851	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	IMM401
who do not believe that miracles ever occurred, the fiery furnace and the lion's den will seem incredible, but it is not incredible that a writer in the exile believed them. The " atmosphere " of the book betrays its place of origin. " The more I read Daniel," says Lenormant, " the more I am struck with the truth of the tableaux of the Babylonian court traced in the first six chapters." The tablets now undergoing decipherment show a people given over to superstition, magic, and talismans. The naivetk of truth appears in the mention that the Chaldeans spoke in Aramaic. They were frightened. There was no time for the composition of a reply in the court language. The unconscious revelation of the emergence of Law as superior even to the will of kings, when the Persian power came in. " The law of the Metes and Persians, which altereth not," shows contemporaneity. The simplicity of truth appears through all. The book is " sealed " at its close. This means: it is ended, or, it is attested, or, it is such that, as in Isa. xxix. 10‑14, some will pretend they can not understand. All these are true of Daniel.
JosEPH D. WILSON.
BIBLIOGHAYHT: The earlier commentaries are mostly worth
	less; few of the modern ones are much better. In
	English the best by far and of the highest intrinsic value
	in 8. R. Driver, in Cambridge Bible for Schools, 1900.
	Consult also the commentaries by A. Bevan, Cambridge,
	1892; J. D. Prince, London, 1899; K. Marti, T>abingen,
	1901; and C. H. H. Wright, Daniel and its Critics, Lon
	don, 1906. Discussion of critical problems are in Driver,
	Introduction, chap. xi.; A. H. Sayce, " • Him Criticism "
	and . . . as Monuments, pp. 495‑537, London, 1893;
	G. Behrmann, Das Bush Daniel, G6ttingen, 1894; DB,
	i. 551‑557; EB, i. 1001‑15; JE, iv. 430‑432. Particu
	lar questions are treated in J. Meinhold, Die Composition
	des Bushes Daniel, Greifewald, 1884; item, Beitrdpe zur
	Erkittrunp des Daniel, Leipsie, 1888; A. Kamphausen,
	Das Buch Daniel and die neuere Gaechichtaforechunp, ib.
	1892; H. Gunkel, BcASpfung and Chaos, pp. 266‑270,
	323‑335, G6ttingen, 1895; C. Braston, Blades Bur Daniel,
	Paris, 1896. On the unity consult: A. von Gall, Die
	Einheitlichkeit des . . . Daniel, Giessen 1895; G. A.
	Barton, in JBL, avii (1898), 62‑86. On the seventy
	weeks: F. Fraidl, Die Exepese der 70 Wochen in der alien
	and mittleren Zeit, Graz, 1883; Van Lennep, De 70 jaar
	tpaken van Daniel Utrecht, 1888. For the teat: Hebrew
	is by A. Kamphausen, in BBOT, New York, 1896; best
	LXX. teat by Swete, Old Testament in Creak, vol. iii..
	Cambridge, 1896. Consult: M. Lohr, in ZATW, xv
	(1895), 75 eqq., 193 sqq., avi (1896), 14 aqq.; A. Bludau,
	Die alesandrini8che Uebarsetaung tea Buttes Daniel, Frei
	burg, 1897.

DANIEL, ELECTOR OF MAINZ, AND THE COUN
TERREFORMATION IN THE EICHSFELD.
His General Policy (§ 1). Severe Measures in the Eichefeld (§ 2). The Results (§ 3). Events After Daniel's Death (§ 4).
	Daniel Brendel of Homburg (b. 1523; d. 1582)
became elector of Mainz in 1555‑to the chagrin of
the citizens‑by a majority of one vote over the
palgrave Reichardt, who had Protestant leanings.
His official policy was determined openly and
		mainly by political, rather than by re
	r. His ligious considerations. He sought to
	General maintain a good understanding with
	Policy. his powerful neighbor of the Palat
		inate, though at a later period he ap
pears more reserved than at first; he discreetly
abstained from intermeddling in French and Neth‑
erlandiah affairs; and in imperial transactions he allied himself closely with Emperor Maximilian II. That this policy was not prompted by ecclesiastical indifference is witnessed by measures in other connections: in 1561 Daniel founded a Jesuit college at Mainz, and he furthermore expressed his regard for the Jesuits by presents, by admitting them to the cathedral pulpit, by founding a school, by patronizing a Jesuit confessor, and by the stimulus he gave to other spiritual princes toward founding Jesuit colleges. In only one part of his archbishopric‑in the so‑called Eichsfeld region, between Thuringia and the Harz country‑did Daniel carry through the Counterreformation; in the electorate proper (Mainz and its vicinity), Protestant elements continued to be tolerated, even in the government and in the elector's official household. The Reformation had quite early penetrated the Eichsfeld, especially by way of Erfurt, and about the middle of the sixteenth century the entire district was fairly Protestant. At the outset Daniel, like his predecessors, tolerated this state of affairs; but afterward, albeit with a regard to the rights of sovereignty duly drawn up and subscribed for him by the Protestant nobility, he interfered with rigor.
	To subdue a disobedient vassal, he betook him
self to the Eichsfeld in June, 1574, with a consider
able array of troops, and accompanied by two
Jesuits. The nobleman in question was quickly
overcome, and the Protestant preachers were driven
out of the two towns, Duderstadt and Heiligenstadt.
Since the elector proceeded only against the towns,
and at the same time granted freedom of conscience
		to the territorial knighthood, any
a. Severe general resistance to these extraor
Measures dinary measures was for the time in the being averted. A zealous convert,
	Eichsfeld.	Lippold of Stralendorf, was entrusted,
		as temporal chief officer, with the
prosecution of the work thus begun; and the spiri
tual commissioner, Heinrich Bunthe, was of equally
strict Catholic sentiments. At the beginning of
1575 they were joined by the Jesuit Elgard and
other Jesuits despatched to the elector by the Curia.
Elgard soon made himself indispensable, and meas
ures animated by a spirit heretofore unknown in
the Eichsfeld rapidly multiplied. At Duderstadt
they sought to take the churches from the Protes
tants; visitations began alike in the towns and in
the country, that is, within the sphere of the knightly
patronages; the Protestant clergy were driven
away, and ecclesiastical burial was refused to their
adherents. Against this manner of procedure the
knightly estate of the district now rose up, reen
forced by the neighboring princes of Hesse and
electoral Saxony, but without effectual results;
still more energetic measures were prosecuted in
favor of the Counterreformation. A fresh impor
tation of Jesuits ensued; the dispersion of the
Protestant clergy continued; the frequenting of
outside Protestant churches and participation in
the communion according to the Lutheran rite
were forbidden; and even very secular methods
were applied to render the population submissive,
such as the prohibition of the export of Duderstadt
beer.

Damie1	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	352
The victory of the Roman party at the Diet of Regensburg, 1576, led to new oppressions of the Protestants. The still remaining Protestant preachers were driven away; the churches were forcibly withdrawn from Protestant worship and were consecrated anew; the people were forced to attend mass with the aid of the electoral officers and their troops. As time passed, indeed, it happened again and again that upon withdrawal of the temporal power the Roman clergy who had been introduced by force were at once expelled, while parsonages and churches again were occupied by the returning Protestant preachers. In spite of all their prospective advantages, the number of converts remained very small; where no Protestant service could be longer observed, the people got along without spiritual provision entirely or traveled for miles to take part in secret worship or in Protestant worship still tolerated for want of repressive power. The elector's arrangement, however, was enforced by the sanction of the emperor Rudolph, who admonished the Council of Duder stadt to obey the elector; nor did the intervention of Protestant electors have any effect.
