formal and public, between champions of divergent religious beliefs. For the most part, the more celebrated of these discussions have been held at the instigation of the civil authorities; for the Church has rarely shown favour to this method of ventilating revealed truth. This attitude of opposition on the part of the Church is wise and intelligible. A champion of orthodoxy, possessed of all the qualifications essential to a public debater, is not easily to be found. Moreover, it seems highly improper to give the antagonists of the truth an opportunity to assail mysteries and institutions which should be spoken of with reverence. The fact that the Catholic party to the controversy is nearly always obliged to be on the defensive places him at a disadvantage before the public, who, as Demosthenes remarks, "listen eagerly to revilings and accusations". At any rate, the Church, as custodian of Revelation, cannot abdicate her office and permit a jury of more or less competent individuals to decide upon the truths committed to her care. St. Thomas (II-II, Q. x, a. 7) holds that it is lawful to dispute publicly with unbelievers, under certain conditions. To discuss as doubting the truth of the faith, is a sin; to discuss for the purpose of refuting error, is praiseworthy. At the same time the character of the audience must be considered. If they are well instructed and firm in their belief, there is no danger; if they are simple-minded then, where they are solicited by unbelievers to abandon their faith, a public defence is needful, provided it can be undertaken by competent parties. But where the faithful are not exposed to such perverting influences, discussions of the sort are dangerous. It is not, then, surprising that the question of disputations with heretics has been made the subject of ecclesiastical legislation. By a decree of Alexander IV (1254-1261) inserted in "Sextus Decretalium", Lib. V, c. ii, and still in force, all laymen are forbidden, under threat of excommunication, to dispute publicly or privately with heretics on the Catholic Faith. The text reads: "Inhibemus quoque, ne cuiquam laicæ personæ liceat publice vel privatim de fide catholicâ disputare. Qui vero contra fecerit, excommunicationis laqueo innodetur." (We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication.) This law, like all penal laws, must be very narrowly construed. The terms Catholic Faith and dispute have a technical signification. The former term refers to questions purely theological; the latter to disputations more or less formal, and engrossing the attention of the public. There are numerous questions, somewhat connected with theology, which many laymen who have received no scientific theological training can treat more intelligently than a priest. In modern life, it frequently happens that an O'Connell or a Montalembert must stand forward as a defender of Catholic interests upon occasions when a theologian would be out of place. But when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defence of it to the clergy. But the clergy are not free to engage in public disputes on religion without due authorization. In the Collectanea S. Cong. de Prop. Fide" (p. 102, n. 294) we find the following decree, issued 8 March, 1625: "The Sacred Congregation has ordered that public discussions shall not be held with heretics, because for the most part, either owing to their loquacity or audacity or to the applause of the audience, error prevails and the truth is crushed. But should it happen that such a discussion is unavoidable, notice must first be given to the S. Congregation, which, after weighing the circumstances of time and persons, will prescribe in detail what is to be done. The Sacred Congregation enforced this decree with such vigour, that the custom of holding public disputes with heretics wellnigh fell into desuetude. [See the decree of 1631 regarding the missionaries in Constantinople; also the decrees of 1645 and 1662, the latter forbidding the General of the Capuchins to authorize such disputes (Collectanea, 1674, n. 302).] That this legislation is still in force appears from the letter addressed to the bishops of Italy by Cardinal Rampolla in the name of the Cong. for Ecclesiastical Affairs (27 Jan., 1902) in which it is declared that discussions with Socialists are subject to the decrees of the Holy See regarding public disputes with heretics; and, in accordance with the decree of Propaganda, 7 Feb., 1645, such public disputations are not to be permitted unless there is hope of producing greater good and unless the conditions prescribed by theologians are fulfilled. The Holy See, it is added, considering that these discussions often produce no result at all or even result in harm, has frequently forbidden them and ordered ecclesiastical superiors to prevent them; where this cannot be done, care must be taken that the discussions are not held without the authorization of the Apostolic See; and that only those who are well qualified to secure the triumph of Christian truth shall take part therein. It is evident, then, that no Catholic priest is ever permitted to become the aggressor or to issue a challenge to such a debate. If he receives from the other party to the controversy a public challenge under circumstances which make a non-acceptance appear morally impossible, he must refer the case to his canonical superiors and be guided by their counsel. We thus reconcile two apparently contradictory utterances of the Apostles: for according to St. Peter (I Pet., iii, 15) you should be "ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you", while St. Paul admonishes Timothy (II Tim., ii, 14), "Contend not in words, for it is to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers". HISTORIC DISPUTATIONS IN EARLY TIMES The disputes of St. Stephen and St. Paul, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, were rather in the nature of Apostolic pleading than of formal discussions. St. Justin's "Dialogue with Tryphon" was, in all probability, a literary effort after the model of Plato's dialogues. St. Augustine, the ablest disputant of all time, engaged in several set debates with Arians, Manichæans, Donatists, and Pelagians. An interesting summary of each of these great disputations is preserved among the saint's works, and ought to be closely studied by those who are called to defend the Catholic cause. Of particular interest is the celebrated Conference of Carthage, convened by order of Emperor Honorius to finish the inveterate schism of the Donatists. It opened 1 June, 411, and lasted three days. The tribune Marcellinus represented the emperor, and in the presence of 286 Catholic and 279 Donatist bishops, St. Augustine, as chief spokesman of the Catholics, so completely upset the sectarian arguments, that the victory was awarded to the Catholics, many prominent members of the sect were converted, and Donatism was doomed to a lingering death. Another memorable disputation took place in Africa a couple of centuries later (645) between St. Maximus, Abbot of Chrysopolis (Scutari) and the Monothelite Patriarch Pyrrhus, who had been driven from Constantinople by popular violence. It was conducted with rare skill and ended with the temporary conversion of Pyrrhus to the orthodox faith. DURING THE REFORMATION PERIOD At the outbreak of the Lutheran and Zwinglian revolution, tumultuous discussions of religious subjects grew to be epidemic. Luther opened the revolt by inviting discussion upon his ninety-five theses, 31 Oct., 1517. Although ostensibly framed to furnish matter for an ordinary scholastic dispute, Luther did not seriously contemplate an oral debate; for several of his theses were at variance with Catholic doctrine and could not be discussed at a Catholic university. Instead, they were widely scattered through Europe, everywhere creating confusion. An opportunity of disseminating more openly his peculiar tenets regarding justification by faith alone, the slavery of the human will, and the sinfulness of good works was offered to the Reformer by his order during a convention held at Heidelberg in April, 1518, when he directed a dispute on twenty-eight theological and forty philosophical theses in the presence of many professors, students, citizens, and courtiers. Though his novel tenets were viewed with deep displeasure by the older heads, he was successful in winning over several of his younger hearers, notably Brenz and the Dominican, Martin Bucer. Emboldened by the outcome of the Heidelberg Dispute, and having discovered that the road to success lay in captivating the young, the agitator made futile attempts at organizing disputations at the seats of higher learning; but no university would lend its halls to the dissemination of un-Catholic doctrines. The imprudence of Dr. Eck, who had become involved in a literary contest with Carlstadt and had hastily challenged his adversary to a public debate, gave Luther his long-looked-for opportunity. With his customary energy, he took the direction of the intellectual duel, encouraged both antagonists to persevere, and arranged the details. The city of Leipzig was chosen as the scene. Although the faculty of the university entered a vigorous protest, and the Bishops of Merseburg and Brandenburg launched prohibitions and an excommunication, the disputation took place under the ægis of Duke George of Saxony. The discontent of the Catholics was increased when they learned that Luther had secured permission to subjoin a controversy with Eck on the subject of papal supremacy. Eck came to Leipzig with one attendant; Luther and Carlstadt entered the city accompanied by an army of adherents, mostly students. The preliminaries were carefully arranged; after which, from 27 June to 4 July (1519) Eck and Carlstadt debated the subject of free will and our ability to cooperate with grace. Eck had the better part of the argument throughout, and forced his antagonist to make admissions which stultified the new Lutheran doctrine. Thereupon Luther himself came forward to assail the dogma of Roman supremacy by Divine right. Sweeping away the authority of decretals, councils, and Fathers, he discovered to his hearers, and possibly also to himself, how completely he had abandoned the basic principles of the Catholic religion. There could no longer remain a doubt that a new Hus had arisen to scourge the Church. The debate on the primacy was succeeded by discussions of purgatory, indulgences, penance, etc. On 14 and 15 July, Carlstadt, regaining courage, resumed the debate on free will and good works. Finally, Duke George declared the disputation closed, and each of the contendents departed, as usual, claiming the victory. Of the two universities, Erfurt and Paris, to which the final decision had been reserved, Erfurt declined to intervene and returned the documents; Paris sat in judgment upon Luther's writings, attaching to each of his opinions the proper theological censure. The most tangible outcome of this disputation was that, while it opened the eyes of Duke George to the true nature of Luther's revolt and attached him unalterably to the Church of his fathers, on the other hand it gained for the Lutheran cause the valuable aid of the youthful Melanchthon, who never understood the merits of the controversy, but was overawed by the vigorous personality of the Reformer. The Leipzig Disputation was the last occasion on which the ancient custom of swearing to advance no tenet contrary to Catholic doctrine was observed. In all subsequent debates between Catholics and Protestants, the bare text of Holy Writ was taken as the sole and sufficient fountain of authority. This, naturally, placed the Catholics in a disadvantageous position and narrowed their prospect of success. This was particularly the case in Switzerland, where Zwingli and his lieutenants organized a number of one-sided debates under the presidency of town councils already won over to Protestantism. Such were the disputations of Zurich, 1523, of Swiss Baden, 1526, and of Berne, 1528. In all of these the result was invariably the same, the abolition of Catholic worship and the desecration of churches and religious institutions. Passing over the numerous futile attempts made by the Protestants to heal their intestine quarrels by means of colloquies, we come to the still more hopeless efforts of Charles V to bring the religious troubles of Germany to a "speedy and peaceful termination" by conferences between the Catholic and the Protestant divines. Since the Protestants proclaimed their determination to adhere to the terms of the Augsburg Confession, and, in addition, formally repudiated the authority of the Roman pontiff and "would admit no other judge of the controversy than Jesus Christ", it was to be foreseen that the result of conferences thus conducted could only be to waste time and increase the acrimony already existing between the parties. This was as clear to Pope Paul III as to Luther, both of whom predicted the inevitable failure. However, since the emperor and his brother, King Ferdinand, persisted in making a trial, the pope authorized his nuncio, Morone, to proceed to Speyer, whither the meeting had been summoned for June, 1540. As the plague was raging in that city the conference took place in Hagenau. Neither the Elector of Saxony nor the Landgrave of Hesse could be induced to attend. Melanchthon was absent through a heavy illness brought on by grief and shame at the ignoble part he had taken in the affair of the Landgrave's bigamy. The leading Protestant theologians at the conference were Bucer, Myconius, Brenz, Blaurer, and Urbanus Rhegius. The most prominent on the Catholic side were Bishop Faber of Vienna and Dr. Eck. Present and actively intriguing to prevent an accommodation was John Calvin, then exiled from Geneva; he appeared as confidential agent of the King of France, whose settled policy it was to perpetuate religious discord in the domains of his rival. After a month wasted in useless wrangling, King Ferdinand prorogued the conference to reassemble at Worms on 28 October. Undismayed by the failure of the Hagenau conference, the emperor made more strenuous efforts for the success of the coming colloquy at Worms. He dispatched his minister Granvella and Ortiz, his envoy, to the papal court. The latter brought with him the celebrated Jesuit, Father Peter Faber. The pope sent the Bishop of Feltri, Tommaso Campeggio, brother of the great cardinal, and ordered Morone to attend. They were not to take part in the debates, but were to watch events closely and report to Rome. Granvella opened the proceedings at Worms, 25 Nov., with an eloquent and conciliatory address. He pictured the evils which had befallen Germany, "once the first of all nations in fidelity, religion, piety, and divine worship", and warned his hearers that "all the evils that shall come upon you and your people, if, by clinging stubbornly to preconceived notions, you prevent a renewal of concord, will be ascribed to you as the authors of them." On behalf of the Protestants, Melanchthon returned "an intrepid answer"; he threw all the blame upon the Catholics, who refused to accept the new Gospel. A great deal of time was spent in wrangling over points of order; finally it was decided that Dr. Eck should be spokesman for the Catholics and Melanchthon for the Protestants. The debate began 14 Jan., 1541. A tactical blunder was committed in accepting the Augsburg Confession as the basis of the conference. That document had been drawn up to meet an emergency. It was apologetic and conciliatory, so worded as to persuade the young emperor that there was no radical difference between the Catholics and the Protestants. It admitted the spiritual jurisdiction of the bishops and tacitly acknowledged the supremacy of the pope by laying the ultimate appeal with a council by him convened. But many changes had taken place in the ten intervening years. The bishops had been driven out of every Protestant territory in Germany; the Smalkald confederates had solemnly abjured the pope and scorned his proffer of a council; each petty territorial prince had constituted himself the head and exponent of religion within his domain. For all practical purposes the Augsburg Confession was as useless as the laws of Lycurgus. Moreover, as Dr. Eck pointed out, the Augsburg Confession of 1540 was a different document from the Confession of 1530, having been changed by Melanchthon to suit his sacramentarian view of the Eucharist. Had the theologians at Worms reached an agreement on every point of doctrine, the discord in Germany would have continued none the less; for the princes had not the remotest idea of giving up their lucrative dominion over their territorial churches. Eck and Melanchthon battled four days over the topic of original sin and its consequences, and a formula was drafted to which both parties agreed, the Protestants with a reservation. At this point Granvella suspended the conference, to he resumed at Ratisbon, whither the emperor had summoned a diet, which he promised to attend in person. This diet, from which the emperor anticipated brilliant results, was called to order 5 April, 1541. As legate of the pope appeared Cardinal Contarini, assisted by the nuncio Morone. The inevitable Calvin was present, ostensibly to represent Luneburg, in reality to foster discord in the interest of France. As collocutors at the religious conference which met simultaneously, Charles appointed Eck, Pflug, and Gropper for the Catholic side, and Melanchthon, Bucer, and Pistorius for the Protestants. A document of mysterious origin, the "Ratisbon Book", was presented by Joachim of Brandenburg as the basis of agreement. This strange compilation, it developed later, was the result of secret conferences, held during the meeting at Worms, between the Protestants, Bucer and Capito, on one side, and the Lutheranizing Gropper and a secretary of the emperor named Veltwick on the other. It consisted of twenty-three chapters, in which, by an ingenious phraseology, the attempt was made so to formulate the controverted doctrines that each party might find its own views therein expressed. How much Charles and Granvella had to do in the transaction, is unknown; they certainly knew and approved of it. The "Book" had been submitted by the Elector of Brandenburg to the judgment of Luther and Melanchthon; and their contemptuous treatment of it augured ill for its success. When it was shown to the legate and Morone, the latter was for rejecting it summarily; Contarini, after making a score of emendations, notably emphasizing in Article 14 the dogma of Transubstantiation, declared that now "as a private person" he could accept it; but as legate he must consult with the Catholic theologians. Eck secured the substitution of a conciser exposition of the doctrine of justification. Thus emended, the "Book" was presented to the collocutors by Granvella for consideration. The first four articles, treating of man before the fall, free will, the origin of sin, and original sin, were accepted. The battle began in earnest when the fifth article, on justification, was reached. After long and vehement debates, a formula was presented by Bucer and accepted by the majority, so worded as to be capable of bearing a Catholic and a Lutheran interpretation. Naturally, it was unsatisfactory to both parties. The Holy See condemned it and administered a severe rebuke to Contarini for not protesting against it. No greater success was attained as to the other articles of importance. On 22 May the conference ended, and the emperor was informed as to the articles agreed upon and those on which agreement was impossible. Charles was sorely disappointed, hut he was powerless to effect anything further. The decree known as the "Ratisbon Interim", published 28 July, 1541, enjoining upon both sides the observance of the articles agreed upon by the theologians, was by both sides disregarded. Equally without result was the last of the conferences summoned by Charles at Ratisbon, 1546, just previously to the outbreak of the Smalkaldic War. THE COLLOQUY AT POISSY In 1561 six French cardinals and thirty-eight archbishops and bishops, with a host of minor prelates and doctors, wasted in a barren controversy with the Calvinists an entire month, which might have been spent far more advantageously to the Church and more in consonance with the duties of their offices had they taken their places in the Council of Trent. The conference had been arranged by Catharine de' Medici, the queen-mother and regent during the minority of her son, Charles IX. Between this typical representative of the Medici and her contemporary, Elizabeth of England, there was little to choose. With both religion was simply a matter of expediency and politics. The Calvinist faction in France, though less than half a million in number, was aggressive and insolent, under the guidance of several princes of the royal blood and members of the higher nobility. The fatal virus of Gallicanism and chronic disaffection towards the Holy See paralysed Catholic activity; and although a general council was in session under the legitimate presidency of the Roman pontiff, voices were heard even among the French bishops, advocating the convocation of a schismatical national synod. We may regard it as an extenuation of the guilt of Catharine and her advisers, that they refused to go the whole length of a schism and chose the alternative of a religious conference under the direction of the civil power. The pope did his utmost to prevent what, under the circumstances, could only he construed as a public defiance of ecclesiastical authority. He dispatched the Cardinal of Ferrara, with Laynez, General of the Jesuits, as his adviser, to dissuade the regent and the bishops. But the affair had gone too far; on 9 Sept. the representatives of the rival religions began their pleadings before a woman and a boy eleven years old. The proceedings were opened by a speech of Chancellor L'Hôpital, in which he emphasized the right and duty of the monarch to provide for the needs of the Church. Even should a general council be in session, a colloquy between Frenchmen convened by the king was the better way of settling religious disputes; for a general council, being, for the most part, composed of foreigners, was incapable of understanding the wishes and the needs of France. Yet these French politicians who refused to submit articles of faith to the decision of a general council because the majority of the Fathers were not French, chose as authoritative expounders of the dogmas of the Church the Genevan Beza and the Italian Vermigli. It was a deep humiliation for the proud hierarchy of France to be compelled to listen to a long tirade by Beza against the most cherished of Catholic doctrines, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. They suppressed their feelings, out of respect for the king, until the hardy Reformer, in the heat of argument, gave utterance to his conviction that the Body and Blood of Christ were as far distant from the bread and wine, as the highest heaven is from the earth. This was too much for the bishops to bear, and they cried out, "He blasphemeth". It was too much for Catharine herself, and proved to her that the fundamental dogma of the Catholic Church was at stake. Beza's speech, revised and emended, was scattered broadcast among the people of France. We are told that the Cardinal of Lorraine confuted the heretic at the next session in a masterly address; but since he did not set it down in writing its value cannot be ascertained. The only sensible speech made at this colloquy was that of the Jesuit Laynez, who had the courage to remind the queen that the proper place for ventilating subjects concerning the Faith was Trent, not Paris; that the Divinely appointed judge of the religious controversies was the supreme pontiff, not the Court of France. Catharine wept; but instead of following the Jesuit's wise counsel, she appointed a committee of five Calvinists and five lukewarm Catholics, who drafted a vague formula which could be interpreted in a Catholic or a Calvinistic sense, and was consequently condemned by both parties. The spread of Protestantism and the application of its fundamental principle of private judgment naturally produced far-reaching differences in belief. To heal these and so bring about unity, various conferences were held: at Weimar (1560), between the Lutherans, Striegel and Flacius, on free will; at Altenburg (1568-69), between the Jena theologians and those from Wittenberg, on free will and justification; at Montbéliard (1586), between Beza and the Tübingen theologians, on predestination. None of these resulted in harmony; they rather emphasized divergences in belief and intensified partisanship. DISCUSSIONS IN MODERN TIMES The conference of Poissy was the last attempt made to reconcile or slur over the radical differences of Catholicity and Protestantism. There have been some notable oral debates between champions of the rival religions in more recent times; but in these each side laboured to establish its own position and prove that of its adversary untenable. The most memorable and successful of these modern disputations was the "Conference on the Authority of the Church" held 8 March, 1679, between Bossuet and the Calvinist minister Jean Claude. This was a model of close debate, in which, with due courtesy, each antagonist kept strictly to the subject in hand, the relation of the Church and the Bible. The fondness of English-speaking peoples for public disputes has often shown itself in challenges, generally delivered by Protestant controversialists, to discuss religious topics in public. As a rule, they have produced no good results, since both sides revived wornout arguments and wandered over too wide a field. Such was the "Controversial Discussion between Rev. Thomas Maguire and Rev. Richard T. Pope", held in the lecture-room of the Dublin Institution in April, 1827, Daniel O'Connell being one of the presiding officers. It was printed and widely circulated. Of a similar nature was the "Debate on the Roman Catholic Religion", held in Cincinnati from 13 to 21 Jan., 1837, between Alexander Campbell, the founder of the Campbellite sect, and Bishop John F. Purcell. More satisfactory, because confined within closer limits, was the celebrated "Discussion of the Question, Is the Roman Catholic Religion, in any or in all its Principles or Doctrines, Inimical to Civil or Religious Liberty? and of the Question, Is the Presbyterian Religion, in any or in all its Principles or Doctrines, Inimical to Civil or Religious Liberty?" debated in Philadelphia in 1836 between Rev. John Hughes, later Archbishop of New York, and Rev. John Breckinridge of the Presbyterian Church. Both parties kept their tempers remarkably well; but to judge from the violent riots which broke out not long after, the debate had little effect in extinguishing unreasoning prejudices. With the exception of a debate on the question of St. Peter's residence in Rome, held in the Eternal City in 1872, there have been no oral religious discussions in recent times and this method of elucidating religious truth may be regarded as discountenanced by modern public opinion. GÖPFERT in Kirchenlex., s. v. Disputation; SANTI, Prœlectiones Juris Can. (4th ed., Ratisbon, 1906), lib. V. p. 106; LOISELET, Ce que pense l'Eglise des Conférences Contradictoires in Etudes (20 Aug., 1905); PASTOR, Die kirchlichen Reunions-bestrebungen während der Regierung Karls V. (Freiburg, 1879). JAMES F. LOUGHLIN. St. Disibod St. Disibod Irish bishop and patron of Disenberg (Disibodenberg), born c. 619; died 8 July, 700. His life was written in 1170 by St. Hildegarde, from her visions. St. Disibod journeyed to the Continent about the year 653, and settled in the valley of the Nahe, not far from Bingen. His labours continued during the latter half of the seventh century, and, though he led the life of an anchorite, he had a numerous community, who built bee-hive cells, in the Irish fashion, on the eastern slopes of the mountain. Before his death he had the happiness of seeing a church erected, served by a colony of monks following the Rule of St. Columba, and he was elected abbot-bishop, the monastery being named Mount Disibod, subsequently Disenberg, in the Diocese of Mainz. Numerous miracles are recorded of the saint. Some authors are of the opinion that his death really took place on 8 Sept., whilst the date 8 July is that of the translation of his relics in the year 754, St. Boniface being present. W.H. GRATTAN-FLOOD Disparity of Worship Disparity of Worship (Disparitas Cultus) A diriment impediment introduced by the Church to safeguard the sanctity of the Sacrament of Marriage. To effect this purpose a law was necessary that would debar Catholics from contracting marriage with persons unfit to receive the sacrament. The unfitness consists in + either non-reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, which is the door to the other six sacraments; or + in an unbelief in the sacramental character of marriage or in either or both of its essential properties (unity and indissolubility); or + in a profession of belief or unbelief that endangers the three ends and threefold substantial blessings or advantages of this "great sacrament … in Christ and the church". This unfitness, in whole or in part, is to be found in all persons who are not of the Catholic Faith and worship. Disparity of worship, in a general way, signifies a difference of religion or worship between two persons. This state of disagreement may be antecedent to, or consequent upon, their marriage. Consequent disparity occurs in the case of two pagans or unbaptized persons, one of whom, becoming a convert, is baptized in the Catholic Faith or validly baptized in some Christian sect after marriage. The marriage is not affected by this consequent disparity of religion. Another species of consequent diversity of worship which does not militate against the marriage is that of two Catholics, one of whom after their union apostatizes, or turns infidel, Mohammedan, etc. Antecedent disparity is twofold: considered in its strict and proper sense it is called perfect disparity of worship, or simply disparity of worship, and implies a different relation on the part of the contracting parties in the matter of an essential religious rite, to wit, the Sacrament of Baptism. Viewed in a less strict, but still a proper, sense, it is named imperfect disparity of worship or, more commonly, mixed religion (mixta religio), which presupposes an equality as to the reception of baptism, but denotes a divergency as to form of belief and religious observance. Imperfect disparity, or mixed relgion, does not render void the marriage of a Catholic with a baptized non-Catholic; but it does make it (unless dispensation intervenes) illicit and sinful. However, such a marriage may be null and void on account of another diriment impediment, e.g. clandestinity. Disparity of worship, in its strict sense, and as the subject of this article, is that diversity which exists between two persons, one of whom has, and the other has certainly not, received Christian baptism. This disparity exists between a baptized Christian, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, and a pagan, Mohammedan, Jew, or even a catechumen (believer in the Catholic Faith yet not baptized). Imperfect disparity of worship, or mixed religion, might more strictly and aptly be named disparity of faith, since faith (an internal act), and not baptism, is the point of difference; perfect disparity of worship, on the contrary, might more aptly and properly be called disparity of baptism, for the reason that the external act (baptism), and not the internal assent of the mind (faith), is the fixed point of dissimilarity. Baptism has been chosen as the basis of this diriment impediment for a twofold reason: + it is an external ceremony, easy of recognition and proof, and + it is a sacrament which imprints an indelible character upon the soul of the receiver and so presents a personal religious condition which is fixed and unchangeable. Personal faith, on the contrary, viewed either as the internal assent of the mind or as the outward profession of the internal act, is subject to change and not always easy of demonstration, and hence could not afford a certain and immovable foundation. The primary reason why Catholics are debarred from intermarriage with unbaptized persons is because the latter are not capable of receiving the Sacrament of Matrimony, as baptism is the door to all the other sacraments. Furthermore, according to the more probable opinion, the Catholic party who, with a dispensation, marries an unbaptized person, does not receive the sacrament or the concomitant graces (cf. Sanchez, Bk. II, disp. viii, n. 2; Pirhing, Bk. IV, tit. i, n. 71; Schmalzgrüber, Bk. IV, tit. i, n. 307; Billot, "De Ecclesiæ Sacramentis", pars posterior, 359 sqq.; Hurter, III, 538, n. 598; and Wernz, who examines the reasons for the opposite opinion and answers them, "Jus Decret.", IV, 63 sqq.). The Church has not decided this question; hence the opinion of Dominicus de Soto (In IV Sent., art. iii, ad finem), Perrone (II, 306), Rosset, who holds that it is the more probable (De Sacr. Matrimonii, I, 284 sqq.), and Tanquerey (Synopsis Theol. Dogmat., II, 648, n. 31), to wit, that the Catholic does receive the sacrament, is tenable. The marriage, according to both opinions, is certainly sacred (Leo XIII, "Arcanum", 10 Feb., 1880) and indissoluble. EXTENT OF THE IMPEDIMENT This impediment exists only in instances where the disparity is of such nature that one of the contracting parties is, and the other party is certainly not, baptized. Every baptized person, Protestant as well as Catholic, is subject to this disqualifying and annulling impediment, because Christ gave the Church jurisdiction over all who belong to it by baptism. Under the name "Catholic" are here included, besides practical Catholics, children baptized as infants in the Catholic Church but never reared or instructed in her teachings, Catholics who have fallen away or apostatized from the Catholic Faith and have joined other denominations or turned infidel. Once baptized always baptized, and always subject to the laws of Christ and His infallible Church, is axiomatic. Disparity of worship embraces and renders null and void (no dispensation having been granted) the marriage + of a Catholic with pagan, Mohammedan, Jew, or catechumen, and + of baptized non-Catholics, e.g. heretics and schismatics, with unbaptized persons. It does not extend to, or make void, the marriage + of two certainly unbaptized persons, for, since they do not belong to Christ by baptism, the Church has no jurisdiction over them; + of a Catholic with a baptized Protestant, or schismatic, or apostate Catholic, or Catholic turned infidel; + of baptized non-Catholics with one another. Seeing that the parties in the second and third classes have been baptized, it is evident that their marriages are outside the domain of the diriment impediment, whose aim is to protect the sacrament. Difficulties as to the marriages of Catholics with non-Catholics, and of non-Catholics with one another, or with pagans or other unbaptized persons have in these days multiplied, due either to absolute omission of baptism, or its careless and often invalid administration even among the so-called Christian denominations. Doubts about the administration (dubium facti) or valid administration (dubium juris) of baptism in these sects are as a consequence frequent, and render complex the question whether or not disparity of worship covers the marriages in these instances. The safe guide in this confusion is the axiom: a doubtful baptism, as regards a marriage already, or about to be celebrated, is presumed to be valid if, after due investigation, the doubt is still insoluble or it is not prudent (on account of delay, etc.) to remove it. This rule, so different from that governing baptism as a necessary means for salvation, is based upon the principle that the right to marry yields but to the evidence (not doubt) of the non-baptism. Accordingly, disparity of worship invalidates the matrimonial union of one doubtfully baptized with another certainly not baptized. The doubt may concern the act of baptizing or the validity of the ceremony. Investigation on these points must proceed in this manner: search must be made of the ritual belonging to the denomination of the party concerning whose baptism there is doubt, and if the ritual teaches the necessity of baptism, and prescribes the use of the valid matter and form in its administration, and, further, if the parents are strict adherents and observers of their religion, there is a certainty (sufficient for marriage) that the baptism was valid. If the ritual prescribes baptism with the necessary matter and form, but, upon investigation, a serious doubt remains, the baptism is still considered valid. If, on the contrary, the sect repudiates baptism, forbids infant-baptism, or admits to baptism only adults of thirty years, or the parents assert that they do not belong or wish to belong to any sect or denomination, but are satisfied with pleasing the Supreme Being by a good, moral life rather than by any fixed form of worship, then there is no certainty, not even a presumption, in favour of the baptism in childhood. Should the parents be careless and negligent in the observances of the sect of which they are members, or belong to a denomination which, whilst not rejecting baptism, yet does not admit its necessity, and in which, ordinarily, baptism is not administered, then there is no presumption for or against the baptism of their offspring, and each individual case must be referred to Rome (Congreg. of the Inquisition, 1 Aug., 1883). Disparity of worship does not affect the marriage of a Catholic or baptized non-Catholic with one whose baptism, even after careful investigation concerning the baptismal ceremony or its validity, remains doubtful. Neither does it in any way influence the marriage of two who, after diligent examination, are still considered doubtfully baptized. There is a difference of opinion among the jurists and theologians as to the influence of this diriment impediment upon the marriage of two doubtfully baptized, if after investigation it turns out for a certainty that one was certainly unbaptized. The more common opinion is that disparity of worship does not nullify this marriage. Gasparri gives as reason that the consuetudinary law never contemplated this case, and hence does not influence it (De Matrimonio, I, nos. 597 and 601). Wernz (IV, 772, note), Gury-Ballerini (II, 831), and others say that the marriage is valid, but give as reason the Church's dispensation, either special or general. Lehmkuhl (II, 536) distinguishes and asserts that if a dispensation from the prohibitive impediment of "mixed religion" has been granted antecedent to the marriage, the union is valid; his reason, however, that the Church in dispensing with the prohibitive did not implicitly dispense with the diriment impediment, seems to be at variance with a decree of the Holy Office (29 April, 1840, n. 2) which clearly states that the Holy See dispenses with the impediment of disparity of worship only in express terms. Where no dispensation has been granted, he holds that the marriage is null on account of the existing disparity of worship and must be revalidated. He recognizes, however, as valid the marriage of the doubtfully baptized, if they had been considered and had considered themnselves Catholics, and had followed Catholic practices, and afterwards it was discovered that one of them had not been baptized (loc. cit. in note). ORIGIN OF THE IMPEDIMENT This impediment, inasmuch as it is diriment, is not enjoined by the natural, Divine, or written ecclesiastical law, but has been introduced by a universal custom and practice in the Eastern and Western Churches since the twelfth century. The natural and Divine laws do, however, repudiate and prohibit such marriages as tend to frustrate the primary ends of marriage by exposing believers and their offspring to the loss of their Catholic faith, and this prohibition continues in force so long as the danger exists and no proportionately grave cause dictates the necessity of such marriage. The Mosaic Law (Deut., vii, 3) prohibits marriage between the Israelites and the Chanaanites, and even the Samaritans (who kept the Law and had the Book of Moses), on account of the heathenish ceremonies they observed, lest the Jews might be turned away from the service of the true God and cling to the worship of the false gods of their pagan wives. The Pauline injunctions (I Cor., vii, 39), "… let her marry to whom she will but only in the Lord" and (II Cor., vi, 14): "… bear not the yoke with [i.e. do not marry] unbelievers", do not, indeed, declare invalid the marriages of Christians with unbelievers, but certainly do earnestly forbid the faithful to marry unbelievers unless the ends of Christian marriage are safeguarded and grave and weighty reasons exist for the union. Certainly in the time of St. Paul and immediately afterwards the proportionately small number of Christians was sufficiently grave cause for permitting such intermarriages with the hope of the conversion of the unbelieving partner. With the development of the Church and its growth in numbers, opportunities for Christian marriage increased, proportionately grave reasons for mixed unions (unless in rare cases) ceased, and then the natural and Divine laws asserted their right to prohibit such marriages as tended to frustrate the ends of the matrimonial sacrament by exposing the Catholic to a weakening or loss of faith, the offspring to a lack of Christian education, and the family to a want of that Christian love which is its very corner-stone. The Christian laity, as well as clergy, realized from sad experience and observation the ordinary tendency of mixed unions to a compromise or loss of faith on the part of the Catholic, and the un-Catholic bringing-up or at least religious indifference, of the children, and, finally, injury to domestic peace and happiness by the constant exposure to disputes, and sometimes bitter quarrels, about the fundamental principles of Catholic Faith, and the consequent weakening, if not total extinction, of Christian love between husband and wife (St. Ambrose, De Abraham, Bk. I, ch. ix, says: "There can be no unity of love where there is no untiy of faith"). At different periods and in different countries (especially Spain and Gaul) particular councils inveighed against them, and although these canons were not strictly observed, and there were many mixed marriages in the days of Sts. Jerome (Lib. I in Jovinianum) and Augustine (Lib. de Fide et operibus, ch. xix), yet after the death of the latter, and especially from the seventh to the twelfth century, the detestation of them so increased, and the conviction that they were not Christian marriages, and therefore to be shunned and not contracted, grew so strong and general throughout the entire Church that as far back as the twelfth century it was a universal custom and practice which even had the force of a universal church law (Bellarmine, De Controversiis, III, De Sacramento Matrimonii, Bk. I, ch. xxiii; Benedict XIV, Constit. "Singulari nobis", paragraphs 9 and 10). This impediment is binding on Christians of newly converted or even pagan countries, where there has been no such custom inasmuch as there have been no Catholics. The opinion of Lessius and others to the contrary is clearly refuted by the granting of faculties by Gregory XIII to the Christian missionaries of Japan to dispense with this impediment in the cases of newly converted Japanese Catholics. Many theologians and canonists say that there is one exception to this nullifying law, and that is the instance of an emigrant Catholic family settled in a pagan country without a single Catholic neighbour, forty or fifty days journey removed from the nearest Catholic, and unable on account of the distance or want of means to leave the country or procure a dispensation from the impediment, and thus compelled to remain their whole lives single or marry pagans (Santi-Leitner, IV, 74; Gasparri, De Matrimonio, I, 429). It does not seem that disparity of worship holds in a case of this kind; the ecclesiastical law under such circumstances does not bind a man so as to deprive him of his natural right to marry. Wernz, however (Jus Decret., IV, 775, n. 37), holds the opposite opinion. DISPENSATION FROM THE IMPEDIMENT The Church can dispense from this impediment inasmuch as it is of ecclesiastical institution. It never does so unless for gravest reasons and upon the fulfillment of certain conditions and guarantees that safeguard, as far as possible, the ends of the Sacrament of Matrimony. The natural and Divine laws, before permitting mixed marriages, exact the removal of all danger to the faith of the Catholic and to the baptism and Catholic bringing-up of all of the children of the marriage. The Church cannot dispense with this necessary requirement, and, the better to ensure its presence, insists upon certain conditions and promises, which must be committed to writing and signed and, in some instances and countries, also sworn to, by the unbaptized party to the pact. The unbeliever promises faithfully to comply with the requirements of the Church, and the Church on her part grants the permission for the marriage. The promises on the part of the unbaptized party are: + that he (or she) will afford the Catholic partner full and perfect freedom to practise the Catholic Faith, and that he (or she) will abstain from saying or doing aught to weaken or change that faith, and, if he be an inhabitant of a pagan country, that he will not practise polygamy; + that he (or she) will permit all children of their union to be baptized and reared in the Catholic Faith and practice, and that he (or she) will do or say nothing calculated to lessen their faith or turn them away from it or its practices. The Catholic petitioner for the dispensation must also give promise (usually also written, in order that the dispenser may have a moral certainty of the absence of danger to the substantial ends of the sacrament) that he (or she) will strictly attend to his (or her) personal religious duties and have all the children baptized and properly reared and trained in the Catholic doctrine and practice, and that by prayer and good example and other legitimate and prudent means he (or she) will constantly labour to bring about the conversion to the Catholic Faith of his (or her) unbaptized partner. The promise to strive to effect the conversion of the unbeliever is of special importance, although too frequently lost sight of. The conversion most assuredly eliminates the last vestige of possible perversion of the Catholic party, ensures the primary end of marriage, i.e., the bearing and rearing of children for the Church and heaven, and rounds out, by the perfect unity of the married couple in faith and Christian love, their marriage according to its great type, the union of Christ with the Church. Even with all these promises, written and sworn to as safeguards to Christian marriage, a dispensation cannot be licitly given unless a grave necessity proportionate to the great risks to be encountered, justifies the marriage. This dispensation, in former days very rarely granted in Catholic countries, is now of more frequent occurrence, owing to the existence of "civil marriage" and the growing indifference on the part of parents in the matter of their children's baptism. The rule of the Church was, and is, not to grant a dispensation from this impediment unless in provinces or countries where the Catholics are largely outnumbered by the non-baptized inhabitants. Rather than dispense from the disparity of worship, the Church will more willingly and readily grant dispensation from the diriment impediments of affinity and consanguinity, precisely for the reason that in the latter cases there is no danger to the faith of either Catholic or offspring, while in the case of the former, even though the necessary promises are made and kept, there is always danger of religious indifference on the part of the Catholic parent, and especially of the children on account of the example of the non-baptized parent. The pope alone sui jure can dispense with this impediment; bishops cannot. They, however, are delegated to do so, but in the pope's name and by virtue of the delegated authority. Thus the bishops in pagan countries–China, Japan, Africa, etc.