When Daniel died in 1582 very little had been gained for the Roman Church. The Roman clergy, to be sure, were everywhere present; divine service, baptisms, marriages, and burials were enforced according to Roman rite; but the people at
large remained almost solidly loyal to 3. The the Protestant faith. In only one
Results. place, perhaps, was a somewhat
firmer basis gained for the Counterreformation. A Jesuit school had been opened in Heiligenstadt in 1575; in 1581 a well‑endowed college with seven alumni scholarships was erected by the elector; and the neighboring Evangelical peasants had to contribute bond‑service thereto. The school at first attracted more scholars from the surrounding districts than from the Eichsfeld itself; but the scholastic festivities, with their cleverly chosen allurements, the public presentation of Biblical dramas, in the course of time won candidates for instruction from the home town and country as well. The Jesuits were never discouraged by the failure of their plans or intimidated by the odium exhibited against them.
Daniel's successor, Wolfgang of Dalberg (15821601), continued the work already begun; the same coercive measures with their merely momentary results were applied over and over again, while all complaints and petitions of the knighthood met with the same negative answer. The knighthood proper, however, were now allowed the liberty of Protestant worship behind closed doors, though not for their dependent subjects. At the beginning of the Thirty Years' War (1618) conditions had changed somewhat; the Jesuit school in Heili‑
genstadt had gradually exerted its 4. Events influence; this town had again be‑
After	come predominantly Roman Catholic,
Daniel's	and in like manner throughout the
Death.	district the Protestants had been
driven back. In Duderstadt alone there still persisted a secret band of Protestants who remained steadfast through all the military
oppressions, and eventually secured their right of
existence. During the first period of the war the
quartering of imperial troops and Tilly's soldiers
was one means employed to distress the Protestants
and bring them into subjection; subsequently there
came respites of better times with the Swedish
troops. It was decreed at the Peace of West
phalia (1648) that the status of Jan. 1, 1624, should
be in force with respect to church affairs‑a ruling
not exactly favorable to the Protestants. Public
Protestant worship, however, was allowed in Duder
stadt, and a dozen noble parishes received freedom
of religious practise by the terms of the Peace.
Oppression of the Protestants at the hands of
electoral officers, however, did not cease till the
termination of the electoral state of Mainz and the
incorporation of the Eichafeld into the kingdom of
Prussia. 	WALTER GOETz.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Tl. 88ISrlu9, Ree MQgunttae2, i. 862 sqq., Frankfort, 1722; H. Hoppe, Die Reataurataan des Kathoiiziemus . . . auf dem Eichefelde, Marburg, 1850; W. Burghard, Die Gegenre%mation auf dem Bichejelde, 157679, vole. i.‑ii., ib. 1890‑91; L. von Wintzingeroda‑Knorr, in Schriften dea Veresne far Re%rmaMionapesehichk, Nos. 36, 42, Halle, 1892‑93; H. Moritz, Die Wahl Rudolte I1., Marburg, 1895.
DARN, CHRISTIAN ADAM: Lutheran; b. at Tilbingen Dec. 24, 1758; d. at Stuttgart Mar. 19, 1837. He was of Huguenot descent, and studied at Balingen, later at the cloister‑school at Blaubeuren, and after 1777 in his native city. In 1793 he was called to a deaconry in G&ttingen, in 1794 as assistant at St. Leonhard in Stuttgart. In 1812 he was transferred to Oeschingen, a village twelve miles from Tdbingen, and in 1817 to Mdssingen, near Stuttgart. He was recalled to Stuttgart in 1824, first to the cathedral church, one year later to St. Leonhard, where he preached eleven years to crowded congregations. From his youth he was under the influence of Bengel and Pietism. A strong champion of the ethical demands of the Gospel in the lax times of the Napoleonic wars, he had a deep, stern conviction of sin. Christianity was to him essentially an " institution of pardon, atonement, and compensation." The Christ of the Gospels was not only his constant example, but also mediator and redeemer. In the Eucharist he found "the most intimate blessed union with Christ." He wrote a large number of occasional tracts on various subjects‑among the rest against cruelty to animals and vivisection. With Rieger he founded in 1811 the charity organization of Stuttgart. He labored long for a revision of the hymnal, which finally appeared, five years after his death; it contains the most beautiful of his hymns, " Gekreuzigter, zu deinen Fiissen! "
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Denkmal der Liebe fur den roollendeten C. A. Dan?, Stuttgart, 1837; A. Knapp, in Gesammelte Werke, vol. ii., ib. 1875; Der Chriatenbote, 1 (1880), 204.
DANNHAUER, JOHANN CONRAD: Lutheran teacher of Spener; b. at K6ndringen (10 m. n. of Freiburg) Mar. 24, 1603; d. at Strasburg Nov. 7, 1666. He began his education in the gymnasium at Strasburg and was the master of a thorough philosophical training before he commenced his theological work in 1624. He continued his studies at Marburg, Altorf, and Jena, lecturing at the same

858	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	~ el
time on philosophy and linguistics and winning recognition at Jena by his exegesis of the Epistle to the Ephesians. Returning to Strasburg in 1628, he entered upon an active career as administrator, teacher, and theologian. Made seminary inspector in 1628, he became in the following year professor of oratory, and in 1633 professor of theology, pastor of the cathedral, and president of the ecclesiastical assembly. Although the judgment of his contemporaries, Bebel, Spener, and others, placed him in the front rank of the theologians of the time, Dannhauer has received scant justice at the hands of posterity. The influence exerted upon Spener by his teacher must not be underestimated because of the formal tone of the poem dedicated by the founder of the Pietists to his teacher's memory. Their relations were certainly not characterized by the warmth of personal friendship, but were rather in the nature of an intercourse based on common intexests. Dannhauer ordained Spener, and in all probability secured for him the post of private tutor at the court of the elector palatine. Spener, in return, seems to have been connected with the preparation of the second edition of the Hodosophia for the press and to have acted as critic of another work of Dannhauer's which has not yet been identified. The estrangement between the two was apparently caused by Dannhauer's nephew, Balthasar Bebel, who was in control of the theological faculty at Strasburg at the time of the publication of Spener's Pia desideria. Dannhauer was a prolific writer, his principal works being as follows: Hodosophia christiana sine theologia positiva (1649); Katechismusmilch oder Erklltrung des kirchlichen Katechismus (1657‑78) and Liber conscientice apertus sine theologia conscientiaria (1662‑67).
(F. Bossa.)
BrnwoanAPBy: The best source is J. Reiseeieen, Btrma burpiache Chronik, 1867‑77, ed. R. Reuse, Strasburg, 1879. Consult: E. L. T. Henke, Gem Calixtw, Halle, 18tH; ADA iv. 745‑746; P. Gruaberg, P. J. $pener, vol. i., GSttingen, 1893.