–and in countries where the unbaptized largely outnumber the Catholics, as England, United States, etc., have ample faculties in respect of this impediment. To-day the only case (and should there be danger in delay it is not: see Formula T, 11 June, 1907) reserved to Rome in the faculties granted to bishops of the United States is that of a Catholic with an orthodox Jew, i.e. a circumcised follower of Judaism. The case of a Jew uncircumcised, or even circumcised if he has abandoned Judaism, is not reserved. This delegated faculty to bishops is given only for a specified period of five years or for a certain number of cases and requires that the bishop in granting a dispensation must state that it was conceded by virtue of Apostolic delegation of specified date. Where the impediment is occult, and there is danger in delay, bishops may dispense without express faculty of Rome, which in such cases is presumed to grant it. All bishops can (decrees of Congreg. of Inquis., 20 Feb., 1888, and 1 March, 1889) dispense, and delegate the parish priests to dispense, from the impediment of disparity of worship in the case of one who is in danger of death but is only civilly married or lives in concubinage. The aforesaid promises cannot be omitted. The sick party must promise absolutely to observe the requirements of the natural and Divine laws, and to carry out the injunctions of the ecclesiastical law as far as possible (Collectanea S. C. de Prop. Fide, n. 2188). Bishops cannot dispense in instances where the ends, purposes, and substantial blessings of the sacrament are well protected, unless there also exists a grave and proportionately weighty reason. There are sixteen canonical reasons, some grave and others still more grave (Instruct. S. C. de Prop. Fide, 9 May, 1877). Should the bishop dispense without cause, the dispensation would be null and void. The pope's dispensation, in a similar case labouring under the same defect, would be valid. The reason of this difference is that a bishop cannot violate the law of his superior (in this instance the universal law), whereas the pope, who is supreme legislator, can dispense from universal ecclesiastical laws. He cannot, however, do so validly with the prohibition of the natural and Divine laws; hence he must have, before conceding the dispensation, a moral certainty that the practice of the Faith by the Catholic, and the Catholic baptism and rearing of the children, are amply protected. The Holy See dispenses from this impediment only for the gravest reasons and only in express terms (Collectanea S. C. de Prop. Fide, n. 948, 2); hence a dispensation from mixed religion instead of disparity of worship would not suffice for the validity of the marriage. All the European Governments (except Austria) ignore this impediment. The Austrian impediment is different from the ecclesiastical impediment. Its basis is the profession of faith, and not the baptism of the parties, and so far as Catholicism is concerned, this civil impediment is more injurious than otherwise. According to the Austrian law, the marriage of a Catholic with a Jew, or other unbaptized party, is civilly invalid as long as the Catholic remains in the Catholic Church. Should the Catholic leave the Church, and announce that he (or she) held no belief in any faith, the marriage with an unbaptized partner would be civilly valid. Unbaptized parties can, on the other hand, enter into civilly valid marriage with baptized Protestants. The Church in granting dispensation from disparity of worship, thus permitting the marriage of a Catholic and an unbaptized person, by that act dispenses also from all impediments of purely ecclesiastical institution, from which the unbaptized is exempt (except clandestinity; cf. "Praxis Curiæ Romanæ"; "Ne Temere", 2 Aug., 1907); the Church does this in order that the exemption of the unbaptized may, on account of the indissolubility of the marriage, be communicated to the Catholic party (Congreg. of Inquis., 3 March, 1825). This dispensation never includes dispensation in any degree in the direct line nor in the first degree of the transverse line (Gasparri, op. cit., nos 700, 701). This impediment, which is publici juris, can be invoked by any Catholic to annul a marriage contracted without the necessary dispensation. The burden of proof rests upon the challenger, who must clearly demonstrate that there was either no act of baptismal administration or that the act of administration which actually took place was certainly invalid. The usual canonical laws of evidence are supplemented by special laws laid down for the demonstration of the ceremony or the validity of the baptism. The customary norm (c. iii, X, De presby. non-bap., III, xliii) in case of practical Catholics does not govern the cases of non-Catholics or negligent Catholics. The rules prescribed by the Congreg. of the Inquisition (1 Aug., 1883, and 5 Feb., 1851) for the verification of the fact or non-fact of the baptism, as also of the validity of the act, must be strictly followed. SchmalzgrÜber, Bk. IV, tit. vi, sect. 4; Ferraris, Bibliotheca (Rome, 1889), V, 301 sq.; Pirhing, Jus. Can. (Dillingen, 1678), Bk. IV, tit. i, sect. 6; Feije, De Imped. et Dispen. Matrimonialibus (Louvain, 1874), xx; Gasparri, De Matrimonio (Paris, 1893), I, 401 sqq.; Ballerini, Opus Theol. Morale (Prato, 1894), VI, De Matrimonia, 530 sq.; Haine, Theol. Moralis Elementa (Louvain, 1900), IV, 158 sqq.; Wernz, Jus Decret. (Rome, 1904), iv, 759-81; Rosset, De Sacramento Matrimonii (MontreuilsurMer, 1895), III, art. iii; Santi- Leitner, Prælect. Jur. Can. (Ratisbon, 1899), IV, 66-75; AndrÉ- Wagner, Empéchements de marriage in De Sponsal. et Matrimonio (Brussels, 1896), 214 sqq.; Noldin, De Sacramentis (Innsbruck, 1906), 698 sqq.; Putzer, Commentarium in Apost. Facul. (New York, 1898), 379 sqq.; Irish Eccl. Record, Series III, vol. X (1889), 924 sqq.; Collectanea S. Cong. de Prop. Fide (Rome, 1907), index, s. v. Disparitas. P.M.J. Rock Dispensation Dispensation (Lat. dispensatio) Dispensation is an act whereby in a particular case a lawful superior grants relaxation from an existing law. This article will treat: I. Dispensation in General; II. Matrimonial Dispensations. For dispensations from vows see VOWS and RELIGIOUS ORDERS; and from fasting and abstinence, FAST, ABSTINENCE. I. DISPENSATION IN GENERAL Dispensation differs from abrogation and derogation, inasmuch as these suppress the law totally or in part, whereas a dispensation leaves it still in vigour; and from epikeia, or a favourable interpretation of the purpose of the legislator, which supposes that he did not intend to include a particular case within the scope of his law, whereas by dispensation a superior withdraws from the power of the law a case which otherwise would fall under it. The raison d'être for dispensation lies in the nature of prudent administration, which often counsels the adapting of general legislation to the needs of a particular case by way of exception. This is peculiarly true of ecclesiastical administration. Owing to the universality of the Church, the adequate observance by all its members of a single code of laws would be very difficult. Moreover, the Divine purpose of the Church, the welfare of souls, obliges it to reconcile as far as possible the general interests of the community with the spiritual needs or even weaknesses of its individual members. Hence we find instances of ecclesiastical dispensations from the very earliest centuries; such early instances, however, were meant rather to legitimize accomplished facts than to authorize beforehand the doing of certain things. Later on antecedent dispensations were frequently granted; as early as the eleventh century Yves of Chartres, among other canonists, outlined the theory on which they were based. With reference to matrimonial dispensations now common, we meet in the sixth and seventh centuries with a few examples of general dispensations granted to legitimize marriages already contracted, or permitting others about to be contracted. It is not, however, until the second half of the eleventh century that we come upon papal dispensations affecting individual cases. The earliest examples relate to already existing unions; the first certain dispensation for a future marriage dates from the beginning of the thirteenth century. In the sixteenth century the Holy See began to give ampler faculties to bishops and missionaries in distant lands; in the seventeenth century such privileges were granted to other countries. Such was the origin of the ordinary faculties (see FACULTIES, CANONICAL) now granted to bishops. (1) Kinds of Dispensation + (a) A dispensation may be explicit, tacit, or implicit, according as it is manifested by a positive act, or by silence under circumstances amounting to acquiescence, or solely by its connexion with another positive act that presupposes the dispensation. + (b) It may be granted in foro interno, or in foro externo, according as it affects only the personal conscience, or conscience and the community at large. Although dispensations in foro interno are used for secret cases, they are also often granted in public cases; hence they must not be identified with dispensations in casu occulto. + (c) A dispensation may be either direct or indirect, according as it affects the law directly, by suspending its operation, or indirectly, by modifying the object of the law in such a way as to withdraw it from the latter's control. For instance, when a dispensation is granted from the matrimonial impediment of a vow, the pope remits the obligation resulting from the promise made to God, consequently also the impediment it raised against marriage. + (d) A dispensation may be in formâ gratiosâ, in formâ commissâ, or in formâ commissâ mixtâ. Those of the first class need no execution, but contain a dispensation granted ipso facto by the superior in the act of sending it. Those of the second class give jurisdiction to the person named as executor of the dispensation, if he should consider it advisable; they are, therefore, favours to be granted. Those of the third class command the executor to deliver the dispensation if he can verify the accuracy of the facts for which such dispensation is asked; they seem, therefore, to contain a favour already granted. From the respective nature of each of these forms of dispensation result certain important consequences that affect delegation, obreption, and revocation in the matter of dispensations (see DELEGATION; OBREPTION; REVOCATION). (2) The Dispensing Power It lies in the very notion of dispensation that only the legislator, or his lawful successor, can of his own right grant a dispensation from the law. His subordinates can do so only in the measure that he permits. If such communication of ecclesiastical authority is made to an inferior by reason of an office he holds, his power, though derived, is known as ordinary. If it is only given him by way of commission it is known as delegated power. When such delegation takes place through a permanent law, it is known as delegation by right of law. It is styled habitual, when, though given by a particular act of the superior, it is granted for a certain period of time or a certain number of cases. Finally, it is called particular if granted only for one case. When the power of dispensation is ordinary it may be delegated to another unless this be expressly forbidden. When it is delegated, as stated above, it may not be subdelegated unless this be expressly permitted; exception is made, however, for delegation ad universitatem causarum i. e. for all cases of a certain kind, and for delegation by the pope or the Roman Congregations. Even these exceptions do not cover delegations made because of some personal fitness of the delegate, nor those in which the latter receives, not actual jurisdiction to grant the dispensation, but an appointment to execute it, e. g. in the case of dispensations granted in formâ commissâ mixtâ (see above). The power of dispensation rests in the following persons: (A) The Pope He cannot of his own right dispense from the Divine law (either natural or positive). When he does dispense, e. g. from vows, oaths, unconsummated marriages, he does so by derived power communicated to him as Vicar of Christ, and the limits of which he determines by his magisterium, or authoritative teaching power. There is some diversity of opinion as to the nature of the pope's dispensing power in this respect; it is generally held that it operates by way of indirect dispensation: that is, by virtue of his power over the wills of the faithful the pope, acting in the name of God, remits for them an obligation resulting from their deliberate consent, and therewith the consequences that by natural or positive Divine law flowed from such obligation. The pope, of his own right, has full power to dispense from all ecclesiastical laws, whether universal or particular, even from the disciplinary decrees of œcumenical councils. Such authority is consequent on his primacy and the fullness of his immediate jurisdiction. A part of this power, however, he usually communicates to the Roman Congregations. (B) The Bishop Of his ordinary right, the bishop can dispense from his own statutes and from those of his predecessors, even when promulgated in a diocesan synod (where he alone is legislator). From the other laws of the Church he cannot dispense of his own right. This is evident from the nature of dispensation and of diocesan jurisdiction. A principle maintained by some authors, viz, that the bishop can grant all dispensations which the pope has not reserved to himself, cannot be admitted. But by derived right (either ordinary or delegated according to the terms of the grant) the bishop can dispense from those laws that expressly permit him to do so or from those for which he has received an indult to that effect. Moreover, by ordinary right, based on custom or the tacit consent of the Holy See, he may dispense: + (a) in a case where recourse to the Holy See is difficult and where delay would entail serious danger; + (b) in doubtful cases especially when the doubt affects the necessity of the dispensation or the sufficiency of the motives; + (c) in cases of frequent occurrence but requiring dispensation, also in frequently occurring matters of minor importance; + (d) in decrees of national and provincial councils, although he may not pronounce a general decree to the contrary; + (e) in pontifical laws specially passed for his diocese. It should be always remembered that to fix the exact limit of these various powers legitimate custom and the interpretation of reputable authors must serve as guides. Superiors of exempt religious orders (see EXEMPTION) can grant to their subjects, individually, those dispensations from ecclesiastical laws which the bishop grants by his ordinary power. When there is question of the rules of their order they are bound to follow what is laid down in their constitutions (see RELIGIOUS ORDERS). (C) The Vicar-General He enjoys by virtue of his appointment the ordinary dispensing power of the bishop, also the delegated powers of the latter, i. e. those granted him not personally but as ordinary (according to present discipline, the pontifical faculties known as ordinary); exception is made, however, for those powers which require a special mandate like those of the chapter Liceat, for dealing with irregularities and secret cases. The vicar capitular likewise has all the dispensing power which the bishop has of his own right, or which has been delegated to him as ordinary. (D) Parish Priest By his own ordinary right, founded on custom, he may dispense (but only in particular cases, and for individuals separately, not for a community or congregation) from the observance of fasting, abstinence, and Holy Days. He can also dispense, within his own territory, from the observance of diocesan statutes when the latter permit him to do so; the terms of these statutes usually declare the extent of such power, also whether it be ordinary or delegated. Dispensation being an act of jurisdiction, a superior can exercise it only over his own subjects, though as a general rule he can do so in their favour even outside his own territory. The bishop and the parish priest, except in circumstances governed by special enactments, acquire jurisdiction over a member of the faithful by reason of the domicile or quasi-domicile he or she has in a diocese or parish (see DOMICILE). Moreover, in their own territory they can use their dispensing power in respect of persons without fixed residence (vagi), probably also in respect of travellers temporarily resident in such territory. As a general rule he who has power to dispense others from certain obligations can also dispense himself. (3) Causes for Granting Dispensations A sufficient cause is always required in order that a dispensation may be both valid and licit when an inferior dispenses from a superior's law, but only for the liceity of the act when a superior dispenses from his own law. Nevertheless, in this latter case a dispensation granted without a motive would not (in se), except for some special reason, e. g. scandal, constitute a serious fault. One may be satisfied with a probably sufficient cause, or with a cause less than one that, of itself and without any dispensation, would excuse from the law. It is always understood that a superior intends to grant only a licit dispensation. Therefore a dispensation is null when in the motives set forth for obtaining it a false statement is made which has influenced not only the causa impulsiva, i. e. the reason inclining the superior more easily to grant it, but also the causa motiva, i. e. the really determining reason for the grant in question. For this, and in general for the information which should accompany the petition, in order that a dispensation be valid, see below apropos of obreption and subreption in rescripts of dispensation. Consequently a false statement or the fraudulent withholding of information, i. e. done with positive intention of deceiving the superior, totally annuls the dispensation, unless such statement bear on a point foreign to the matter in hand. But if made with no fraudulent intent, a false statement does not affect the grant unless the object of the statement be some circumstance which ought to have been expressed under pain of nullity, or unless it affects directly the motive cause as above described. Even then false statements do not always nullify the grant; for; + (a) when the dispensation is composed of several distinct and separable parts, that part or element alone is nullified on which falls the obreption or subreption, as the case may be; + (b) when several adequately distinguished motive causes are set forth, the dispensation is null and void only when the obreption or subreption in question affects them all. It is enough, moreover, that the accuracy of the facts be verified at the moment when the dispensation is granted. Therefore, in the case of dispensations ex gratiâ (or in formâ gratiosâ), i. e. granting favours, the facts must be true when the dispensation is expedited; on the other hand, in the case of dispensations in formâ commissâ (and according to the more general opinion, in those in formâ commissâ mixtâ), the causes alleged must be verified only when the dispensation is actually executed. (4) Form and Interpretation It is proper, generally speaking, that dispensations be asked for and granted in writing. Moreover, the Roman Congregations are forbidden, as a rule, to receive petitions for dispensations or to answer them by telegram. The execution of a dispensation made on receipt of telegraphic information that such dispensation had been granted would be null, unless such means of communication had been officially used by special authorization from the pope. Except when the interest of a third party is at stake, or the superior has expressed himself to the contrary, the general dispensing power, whether ordinary or delegated, ought to be broadly interpreted, since its object is the common good. But the actual dispensation (and the same holds true of dispensing power given for a particular case) ought to be strictly interpreted unless it is a question of a dispensation authorized by the common law, or one granted motu proprio (by the superior spontaneously) to a whole community, or with a view to the public good. Again, that interpretation is lawful without which the dispensation would prove hurtful or useless to the beneficiary, also that which extends the benefits of the dispensation to whatever is juridically connected with it. (5) Cessation of Dispensations + (a) A dispensation ceases when it is renounced by the person in whose favour it was granted. However, when the object of the dispensation is an obligation exclusively resulting from one's own will, e. g. a vow, such renunciation is not valid until accepted by the competent superior. Moreover, neither the non-use of a dispensation nor the fact of having obtained another dispensation incompatible with the former is, in itself, equivalent to a renunciation. Thus, if a girl had received a dispensation to marry Peter and another to marry Paul, she would remain free to marry either of them. + (b) A dispensation ceases when it is revoked after due notice to the recipient. The legislator can validly revoke a dispensation, even without cause, though in the latter case it would be illicit to do so; but without a cause an inferior cannot revoke a dispensation, even validly. With a just cause, however, he can do so if he has dispensed by virtue of his general powers (ordinary or delegated); not so, however, when his authority extended merely to one particular case, since thereby his authority was exhausted. + (c) A dispensation ceases by the death of the superior when, the dispensation having been granted in formâ commissâ, the executor had not yet begun to execute it. But the grant holds good if given ex gratiâ (as a favour) and even, more probably, if granted in formâ commissâ mixtâ. In any case, the new pope is wont to revalidate all favours granted in the immediately previous year by his predecessor and not yet availed of. + (d) A conditional dispensation ceases on verification of the condition that renders it void, e. g. the death of the superior when the dispensation was granted with the clause ad beneplacitum nostrum (at our good pleasure). + (e) A dispensation ceases by the adequate and total cessation of its motive causes, the dispensation thereupon ceasing to be legitimate. But the cessation of the influencing causes, or of a part of the motive causes, does not affect the dispensation. However, when the motive cause, though complex, is substantially one, it is rightly held to cease with the disappearance of one of its essential elements. II. MATRIMONIAL DISPENSATIONS A matrimonial dispensation is the relaxation in a particular case of an impediment prohibiting or annulling a marriage. It may be granted: + (a) in favour of a contemplated marriage or to legitimize one already contracted; + (b) in secret cases, or in public cases, or in both (see IMPEDIMENTS OF MATRIMONY); + (c) in foro interno only, or in foro externo (the latter includes also the former). Power of dispensing in foro interno is not always restricted to secret cases (casus occulti). These expressions, as stated above, are by no means identical. We shall classify the most important considerations in this very complex matter, under four heads: + (1) general powers of dispensation; + (2) particular indults of dispensation; + (3) causes for dispensations; + (4) costs of dispensations. (1) General Powers of Dispensation (A) The Pope The pope cannot dispense from impediments founded on Divine law-except, as above described, in the