DANOVIUS, dd‑n8'vf‑ds, ERNST JAKOB, Lutheran; b. at Redlau or Meinkatz (near Danzig) Mar. 12, 1741; d. at Jena Mar. 18, 1782. He was educated at Danzig, Helmstadt, and Gbttingen, and in 1765 accompanied Abbot Schubert to Greifawald as tutor to his sons. Thence he was called to the rectorate of the Johannisschule at Danzig, and in 1768 went to Jena. His specialties were New Testament exegesis, symbolics, moral theology, and, most of all, dogmatics, but he felt little sympathy with historical theology. His point of view may be characterized as modern supernaturalism, substituting for inspiration a miraculous guidance of God, which gave protection against all error, yet by no means denying the human element in the sacred writings He avoided the excessive concepts of the divine likeness, denied that original sin was actual guilt in the descendants of Adam, and identified justification, in the widest sense of the term, with predestination. Danovius was prevented from giving expression to his views both by his faculty and by the government, and when he finally enunciated them in two Christmas programs of 1774‑75 he was publicly opposed by 111‑23
the theological faculty of Erlangen. He defended
himself in a number of pamphlets (Drei Abhand
lungen von der Rechtfertigung des Menschen vor Gott,
Jena, 1777, and Kurze Erkldrung Oer die neue van
D. Seiler der Lehre von der Recht f ertigung halber
herausgegebene Schrift, 1778). While he desired a
union with the Reformed, and while he did not
regard their doctrines of the absolute decree and
irresistible grace or their views of the Lord's Supper
as grounds of hindrance, he feared their teaching
concerning the incarnation, since it rendered doubt
ful the efficacy of the meritorious works and death
of Christ.
	The delivery of Danovius was admirable in the
professorial chair, though unpopular in the pulpit,
but his literary style was crabbed, and he wrote
slowly and with difficulty. His melancholy nature,
aggravated by excessive work, led him to take
his own life. In addition to the works already
mentioned and a number of programs, he wrote
Schrei,ben an Herrn D. Semler, lessen neuere Streitig
keiten betre f f end (Jena, 1770) and Super ltbro Tor
gensi Censura Holsato‑SWwlcensis vmriis obserum
tiontbus illustrata (1780). He also edited the
OPuacula of J. D. Heilmann (1774‑77), and made
a translation of a work by A. J. Roustan (pastor
of the Swiss church in London) under the title
Briefs sur Vertheidigung der chriatliehen Religion
(Halls, 1783). 	(G. FRAnst.)
BrswoonArm: C. G. F. Bohffts, Leben . . . lea E. J. Danovius, appendix to A. J. Rouetan, Brisfe eur Veri%tei‑
dipung der ehriatliehan Religion, Halle, 1783; G. Frank,
GewAichh lee Rarionolimue, pp. 111 sqq., 127‑128, Leip‑
sie, 1875.
DANTE, dan't6 or dan'te, ALIGHIERI, a"lf‑gWrl.
I. Life. Education and Early Life (1 1). Florentine Parties (¢ 2). Dante's Banishment (§ 3). His Wanderings. Later Life (5 4). II. Literary Works.
L Life: Dante, the greatest poet of Italy and one of the greatest of the world, was born at Florence between May 18 and June 17, 1265, and died at Ravenna Sept. 14 (13 ? ), 1321. The name Dante is a contraction of Durante. He was the son of a notary. Nothing is known of his schools or teachers. Stories of his studies at the universities of Bologna, Padua, and Paris lack confirmation. He was an omnivorous reader, and compassed most of the learning of his age. He was a master of Latin, but knew neither Greek nor Hebrew. He was versed in dialectic, rhetoric, grammar, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music, and in the Provengal and Old French literature. He drew,
r. Educa‑ and had some knowledge of painting.
tion and He was thoroughly acquainted with
Early Life. the writings of Aristotle, through Latin translations, and derived from him his whole system of physics, physiology, and meteorology. He was familiar with the Bible, and with the writings of Aquinas, Bonaventura, and Albertus Magnus, and with those of Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine. He knew Ptolemy and Euclid in astronomy and mathematics, and was not ignorant of the Arabian philosophers Averroes and Avicenna. Of the Latin classical writers ho

Dante	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	864
shows an acquaintance with Vergil, Cicero, Lucan, Horace, Ovid, Livy, and Statius. At the age of nine he saw for the first time Beatrice, the daughter of Folco Portinari, for whom he conceived an ardent passion which stimulated his poetical genius and found its last expression in the Digina Commedia. Their intercourse was confined to occasional salutations, and she married in 1287 and died in 1290. Dante, some time before 1298, married Gemma Manetto Donati, who bore him four children.
The party divisions in Florence in Dante's time were twofold, one Italian, the other local. The former was between Guelfs and Ghibellines, the
latter between Bianchi and Neri
2. Floren‑ (" Whites and Blacks "). The Guelfs,
	tine	the popular party, were represented
Parties. by the burghers and trade‑gilds.
The Ghibellines represented the aristocracy and the soldiery. Dante was originally a Guelf and a White. Later he passed over to the Ghibellines, but finally broke away from both parties. During Dante's earlier life the power was gradually shifting from the nobles to the people. In 1289 the Tuscan Ghibellines were routed at the battle of Catnpaldino (June 11), where Dante served as a soldier, as he did a little later at the siege and capture. of the Pisan castle of Caprona by the Florentines and Luccans. The revolution of 1293 overthrew the grandees, and the democratic character of the constitution was confirmed by the reforms of Giano dell.: Bella, a noble with popular sympathies. Thenceforth the nobles were excluded from the office of prior. However, they continued their intrigues, which were now promoted by the newly elected pope, Boniface VIII. (1294), who aimed to concentrate in himself all authority, temporal and spiritual. The control of Tuscany was an important means to this end.
Without membership in one of the industrial gilds no one could hold office. Dante was enrolled in the Gild of Physicians and Apothecaries in 1295 and in 1300 became one of the priors, in whom the executive power of the State was lodged. The division between the Whites and the Blacksthe Cerchi and Donati‑now came to the front. The Cerchi represented the democracy, and the Donati the pope and his policy. A fight took place between the two factions. Boniface des‑
patched a legate to Florence, nominally
3. Dante's as a pacificator, really to support the
'Banish‑ Blacks. Dante with the signory re‑
	ment.	fused his overtures. As the disturb
		ance continued, the priors banished
the leaders of both factions. Corso Donati went to
Rome and appealed to Boniface, who selected as his
tool Charles of Valois, brother of Philip the Fair of
France. He sent him to Florence with an armed
force, on the pretense of restoring peace, and his
arrival was the signal for a ferocious attack upon
the Whites by the Blacks. Dante's house was
sacked. The priors were deposed. On Jan. 27,
1302, Dante was pronounced guilty of extortion,
embezzlement, and corruption; of resistance to the
pope and Charles; and of assisting to expel the
Blacks, the servants of the Church. With four
others he was banished for two years, condemned
to pay a heavy fine, and excluded from holding office thereafter. On Mar. 10 a second sentence was pronounced, forbidding him to return to Florence on penalty of being burned.
It is impossible to follow the track of Dante's wanderings. It appears that, after the proscription, in 1302, 1303, and 1306, three attempts were made by the banished Whites to enter Florence. In the first and probably in the second of these Dante took part; but he soon broke finally with his
associates, and thenceforth was a 4. His Wan‑ party by himself. His first refuge
derings. was with the Scaligera at Verona,
Later Life. after which he wandered over the
greater part of Italy. He was at Padua in 1306, and the same year with the Malaspini at Lunigiana. He was also at Mantua. It has been claimed that he resided in Paris, and that he visited England and Flanders. After the death of Henry VII., in 1313, he appears at Lucca. In 1316 the Government of Florence offered amnesty to political exiles, and Dante was granted permission to return on condition of undergoing the public penance of a malefactor. The offer was indignantly refused. In the latter years of his life he resided chiefly with Guido da Polenta at Ravenna, but was for a considerable time at Verona with Can Grande dells Scala. He was invited to go to Bologna to receive the poet's crown, but declined. He was sent as an ambassador to Venice by Polenta, upon whom the Venetians had made war. Shortly after his return he died, and was interred near the church of San Francesco.