case of vows, espousals, and non-consummated marriages, or valid and consummated marriage of neophytes before baptism (see NEOPHYTES). In doubtful cases, however, he may decide authoritatively as to the objective value of the doubt. In respect of impediments arising from ecclesiastical law the pope has full dispensing power. Every such dispensation granted by him is valid, and when he acts from a sufficient motive it is also licit. He is not wont, however, out of consideration for the public welfare, to exercise this power personally, unless in very exceptional cases, where certain specific impediments are in question. Such cases are error, violence, Holy orders, disparity of worship, public conjugicide, consanguinity in the direct line or in the first degree (equal) of the collateral Line, and the first degree of affinity (from lawful intercourse) in the direct line. As a rule the pope exercises his power of dispensation through the Roman Congregations and Tribunals. Up to recent times the Dataria was the most important channel for matrimonial dispensations when the impediment was public or about to become public within a short time. The Holy Office, however, bad exclusive control in foro externo over all impediments connected with or juridically bearing on matters of faith, e. g. disparity of worship, mixta religio, Holy orders, etc. The dispensing power in foro interno lay with the Penitentiaria, and in the case of pauperes or quasi-pauperes this same Congregation had dispensing power over public impediments in foro externo. The Penitentiaria held as pauperes for all countries outside of Italy those whose united capital, productive of a fixed revenue, did not exceed 5370 lire (about 1050 dollars); and as quasi-pauperes, those whose capital did not exceed 9396 lire (about 1850 dollars). It likewise had the power of promulgating general indults affecting public impediments, as for instance the indult of 15 Nov., 1907. Propaganda was charged with all dispensations, both in foro inferno and in foro externo, for countries under its jurisdiction, as was the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs for all countries depending on it, e. g. Russia, Latin America, and certain vicariates and prefectures Apostolic. On 3 November, 1908, the duties of these various Congregations received important modifications in consequence of the Constitution "Sapienti", in which Pope Pius X reorganized the Roman Curia. Dispensing power from public impediments in the case of pauperes or quasi-pauperes was transferred from the Dataria and the Penitentiaria to a newly established Congregation known as the Congregatio de Disciplinâ Sacramentorum. The Penitentiaria retains dispensing power over occult impediments in foro interno only. The Holy Office retains its faculties, but restricted expressly under three heads: + (1) disparity of worship; + (2) mixta religio; + (3) the Pauline Privilege [see DIVORCE (IN MORAL THEOLOGY)]. Propaganda remains the channel for securing dispensations for all countries under its jurisdiction, but as it is required for the sake of executive unity, to defer, in all matters concerning matrimony, to the various Congregations competent to act thereon, its function is henceforth that of intermediary. It is to be remembered that in America, the United States, Canada and Newfoundland, and in Europe, the British Isles are now withdrawn from Propaganda, and placed under the common law of countries with a hierarchy. The Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs loses all its powers; consequently the countries hitherto subject to it must address themselves either to the Holy Office or to the Congregatio de Disciplinâ Sacramentorum according to the nature of the impediment. It should be noted that the powers of a Congregation are suspended during the vacancy of the Holy See, except those of the Penitentiaria in foro interno, which, during that time, are even increased. Though suspended, the powers of a Congregation may be used in cases of urgent necessity. (B) The Diocesan Bishops We shall treat first of their fixed perpetual faculties, whether ordinary or delegated, afterwards of their habitual and temporary faculties. By virtue of their ordinary power (see JURISDICTION) bishops can dispense from those prohibent impediments of ecclesiastical law which are not reserved to the pope. The reserved impediments of this kind are espousals, the vow of perpetual chastity, and vows taken in diocesan religious institutes (see RELIGIOUS CONGREGATIONS), mixta religio, public display and solemn blessing at marriages within forbidden times, the vetitum, or interdict laid on a marriage by the pope, or by the metropolitan in a case of appeal. The bishop may also dispense from diriment impediments after the following manner: — + (a) By tacit consent of the Holy See he can dispense in foro interno from secret impediments from which the pope is wont to exercise his power of dispensing, in the three following cases: + o (1) in marriages already contracted and consummated, when urgent necessity arises (i. e. when the interested parties cannot be separated without scandal or endangering their souls, and there is no time to have recourse to the Holy See or to its delegate) — it is, however, necessary that such marriage shall have taken place in lawful form before the Church, and that one of the contracting parties at least shall have been ignorant of the impediment; o (2) in marriages about to be contracted and which are called embarrassing (perplexi) cases, i. e. where everything being ready a delay would be defamatory or would cause scandal; o (3) when there is a serious doubt of fact as to the existence of an impediment; in this case the dispensation seems to hold good, even though in course of time the impediment becomes certain, and even public. In cases where the law is doubtful no dispensation is necessary; but the bishop may, if he thinks proper, declare authentically the existence and sufficiency of such doubt. + (b) By virtue of a decree of the Congregation of the Inquisition or Holy Office (20 February, 1888) diocesan bishops and other ordinaries (especially vicars Apostolic, administrators Apostolic, and prefects Apostolic, having jurisdiction over an allocated territory, also vicars-general in spiritualibus, and vicars capitular) may dispense in very urgent (gravissimum) danger of death from all diriment impediments (secret or public) of ecclesiastical law, except priesthood and affinity (from lawful intercourse) in the direct line. However, they can use this privilege only in favour of persons actually living in real concubinage or united by a merely civil marriage, and only when there is no time for recourse to the Holy See. They may also legitimize the children of such unions, except those born of adultery or sacrilege. In the decree of 1888 is also included the impediment of clandestinity. This decree permits therefore (at least until the Holy See shall have issued other instructions) to dispense, in the case of concubinage or civil marriage, with the presence of the priest and of the two witnesses required by the Decree "Ne temere" in urgent cases of marriage in extremis. Canonists do not agree as to whether bishops hold these faculties by virtue of their ordinary power or by general delegation of the law. It seems to us more probable that those just described under; + (a) belong to them as ordinaries, while those under + (b) are delegated. They are, therefore, empowered to delegate the former; in order to subdelegate the latter they must be guided by the limits fixed by the decree of 1888 and its interpretation dated 9 June, 1889. That is, if it is a question of habitual delegation parish priests only should receive it, and only for cases where there is no time for recourse to the bishop. Besides the fixed perpetual faculties, bishops also receive from the Holy See habitual temporary indults for a certain period of time or for a limited number of cases. These faculties are granted by fixed "formulæ", in which the Holy See from time to time, or as occasion requires it, makes some slight modifications. (See FACULTIES, CANONICAL.) These faculties call for a broad interpretation. Nevertheless it is well to bear in mind, when interpreting them, the actual legislation of the Congregation whence they issue, so as not to extend their use beyond the places, persons, number of cases, and impediments laid down in a given indult. Faculties thus delegated to a bishop do not in any way restrict his ordinary faculties; nor (in se) do the faculties issued by one Congregation affect those granted by another. When several specifically different impediments occur in one and the same case, and one of them exceeds the bishop's powers, he may not dispense from any of them. Even when the bishop has faculties for each impediment taken separately he cannot (unless he possesses the faculty known as de cumulo) use his various faculties simultaneously in a case where, all the impediments being public, one of them exceeds his ordinary faculties, it is not necessary for a bishop to delegate his faculties to his vicars-general; since 1897 they are always granted to the bishop as ordinary, therefore to the vicar-general also. With regard to other priests a decree of the holy Office (14 Dec., 1898) declares that for the future temporary faculties may be always subdelegated unless the indult expressly states the contrary. These faculties are valid from the date when they were granted in the Roman Curia. In actual practice they do not expire, as a rule, at the death of the pope nor of the bishop to whom they were given, but pass on to those who take his place (the vicar capitular, the administrator, or succeeding bishop). Faculties granted for a fixed period of time, or a limited number of cases, cease when the period or number has been reached; but while awaiting their renewal the bishop, unless culpably negligent, may continue to use them provisionally. A bishop can use his habitual faculties only in favour of his own subjects. The matrimonial discipline of the Decree "Ne temere" (2 Aug., 1907) contemplates as such all persons having a true canonical domicile, or continuously resident for one month within his territory, also vagi, or persons who have no domicile anywhere and can claim no continuous stay of one month. When a matrimonial impediment is common to both parties the bishop, in dispensing his own subject, dispenses also the other. (C) Vicars Capitular and Vicars-General A vicar capitular, or in his place a lawful administrator, enjoys all the dispensing powers possessed by the bishop in virtue of his ordinary jurisdiction or of delegation of the law; according to the actual discipline he enjoys even the habitual powers which had been granted the deceased bishop for a fixed period of time or for a limited number of cases, even if the indult should have been made out in the name of the Bishop of N. Considering the actual praxis of the Holy See, the same is true of particular indults (see below). The vicar-general has by virtue of his appointment all the ordinary powers of the bishop over prohibent impediments, but requires a special mandate to give him common-law faculties for diriment impediments. As for habitual temporary faculties, since they are now addressed to the ordinary, they belong also ipso facto to the vicar-general while he holds that office. He can also use particular indults when they are addressed to the ordinary, and when they are not so addressed the bishop can always subdelegate him, unless the contrary be expressly stated in the indult. (D) Parish Priests and Other Ecclesiastics A parish priest by common law can dispense only from an interdict laid on a marriage by him or by his predecessor. Some canonists of note accord him authority to dispense from secret impediments in what are called embarrassing (perplexi) cases, i. e. when there is no time for recourse to the bishop, but with the obligation of subsequent recourse ad cautelam, i. e. for greater security; a similar authority is attributed by them to confessors. This opinion seems yet gravely probable, though the Penitentiaria continues to grant among its habitual faculties a special authority for such cases and restricts somewhat its use. (2) Particular Indults of Dispensation When there is occasion to procure a dispensation that exceeds the powers of the ordinary, or when there are special reasons for direct recourse to the Holy See, procedure is by way of supplica (petition) and private rescript. The supplica need not necessarily be drawn up by the petitioner, nor even at his instance; it does not, however, become valid until he accepts it. Although, since the Constitution "Sapienti", all the faithful may have direct recourse to the Congregations, the supplica is usually forwarded through the ordinary (of the person's birthplace, or domicile, or, since the Decree "Ne temere", residence of one of the petitioners), who transmits it to the proper Congregation either by letter or through his accredited agent; but if there is question of sacramental secrecy, it is sent directly to the Penitentiaria, or handed to the bishop's agent under a sealed cover for transmission to the Penitentiaria. The supplica ought to give the names (family and Christian) of the petitioners (except in secret cases forwarded to the Penitentiaria), the name of the Ordinary forwarding it, or the name of the priest to whom, in secret cases, the rescript must be sent; the age of the parties, especially in dispensations affecting consanguinity and affinity; their religion, at 1east when one of them is not a Catholic; the nature, degree, and number of all impediments (if recourse is had to the Congregatio de Disciplinâ Sacramentorum or to the Holy Office in a public impediment, and to the Penitentiaria at the same time in a secret one, it is necessary that the latter should know of the public impediment and that recourse has been had to the competent Congregation). The supplica must, moreover, contain the causes set forth for granting the dispensation and other circumstances specified in the Propaganda Instruction of 9 May, 1877 (it is no longer necessary, either for the validity or liceity of the dispensation, to observe the paragraph relating to incestuous intercourse, even when probably this very thing had been alleged as the only reason for granting the dispensation). When there is question of consanguinity in the second degree bordering on the first, the supplica ought to be written by the bishop's own hand. He ought also to sign the declaration of poverty made by the petitioners when the dispensation is sought from the Penitentiaria in formâ pauperum; when he is in any way hindered from so doing he is bound to commission a priest to sign it in his name. A false declaration of poverty henceforth does not invalidate a dispensation in any case; but the authors of the false statement are bound in conscience to reimburse any amount unduly withheld (regulation for the Roman Curia, 12 June, 1908). For further information on the many points already briefly described the reader is referred to the special canonical works, wherein are found all necessary directions as to what must be expressed so as to avoid nullity. When a supplica is affected (in a material point) by obreption or subreption it becomes necessary to ask for a so-called "reformatory decree" in case the favour asked has not yet been granted by the Curia, or for the letters known as "Perinde ac valere" if the favour has already been granted. If, after all this, a further material error is discovered, letters known as "Perinde ac valere super perinde ac valere" must be applied for. See Gasparri, "Tractatus de matrimonio" (2nd ed., Rome, 1892), I, no. 362. Dispensation rescripts are generally drawn up in formâ commissâ mixtâ, i. e. they are entrusted to an executor who is thereby obliged to proceed to their execution, if he finds that the reasons are as alleged (si vera sint exposita). Canonists are divided as to whether rescripts in formâ commissâ mixtâ contain a favour granted from the moment of their being sent off, or to be granted when the execution actually takes place. Gasparri holds it as received practice that it suffices if the reasons alleged be actually true at the moment when the petition is presented. It is certain, however, that the executor required by Penitentiaria rescripts may safely fulfil his mission even if the pope should die before he had begun to execute it. The executor named for public impediments is usually the ordinary who forwards the supplica and for secret impediments an approved confessor chosen by the petitioner. Except when specially authorized the person delegated cannot validly execute a dispensation before he has seen the original of the rescript. Therein it is usually prescribed that the reasons given by the petitioners must be verified. This verification, usually no longer a condition for valid execution, can be made, in the case of public impediments, extra-judicially or by subdelegation. In foro interno it can be made by the confessor in the very act of hearing the confessions of the parties. Should the inquiry disclose no substantial error, the executor proclaims the dispensation, i. e. he makes known, usually in writing, especially if he acts in foro externo, the decree which dispenses the petitioners; if the rescript authorizes him, he also legitimizes the children. Although the executor may subdelegate the preparatory acts, he may not, unless the rescript expressly says so, subdelegate the actual execution of the decree, unless he subdelegates to another ordinary. When the impediment is common to, and known to, both parties, execution ought to be made for both; wherefore, in a case in foro interno, the confessor of one of the parties hands over the rescript, after he has executed it, to the confessor of the other. The executor ought to observe with care the clauses enumerated in the decree, as some of them constitute conditions sine quâ non for the validity of the dispensation. As a rule, these clauses affecting validity may be recognized by the conditional conjunction or adverb of exclusion with which they begin (e. g. dummodo, "provided that"; et non aliter, "not otherwise"), or by an ablative absolute. When, however, a clause only prescribes a thing already of obligation by law it has merely the force of a reminder. In this matter also it is well to pay attention to the stylus curiœ, i. e. the legal diction of the Roman Congregations and Tribunals, and to consult authors of repute. (3) Causes for Granting Dispensations Following the principles laid down for dispensations in general, a matrimonial dispensation granted without sufficient cause, even by the pope himself, would be illicit; the more difficult and numerous the impediments the more serious must be the motives for removing them. An unjustified dispensation, even if granted by the pope, is null and void, in a case affecting the Divine law; and if granted by other bishops or superiors in cases affecting ordinary ecclesiastical law. Moreover, as it is not supposable that the pope wishes to act illicitly, it follows that if he has been moved by false allegations to grant a dispensation, even in a matter of ordinary ecclesiastical law, such dispensation is invalid. Hence the necessity of distinguishing in dispensations between motive or determining causes (causœ motivœ) and impulsive or merely influencing causes (causœ impulsivœ). Except when the information given is false, still more when he acts spontaneously (motu proprio)and "with certain knowledge", the presumption always is that a superior is acting from just motives. It may be remarked that if the pope refuses to grant a dispensation on a certain ground, an inferior prelate, properly authorized to dispense, may grant the dispensation in the same case on other grounds which in his judgment are sufficient. Canonists do not agree as to whether he can grant it on the identical ground by reason of his divergent appreciation of the latter's force. Among the sufficient causes for matrimonial dispensations we may distinguish canonical causes, i. e. classified and held as sufficient by the common law and canonical jurisprudence, and reasonable causes. i. e. not provided for nominally in the law, but deserving of equitable consideration in view of circumstances or particular cases. An Instruction issued by Propaganda (9 May, 1877) enumerates sixteen canonical causes. The "Formulary of the Dataria" (Rome, 1901) gives twenty-eight, which suffice, either alone or concurrently with others, and act as a norm for all sufficient causes. They are: smallness of place or places; smallness of place coupled with the fact that outside it a sufficient dowry cannot be had; lack of dowry; insufficiency of dowry for the bride; a larger dowry; an increase of dowry by one-third; cessation of family feuds; preservation of peace; conclusion of peace between princes or states; avoidance of lawsuits over an inheritance, a dowry, or some important business transaction; the fact that a fiancée is an orphan; or has the care of a family; the age of the fiancée over twenty-four; the difficulty of finding another partner, owing to the fewness of male acquaintance, or the difficulty the latter experience in coming to her home; the hope of safeguarding the faith of a Catholic relation; the danger of a mixed marriage; the hope of converting a non-Catholic party; the keeping of property in a family; the preservation of an illustrious or honourable family; the excellence and merits of the parties; defamation to be avoided, or scandal prevented; intercourse already having taken place between the petitioners, or rape; the danger of a civil marriage; of marriage before a Protestant minister revalidation of a marriage that was null and void; finally, all reasonable causes judged such in the opinion of the pope (e. g. the public good), or special reasonable causes actuating the petitioners and made known to the pope, i. e. motives which, owing to the social status of the petitioners, it is opportune should remain unexplained out of respect for their reputation. These various causes have been stated in their briefest terms. To reach their exact force, some acquaintance is necessary with the stylus curiœ and the pertinent works of reputable authors, always avoiding anything like exaggerated formalism. This list of causes is by no means exhaustive; the Holy See, in granting a dispensation, will consider any weighty circumstances that render the dispensation really justifiable. (4) Costs of Dispensations The Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, cap. v, De ref. matrim.) decreed that dispensations should be free of all charges. Diocesan chanceries are bound to conform to this law (many pontifical documents, and at times clauses in indults, remind them of it) and neither to exact nor accept anything but the modest contribution to the chancery expenses sanctioned by an Instruction approved by Innocent XI (8 Oct., 1678), and known as the Innocentian Tax (Taxa Innocentiana). Rosset holds that it is also lawful, when the diocese is poor, to demand payment of the expenses it incurs for dispensations. Sometimes the Holy See grants ampler freedom in this matter, but nearly always with the monition that all revenues from this source shall be employed for some good work, and not go to the diocesan curia as such. Henceforth every rescript requiring execution will state the sum which the diocesan curia is authorized to collect for its execution. In the Roman Curia the expenses incurred by petitioners fall under four heads: + (a) expenses (expensœ) of carriage (postage, etc.), also a fee to the accredited agent, when one has been employed. This fee is fixed by the Congregation in question; + (b) a tax (taxa) to be used in defraying the expenses incurred by the Holy See in the organized administration of dispensations; + (c) the componendum, or eleemosynary fine to be paid to the Congregation and applied by it to pious uses; + (d) an alms imposed on the petitioners and to be distributed by themselves in good works. The moneys paid under the first two heads do