II. Literary Works: (1) The Vita Nuova: The story of his passion for Beatrice in prose, interspersed with brief poems. It explains the part which Beatrice plays in the Commedia. (2) The Convivio or " Banquet " (the form Convito is later): Projected in fourteen treatises, only four of which were written; a philosophical commentary on three of Dante's own Canzoni. It treats of questions of
geography, astronomy, etymology, and dialectics, but also of philosophy, patriotism, and nobility of soul. (3) Canzoniere : Minor poems, songs, ballads, and sonnets. (4) De monarchic : In Latin, in three books. Monarchy is the normal, divinely instituted form of government. The Roman Empire is invested with universal monarchy by the decree of God, and is perpetuated in the Hohenstaufena. The normal administration of human affairs is through two coordinate agents, the Em‑
pire and the Church. The pope and the emperor are equally God's vicars. (5) De vulgari eloquentia ; A treatise in Latin. It examines the fourteen dialects of Italy, and discusses the meter of the canzone, giving rules for the composition of Italian poetry. Four books were projected, of which only two were written. (6) Epistles : Number and authenticity much disputed; fourteen have been
attributed to Dante, and ten are doubtfully accepted as genuine. (7) De agate et terra : A treatise in Latin. Dante's authorship has been generally denied, but some modern scholars, notably Professor Edward Moore, believe it to be authentic. The question discussed is: Can water in its own sphere or natural circumference be in any place higher

m	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Dante
than the dry land or habitable part of the earth? (8) The Bucolic Eclogues : Two Epistles in Latin hexameters, to Giovanni dal Vergilio, who blamed Dante for not writing the Commedia in Latin, and urged him to compose Latin poems, and to come to Bologna to receive the poetic crown. (9) The Divrind Comntedia : It is written in terza rima, and the theme is Dante's journey through hell, purgatory, and paradise. The poem is called Commedia, because although it begins horribly with hell, it ends happily with paradise. The epithet " Divine " was a later addition of admirers. Dante says that the subject of the work, taken literally, is the state of souls after death, regarded as a matter of fact. Taken allegorically, it is man, so far as by merit or demerit in the exercise of free will he is exposed to the rewards or punishments of justice. The astronomical and geographical elements of the poem are derived from the Ptolemaic system of astronomy and from the geographical writings of Oroaius (4th cent.). Hell and purgatory are treated as geographical facts. Hell is directly beneath Jerusalem, the center of the land‑hemisphere. It is a hollow inverted cone, the interior circumference of which is divided into nine concentric ledges, each devoted to the punishment of a distinct class of sinners. At the apex of the cone, the center of gravity, Lucifer is fixed in eternal ice. Purgatory is a lofty conical mountain rising from an island in the southern hemisphere. Its lower section, antepurgatory, is traversed by a spiral track of three rounds, which terminates at the gate of St. Peter. Above this is purgatory proper, which consists of seven concentric terraces, on each of which one of the seven deadly sins is expiated. At the summit of the mountain is the earthly paradise, the original Eden, where is the river Lethe, whose waters obliterate the memory of sin and sorrow, and the river Eunoe, which restores the memory of good actions.
The poem consists of three parts, Inferno, Purgatorio, Paradiso. In Apr., 1300, Dante finds himself astray in a rough and gloomy forest. Emerging from this, he attempts to ascend a hill, but is driven back by three ravenous beasts. He is met by the shade of Vergil, who proposes to conduct him through hell and purgatory, and then to commit him to the charge of Beatrice, who will guide him through paradise. On the evening of Good Friday, Apr. 8, they enter the gate of hell, and, passing through the successive circles, reach the apex, pass the center of gravity, and ascend to the island of purgatory. Through antepurgatory they reach the gate of St. Peter, are admitted, and traverse the successive terraces. At the summit Dante sees a magnificent symbolic vision of the triumph of the Church. Beatrice appears, and Vergil vanishes. Having been plunged in Lethe, and having drunk of Eunoe, Dante mounts with Beatrice through the nine heavens to the empyrean, where he beholds the bliss of the glorified, and the blessed Trinity.
It is preeminently a moral and religious work. It is the story of the human soul in its relation to God. In the conditions of departed souls which it portrays it reflects the multiform aspects of the life of men and women of all ranks, stations, and
employments, from the emperor to the peasant. It is the consummate expression of medievalism in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The range of allusion is vast and wonderful in its variety. The portrayal of human character and human passion is vivid and subtle. The poet's intense, pervading moral purpose divests of vulgarity even the hideous details of the Inferno. He is a plain speaker, but no word or picture ever appeals to a sensual instinct. Under his dominant conception of man as the inheritor of a moral destiny, distinctions of time, race, and position disappear, and classic heroes and mythological monsters mingle with popes, martyrs, and Christian emperors. His biting satire respects neither civil nor ecclesiastical dignity. The poem is packed with similes, allegories, portraits, historical and personal references, and theological and philosophical disquisitions. It is intensely personal, often egotistic, revealing the poet's consciousness of his own genius, tinged with bitterness of spirit, yet displaying the sympathy and the tenderness of a great soul. Dante is impatient of vagueness. He is intensely realistic. Every space is measured, every region mapped, every dimension recorded. His similes are chosen without regard to their source, with the single view of illustrating his thought; and the moat grotesque images appear amid the very aublimities of heaven. With his wonderful sense of form he unites a delicate sense of color and sound.
M. R. VINCENT.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lists of literature are: C. de Batinea, Bibliopraha Dantcaca, 2 vole., Prato, 1845‑46, supplemented by C. F. Carpellini, 1888, by B. dells Legs, 1883, and by Guido Biagi, 1888; G. J. Ferazzi, Manuals Danteaco, 5 vole., Basasno, 1885‑77 (useful, but confused in arrangement); T. W. Koch, Dante in America, Cambridge, Mass., 1898 (for the Dante Society); W. C. Lane, Dante Col2eoliana in the Harvard . . . and Boston . . . Libraries, Boston, 1890; W. M. Rossetti, Bibliography of the Works of Dance, London, 1905.
General and introductory critical works are: G. A. Scartasaini, Dame‑Handbuch, Leipaic, 1892, Eng. transl., London, 1893; H. C. Barlow, Critical, Historical and Philosophical Contributions to the Study of Dance, 2 vole., ib. 18&1‑&5; E. Moors, Studies in Dance, 3 aeries, ib. 18981903 (very valuable); F. X. Kraus, Dante, aein Leben urad aein Werk, Berlin, 1897. More popular works are: M. F. Rossetti, A Shadow of Dance, Edinburgh, 1884; R. W. Church, Dante and Other Essays, London, 1888; J. A. Symonds, Introduction to the Study of Dance, ib. 1890; L. Ragg. Dante and His Italy, ib. 1907. On Dame's astronomy, geography, and chronology consult E. Moors, in Dante Studies, vol. iii., London, 1903, and his Time References in the Divina Commedia, ib. 1887.
Biographical works: The biographies by Boccaccio and Bruni are translated by P. H. Wicketeed, in A Provisional Trawl. of the Early Liven of Dance, Hull, 1898; a critical rdsumd of the five early biographies is by E. Moors, Dante and his Early Biographers, London. 1880. Consult further: F. X. Wegele, Dante Aliphiert'e Leben and Works, Jena, 1879 (valuable); G. A. $cartazzini. Dante Aliphieri, Frankfort, 1879.
Dictionaries and concordances are: L. G. Blanc, Vooabodario Danteeco, Leipaic, 1852; Donato Bocci, Dizionaria . . delta Divina Commedia di Dante Aliphseri, Turin, 1873; G. A. Scartazzini, Enciclopedia Danteaca, Milan, 1898‑99, continued by A. Fiamazzo. 1905 (supplement includes the Latin works; valuable); P. Toynbee, Dictionary of Proper Names and Notable Matters in . . . Dame, London, 1898 (useful); E. A. Fay, Concordance of the Diving Cony»iedia, Boston, 1894 (very valuable); E. Sheldon and A. C. White, Concordanze Belle opera . . . di Dance, ib. 1905 (also indispensable).
Editions deserving notice are: The superb quarto of G. G. Warren Lord Vernon, in which the four earliest

Daring Daugherty
Faith (Nashville, 1905); and Society, Kingdom, and Church (Philadelphia, 1907). He also published a commentary on Colossians (Philadelphia, 1890), and edited J. A. Brodus's Preparation and Delivery of Sermons (New York, 1898).
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
DARIQS, da‑mi've: The name given to several kings in the Old Testament. The earliest form of the word is given in the old Persian inscriptions as Darayava(h)usk, " up‑holding‑weal."
1. Darius the Mede (Dan. vi. 1 eqq., xi. 1), according to Dan, ix. 1, was son of Ahasuerus. These passages, in their mention of this king, raise the question of the authenticity of Daniel (q.v.) . Dan. vi. 1, in connection with v. 28 sqq., makes Darius at the age of sixty‑two the immediate successor of Belshazzar, who is the immediate predecessor of Cyrus as‑r,ller of the Medo‑Persian Empire according‑ to ban, vi. 2, 3, 26, 29. But according to the Ptolemaic canon, Cyrus the Persian succeeded Nabonidus, the last Chaldean king, and this is confirmed by the annals of Nabonidus and by the clay cylinder of Cyrus (cf. E. Schrader, Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, III. i., Berlin, 1890). A kingdom of Cyrua immediately after the fall of the Chaldeans was known to Beroaus, Ctesias, Alexander Polyhietor, Strabo, and other ancient historians. In full accord with these facts is another, viz., that Cyrus ruled Babylon nine years, and died 529 B.C., so that the beginning of his reign over that city coincides with the fall of Nabonidus. There seems therefore little ground for a defense of the historicity of the Book of Daniel in this par ticular. A hypothesis which has been supposed to relieve the difficulty identifies Darius the Mede with the Cyaxarea II. of Xenophon's Cyropadia. Josephus (Ant., X. xi. 4) is held to warrant making Cyaxares the son and successor of Astyagea and uncle of Cyrus (Xenophon, Cyropadia, I. v. 2). Then, as the general of Cyaxares ( ‑ Darius), Cyrus took Babylon, married the daughter of Cyaxarea, and became his heir. But this introduces new difficulties, since Dan, ix. 1 makes Ahasuerus (Xerxes) the father of Darius. Other hypotheses fail as signally to relieve the difficulty. Schrader (KA T, p. 437) explains the difficulty beat by suggesting that the representation running through Daniel of some Median interregnum between Nabonidus and Cyrus leans upon an indistinct recollection of the once great power of the Medea, and refers to a later Darius.
2. Darius, son of Hystaspea, of the Acheemenidre, king of Persia 521‑485 B.C. He is best known through the ten well‑known trilingual cuneiform inscriptions (original in Persian, and two versions). The most important of these, the rock‑inscription of Behietan, reports in detail the overthrow by Darius of the magian Gaumata (the PseudoSmerdia of the Greeks) and his campaign against other rebels. In the inscription Darius appears as a prince zealous in piety; in other sources he is praised for the benefits he conferred upon the Persian Empire during a fortunate reign. In the second and fourth years of his reign the prophecies of Haggai (i. 1, 15) and several of Zechariah (i. 1, 7; vii. 1) were dated; in his second year, (Ezra iv. 24)
the work of rebuilding the temple was recommenced and finished in his sixth year (Ezra vi. 15).
S. Darius Codomannua (336‑330 B.C.), the " king of the Medes and Persians " conquered by Alexander. He must be the Darius of Neh. xii. 22, since the Jaddua there named is necessarily the one mentioned by Joeephus (Ant., XI. viii. 4) as high priest under Alexander. (E. KeUmzaca.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: M. Duneker, peschiehte des Alterthums iv.
254 sqq.. Leipsic 1877• F. Spiegel, Die altpersiachen Keit., inschr`ften, ib. 1881; G. Rawlineon Seven Great Mon‑
archies, NewYork, 1900• DB, i. bb8‑bb9; EB i. 1016‑17; and the literature under DexaL, Boos or; and Psseie.
DARLINGTON, JAMF.S1dENRY: Protestant Episcopal bishop of Harrisburg, Pa.; b. at Brooklyn, N. Y., June 9, 1856. He studied at the University of the City of New York (B.A., 1877) and PrincetonTheological Seminary (1880). He was licensed by the presbytery of Newark 1879; but was ordered deacon and ordained ‑priest in 1882 in the Protestant Episcopal Church, and from 1883 to 1905 was rector of Christ Church, Bedford Avenue, Brooklyn, se well as archdeacon of Brooklyn in 1896‑98. In 1905 he was consecrated bishop of Harrisburg. He was lecturer in New York University in 1902‑03. He has written Pastor and People (Brooklyn, 1902), and has edited The Hymnal of the Church (New York, 1900).
DATHE, date, JOHANN AUGUST: Oriental scholar; b. at Weissenfels (20 m, s.w. of Leipeic ), Prussian Saxony, July 4,1731; d. at Leipsic Mar.17,1791. He studied at Wittenberg, Leipsic, and GtSttingen; was professor at Leipsic from 1762. His chief work was a Latin translation of the entire Old Testament, with notes, one of the results of his labors in preparing his lectures (6 vole., Halls, 1773‑89); the translation is free, exegetical, and somewhat paraphrastic, aiming to give the sense in good Latin, which occasioned the remark that Dathe made the prophets talk like Cicero. He also edited the Psalterixcm syriacum of Erpenius (Halls, 1768), the Grammntica and Rheton'ca of the Philologia sacra of Glassine (Leipsic, 1776), and Walton's Prolegomena (1777). His minor works appeared posthumously, edited by E. K. F. Rosenmiiller under the title Opaiscet7a ad criain et inter;metationem Yeteria Testamenti apectantia (Leipaie, 1796).