not affect, strictly speaking, the gratuity of the dispensation. They constitute a just compensation for the expenses the petitioners occasion the Curia. As for the alms and the componendum, besides the fact that they do not profit the pope nor the members of the Curia personally, but are employed in pious uses, they are justifiable, either as a fine for the faults which, as a rule, give occasion for the dispensation, or as a check to restrain a too great frequency of petitions often based on frivolous grounds. And if the Tridentine prohibition be still urged, it may be truly said that the pope has the right to abrogate the decrees of councils, and is the best judge of the reasons that legitimize such abrogation. We may add that the custom of tax and componendum is neither uniform nor universal in the Roman Curia. I. Dispensations in General: SUAREZ, De legibus (Naples, 1882), Bk. VI, x sqq., and Opera Omnia (Paris, 1856), VI; PYRRHUS CORRADIUS, Praxis dispensationum apostolicarum (Venice, 1699); KONINGS-PUTZER, Commentarium in facultates apostolicas (New York, 1898), pt. I; the commentators on the Decretals, especially SCHMALZGRUEBER, Jus ecclesiasticum universale (Rome, 1843), Bk. I. tit. ii; WERNZ, Jus decretalium (Rome, 1905), I, tit. iv, 138; VON SCHERER, Handbuch des Kirchenrechts (Graz, 1898), I, 172; HINSCHIUS. System d. kath. Kirchenr. (Berlin, 1869), I. 744, 789; the moral theologies, under the treatise De legibus, particularly ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI, Theologia Moralis (Rome, 1905), I, iv, Dub. 4; D'ANNIBALE, Summula Theologiœ Moralis (Rome, 1908), I, tr. iii, 220; BALLERINI, Opus Morale (Prato, 1889), I, 363; OJETTI, Synopsis rerum moralium et juris pontificii (Rome, 1904), s. v. Dispensatio; THOMASSIN, Ancienne et nouvelle discipline de l'Eglise touchant les bénéfices (Paris, 1725), II, p. II, 1, 3, xxiv-xxix; STIEGLER, Dispensation, Dispensationwesen, und Dispensationsrecht in his Kirchenrecht (Mainz, 1901). I, and in Archiv f. kath. Kirchenr., LXXVII, 3; FIEBAG, De indole ac virtute dispensationum secundum principia jur. canonici (Breslau, 1867). II. Matrimonial Dispensations: PYRRHUS CORRADIUS, op. cit.; DE JUSTIS, De dispens. matrim. (Venice, 1769); GIOVINE, De dispens. matrim. (Naples, 1863); PLANCHARD, Dispenses matrim. (Angoulème, 1882); FEIJE, De imped. et dispens. matrim. (Louvain, 1885); ZITELLI, De dispens. matrim. (Rome, 1887); VAN DE BURGT, De dispens. matrim. (Bois-le-Duc, 1865); POMPEN, De dispens. et revalidatione matrim. (Amsterdam, 1897); ROUSSET, De sacramento matrimonii (Saint-Jean de Maurienne, 1895), IV, 231; KONINGS-PUTZER, Op. cit., 174 sqq., 376 sqq.; SANCHEZ, De s. matrimonii sacramento (Viterbo, 1739), Bk. VIII; GASPARRI, Tract. canonicus de matrimonio (Paris, 1892), I, iv, 186; MANSELLA, De imped. matrim. (Rome, 1881), 162; LEITNER, Lehrb. des kath. Eherechts (Paderborn, 1902), 401; SCHNITZER, Kath. Eherecht (Freiburg, 1898), 496; SANTILEITNER, Prœlectiones juris canonici (Ratisbon, 1899), IV, appendix I; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1908), IV, tit. xxix FREISEN Geschichte des kanon. Eherechts bis zum Verfall der Glossenlitteratur (Tübingen, 1888), and in Archiv für kath. Kirchenr., LXXVII, 3 sqq., and LXXVIII, 91; ESMEIN, Le mariage en droit canonique (Paris, 1891), II, 315; ZHISMAN, Das Eherecht der orient. Kirche (Vienna, 1864), 190, 712. JULES BESSON. Dispersion of the Apostles Dispersion of the Apostles (Lat. Divisio Apostolorum), a feast in commemoration of the missionary work of the Twelve Apostles. It is celebrated as a double major on 15 July. The first vestige of this feast is found in the sequence composed for it by a certain Godescalc (d. 1098) while a monk of Limburg on the Haardt; he also introduced this feast at Aachen, when provost of the church of Our Lady. The sequence is authentic beyond doubt. It is next mentioned by William Durandus, Bishop of Mende (Rationale Div. Off. 7.15) in the second half of the thirteenth century. Under the title, "Dimissio", "Dispersio", or Divisio Apostolorum" it was universally celebrated during the Middle Ages in Spain and Italy. The object of the feast (so Godescalcus) is to commemorate the departure (dispersion) of the Apostles from Jerusalem for the various parts of the world, some fourteen years after the Ascension of Christ. According to Durandus some of his contemporaries honoured this feast the (apocryphal) division of the relics (bodies) of St. Peter and St. Paul by St. Sylvester. The feast is now kept with solemnity by modern missionary societies, in Germany and Poland, also in some English and French dioceses and in the United States by the ecclesiastical provinces of St. Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Dubuque, and Santa Fé. F.G. HOLWECK Heinrich von Dissen Heinrich von Dissen Born 18 Oct., 1415, at Osnabrück, in Westphalia; died at Cologne, 26 Nov., 1484. After studying philosophy and theology at Cologne under Heinrich von Gorinchem (Gorkum), a celebrated divine of that time and vice-chancellor of the university, he became a monk in the Carthusian monastery of the same place, and took his solemn vows 14 Jan., 1437. He remained there all his life, which was a very laborious one, for he read much, copied many books for the library of the monastery, and composed a good many works. He was appointed subprior 23 March, 1457, and continued in that office until his death. His literary productions, all in Latin, comprise commentaries on the Psalms, on the Apocalypse, on the Gospels of Sundays and Festivals, on the Creed of St. Athanasius, on the Lord's Prayer. and a great number of sermons and homilies, treatises, and devotional writings, such as "De Sacerdotii dignitate", "De multiplici bonorum verecundia", "Quo pacto hæreticorum fraudes deprehendi queant", "Expositio in totum Missale", "Expositio Antiphonarii", "Consolationes in Cantica Canticorum", "De XIII mansionibus", etc. It does not appear that any of these works have ever been printed. Le Vasseur, Ephemerides Ord. Cartus (Montreuil, 1892), IV, 434; Petreius, Bibliotheca Cartus. (Cologne, 1609); Hurter, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1899), IV, 911. EDMUND GURDON Abbey of Dissentis Abbey of Dissentis A Benedictine monastery in the Canton Grisons in eastern Switzerland, dedicated to Our Lady of Mercy. Tradition ascribes its foundation to Sts. Placid and Sigebert, in the year 614, but Mabillon places the date two years earlier. The history of the abbey has been somewhat chequered, but it has at times risen to positions of great importance and influence. It was destroyed by the Avars in 670, when its abbot and thirty monks suffered martyrdom, but was rebuilt by Charles Martel and Abbot Pirminius in 711. Charlemagne visited the abbey on his return journey from Rome in 800 and bestowed upon it many benefactions. Abbot Udalric I (1031-1055) was the first of its superiors to be made a prince of the empire, which dignity was subsequently held by several other of its abbots; many of them also became bishops of the neighbouring sees. In 1581 the abbey was honoured by a visit from St. Charles Borromeo. After enjoying independence for a thousand years it was incorporated into the newly formed Swiss Congregation in 1617, since which date it has, in common with the other five Benedictine abbeys of Switzerland, been subject to the jurisdiction of the president of that Congregation. In 1799 it was burned and plundered by the soldiers of Napoleon's army, when amongst other valuable treasures, a seventh century manuscript chronicle of the abbey perished. The printing press that had been set up in 1729 was also destroyed at the same time, but much of the melted type and other metal was saved and from it were made the pipes of the organ of St. Martin's church at Dissentis, which is still in use. The abbey was rebuilt by Abbot Anselm Huonder, the last of its superiors to enjoy the rank and title of Prince of the Empire. During the nineteenth century the monastery suffered greatly from misfortunes of various kinds, and so great was the relaxation of discipline in consequence that its recovery was almost despaired of. Abbot Paul Birker came from his abbey of St. Boniface at Munich to assist in restoring regular observance, but so little success attended his efforts that he left Dissentis in 1861 and returned to Munich as a simple monk. The abbey has, however, survived those evil times and is in a satisfactory and flourishing condition. Dom Benedict Prevost, the eightieth who has ruled over its fortunes, was abbot in 1908 of a community of between thirty and forty monks, who, among their other duties, served five public oratories and conducted successfully a gymnasium of nearly a hundred boys. Mabillon, Annales Ordinis Sancti Benedicti (Paris, 1703-1739); Yepez, Chronicon Generale Ord. S. P. N. Benedicti (Cologne, 1603); Brunner, Ein Benediktinerbuch (Würzburg, 1880); Album Benedictinum (St. Vincent's, Penn., 1880). G. CYPRIAN ALSTON Distraction Distraction Distraction (Lat. distrahere, to draw away, hence to distract) is here considered in so far as it is wont to happen in time of prayer and in administering the sacraments. It hardly needs to be noted that the idea of mental prayer and mind-wandering are destructive of each other. So far as vocal prayer is concerned, the want of actual interior attention, if voluntary, will take from its perfection and be morally reprehensible. Distractions, however, according to the commonly accepted teaching, do not rob prayer of its essential character. To be sure one must have had the intention to pray and therefore in the beginning some formal advertence; otherwise a man would not know what he was doing, and his prayer could not be described even as a human act. So long, however, as nothing is done outwardly which would be incompatible with any degree whatever of attention to the function of prayer, the lack of explicit mental application does not, so to speak, invalidate prayer. In other words, it keeps its substantial value as prayer, although, of course, when the dissipation of thought is wilful our addresses to the throne of mercy lose a great deal of efficacy and acceptability. This doctrine has an application, for example, in the case of those who are bound to recite the canonical Office and who are esteemed to have fulfilled their obligation substantially even though their distractions have been abundant and absorbing. Voluntary distractions, that is the conscious deliberate surrender of the mind to thoughts foreign to prayers, are sinful because of the obvious irreverence for God with Whom at such times are presuming to hold intercourse. The guilt, however, is judged to be venial. In the administration of the sacraments their validity cannot be assailed merely because the one who confers them fails to, here and now, think of what he is doing. Provided he has the required intention and posits the essentials of the external rite proper to each sacrament, no matter how taken over he may be by outside reflections, his act is distinctly a human one and as such its value cannot be impugned. Such as state of mind, however, when it is wilful, is sinful, but the guilt is not mortal unless one has thereby laid himself open to the danger of making a mistake in what is regarded as essential for the validity of the sacrament in question. JOSEPH F. DELANY Distributions Distributions Distributions (from Lat. distribuere), canonically termed disturbtiones quotidianae, are certain portions of the revenue of a church, distributed to the canons present at Divine service. There are many regulations concerning these distributions in the "Corpus Juris". The latest law on the subject is found in the decrees of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, Cap. iii, De ref.), where it is ordained that bishops have power to set aside one-third of the revenues of officials and dignitaries of cathedral and collegiate chapters and convert this third into distributions for those who satisfy exactly their obligation of being personally present every day at the service to which they are bound. Canons retired on account of their age retain their right to the distributions, as do also capitulars who have received coadjutors, and supernumerary canons who are waiting a regular stall in the chapter. To earn these distributions it is necessary to chant the Office in common, according to the custom of the particular church to which the beneficiary belongs. A mere corporal presence, however, without mental application to the services performed, will not entitle one in conscience to these emoluments. WILLIAM H.W. FANNING Dithmar Dithmar (Thietmar). Bishop of Merseburg and medieval chronicler, b. 25 July, 975; d. 1 Dec., 1018.He was the son of Count Siegfried of Walbeck and a relative of the imperial family of the Saxon Ottos. After receiving his education in the monastic schools of Quedlinburg, Bergen, and Magdeburg, he became, in 1002, provost of the monastery of Walbeck which had been founded by his grandfather, was ordained priest in 1003 and consecrated fourth Bishop of Merseburg on 24 April, 1009. As bishop he worked with great energy for the spiritual and temporal restoration of his diocese which had been almost ruined by Giseler, the second Bishop of Merseburg, in his unholy ambition to become Archbishop of Magdeburg in 981. At the same time he fearlessly defended the canonical liberty of ecclesiastical elections against the encroachments of the secular princes. While Bishop of Merseburg he composed his famous chronicle "Chronicon Thietmari", which comprises in eight books the Saxon Emporers Henry I (called the Fowler), the three Ottos, and Henry II (the Saint). The first three books covering the regns of Henry I and the first two Ottos, are largely based on previous chronicles, most of which are still in extant; the fourth book, comprising the reign of Otto III, contains much original matter; while the remaining four books, which describe the reign of Henry II to the year 1018, are the independent narrative of Dithmar. As councilor of the emporer and participant in many important political transactions, he was well equipped for writing a history of his times. The spirit of sincerity which pervades his chonical is abundant compensation for the barbarous expressions which occasionally mar the literary style. The last four books, besides being the principal source for Saxon history during the reign of the holy emperor Henry II, contain valuable information, not to be found elsewhere, regarding the contemporary history and civilization of the Slavic tribes east of the river Elbe, especially the Poles and Hungarians. Dithmar's original manuscript, with corrections and additions made by himself, is still preserved at Dresden. A facsimile edition of it was prepared by L. Schmidt (Dresden, 1905). The chronicle was also published by Kurze in "Script. Rer. Germ." (Hanover, 1889), and by Lappenberg in "Mon. Germ. Hist. Script." III, 733-871, whence it was reprinted in Migne, P.L., CXXXIX, 1183-1422. A German translation was made by Laurent (Berlin, 1848, and Leipzig, 1892). KURZE in N. Archiv. Der Gesellsch. Fur altere deutsche Geschichte (Hanover, 1888), XIV, 59-86; WATTENBACH, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter (7th ed., 1904), I; HURTER, Nomenclator (3rd ed., Innsbruck, 1903), I, 950 sq; WELTE in Kirchenlex., s.v. MICHAEL OTT Dives Dives (Latin for rich). The word is not used in the Bible as a proper noun; but in the Middle Ages it came to be employed as the name of the rich man in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Luke, XVI, 19-31. It has often been thought that in this lesson on the use of riches Christ spoke of real persons and events. The "House of Dives" is still pointed out in Jerusalem; but, of course, if such a house ever existed, it must have long since disappeared. W.S. REILLY Divination Divination The seeking after knowledge of future or hidden things by inadequate means. The means being inadequate they must, therefore, the supplemented by some power which is represented all through history as coming from gods or evil spirits. Hence the word divination has a sinister signification. As prophecy is the lawful knowledge of the future divination, its superstitious counterpart, is the unlawful. As magic aims to do, divination aims to know. Divination is practically as old as the human race. It is found in every age and country, among the Egytians, Chaldeans, Hindus, Romans, and Greeks; that tribes of Northern Asia had their shamans, the inhabitants of Africa their mgangas, the Celtic nation their druids, the aborigines of America their medicine-men -- all recognized diviners and wizards. Everywhere divination flourished and nowhere, even to-day, is it completely neglected. Cicero's words were, and apparently always will be, true, that there is no nation, civilized or barbarian, which does not believe that there are signs of the future and persons who interpret them. Cicero divided divination into natural and artificial. Natural (untaught, unskilled) included dreams and oracles in which the diviner was a passive subject of inspiration, and the prediction that from a power supposed to be then and there within him. Artificial (taught, studied) comprised all foretelling from signs found in nature or produced by man. Here the diviner was active, and the divination came apparently from his own skill and observation. This division is almost the same as that given by St. Thomas with respect to the invocation of demons: divination with express invocation of spirits, embracing dreams, portents, or prodigies, and necromacy, and divination with tacit invocation through signs and movements observed in objects in nature, such as stars, birds, figures, etc., or through signs and arrangements produced by man, such as molten lead poured in water, casting of lots, etc. Dreams here mean those expressly prepared and prayed for with hope of intercourse with gods or the dead. Portents or prodigies are unusual and marvellous sights coming from the lower world. Here we are considering artificial divination. METHODS The variety of divinatory methods is very great. Scarcely an object or movement in the heavens, on the earth, or in the air or water escaped being metamorphosed into a message of futurity. Add to these the invention of man, and there is a glimpse of the immense entanglement of superstitions in which pagan people groped their way. They can, however, be grouped into three classes, as seen from St. Thomas's division. A detailed list has been given by Cicero, Clement of Alexandria in his "Stromata", and others of the Fathers. + Under the first class, express invocation, come oneiromancy or divination by dreams; necromancy, by so-called apparitions of the dead or spiritism; apparitions of various kinds, which may be either external or in imagination, as Cajetan observes; Pythonism or by possessed persons, as the Delphic Pythoness; hydromancy, by signs in water; aeromancy, by signs in air; geomancy, by signs in terrestrial substances (geomancy has also another meaning); aruspices, by signs in the entrains of victims, etc. + The second class, tacit invocation and signs found ready-made in nature, embraces judicial or genethliac astrology, pretending to tell the future through the stars; augury, through the notes of birds, and later covering prediction through their mode of acting, feeding, flying, and also the neighing of horses and sneezing of men, etc.-- with us it comprises all foretelling by signs; by omens, when chance words are turned into signs; chiromancy, when the lines of the hand are read; and many similar modes. + The third class, tacit invocation and signs prepared by man, includes geomancy from points or lines on paper or pebbles thrown at random; drawing of staws; throwing dice; cutting cards; letting a staff fall or measuring it with the fingers saying, "I will or I will not"; opening a book at random, called Sortes Virgilianae, so much was the Æneid used in this fashion by the Romans; etc. This last transferred to the Bible is still common in Germany and elsewhere. Hypnotism is also used for purposes of divination. HISTORY To attempt to trace the origin of divination is a waste of time, since like religion it is universal and indigenous in one form or another. Some nations cultivated it to a higher degree than others, and their influence caused certain modes of divination to spread. By its practice they gained a wide reputation for occult power. Pre-eminent in history stand the Chaldeans as seers as astrologers, but the ancient Egyptians and Chinese were also great adepts in elaborate mysterious rites. Which of them had priority therein is still an open question, though the larger share in the development of divination, especially in connection with celestial phenomena, is attributed to the Chaldeans, a vague term embracing here both Babylonians and Assyrians. In Greece from the earliest historical times are found diviners, some of whose methods came from Asia and from the Etruscans, a people famous for the art. While the Romans had modes of their own, their intercourse with Greece introduced new forms, and principally through these two nations they spread in the South and West of Europe. Before Christianity divination was practised everywhere according to rites native and foreign. In early days priest and diviner were one, and their power was very great. In Egypt the pharaoh was generally a priest; in fact, he had to be initiated into all the secrets of the sacerdotal class, and in Babylonia and Assyria almost every movement of the monarch and his courtiers was regulated by forecasts of the official diviners and astrologers. The cuneiform inscriptions and the papyri are filled with magical formulae. Witness the two treatises, one on terrestrial and the other on celestial phenomena compiled by Sargon several centuries before our era. In Greece where more attention was paid to aerial signs the diviners were held in high esteem and assisted at the public assemblies. The Romans, who placed most reliance in divination by sacrifices, had of official colleges of augurs and aruspices who by an adverse word could postpone the most important business. No war was undertaken, no colony sent out without consulting the gods, and at critical moments the most trifling occurrence, a sneeze or a cough, would be invested with meaning. Alongside all this official divining there were practised secret rites by all kinds of wizards, magicians, wise men, and witches. Chaldean soothsayers and strolling sibyls spread everywhere telling fortunes for gain. Between the regulars and the irregulars there was a very bitter feeling, and as the latter often invoked gods or demons regarded as hostile to the gods of the country, they were regarded as illicit and dangerous and were often punished and prohibited from exercising their art. From time to time in various countries the number and influence of the regular diviners were diminished in account of their pride and oppression, and no doubt at times they in turn may have adroitly mitigated the tyranny of rulers. With an increase of knowledge the fear and respect of the cultivated people for their mysterious powers so decreased that their authority suffered greatly and they became objects of contempt and satire. Cicero's "De Divinatione" is not so much a description of its various forms as a refutaton of them; Horace and Juvenal launched many a keen arrow at diviners and their dupes, and Cato's saying is well known, that he wondered how two augurs could meet without laughing at each other. Rulers, however, retained them and honoured them publicly, the better to keep the people in subjection, and outside classical lands, workers of magic still held sway. Wherever Christianity went divination lost most of its old-time power, and one form, the natural, ceased almost completely. The new religion forbade all kinds, and after some centuries it disappeared as an official system though it continued to have many adherents. The Fathers of the Church were its vigorous opponents. The tenets of Gnosticism gave it some strength, and neo-Platonism won it many followers. Within