DATHEIPITS, da‑thf'nvs, PETRUS (Dieter Dates): Flemish Reformer; b. at Cassel (27 m. n.w. of Line) in the present Department of Nord, France, 1531 or 1532; d. at Elbing (34 m, e.s.e. of Danzig), West Prussia, Mar. 17, 1588. While still a youth, in the Carmelite monastery at Ypres, the new ideas took possession of him, and he became a zealous champion of Evangelical truth in West Flanders. Because of persecution he fled to England with others, but a similar fate met him under Mary Tudor. Johannes a Lasco called him to Frankfort, where he was installed pastor of the Flemish congregation, Sept., 1555, by Microniue. Here he suffered much from the Lutheran clergy, incited by Joachim Westphal of Hamburg. On Apr. 23, 1561 the magistrates forbade the congregation to worship after their fashion in spite of the intercession of the elector Frederick III. and Philip of Hesse. Part moved to England, some went home

RELIGIOUS
ENCYCLOPEDIA
Dante
Dargan
company of like‑minded persons in Dublin. In 1830 he visited Paris, Cambridge, and Oxford, and then went to Plymouth, where an assembly of Brethren was shortly formed, and the town soon lent its name to the movement. James L. Harris, perpetual curate of Plymstock, resigned his living to unite with them and, in 1834, started the Christian Witness, their first periodical. Darby became an assiduous writer, and published his Parochial Arrangement Destructive of Order in the Church in the first volume of the Witness, and his Apostasy of the Successive Dispensations (afterward published in French as Apostasie .de lWonomie actuelle) in the same paper in 1836. Dissensions among the Brethren had already begun, and Darby was accused of departing from their original principles.
Between 1838 and 1840 Darby worked in Switzerland. In the autumn of 1839 an influential member of the congregation at Lausanne invited him thither to oppose Methodism. In March, 1840, he came, and obtained a hearing by discourses and a tract, De la doctrine des Wesleyens 4 l'esgard de la perfection. His lectures on prophecy made a great impression, and he soon gathered young men round him at Lausanne, with whom he studied the Scriptures. The fruit of these conferences was his etudes sur la Parole, a work which appeared in English as Synopsis of the Books of the Bible (5 vols., London, 1857‑67). Many congregations were formed in Cantons Vaud, Geneva, and Bern. Certain of his followers started a periodical, Le T6moignage des disciples de la Parole.
When, by Jesuit intrigues, a revolution broke out in Canton Vaud (Feb., 1845), the Darbyites in some parts of Switzerland suffered persecution, and Darby's own life was in jeopardy. He returned to England the same year, but his heart seems ever to have turned toward Switzerland and France. Thenceforth he took a more active lead among the English Brethren, with the result that they became split into two parties, the Darbyites or exclusives and the Bethesda or open brethren. In 1853 he visited Elberfeld and again in 1854, when he translated the New Testament into German. He was also in Germany in 1869, when he took part in a translation of the Old Testament into German. He visited Canada and the United States in 1859, 1864‑65, 1866‑68, 1870, 1872‑73, and 1874. About 1871 he went to Italy, and in 1875 to New Zealand. He visited also the West Indies. Between 1878 and 1880 he was much occupied with a translation of the Old Testament into French, in connection with which he sojourned long at Pau. He had already made a French translation of the New Testament in 1859.
Darby was a most voluminous writer on a wide range of subjects‑doctrinal and controversial, devotional and practical, apologetic, metaphysical, on points of scholarship, etc. His Collected Writings (incomplete) have been published by W. Kelly in thirty‑two volumes (London, 1867‑83). They include Irrationalism of Infidelity (1853), a reply to Newman; Remarks on Puseyism (1854); The Sufferings of Christ (1858) and The Righteousness of God (1859), two works which produced much controversy; Analysis of Newman's Apologia (1866);
Familiar Conversations on Romanism, written between 1870 and 1880; Meditations on the Acts of the Apostles, composed in Italian; Letters on the Revised New Testament (1881), in which he criticized the revisers principally in respect to the aorist tense, a subject he had previously discussed in the preface to an English translation of the New Testament (2d ed., 1872). He was a hymn‑writer and edited the hymnal in general use among the Brethren. A volume of his Spiritual Songs was published in London in 1883, and three volumes of his letters in 1886‑89.
BIRLIOGRAPHT: W. B. Neatby, Hid. of the Plymouth Brethren, London, 1901 (best on both Darby and the Plymouth Brethren); F. Estdoule, Le Plymouthaeme d'autrefois et is Darbyiame d'aujourd'hui, Paris, 1858; W. H. Dorman, The Close of i°8 Years of Association with J. N. Darby, London, 1866; Stokes, in Contemporary Review, Oct., 1885, pp. 53752; S. W. Duffield, English Hymns, pp. 403‑405, New York, 1886; Julian, Hymnology, pp. 279280; DNB, Iav. 43‑44; and the literature under PLYMoBTH BRETHREN.
D'ARCY, ddr'si, CHARLES FREDERICK: Church of Ireland, bishop of Oesory; b. at Dublin Jan. 2, 1859. He studied at Trinity College, Dublin (B.A., 1882), and was curate of St. Thomas, Belfast (1884‑90), rector of Billy, County Antrim (1890‑93), rector of Ballymena, with Ballyclug, County Antrim (1893‑1900), and dean of St. Anne's Cathedral and vicar of Belfast (1900‑‑03). He was examining chaplain to the bishop of Down 1892‑1903, chaplain to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1895‑1903, prebendary of Connor in Connor Cathedral 1898‑1900, prebendary of St. Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin, 1902‑03, and Donellan lecturer in the University of Dublin 1897‑98. In 1903 he was consecrated bishop of Clogher and in 1907 was translated to Ossory, Ferns, and Leighlin. Theologically he is interested in the philosophic expression of Christian doctrine and in the relation of religion and science, while he expects important results from recent criticisms of idealistic forms of thought and from the criticism of the New Testament. He has written A Short Study of Ethics (London, 1895); Idealism and Theology (1899); and Ruling Ideas of Our Lord (1901).
DARGAN, EDWIN CHARLES: American Baptist; b. at Springville, Darlington County, S. C., Nov. 17, 1852. He was educated at Furman University, Greenville, S. C. (M.A., 1873), and at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, then at Greenville, S. C., now at Louisville, Ky. (full graduate, 1877). He has been pastor of Baptist churches in Roanoke County, Va. (1877‑81), of the First Baptist Church, Petersburg, Va. (1881‑87), the Baptist Church at Dixon, Cal. (1887‑‑88), the Citadel Square Baptist Church, Charleston, S. C. (1888‑92), professor of homiletics in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (1892‑1907), and, since June, 1907, pastor of the First Baptist Church, Macon, Ga. He has also been a member of various boards and other organizations of his denomination. He is "Evangelical and conservative in general theological views " and " Calvinistic in type of theology." His principal works are: Ecclesiology (Louisville, 1897; revised ed., 1905); A History of Preaching, from A.D. 70 to 1572 (New York, 1905); The Doctrines o f Our

Darius	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	358
Daugherty
Faith (Nashville, 1905); and Society, Kingdom, and
Church (Philadelphia, 1907). He also published a
commentary on Colossians (Philadelphia, 1890), and
edited J. A. Brodus's Preparation and Delivery of
Sermons (New York, 1898).
	DARIUS, da‑mi'us: The name given to several
kings in the Old Testament. The earliest form of
the word is given in the old Persian inscriptions as
Darayava(h)ush, " up‑holding‑weal."
	1. Darius the Nede (Dan. vi. 1 sqq., xi. 1),
according to Dan. ix. 1, was son of Ahasuerus.
These passages, in their mention of this king, raise
the question of the authenticity of Daniel (q.v.).