the Church itself it proved so strong and attractive to her new converts that synods forbade it and councils legislated against it. The Council of Ancyra (c. xxiv) in 314 decreed five years penance to consulters of diviners, and that of Laodicea (c. xxxvi) about 360, forbade clerics to become magicians or to make amulets, and those who wore them were to be driven out of the Church. A canon (xxxvi) of Orleans 511) excommunicates those who practised divination auguries, or lots falsely called Sortes Sanctorum (Bibliorum), i.e. deciding one's future conduct by the first passage found on opening a Bible. This method was evidently a great favourite, as a synod of Vannes (c. xvi) in 461 held forbidden it to clerics under pain of excommunication, and that of Agde (c. xlii) in 506 condemned it as against piety and faith. Sixtus IV, Sixtus V, and the Fifth Council of Lateran likewise condemned divination. Governments have at times acted with great severity. Constantius decreed the penalty of death for diviners. The authorities may have feared that some would-be prophets might endeavour to fulfil forcibly their predictions about the death of sovereigns. When the races of the North, which swept over the old Roman Empire, entered the Church, it was only to be expected that some of their lesser superstitions should survive. All during the so-called Dark Ages divining arts managed to live in secret, but after the Crusades they were followed more openly. At the time of the Renaissance and again preceding the French Revolution, there was a marked growth of noxious methods. The latter part of the nineteenth century witnessed a strange revival, especially in the United States and England, of all sorts of superstition, necromancy or spiritism being in the lead. Today the number of persons who believe in signs and seek to know the future is much greater than appears on the surface. They abound in communities where dogmatic Christianity is weak. The natural cause of the rise of divination is not hard to discover. Man has a natural curiosity to know the future, and coupled with this is the desire of personal gain or advantage, some have essayed, therefore, in every age to lift the veil, at least partially. These attempts have at times produced results which cannot be explained on merely natural grounds, they are so disproportionate or foreign to the means employed. They can not be regarded as the direct work of God nor as the effect of any purely material cause; hence they must be attributed to created spirits, and since they are inconsistent with what we know of God, the spirits causing them must be evil. To put the question directly: can man know future events? Let St. Thomas answer in substance: Future things can be known either in their causes or in themselves. + Some causes always and necessarily produce their effects, and these effects can be foretold with certainty, as astronomers announce eclipses. + Other causes bring forth their effects not always and necessarily, but they generally do so, and these can be foretold as well-founded conjectures or sound inferences, like a physician's diagnosis or a weather observer's prediction about rain. + Finally there is a third class of of causes whose effects depend upon what we call chance or upon man's free will, and these cannot be foretold from their causes. We can only see them in themselves when they are actually present to our eyes. Only God alone, to whom all things are present in His eternity, can see them before their occur. Hence we read in Isaias (41:23), "Show the things that are to come hereafter, and we shall know that you are gods." Spirits can know better than men the effects to come from the second class of causes because their knowledge is broader, deeper, and more universal, and many occult powers of nature are known to them. Consequently they can foretell more events and more precisely, just as a physician who sees the causes clearer can better prognosticate about the restoration of health. The difference, in fact, between the first and second classes of causes is due to the limitations of our knowledge. The multiplicity and complexity of cause prevent us from following their effects. Future contingent things, the effects of the third class, spirits cannot know for certain, except God reveal them, though they may wisely conjecture about them because of their wide knowledge of human nature, their long experience, and their judgents based upon our thoughts as revealed to them by our words, countenances, or acts. Unless we wish to deny the value of human testimony, it cannot be doubted that diviners foretold some contingent things correctly and magicians produced at times superhuman effects. The very survival of divination for so many centuries would otherwise be inexplicable and its role in history an insoluble problem. On religious grounds to say that divination and kindred arts were complete impostures would be to contradict Scripture. In it we read laws forbidding magic, we have facts like the deeds of Jannes and Mambres before Pharaoh, and we have a declaration of God showing it possible for a sign or wonder to be foretold by false prophets and to come to pass (Deuteronomy 13:1-12). But, except when God gave them knowledge, their ignorance of the future resulted in the well-known ambiguity of the oracles. Attempts to give artificial divination a merely natural basis have not succeeded. Chrysippus (de Divinatione, ii, 63) spoke about a power in man to recognize and interpret signs, and Plutarch (de Oraculis) wrote on the special qualifications an augur should have and the nature of the signs, but a preternatural influence was recognized in the end. Some modes, may have been natural in their origin, especially when necessary causes were concerned, and many a prediction made without occult intervention, but these must have been comparatively rare, for the client, if not always the seer, generally believed in supernatural assistance. That some analogy may be traced between an eagle and victory, an owl and sadness--though to the Athenians a welcome omen--and that to lose a tooth is to lose a friend, may readily be admitted, but to try to connect these with future contingent events would be to reason badly from a very slight analogy, just as to stab an image, to injure the person it represents, would be to mistake an ideal connection for a real one. Human instinct demanded a stronger foundation and found it in the belief in an intervention of some supernatural agency. Reason demands the same. A corporeal sign is either an effect of the same cause of which it is a sign, as smoke of fire, or it proceeds from the same cause as the effect which it signifies as the falling of the barometer foretells rain, i.e., the change in the instrument and the change in the weather come from the same cause. Man's future actions and signs in nature stand in no such relation. The sign is not an effect of his future act; neither do the sign and his act proceed from the same cause. The other kinds of signs from the living creatures can be passed over by almost the same reasoning. From those who believed in fatalism, or pantheism or that man, gods, and nature were all in close communion, or that animals and plants were divinities, a belief in omens and auguries of all kinds might be expected (see ANIMISM). Everywhere, as a matter of fact, divination and sacrifice were so closely connected that no strict line could have been drawn in practice between divination with and without express invocation of gods or demons. The client came to offer sacrifice, and the priest, the diviner, tried to answer all his questions, while the private wizards boasted of their "familiar spirits". THEOLOGICAL ASPECT From a theological standpoint divination supposes the existence of devils who have great natural powers and who, actuated by jealousy of man and hatred of God, ever seek to lessen his glory and to draw man into perdition, or at least to injure him bodily, mentally, and spiritually. Divination is not, as we have seen, foretelling what comes from necessity or what generally happens, or foretelling what God reveals or what can be discovered by human effort, but it is the usurpation of knowledge of the future, i.e. arriving at it by inadequate or improper means. This knowledge is a prerogative of Divinity and so the usurper is said to divine. Such knowledge may not be sought from the evil spirits except rarely in exorcisms. Yet every divination is from them either because they are expressly invoked or they mix themselves up in these vain searchings after the future that they may entangle men in their snares. The demon is invoked tacitly when anyone tries to acquire information through means which he knows to be inadequate, and the means are inadequate when neither from their own nature nor from any Divine promise are they capable of producing the desired effect. Since the knowedge of futility belongs to God alone, to ask it directly or indirectly from demons is to attribute to them Divine perfection, and to ask their aid is to offer them a species of worship; this is superstition and a rebellion against the providence of God Who has wisely hidden many things from us. In pagan times when divining sacrifice was offered it was idolatry, and even now divination is a kind of demonolatry or devil worship (d'Annibale). All participation in such attempts to attain knowledge is derogatory to dignity of a Christian, and opposed to his love and trust in Providence, and militates against the spread of the Kingdom of God. Any method of divination with direct invocation of spirits is grievously sinful, and worse still if such intervention ensues; with tacit invocation divination is in itself a grievous sin, though in practice, ignorance, simplicity, or want of belief may render it venial. If, however, notwithstanding the client's disbelief the diviner acts seriously, the client cannot be easily excused from grievously sinful cooperation. If in methods apparently harmless strong suspicion of evil intervention arises it would be sinful to continue if only a doubt arise as to the natural or diabolical character of the effect protest should be made against the intervention of spirits; if in doubt as to whether it be from God or Satan, except a miraculous act be sought (which would be extremely rare), it should be discontinued under pain of sin. A protestation of not wishing diabolical interference in modes of divination where it is expressly or tacitly expected is of no avail, as actions speak louder than words. A scientific investigator in doubt about the adequacy of the means can experiment to see if such superhuman intervention be a fact, but he should clearly express his opposition to all diabolical assistance. The divining-rod, if used only for metals of water, may perhaps be explained naturally; if used for detecting guilty persons, or things lost or stolen as such (which may be metals), it is certainly a tacit method. To believe in most of the popular signs simply ignorance or weakness of mind (see SUPERSTITION). DIVINATION IN THE BIBLE The Hebrews coming from Egypt -- a land teeming with diviners -- and dwelling in a country surrounded by superstitious tribes, would have their inborn desire for foreknowledge intensified by the spirit of the times and their environments; but God forbade them repeatedly to have anything to do with charmers, wizards, diviners, necromancers, etc., all of whom were abomination in His sight (Deut., xviii, 10, 11). The ideal was in Balaam's day when "there is no soothsaying in Jacob, nor divination in Israel" (Numbers 23:23), and to preserve this, the soul that went aside after diviner God declared He would destroy (Lev., xx, 6) and the man or woman in whom there was a divining spirit was to be stoned to death (Lev., xx, 27). God, however, as St. Chrysostom puts it, humoured the Hebrews like children, and to preserve them from excessive temptation, lots were allowed under certain conditions (Jos., vii, 14; Num., xxvi, 55; Prov., xvi, 33; in N.T. See also LOTS). Hebrew seers were permitted to answer when it pleased Him (Origen, c. Cels. I, xxxvi, xxxvii), prophets might be consulted on private affairs (I K. ix. 6), and the high priest could respond in greater matters by the Urim and Thummim. Gifts were offered to seers and prophets when consulted, but the great prophets accepted no reward when they acted as God's representatives (IV K., v. 20). When the Hebews fell into idolatry, divination, which always accompanied idolatry, revived and flourished, but all during their history it is evident that secretly and again more openly wrongful arts were used and as a result condemnations were frequent (1 K., xv, 23; IV K., xvii, 17; Zach. x. 2; Is. xliv, 25 etc.). It should be borne in mind that their history is very long one, and when we reflect how completely other nations were given over to all kinds of impious arts and silly observances we shall readily admit that the Hebrews were in comparison remarkably free from superstitions. When later these flourished more strongly and permantly it was during the decay of faith preceding and following the time of Christ (see Jos. Ant. Jud. XX, v, i, viii, 6; Bell. Jud. VI, v, 2). The Talmud shows the downward tendency. The various methods of divinig and kinds of diviners are not always clearly distinguished in Scripture, the Hebrew words being differently interpreted and sometimes merely synonyms. The following list is based on mainly upon Lesetre's article in Vigouroux's "Dict. de la Bible":-- + Divination by consulting the Teraphim, small household gods of which we first read in the time of Abraham and Laban (Gen. xxxi, 19). How they were consulted is not known. It was apparently Chaldean form, as Laban came from that country. They are met with in Judges, xvii, 5; IV K., xxiii, 24, and elsewhere. They sometimes deceived their inquirers (Zach., x, 2). + The Hartummim, a name translated by "interpreters" (Vulg. conjectores) in the Douay version (Gen., xli, 8), elsewhere (Dan., ii, 2) by "diviners" (Vulg. arioli) and other names, especially "Chaldeans". + The Hakamim are the wise men (Vulg. sapientes) of the Bible (Gen., xli, 8), a name given those skilled in divination in Egypt, Idumea (Abd., 8), Persia (Esth., i, 13), Babylon (Jer., 1, 35). + Qesem or Miqsam designated divination in general and is always used in the Scripture in a bad sense except in Prov., xvi, 10. By it the witch of Endor raised up the dead Samuel (I K., xxviii, 8). "The king of Babylon stood in the highway, at the head of two ways, seeking divination (qesem), shuffling arrows; he inquired of the idols (teraphim), and consulted entrails" (Ezech., xxi, 21). The arrows bore the signs or names of towns, and the first name drawn was the one to be attacked. This was Babylonian mode. The Arabs practised it so: three arrows were prepared and the first inscribed "The Lord wills it", the second "The Lord wills it not", and the third was blank. If the blank came a new drawing followed until an inscribed arrow was taken. The last method mentioned in text quoted was aruspicy (Vulg. exta consuluit). + Nahash is soothsaying (Vulg. augurium) in the Bible (Num., xxii, 23). The precise method signified by it is in dispute. The versions make it equivalent to divination by the flight of of birds, but this mode, so common among the Greeks and Romans, was apparently not used by the Hebrews except towards the time of Christ. From its derivation, as commonly accepted, it would mean divination by serpents, ophiomancy, but on the other hand it is never in this in the Scriptures. Balaam's divination by animal sacrifices is so termed (Num., xxiv, 1) and also Joseph's (Gen., xliv, 5, 15) which remains a vexed question in spite of Calmet's triumphant solution (Dict. of the Bible, III, p. 30) except reasonable explanation of Grotius be accepted (Hummelauer, Com. in Gen., p. 561). + Mekashsheph is the magician (Vulg. maleficus) in Ex., vii, 11, and the wizard in Deut, xviii, 10, who not only seeks the secrets of the future but works wonders. St. Paul mentions two of their leaders, Jannes and Mambres, and their modes are styled sorceries (Vulg. veneficia) in IV K., ix, 22 and (Vulg. maleficia) Micheas, v, 11. + The word 'obh signifies the spirit called and the person calling him, the necromancer. In Deut., xviii, 11, it is expressed by "seeking the truth from the dead" (the best known case is that of the witch of Endor) and elsewhere by Pythons (Is., viii, 19), divining spirits (I K., xxviii, 7). The Septuagint translates the words by "ventriloquist" because when the necromancers failed or wished to deceive the people they muttered as if from under the ground as though spirits so spoke; it recalls Shakespeare's of "squeak and gibber". (Cf. Is., xxix, 4.) A bottle or skin water-bag is 'obh; the use of the word here may come from the diviners containing the spirit or being inflated by it. + The Yidde 'onim were diviners whom we generally find connected with necromacers, and the two terms are perhaps practically synonymous (I K., xxviii 3; IV K., xxi, 6; etc). + Divining by Me'onen included apparently many methods: divination by chance words, as when Abraham's servant sought a wife for lsaac (Gen., xxiv, 14; I K., xiv, 9; III K., xx, 33); auguries (Is., xi, 6); observers of dreams (Deut., xviii, 10), etc. There were also modes by charming serpents (Jer., viii, 17), astrology (Is, xlvii, 13), and by consulting the Ephod (I K., xxiii, 9). In the N.T. diviners are not specifically mentioned except in Acts, xvi, 16, concerning the girl who had a pythonical spirit, but it is altogether likely that Simon Magus (Acts, viii, 9), Elymas (Acts, xiii, 6), and others (II Tim., iii, 13), including the possessors of the magical books burnt at Ephesus (Acts, xix, 19), practised divination and that it is included in the wonders by which Antichrist will seduce many (Apoc., xix, 20). Under the New Law all divination is forbidden because, placed on a higher plane than under the Old Dispensation we are taught not to be solicitous for the morrow (Matt., vi, 34), but to trust Him perfectly Who numbers the very hairs of our heads (Matt., x, 30). In divination, apart from the fraud of the Father of Lies, there was much merely human fraud and endless deception the predictions were generally as vague and as worthless as modern fortune-telling, and the general result then as now favoured vice and injured virtue. (See ASTROLOGY.) E.P. GRAHAM Society of Divine Charity Society of Divine Charity (SOCIETAS DIVINAE CHARITATIS). Founded at Maria-Martental near Kaisersesch, in 1903 by Josepth Tallmanns for the solution of the social question through the pursuit of agriculture and trades (printing, etc.) as well as by means of intellectual pursuits. The society consists of both priests and laymen. Tillmanns and Oehmen, Die wahre Lösung der sozialen (Martental, 1905). Institute of the Divine Compassion Sisters of Divine Charity Founded at Besançon, in 1799, by a Vincentian Sister, and modelled on the Sisters of Mercy of St. Vincent de Paul. The motherhouse, originally at Naples, is now in Rome, and there are many filial establishments in Italy, in Malta, and Gozzo. The sisters have charge of educational institutions, orphanages, hospitals, and insane asylums. F.M. RUDGE Institute of the Divine Compassion Institute of the Divine Compassion Founded in the City of New York, USA, by the Rt. Rev. Thomas Stanislaus Preston. On 8 September 1869, Father Preston began a semi-weekly gathering of the poor and abject children of the street in one of the most wretched quarters of the city; after this came the opening of a house for the reformation of young girls not yet hardened in vice, and the preservation of children and older girls from the moral danger in which they lived. The founded called it the House of the Holy Family and became its spiritual director. The work was fostered by many prominent Catholic ladies of New York, under the name of The Association for Befriending Children and Young Girls. Foremost among these ladies was Mrs. Mary C.D. Starr (in religion Mother Veronica; d. 9 Aug., 1904), who became the president of the association and devoted all her time and energies to this work of charity under the direction of Father Preston. Seeing the necessity of a religious community which should be trained to this work and perpetuate it, Father Preston compiled a rule of life for those who desired to devote their lives to it. The first draft was written 5 September, 1873, and was observed in its elemental form until 1886, when it was elaborated and obtained the informal approbation of the Archbishop of New York. The constitutions, which are an enlargement of the rule, and represent the norm of living in the institute, were written gradually, as it developed, and reached their completion in 1899. On the 29th of September, 1990, both rule and constitutions received the express canonical aprobation of Archbishop Corrigan of New York. The object of the institute is (1) the reformation of erring girls; and (2) the training, religious, mental, and industrial of girls in moral danger from ignorance, indolence, or waywardness, or dangerous influences. The institute is composed of two classes, choir sisters and little (or lay) sisters. In addition to the House of the Holy Family the sisters are in charge of a training home in New York City. The institute comprises about 40 sisters in charge of 215 girls. Sisters of Divine Providence Sisters of Divine Providence I. SISTERS OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENCE OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL Founded at Molsheim, in Diocese of Strasburg, by Vicar Ludwig Kremp (1783). After the Revolution the community reassembled at Bindernheim and, in 1807, received both ecclesiastical and civil approbation, the former from Archbishop of Strasburg, the latter from Napoleon I. In 1819, the mother-house was definitely located at Rappoltsweiler, and in 1869 the institute received papal confirmation. The congregation has (1908) 1800 members, over 1200 of them teachers in 357 primary schools of Alsace. The sisters have over 44,000 children under instruction; they conduct boarding and day schools, orphan asylums, reformatories, a housekeeping school, a high school for girls, and a deaf and dumb institution. Attached to the novitiate are a teacher's seminary and practice school. II. THE SOCIETY OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE Founded, in 1842, at St. Mauritz near Münster by Eduard Michelis, chaplain and private secretary to archbishop Droste zu Vischering of Cologne. He shared the imprisonment of his Archbishop and on his return went to St. Mauritz, where, with the help of two other priests, he founded an orphan asylum. He selected several teachers whom he sent to the Sisters of Divine Providence at Rappoltsweiler to be trained in the religious life. The rule followed there was adopted with a few alterations by the new community and received episcopal approbation. The congregation took as its special work the care of the poor, neglected, and orphaned children, as well as teaching in general. In 1878 the work of the sisters was interrupted by the Kulturkampf, and they were forced to take refuge at Steyl, Holland. In 1887, when they resumed their work in Germany, the mother-house was removed to Friedrichsburg near Münster, where a boarding and a trade school were opened. In the city of Münster the sisters have charge of the domestic management of five episcopal institution, and in the city and diocese they conduct boarding schools, orphan asylums, protectories, trade schools, elementary schools, Sunday schools, a working women's home (Rheine) and a Magdelan asylum (at Marienburg). In Bremen they direct an elementary school, Sunday school, and orphanage. The congregation has 50 branch houses in Germany, and 14 in Holland, among the latter the convent of St. Joseph at Steyl, that of Maria-Roepaan at Ottersum, and of St. Aloysius at Kessel. In 1895 a colony of sisters went to Brazil, where they now have six institutions. The congregation numbers (1908) 1115 members. III. SISTERS OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE Founded at Finthen near Mainz (whence they are sometimes called the Finthen Sisters) in 1851 by Bishop Wilhelm Emmanuel Freiherr von Ketteler. The first superior was sent to the Sisters of Divine Providence at Ribeauvillee, Alsace, to be formed in the religious life, and the rule followed there was made the basis of the new institute, which later received the papal approbation. The congregation was founded primarily for the work of teaching and for the care of the sick so far as consonant with their duties as teachers. The right of corporation was not obtained until 1858, but as early as 1856 the Finthen Sisters had charge of the orphan asylum of Neustadt. At the time of the Kulturkampf they had 21 foundations in the Grand Duchy of Hesse. When they were allowed to resume their activities they devoted themselves less to purely educational work and took charge of hospitals, children's asylums, homes for girls, industrial and housekeeping schools, orphan asylums, servant's homes, endowed infirmaries, and almshouses. Connected with the mother-house at Mainz are 76 branch houses with 730 members, 70 in the Diocese of Mainz, and 6 in that of Limburg. In Mainz the sisters conduct a boarding school with housekeeping and trade courses. At Oberursel they direct the Johannesstift for abandoned children founded by Joannes Janssen. Wherever these sisters have houses they care for the sick in their homes. IV. SISTERS OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE Mother-house at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., founded in 1876 by six sisters from Mainz (see III), who were later joined by other sisters from Mainz. The congregation now numbers about 200, in charge of 20 schools in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, one in Wheeling and 2 in the Columbus Diocese. V. CONGREGATION OF THE SISTERS OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE Founded in Lorraine, 1762, by the Venerable Jean-Martin Moye (b. 1730; d, 1793), priest of the Diocese of Metz, afterwards missionary to China, for "the propagation of the faith, the ensuring of a Christian education to children, especially those of the rural population, for the care of the sick, and other works of mercy". Approved by the Bishop of Metz in 1762, and recommended by the solicitude of his clergy, within six years the congregation had exceeded the limits of his diocese and planted itself on the banks of the Vosges. Marie Morel was the first superior. Suppreseed in 1792, the congregation was re-established after the Revolution; in 1816 the Rules and Constitution were formally approved by Louis XVIII. The mother-house general is at St.