Dan. vi. 1, in connection with v. 28 sqq., makes
Darius at the age of sixty‑two the immediate suc
cessor of Belshazzar, who is the immediate pred
ecessor of Cyrus as‑ruder of the Medo‑Persian Em
pire according‑ to Dan. vi. 2, 8, 26, 29. But accord
ing to the Ptolemaic canon, Cyrus the Persian
succeeded Nabonidus, the last Chaldean king, and
this is confirmed by the annals of Nabonidus and
by the clay cylinder of Cyrus (of. E. Schrader,
Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, III. i., Berlin, 1890).
A kingdom of eyrus immediately after the fall of
the Chaldeans was known to Berosus, Ctesias,
Alexander Polyhistor, Strabo, and other ancient
historians. In full accord with these facts is an
other, viz., that Cyrus ruled Babylon nine years,
and died 529 B.C., so that the beginning of his reign
over that city coincides with the fall of Nabonidus.
There seems therefore little ground for a defense
of the historicity of the Book of Daniel in this par
ticular. A hypothesis which has been supposed to
relieve the difficulty identifies Darius the Mede
with the Cyaxares II. of Xenophon's Cyropwdia.
Josephus (Ant., X. xi. 4) is held to warrant making
Cyaxares the son and successor of Astyages and
uncle of Cyrus (Xenophon, Cyropadia, I. v. 2).
Then, as the general of Cyaxares (‑Darius), Cyrus
took Babylon, married the daughter of Cyaxares,
and became his heir. But this introduces new
difficulties, since Dan. ix. 1 makes Ahasuerus
(Xerxes) the father of Darius. Other hypotheses
fail as signally to relieve the difficulty. Schrader
(KA T, p. 437) explains the difficulty best by suggest
ing that the representation running through Daniel
of some Median interregnum between Nabonidus and
Cyrus leans upon an indistinct recollection of the
once great power of the Modes, and refers to a later
Darius.
	2. Darius, son of Hystaspes, of the Achmmenidre,
king of Persia 521‑485 B.C. He is beat known
through the ten well‑known trilingual cuneiform
inscriptions (original in Persian, and two versions).
The most important of these, the rock‑inscription
of Behistan, reports in detail the overthrow by
Darius of the magian Gaumata (the Pseudo
Smerdis of the Greeks) and his campaign against
other rebels. In the inscription Darius appears as
a prince zealous in piety; in other sources he is
praised for the benefits he conferred upon the Per
sian Empire during a fortunate reign. In the second
and fourth years of his reign the prophecies of
Haggai (i. 1, 15) and several of Zechariah (i. 1, 7;
vii. 1) were dated; in his second year, (Ezra iv. 24)
the work of rebuilding the temple was recommenced and finished in his sixth year (Ezra vi. 15).
3. Darius Codomannus (336‑330 B.C.), the " king of the Medes and Persians " conquered by Alexander. He must be the Darius of Neh. xii. 22, since the Jaddua there named is necessarily the one mentioned by Josephus (Ant., XI. viii. 4) as high priest under Alexander. (E. Keumzacm)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: M. Duncker, Geschichte des, Alterthums, iv. 254 eqq., Leipsic, 1877; F. Spiegel, Die altpersischen Keil‑$nsahriften, ib. 1881; G. Rawlinson, Semen Great Monarchies, NewYork, 1900; DB, i. 558‑559; EB, i. 1018‑17; and the literature under DANIEL, Boos or; and Psasu.
DARLINGTON, JAMES HENRY: Protestant Episcopal bishop of Harrisburg, Pa.; b. at Brooklyn, N. Y., June 9, 1856. He studied at the University of the City of New York (B.A., 1877) and PrincetonTheological Seminary (1880). He was licensed by the Presbytery of Newark 1879; but was ordered deacon and ordained priest in 1882 in the Protestant Episcopal Church, and from 1883 to 1905 was rector of Christ Church, Bedford Avenue, Brooklyn, as well as archdeacon of Brooklyn in 1896‑98. In 1905 he was consecrated bishop of Harrisburg. He was lecturer in New York University in 1902‑03. He has written Pastor and People (Brooklyn, 1902), and has edited The Hymnal of the Church (New York, 1900).
DATHE, date, JOHANN AUGUST: Oriental scholar; b. at Weissenfels (20 m. s.w. of Leipsic ), Prussian Saxony, July 4,1731; d. at Leipsic Mar. 17, 1791. He studied at Wittenberg, Leipsfc, and G6ttingen; was professor at Leipsic from 1762. His chief work was a Latin translation of the entire Old Testament, with notes, one of the results of his labors in preparing his lectures (6 vols., Halle, 1773‑89); the translation is free, exegetical, and somewhat paraphrastic, aiming to give the sense in good Latin, which occasioned the remark that Dathe made the prophets talk like Cicero. He also edited the Psalterium syriacum of Erpenius (Halle, 1768), the Grammatica and Rhetarica of the Philologia sacra of Glassius (Leipsic, 1776), and Walton's Prolegomena (1777). His minor works appeared posthumously, edited by E. K. F. Rosenmaller under the title Opascula ad crasin et interpretationem Veteris Testamenti speetantia (Leipsie, 1796).
DATHENUS, da‑thf'nus, PETRUS (Pieter Daten)
Flemish Reformer; b. at Cassel (27 m. n.w. of Lille) in the present Department of Nord, France, 1531 or 1532; d. at Elbing (34 m. e.s.e. of Danzig), West Prussia, Mar. 17, 1588. While still a youth, in the Carmelite monastery at Ypres, the new ideas took possession of him, and he became a zealous champion of Evangelical truth in West Flanders. Because of persecution he fled to England with others, but a similar fate met him under Mary Tudor. Johannes a Lasco called him to Frankfort, where he was installed pastor of the Flemish congregation, Sept., 1555, by Micronius. Here he suffered much from the Lutheran clergy, incited by Joachim Westphal of Hamburg. On Apr. 23, 1561, the magistrates forbade the congregation to worship after their fashion in spite of the intercession of the elector Frederick III. and Philip of Hesse. Part moved to England, some went home

859	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Darius
		Daugherty
(where most of them perished in the Inquisition),
and the rest found a shelter through the elector in
the monastery of Gross Frankenthal, which soon
became a flourishing industrial city. As court
preacher of the Palatinate Dathenus served in
many political missions, and became leader of the
foreign congregations. In the cause of union he
translated the Heidelberg Catechism and the Psalms
of Cl6ment Marot, revised the Confession of Guy
de Bras, and composed a liturgy. Recalled to
Holland through the compromise of the nobility
in 1566, he participated in field‑preaching and
presided at the synod at Antwerp in May. In 1567
the Inquisition drove him again to the Palatinate,
and with the count palatine John Casimir he went
as field‑preacher to France. In Nov., 1568, he
was moderator in Wesel, in 1571 at the Franken
thal debate, in 1577 at the conference at Frankfort.
Called to Ghent in 1578, he was imprisoned there
for eight months and again driven into exile.
Thenceforth he lived as physician at Husum,
Stade, Danzig, and Elbing. (F. W. CUNot.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY : H. ter Haar, Specimen historico‑theologi
	cum P. Datheni vitam exhibens, Utrecht, 1858; H. Q.
	Janssen, Petrus Dathenus, Delft, 1872.
	DAUB, KARL: German theologian; b. at Cas
sel Mar. 20, 1765; d. at Heidelberg Nov. 22, 1836.