-Jean-de-Bassel, in the Diocese of Metz, Lorraine, with establishments in Lorraine, Alsace, Belgium, and the United States. There are about 500 sisters in the Diocese of Metz, and 300 in the Diocese of Strasburg, who direct schools, boarding schools, industrial schools, domestic economy institutes, hospitals, etc. At St-Jean-de-Bassel there is a normal institute devoted exclusively to the training of the young teachers of the congregation, generally 185 in number, and connected with this institute is a model school, all under the supervision of the educational boards of the German Imperial Government. In Belgium there are about 100 sisters. At Pecq, near Tournai, they direct a normal school and a boarding school. Elsewhere they have charge of schools and kindergartens. Sisters of Divine Providence Of Kentucky; incorporated American provincial house at Mt. St. Martin's convent, Newport, Kentucky. Mother Anna Houlne, superior general (d. 1903) of the congregation succeeded in placing the Sisters of St-Jean-de-Bassel in the foremost ranks of teachers in Alsace-Lorraine, and then, Moye, long to see them labour for the Christian education of youth in America, where she rightly judged the labourers to be few. In 1888 Bishop Maes of Covington, Kentucky, visited the mother-house general at St-Jean-de-Bassel, and arranged to have the sisters introduced into his diocese. Accordingly, in August, 1889, three sisters arrived in Covington and took up residence in one of the historical mansions of northern Kentucky, now know as Mt. St. Martin's convent. The growth of the American branch has necessitated the building of a new convent. In October, 1908, a considerable estate was acquired at Melbourne, Kentucky, the site of a new St. Ann's Convent, where it is designed to erect the new provincial house. Mother Anna visited the American Province in 1892. There are 215 sisters; until 1903 occasional small colonies were added from the mother-house general; about one third of the subjects are American. At Mt. St. Martin's convent are the novitiate and normal school for the province. Teaching is primary object of the sisters. They conduct an academy and many parish schools, an infant asylum, a home for French emigrant and working girls, and a home for the aged. The sisters are working in the Diocese of Covington, Providence, and Cleveland, and the archdioceses of New York, Baltimore, and Cincinnati. VI. SISTERS OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE Founded at Castroville, Texas, U.S.A., 1868, by Sister St. Andrew from the mother-house at St-Jean-de-Bassel, Lorraine, at the instance of Bishop Dubuis of Galveston. In 1896 the mother-house was transferred to San Antonio. The Constitutions were approved by Pope Leo X, 28 May, 1907 (?) The sisters have charge (1908) of 67 schools and academies in Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. VII. SISTERS OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE OF ST. ANDREW Founded at Hambourg-la-Forteresse, in 1806, by Father Anton Gapp, "for the Christian instruction of children in the primary schools and higher schools for girls". The congregation received the authorization of the French Government in 1826, and the mother-house was established at Forbach, Lorraine, but in 1839 was removed to Peltre. Destroyed in 1870 by the flames which swept the whole district, it was rebuilt after the close of the Franco-Prussian War. The congregation has now in Lorraine 138 institutions, among them 7 higher schools for girls, 20 trade and several housekeeping schools, and 9 hospitals. In Belgium they have 35 foundations. There are altogether 900 sisters, who teach 17,000 children in Lorraine and 4000 in Belgium. CONGREGATION OF THE SISTERS OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE: Archives and Unpublished Annals of Congregation; Directoire des Soeurs de la Providence (St-Germain-en-Laye, 1858); Weyland, Une ame apotre (Metz, 1901); Marchal, Vie de M. l'Abbe Moye (Paris, 1872). SISTERS OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE OF ST. ANDREW: HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationem (Paderborn, 1908), III; IDEM in Kirchenlex., s.v. Vorschung. F.M. RUDGE SISTER M. THERESIA SISTER M. CAMILLUS MOTHER MARY FLORENCE Institute of the Divine Compassion Daughters of Divine Charity Founded at Vienna, 21 November, 1868, by Franziska Lechner (d. 1894) on the Rule of St. Augustine, and approved by the Holy See in 1884 and definitively confirmed 22 July, 1891. The purpose of the congregation is to furnish girls without positions, shelter, care and the means of obtaining a position, without compensation, likewise to care for servants no longer able to work. The sisters are also engaged in schools, orphan asylums, and kindergartens. The motherhouse and novitiate are at Vienna; the congregation has 36 filial houses, 766 sisters, and 59 postulants. F.M. RUDGE Daughters of the Divine Redeemer Daughters of the Divine Redeemer Motherhouse at Oedenburg, Hungary; founded in 1863 from the Daughters of the Divine Saviour of Vienna. This congregation has 37 filial houses and 300 sisters, who conduct schools of all kinds and care for the sick. Society of the Divine Savior Society of the Divine Savior Founded at Rome, 8 Dec., 1881, by Johann Baptist Jordan (b. 1848 at Gartweil im Breisgau), elected superior general as Father Francis Mary of the Cross. The original name, Society of Catholic Instruction, was changed some years after its foundation to the present title. The first papal approbation was granted in the "Decretum laudis" of 27 May 1905. The founder imposed on his congregation, in addition to the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, a fourth of apostolic mission work. The rules and constitution are based largely on those of the Society of Jesus. The habit is black with a black cincture, in which four knots are tied to remind the wearer of his four vows. In tropical countries the habit is white and the cincture is red. On 13 Dec., 1889, the newly erected Prefecture Apostolic of Assam was placed in charge of the society, which has now 7 principal and 32 dependent stations, served by 13 missionaries, aided by 12 native catechists. The Fathers have published many books in the Khasi dialect, and since September, 1906, a periodical, "Ka iing Khristan". At Lochau, near Bregenz, a German college was established 15 Sept., 1893; in the same year a station was founded at Corvallis, Oregon, U.S.A.; in 1896 several members began work in Brazil. At present (1908) missions are given in thirteen languages from the various centres. The Salvatorians have establishments in Italy, Sicily, Austria, Poland, Moravia, Galicia, Hungary, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, England, and the United States, Brazil, and Columbia. The congregation numbers 400 members, 175 priests, the rest scholastics, lay brothers, novices, in 35 foundations, of which 28 are Marian Colleges and 7 mission centres. Among the periodicals issued by the society, in addition to the "Apostel-kalendar" (in German and Hungarian), are the "Nuntius Romanus", "Il Missionario" (in German "der Missionar, since 1907 "Illustrierte Monatshefte furs christl. Haus"; also in Polish), "L'amico dei fanciulli" (in German "Manna fur Kinder"; also in Polish), and the Salvatorianische Mitteilungen" (German and Polish), containing reports of the work of the society. Connected with the society are a Third Order for lay men and women; the "Academia litteratorium", the members of which cooperate with the fathers in the advancement of Catholic knowledge and literature; the Angel Sodality, founded 8 Dec., 1884, for children under fourteen, which has as its organ "L'amico dei fanciulli"., and a membership of 40,000. Sisters of the Divine Savior Founded 8 Dec., 1888, by Father Jordan, to supplement the work of the Salvatorian Fathers, and placed under the Third Rule of St. Francis. The mother-house is in Rome and there are stations in Assam (where the sisters conduct 6 orphan asylums), Austria, Hungary, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, Sicily, British Burma, and in the United States. They conduct orphan asylums, and schools, and visit the sick in their homes. The congregation numbers about 200. Daughters of the Divine Savior Mother-house at Vienna, a branch of the Niederbrunn Sisters of the Most Holy Saviour, establish 1857. The congregation has over 1200 sisters, choir and lay, who care for the sick in hospitals, and in their own homes, and conduct schools for girls, primary and grammer schools, trade schools, kindergartens, etc. The sisters have 72 houses in the Dioceses of Vienna, St. Polten, Seckau, Koniggratz, Brunn, Gran, Raah, and Parenzo-Pola. HEIMBUCHER, Orden and Kongregationem (Paderborn, 1908); Die Gesellschaft des gottlichen Heilandes (Rome, 1903); MUNZLOHER, Die up. Prafektur Assam (Rome, 1899). F.M. RUDGE Society of the Divine Word Society of the Divine Word (Societas Verbi Divini) The first German Catholic missionary society established. It was founded in 1875 during the period of the Kulturkampf at Steyl, near Tegelen, Holland, by a priest, Rev. Arnold Janssen (d. 15 January, 1909), for the propagation of the Catholic religion among pagan nations. It is composed of priests and lay brothers. On the completion of their philosophical studies the students make a year of novitiate, at the end of which they take the ordinary vows binding them for three years. Before ordination the members of the society take perpetual vows. The coadjutor brothers renew their vows every three years for nine years, when they take perpetual vows. The first mission of the society was established in 1882 on Southern Shantung, China, a district containing 158 Catholics and about 10,000,000 pagans. According to the statistics 1906-07, this mission numbered 35,378 Catholics, 36,367 catechumens, 1 seminary with 64 seminarians, 46 European priests, 12 Chinese priests, 13 coadjutor brothers of the society, 3 teaching brothers and 19 nuns. The second mission was founded in Togo, West Africa, in 1892. There were then scarcely a hundred Catholics in the district. In 1906 the mission had a prefect Apostolic, 31 European priests, 12 coadjutor brothers, 14 nuns, 53 native teachers, and 68 mission stations. There were nearly 3000 children attending the schools; the Catholics numbered 3300. The third mission was in German New Guinea. It is a comparatively new colony. Dangerous fevers are common. The natives are Papuans (Negritos). They are all savages, recognizing no form of authority, having no fixed customs, or administration of justice. The greatest difficulty experienced by missioners is the incredible number of languages. Thus in the entire mission district, 467 sq. m., probably more than a hundred languages are spoken. The first Catholic missionaries arrived in German New Guinea in August 1896. At the close of 1906, there were in the mission a prefect Apostolic. 16 European priests, 13 coadjutor brothers, 18 nuns, 1000 native Catholics, and 400 children in the schools. In the Argentine Republic the society numbers 51 priests, 31 coadjutor brothers, and 41 nuns. They have charge of colleges, seminaries, and of 12 parishes in the four Dioceses of Buenos Aires, La Plata, Santa Fé, and Paraná. Part of the mission district includes the territory once occupied by the famous Jesuit Reductions of Paraguay. The mission was established in 1898. In Brazil there are 39 priests, 14 coadjutor brothers, and 13 nuns. The society also has a mission in the United States, at Shermerville Techny, Cook Co., Illinois. There are 13 priests, and 37 coadjutor brothers in charge of a technical school, and 30 nuns who conduct a home for the aged. In Europe the society has six houses or colleges with 126 priests, 546 coadjutor brothers, and 1089 students for the society. The training convent for the nuns has 231 members. The colleges in Europe are: (1) St. Michael, at Steyl near Tegelen, Holland, founded 8 Sept., 1875. The superior general resides here with 47 priests, 314 coadjutor brothers, and 282 students for the society. (2) Heiligkreuz (Holy Cross) near Neisse, Silesia, founded 24 Oct., 1892. There are 23 priests, 84 coadjutor brothers, and 241 students. (3) St. Wendel, in the Diocese of Trier, with 18 priests, 68 coadjutor brothers, and 185 students. (4) St. Gabriel, near Vienna, established 4 Oct., 1889. There are 26 priests, 370 novices and students of philosophy and theology, and 80 coadjutor brothers. (5) St. Raphael, Rome, with 5 priests and one coadjutor brother. (6) Bischofshofen, near Salzburg in Austria, established 17 Aug., 1904. Nuns The Society of the Servants of the Holy Ghost (Societas Servarum Spiritus Sancti) was founded in 1889, at Steyl, Holland, by the Rev. Arnold Janssen. It numbers about 300 nuns who help the fathers in their missions, chiefly by teaching. HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationen der katholischen Kirche (Paderborn, 1808, III, 510-15). EB. LIMBROCK Procopius Divisch Procopius Divisch Premonstratensian, b. at Senftenberg, Bohemia, 26 March, 1698; d. at Prenditz, Moravia, 21 December, 1765. He was christened Wenceslaus, but took the name of Procopius when he became a religious. He began his studies at the Znaym Gymnasium and later entered the cloister school of the Premonstratensians at Bruck, Styria. In 1726 he was ordained and soon after became professor of philosophy at the school. His lectures on physics were illustrated by numerous interesting experiments. he received the doctorate in theology at Salzburg in 1733, his thesis being "Tractatus de Dei unitate sub inscriptione (Alpha) et (Omega)". In 1736 he took charge of the little parish of Prenditz near Znaym. Here he had sufficient leisure for work and experiment in his favourite subjects, hydraulics and electricity, constructing the necessary instruments himself. His fame soon spread abroad, and he was called to Vienna to repeat his electrical experiments before the Emperor Francis an the Empress Maria Theresa. He was one of the first to apply electricity in the treatment of disease. In 1750, prior to the publication of the French translation of Franklin's letters to Collinson (1751), he knew of the discharging property of pointed rods and applied his knowledge to the performance of curious tricks. The first lightning-rod was erected by Divisch at Prenditz, in 1754, before Franklin's suggestions were known and before they had been carried out elsewhere. Divisch's device is quite different from that proposed by the Philadelphian. He petitioned the emperor in 1755 to put up similar rods all over the country and thus protect the land from lightning. This proposal was rejected on the advice of the mathematicians of Vienna. He also constructed the Denydor (Denis, "Divisch", d'or, "of gold"), a musical instrument, imitating string and wind instruments and producing orchestral effects. His theories are expounded in his published work, "Theoretischer Tractat oder die längst verlangte Theorie von der meteorologischen Electricität" (Tübingen, 1765; Frankfort, 1768; Bohemian tr. Prague, 1899). PELZL, Abbildungen böhm, and mähr. Gel. (Vienna, 1777); NUSL, Prokop Divis (Prague, 1899); POGGENDORFF, Gesch. d. Physik (Leipzig, 1879). WILLIAM FOX Divorce (In Moral Theology) Divorce (in Moral Theology) This subject will be treated here under two distinct heads: First, divorce in moral theology; second, divorce in civil jurisprudence. The term divorce (divortium, from divertere, divortere, "to separate") was employed in pagan Rome for the mutual separation of married people. Etymologically the word does not indicate whether this mutual separation included the dissolution of the marriage bond, and in fact the word is used in the Church and in ecclesiastical law in this neutral signification. Hence we distinguish between divortium plenum or perfectum (absolute divorce), which implies the dissolution of the marriage bond, and divortium imperfectum (limited divorce), which leaves the marriage bond intact and implies only the cessation of common life (separation from bed and board, or in addition separation of dwelling-place). In civil law divorce means the dissolution of the marriage bond; divortium imperfectum is called separation (séparation de corps). The Catholic doctrine on divorce may be summed up in the following propositions: + In Christian marriage, which implies the restoration, by Christ Himself, of marriage to its original indissolubility, there can never be an absolute divorce, at least after the marriage has been consummated; + Non-Christian marriage can be dissolved by absolute divorce under certain circumstances in favour of the Faith; + Christian marriage before consummation can be dissolved by solemn profession in a religious order, or by an act of papal authority; + Separation from bed and board (divortium imperfectum) is allowed for various causes, especially in the case of adultery or lapse into infidelity or heresy on the part of husband or wife. These propositions we shall explain in detail. A. In Christian marriage, which implies the restoration, by Christ Himself, of marriage to its original indissolubility, there can never be an absolute divorce, at least after the marriage has been consummated. 1. The Original Indissolubility of Marriage and Its Restoration by Christ. The inadmissibility of absolute divorce was ordained by Christ Himself according to the testimony of the Apostles and Evangelists: "Whoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery" (Mark, x, 11, 12. -Cf. Matt., xix, 9; Luke, xvi, 18). In like manner, St. Paul: "To them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife" (I Cor., vii, 10, 11). In these words Christ restored the original indissolubility of marriage as it had been ordained by God in the Creation and was grounded in human nature. This is expressly stated by Him against the Pharisees, who put forward the separation allowed by Moses: "Moses by reason of hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives"": but from the beginning it was not so" (Matt., xix, 8); "He who made man from the beginning, made them male and female. And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder" (Matt., xix, 4-6). The indissolubility of all marriage, not merely of Christian marriage, is here affirmed. The permanence of marriage for the whole human race according to natural law is here confirmed and ratified by a Divine positive ordinance. No Catholic can doubt that even according to the natural law of marriage is in a certain sense indissoluble. The following proposition is condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX (Proposition LXVII): "According to the natural law, the bond of marriage is not indissoluble, and in certain cases divorce in the strict sense can be sanctioned by civil authority." The meaning of this condemnation is clear from the document whence it has been taken. This is the papal Brief ("Ad apostolicæ sedis fastigium", 22 August, 1851, in which several works of the Turin professor, J. N. Nuytz, and a series of propositions defended by him were condemned, as is expressly said, "deApostolicæ potestatis plenitudine". A certain dissolubility of marriage whenever contracted must therefore be admitted, even according to the natural law, at least in the sense that marriage, unlike other contracts, may not be dissolved at the pleasure of the contracting parties. Such dissolubility would be in direct contradiction with the essential purpose of marriage, the proper propagation of the human race, and the education of the children. That in exceptional cases, in which continued cohabitation would nullify the essential purpose of marriage, the dissolubility may nevertheless not be permitted, can hardly be proved as postulated by the natural law from the primary purpose of marriage. However, even such dissolubility would not be in accord with the secondary purposes of marriage, and it is therefore regarded by St. Thomas (IV Sent., dist. xxxiii, Q, ii, a. 1) and most Catholic scholars as against the secondary demands of the natural law. In this sense, marriage, considered merely according to the natural law, is intrinsically indissoluble. That it is also extrinsically indissoluble, i.e. that it cannot be dissolved by any authority higher than the contracting parties, cannot be asserted without exception. Civil authority, indeed, even according to the natural law, has no such right of dissolving marriage. The evil consequences which would follow so easily, on account of the might of passion, in case the civil power could dissolve marriage, seem to exclude such a power; it is certainly excluded by the original Divine positive law: "What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder" (Matt., xix, 6). However, that part of the proposition condemned by Pius IX, in which it is asserted, "And in certain cases divorce in the strict sense can be sanctioned by civil authority", need not necessarily be understood of marriage according to the purely natural law, because Nuytz, whose doctrine was condemned, asserted that the State had this authority in regard to Christian marriages, and because the corresponding section of the Syllabus treats of the errors about Christian marriage. (Cf. Schrader, Der Papst und die modernen Ideen, II (Vienna, 1865), p. 77. ] 2. Divorce among the Israelites In spite of the Divine law of the indissolubility of marriage, in the course of time divorce, in the sense of complete dissolution of marriage, became prevalent to a greater or less extent among all nations. Moses found this custom even among the people of Israel. As lawgiver, he ordained in the name of God (Deut., xxiv, 1): "If a man take a wife, and have her, and she find not favour in his eyes, for some uncleanness: he shall write a bill of divorce, and shall give it in her hand, and send her out of his house." The rest of the passage shows that this divorce was understood as justifying the wife in the marriage with another husband, hence as a complete annulment of the first marriage. Some regard it only as a freedom from penalty, so that in reality the remarriage of the divorced wife was not allowed, and was adultery, because the bond of the first marriage had not been dissolved. This opinion was held by the Master of the Sentences, Peter Lombard (IV Sent., dist. xxxiii, 3), St. Bonaventure (IV Sent., dist. xxxiii, art. 3, Q, I), and others. Others again, however, believe that there was a real permission, a dispensation granted by God, as otherwise the practice sanctioned in the law would be blamed as sinful in some part of the Old Testament. Moreover, Christ (loc. cit.) seems to have rendered illicit what was illicit in the beginning, but what had really been allowed later, even though it was allowed "by reason of the hardness of your heart" (St. Thomas, III, Supplem., Q. lxvii, a. 3; Bellarmine, "Controvers. de matrim.", I, xvii; Sanchez, " De matrim.", X, disp. i. n. 7; Palmieri, "De matrimonio christ.", Rome, 1880, 133 sqq.; Wernz, "Jus decretalium", IV, n. 696, not. 12; etc). This second opinion maintains and must maintain that the expression "for some uncleanness" does not mean any slight cause, but a grievous stain, something shameful directed against the purpose of marriage or marital fidelity. A separation at will, and for slight reasons, at the pleasure of the husband, is against the primary principle of the natural moral law, and is not subject to Divine dispensation in such a way that it could be make licit in every case. It is different with separation in serious cases governed by special laws. This, indeed, does not correspond perfectly with the secondary purposes of marriage, but on that account it is subject to Divine dispensation, since the inconvenience to be feared from such a separation can be corrected or avoided by Divine Providence. In the time of Christ there was an acute controversy between the recent, lax school of Hillel and the strict, conservative school of Schammai about the meaning of the phrase Hebrew phrase. Hence the question with which the Pharisees tempted Our Lord: "Is it lawful. . . for every cause?" The putting-away of the wife for frivolous reasons had been sharply condemned by God through the Prophets Micheas (ii, 9) and Malachias (ii, 14), but in later days it became very prevalent. Christ abolished entirely the permission which Moses had granted, even though this permission was strictly limited; He allowed a cause similar to "uncleanness" as reason for putting away the wife, but not for the dissolution of the marriage bond. 3. The Dogmatic Basis and Practical Application of The Complete Dissolubility of Consummated Marriage within the Catholic Church (a) Its Foundation in Scripture -- The complete exclusion of absolute divorce (divortium perfectum) in Christian marriage is expressed in the words quoted above (Mark, x; Luke, xvi; I Cor., vii). The words in St. Matthew's Gospel (xix, 9), "except it be for fornication", have, however, given rise to the question whether the putting-away of the wife and the dissolution of the marriage bond were not allowed on account of adultery. The Catholic Church and Catholic theology have always maintained that by such an explanation St. Matthew would be made to contradict Sts. Mark, Luke, and Paul, and the converts instructed by these latter would have been brought into error in regard to the real doctrine in Christ. As this is inconsistent both with the infallibility of the Apostolic teaching and the innerancy of Sacred Scripture, the clause in Matthew must be explained as the mere dismissal of the unfaithful wife without the dissolution of the marriage bond. Such a dismissal is not excluded by the parallel texts in mark and Luke, while Paul (I Cor., vii, 11) clearly indicates the possibility of such a dismissal: "And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband". Grammatically, the clause in St. Matthew may modify one member of the sentence (that which refers to the putting-away of the wife) without applying to the following member (the remarriage of the other), though we must admit that the construction is a little harsh. If it means, "Whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commiteth adultery", then, in case of marital infidelity, the wife may be put away; but that, in this case, adultery is not committed by a new marriage cannot be concluded from these words. The following words, "And he that shall marry her that is put away" -- therefore also the woman who is dismissed for adultery -- "committeth adultery", say the contrary, since they suppose the permanence of the first marriage. Moreover, the brevity of expression in Matthew, xix, 9, which seems to us harsh, is explicable, because the Evangelist had previously given a distinct explanation of the same subject, and exactly laid down what was justified by the reason of fornication: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the causes of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery" (Matt., v, 32). Here all excuse for remarriage or for the dissolution of the first marriage is excluded. Even the mere dismissal of the wife, if this is done unjustly, exposes her to the danger of adultery and is thus attributed to the husband who has dismissed her -- "he maketh her commit adultery". It is only in the case of marital infidelity that complete dismissal is justified -- "excepting for the cause of fornication". In this case not he, but the wife who has been lawfully dismissed, is the occasion, and she will therefore be responsible should she commit further sin. It must also be remarked that even for Matthew, xix, 9, there is a variant reading supported by important codices, which has "maketh her to commit adultery" instead of the expression "comitteth adultery". This reading answers the difficulty more clearly. (Cf. Knabenbauer, "Comment, in Matt.", II, 144). Catholic exegesis is unanimous in excluding the permissibility of absolute divorce from Matthew 19, but the exact explanation of the expressions, "except it be for fornication" and "excepting for the cause of fornication", has given rise to various opinions. Does it mean the violation of marital infidelity, or a crime committed before marriage, or a diriment impediment? (See Palmieri, "De matrim. Christ.", 178 sqq.; Sasse, "De sacramentis", II, 418 sqq.) Some have tried to answer the difficulty by casting doubt on the authenticity of the entire phrase of Matthew 19, but the words are in general fully vouched for by the more reliable codices. Also, the greater number, and the best, have "committeth adultery". (See Knabenbauer, loc. cit., and Schanz, "Kommentar über das Evang. d. hl. Matth.", 191, 409.) That absolute divorce is never allowable therefore clear from Scripture, but the argument is cogent only for a consummated marriage. For Christ found His law on the words: "They two shall be in one flesh", which are verified only in consummated marriage. How far divorce is excluded, or can be allowed, before the consummation of the marriage must be derived from other source. (b) Tradition and the Historical Development in Doctrine and Practice -- The doctrine of Scripture about the illicitness of divorce is fully confirmed by the constant tradition of the Church. The testimonies of the Fathers and the councils leave us no room for doubt. In numerous places they lay down the teaching that not even in the case of adultery can the marriage bond be dissolved or the innocent party proceed to a new marriage. They insist rather that the innocent party must remain unmarried after the dismissal of the guilty one, and can only enter upon new marriage in case death intervenes. We read in Hermas (about the year 150), "Pastor", mand. IV, I, 6: "Let him put her (the adulterous wife) away and let the husband abide alone; but if after putting away his wife he shall marry another, he likewise committeth adultery (ed. Funk, 1901). The expression in verse 8, "For the sake of her repentance, therefore, the husband ought not to marry", does not weaken the absolute command, but it gives the supposed reason of this great command. St. Justine Martyr (d. 176) says (Apolog., I, xv, P.G., VI, 349), plainly and without exception: "He that marrieth her that has been put away by another man committeth adultery." In like manner Athenagoras (about 177) in his "Legatio pro christ.", xxxiii (P.G., VI, 965): "For whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, committed adultery"; Tertullian (d. 247), "De monogamiâ", c, ix (P.L., II, 991): "They enter into adulterous unions even when they do not put away their wives, we are not allowed to even marry although we put our wives away"; Clement of Alexandria (d. 217), "Strom.", II, xxiii (P.G., VIII, 1096), mentions the ordinance of Holy Scripture in the following words; "You shall not put away your wife except for fornication, and [Holy Scripture] considers as adultery a remarriage while the other of the separated persons survives." Similar expressions are found in the course of the following centuries both in the Latin and in the Greek Fathers, e.g. St. Basil of Cæsarea, "Epist. can.", ii, "Ad Amphilochium", can. xlviii (P.G., XXXII, 732); St. John Chrysostom, "De libello repud." (P.G., LI, 218); Theodoretus, on I Cor., vii, 39, 40 (P.G., LXXXII, 275); St. Ambrose, "in Luc.", VIII, v, 18 sqq. (P.L., XV, 1855); St. Jerome, Epist, lx (ad Amand.), n. 3 (P.L., XXII, 562); St. Augustine, "De adulterinis conjugiis", II, iv (P.L., XL, 473), etc., etc. The occurrences of passages in some Fathers, even among those just quoted, which treat the husband more mildly in case of adultery, or seem to allow him a new marriage after the infidelity of his spouse, does not prove that these expressions are to be understood of the permissibility of a new marriage, but of the lesser canonical penance and of exemption from punishment by civil law. Or if they refer to a command on the part of the Church, the new marriage is supposed to take place after the death of the wife who was dismissed. This permission was mentioned, not without reason, as a concession for the innocent party, because at some periods the Church's laws in regard to the guilty party forbade forever any further marriage (cf. can. vii of the Council of Compiègne, 757). It is well known that the civil law, even of the Christian emperors, permitted in several cases a new marriage after the separation of the wife. Hence, without contradicting himself, St. Basil could say of the husband, "He is not condemned", and "He is considered excusable" (ep. clxxxviii, can. ix, and Ep. cxcix, can. xxi, in P.G., XXXII, 678, 721), because he is speaking distinctly of the milder treatment of the husband than of the wife with regard to the canonical penance imposed for adultery. St. Epiphanius, who is especially reproached with teaching that the husband who had put away his wife because of adultery or another crime was allowed by Divine law to marry another (Hæres, lix, 4, in P.G., XLI, 1024), is speaking in reality of a second marriage after the death of the divorced wife, and whilst he declares in general that such a second marriage is allowed, but is less honourable, still he makes the exception in regard to this last part in favour of one who had long been separate from his first wife. The other Fathers of the following centuries, in whose works ambiguous or obscure expressions may be found, are to be explained in like manner. The practice of the faithful was not indeed always in perfect accord with the doctrine of the Church. On account of defective morality, there are to be found regulations of particular synods which permitted unjustifiable concessions. However, the synods of all centuries, and more clearly still the decrees of the popes, have constantly declared that divorce which annulled the marriage and permitted remarriage was never allowed. The Synod of Elvira (A.D. 300) maintains without the least ambiguity the permanence of the marriage bond, even in the case of adultery. Canon ix decreed: "A faithful woman who has left an adulterous husband and is marrying another who is faithful, let her be prohibited from marrying; if she has married, let her not receive communion until the man she has left shall have departed this life, unless illness should make this an imperative necessity" (Labbe, "Concilia", II, 7). The Synod of Arles (314) speaks indeed of counseling as far as possible, that the young men who had dismissed their wives for adultery should take no second wife" (ut, in quantum possil, consilium eis detur); but it declares at the same time the illicit character of such a second marriage, because it says of these husbands, "They are forbidden to marry" (prohibentur nubere, Labbe, II, 472). The same declaration is to be found in the Second Council of Mileve (416), canon xvii (Labbe, IV, 331); the Council of Hereford (673), canon x (Labbe, VII, 554); the Council of Friuli (Forum Julii), in northern Italy (791), canon x (Labbe, IX, 46); all of these teach distinctly that the marriage bond remains even in case of dismissal for adultery, and that new marriage is therefore forbidden. The following decisions of the popes on this subject deserve special mention: Innocent I, "Epist. ad Exsuper.", c. vi, n. 12 (P.L., XX, 500): "Your diligence has asked concerning those, also, who, by means of a deed of separation, have contracted another marriage. It is manifest that they are adulterers on both sides." Compare also with "Epist. ad Vict. Rothom.", xiii, 15, (P.L., XX, 479): "In respect to all cases the rule is kept that whoever marries another man, while her husband is still alive, must be held to be an adulteress, and must be granted no leave to do penance unless one of the men shall have died." The impossibility of absolute divorce during the entire life of married people could not be expressed more forcibly than by declaring that the permission to perform public penance must be refused to women who remarried, as to a public sinner, because this penance presupposed the cessation of sin, and to remain in a second marriage was to continue in sin. Besides the adultery of one of the married parties, the laws of the empire recognized other reasons for which marriage might be dissolved, and remarriage permitted, for instance, protracted absence as a prisoner of war, or the choice of religious life by one of the spouses. In these cases, also, the popes pronounced decidedly for the indissolubility of marriage, e.g. Innocent I, "Epist. ad Probum", in P.L. XX, 602; Leo I, "Epist. ad Nicetam Aquil.", in P.L., LIV, 1136; Gregory I, "Epist. ad Urbicum Abb.", in P.L., LXXVII, 833, and "Epist. ad Hadrian. notar.", in P.L., LXXVII, 1169. This last passage, which is found in the "Decretum" of Gratian (C. xxvii, Q, ii, c. xxii), is as follows: "Although the civil law provides that, for the sake of conversion (i.e., for the purpose of choosing the religious life), a marriage may be dissolved, though either of parties be unwilling, yet the Divine law does not permit it to be done." That the indissolubility of marriage admits of no exception is indicated by Pope Zacharias in his letter of 5 January, 747, to Pepin and the Frankish bishops, for in chapter vii he ordains "by Apostolic authority", in answer to the questions that had been proposed to him: "If any layman shall put away his own wife and marry another, or if he shall marry a woman who has been put away by another man, let him be deprived of communion" [Monum. Germ. Hist.: Epist., III:Epist. Merovingici et Karolini ævi, I (Berlin, 1892), 482] (c) Laxer Admissions and their Correction -- Whilst the popes constantly rejected absolute divorce in all cases, we find some of the Frankish synods of the eighth century which allowed it in certain acute cases. In this regard the Council of Verberie (752) and Compiègne (757) erred especially. Canon ix of the first council is undoubtedly erroneous (Labbe, VIII, 407). In this canon it is laid down that if a man must go abroad, and his wife, out of attachment to home and relatives, will not go with him, she must remain unmarried so long as the husband is alive whom she refused to follow; on the other hand, in contrast to the blameworthy woman, a second marriage is allowed to the husband: "If he has no hope of returning to his own country, if he cannot abstain, he can receive another wife with a penance." So deeply was the pre-Christian custom of the people engraven in their hearts that is was believed allowance should be made for it to some degree. Canon v seems also to grant the unauthorized permission for a second marriage. It treats of the case in which the wife, with the help of other men, seeks to murder her husband, and he escapes from the plot by killing her accomplices in self-defence. Such a husband is allowed to take another wife: "That husband can put away that wife, and, if he will, let him take another. But let that woman who made the plot undergo a penance and remain without hope of marriage." Some explain this canon to mean that the husband might marry again after the death of his first wife, but that the criminal wife was forbidden forever to marry. This last is in agreement with the penitential discipline of the age, because the crime in question was punished by life-long canonical penance, and hence by permanent exclusion from married life. In its thirteenth canon (according to Labbe, VIII, 452; others call it the sixteenth), the Council of Compiègne gives a somewhat ambiguous decision and may seem to allow absolute divorce. It says that a man who has dismissed his wife in order that she might choose the religious life, or take the veil, can marry a second wife when the first has carried out the resolution. Nevertheless, the intended choice of the state of Christian perfection seems to imply that this canon must be limited to a marriage that has not been consummated. Hence it gives the correct Catholic doctrine, of which we shall speak below. This must also be the meaning of canon xvi (Labbe, VIII, 453; others, canon xix), which allows the dissolution of a marriage between a leper and a healthy woman, so that the woman is authorized to enter upon a new marriage, unless we supose that here there is a question of the diriment impediment of impotence. If these canons were really intended in any other sense, then they are contrary to the general doctrine of the Church. Other canons, in which separation and second marriage are allowed, refer undoubtedly to the diriment impediments of affinity and spiritual relationship, or to a marriage contracted in error by persons one of whom is free and the other not free. Hence they have no reference to actual divorce, and cannot be interpreted as a lax concession to popular morals or to passion. It is true that several of the Penitential Books composed about this time in the Frankish regions contain the cases mentioned by these two synods and add others in which the real dissolution of the marriage bond and a new marriage with another wife might be allowed. The following cases are mentioned in several of these Penitential Books: adultery, slavery as punishment for crime, imprisonment in war, wilful desertion without hope of reunion, etc. (Schmitz, "Bussbücher", II, 129 sqq.). These Penitential Books had indeed no official character, but they influenced for a time the ecclesiastical practice in these countries. However, their influence did not last long. In the first decades of the ninth century, the church began to proceed energetically against them (cf. the Synod of Châlons, in the year 813, canon xxxviii; Labbe, IX, 367). They were not completely suppressed at once, especially as a general decay of Christian morality took place in the tenth and early part of the eleventh century. Towards the end of the eleventh century, however, every concession to the laxer practice as regards divorce had been corrected. The complete indissolubility of Christian marriage had become so firmly fixed in the juridical conscience that the authentic collections of church laws, the Decretals of the twelfth century, do not even see the necessity of expressly declaring it, but simply suppose it, in other juridical decisions, as a matter of course and beyond discussion. This is shown in the entire series of cases in IV Decretal., xix. In all cases, whether the cause be criminal plotting, adultery, loss of faith, or anything else, the bond of marriage is regarded as absolutely indissoluble and entrance upon a second marriage as impossible. (d) Dogmatic Decision on the Indissolubility of Marriage -- The Council of Trent was the first to make a dogmatic decision on this question. This took place in Session XXIV, canon v: "If anyone shall say that the bond of matrimony can be dissolved for the cause of hersy, or of injury due to cohabitation, or of wilful desertion; let him be anathema", and in canon vii: "If anyone shall say that the Church has erred in having taught, and in teaching that, according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Apostles, the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved, and that neither party -- not even the innocent, who has given no cause by adultery -- can contract another marriage while the other lives, and that he, or she, commits adultery who puts away an adulterous wife, or husband, and marries another; let him be anathema." The decree defines directly the infallibility of the church doctrine in regard to indissolubility of marriage, even in the case of adultery, but indirectly the decree defines the indissolubility of marriage. Doubts have been expressed here and there about the dogmatic character of this definition (cf. Sasse, "De Sacramentis", II, 426). But Leo XIII, in his Encyclical "Arcanum", 10 February, 1880; calls the doctrine on divorce condemned by the Council of Trent "the baneful heresy" (hoeresim deterrimam). The acceptance of this indissolubility of marriage as an article of faith defined by the Council of Trent is demanded in the creed by which Orientals must make their profession of faith when reunited to the Roman Church. The formula prescribed by Urban VIII contains the following section: "Also, that the bond of the Sacrament of Matrimony is indissoluble; and that, although a separation tori et cohabitationis can be made between the parties, for adultery, heresy, or other causes, yet it is not lawful for them to contract another marriage." Exactly the same declaration in regard to marriage was made in the short profession of faith aproved by the Holy Office in the year 1890 (Collectanea S. Congr. de Prop. Fide, Rome, 1893, pp. 639, 640). The milder indirect form in which the Council of Trent pronounced its anathema was chosen expressly out of regard for the Greeks of that period, who would have been very much offended, according to the testimony of the Venetian ambassadors, if the anathema had been directed against them, whereas they would find it easier to accept the decree that the Roman Church was not guilty of error in her stricter interpretation of the law (Pallavicini, "Hist. Conc. Trid.", XXII, iv). (e) Development of the Doctrine on Divorce outside of the Catholic Church -- In the Greek Church, and the other Oriental Churches in general, the practice, and finally even the doctrine, of the indissolubility of the marriage bond became more and more lax. Zhishman (Das Eberecht der orientalischen Kirchen, 729 sqq.) testifies that the Greek and Oriental Churches separated from Rome permit in their official ecclesiastical documents the dissolution of marriage, not merely on account of adultery, but also "of those occasions and actions the effect of which on married life might be regarded as similar to natural death or to adultery, or which justify