He studied in his native city and at Marburg, where
he became privat‑docent in 1791, lecturing on phi
lology, philosophy, and theology. Suspected of
Kantianism in theology, he was transferred in 1794
to a school at Hanau as professor of philosophy,
but in the following year was called to Heidelberg
as professor of theology. His position was pri
marily Kantian, and in this spirit he wrote his
Lehrbuch der Katechetik (Heidelberg, 1801), insist
ing on an ethical basis of religion, a sharp distinc
tion between legalistic religion and the religion of
reason, an emphasis on the practical import of the
Bible, and a rejection ‑of the supernatural. Yet
even in this book there are traces of dissatisfaction
with the Kantian position, and in the Heidelberger
Studien, which he edited in collaboration with
Georg Friedrich Creuzer after 1805, he acknowl
edged his conversion to the principles of Schelling.
He now regarded religion as purely objective, and
assuming distinct forms according to racial and
individual characteristics. Christianity is a folk
religion, represented on the side of cult by Roman
Catholicism, and on the side of doctrine by Protes
tantism; any unification of these two elements into
a single Church would lead, in his opinion, to the
destruction of the German nation. This change of
view is fully developed in his Theologumena (1806)
and Binleitung in das Studium der Dogmatik (1810).
Rejecting both supernaturalism and rationalism,
he assumed a speculative basis, implying by this
term that the concept of God must form the foun
dation, while religion is the revelation of God in
the soul of man, and attains perfection only in
Christianity. Since, from his premises, Daub
could assume no origin of the world from God as
separate from the divinity, he was obliged to define
the universe as having only the appearance of being.
Creation was construed, in Platonic fashion, as the
fall, and the Atonement was, accordingly, the recon‑
ciliation of the world to God, a process which was metaphysical rather than ethical. In his interpretation of the historic Christ Daub regarded the definitions of the Bible and the Church concerning the personality and deeds of Christ as symbolic statements of the general cosmical and metaphysical process, while, on the other hand, the personality and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth were taken as historical and were regarded as the perfection of the concept of incarnation and atonement.
The weak point of Daub's system was his ignoring of the problem of evil, and he was thus led to still another stage of development, which was represented in Judas Ischarioth, oder Betrachtungen caber das Bose im Verhfiltniss zum Guten (2 parts, 1816‑18), which, in a sense, forms the direct antithesis of his former views. The historical, hitherto practically ignored, now received full recognition, and he became obsessed with the concept of evil as a positive factor of destruction to such an extent that he approximated Gnostic dualism. The necessity of reconciling his theory of evil with the tenets of speculative philosophy obliged him to advance the hypothesis that evil is an actual, though false, " miracle," which is opposed by the fivefold positive " miracle " of the primal good in God, his ideational realization in the creation and order of the world, and finally the restoration of good in a world estranged from God through his incarnation and the absolute sinlessness of Christ, the Son of God. With all its eccentricities, this book was the ablest work of its author.
	The final position of Daub was strongly Hegelian,
and the result of Hegelian speculation and orthodox
theology was, in his case, the reincarnation of a
medieval scholastic. A long period of literary
quiescence followed, until the publication of his
Dogmatische Theologie jetziger Zeit (1833), in which
he pitilessly revealed the weaknesses of the theology
of the time. Extravagantly blamed and as extrav
agantly praised, the, work is marred by the same
lack of historic sense and impartiality which de
tract from the value of his other works. A far
more pleasant impression is gained from his Theo
looche and philosophische Vorlesungen, edited
after his death by T. W. Dittenberger and P. C.
Marheinecke (7 vols., Berlin, 1838‑44), although
even these are not altogether free from his charac
teristic faults. 	(M. A. LANDERERf.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. Rosenkranz, Erinnerungen an Daub, Berlin, 1837; K. P. Fischer, Verauch einer Charakteriehk
(F. con Baadere) Theosoyhie and Arse Verh4ttnisses zu den
Systemen Daubs, Erlangen. 1865.
D'AUBIGNE. See MERLE D'AUBIGNfg.
DAUGHERTY, dSH'er‑ti, JEROME: Roman Catholic; b. at Baltimore Mar. 25, 1849. He was educated at Loyola College, Baltimore, and in 1865 was admitted to the Society of Jesus. He studied also at Frederick, Md., and at Woodstock, Md., and in 1872 became a member of the faculty of Georgetown University, where he subsequently continued his theological studies. He taught at St. Francis Xavier's College, New York City (1881‑82), and was director of schools at Boston University (1882‑84), professor at Loyola College (1884‑85), vice‑president of Gonzaga College, Washington,

Dant
David
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
D. C. (1885‑89), professor at the College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Mass. (1889‑1900), and assistant to the provincial of the Society of Jesus at New York (1900‑01). In 1901‑05 he was president of Georgetown University, chancellor at Fordham University 1905‑07, and professor of mathematics at Woodstock College since 1907.

	DAUT, JOHANN MARIMILIAR: German mys
tic; the date and locality of his birth and death
are unknown (c. 1690‑1737). A journeyman shoe
maker of Frankfort, he belongs in the line of vision
aries who at the beginning of the eighteenth cen
tury declared an impending judgment. At the
command of God; as he declared, he published in
1710 his Hells Donnerposaune, and also, according
to some, a French version, wherein he predicted
woes especially for Frankfort and threatened the
empire and other countries with destruction, from
which only a little flock, after the conversion of
the Turks, Jews, and heathen, were to escape to
celebrate the " marriage‑feast of the Lamb." His
invectives were especially severe against the Lu
theran clergy. Driven from Frankfort, he went in
1711 with a certain Boomen to the mystic Ueber
feldt in Leyden. With him he soon quarreled and
wrote also against him, calling [lie party " Judas
brethren," but later he became reconciled, having
his home at Schwarzenau in Wittgenstein. At
Giengen on the Brenz and at Geislingen, near Ulm,
he and Tennhardt, a wig‑maker, gained so great a
following among the peasantry that the council of
Ulm , Sept. 19, 1712, issued an edict against them.
The account of his conversion given by Johann
Frick is in error. To his writings belong the
Geistliche BetracUungen (1711), full of chiliaatic and
mystic ideas, and the Harnwraie der Zeiten and
Werke Gotten. About 1735 he revoked his Donner
posaune. 	(A. HAUCK.)
BIBwoaaAPBT: J. G. Walch Einleilunp in die ReliyionaStreitiykaifen, ii. 794, v. 1051, Jens, 1733‑38; C. M,. Pfaff, Introduotio in historian theolopiat . , fi. 372, Ttlbingen, 1720; Burger, Exavifatio de eutoribua /anaticiah Leipsic, 1730.
DAVENPORT, CHRISTOPHER: English Roman Catholic; b. in Coventry, Warwickshire, 1598; d. in London May 31, 1680. At the age of fifteen, with his elder brother, John (q.v.), he entered Merton College, Oxford; influenced by a Roman priest, he went to Douai (1615) and Ypres (1617), and joined the Franciscans; he took degrees in divinity at Salamanca. Under the name of Franciscus a Sancta Clam he went to England as a missionary and became chaplain to Queen Henrietta Maria. He devoted himself with some success to the attempt to reconcile the churches of England and Rome and lived on terms of cordial intimacy with many of the Anglican clergy during the reign of Charles 1. The civil war caused him to leave England, but only for a short time; he was not molested during the Commonwealth, and at the Restoration was restored to court favor and his position as chaplain to the queen. He was a learned man, of winning manners, and liberal in his views. His chief work was a Paraphrasliea expositio artieulorum confessionis Anglicance (printed first separately and then as an appendix to a volume called Dens, natura,
380
gratis, Lyons, 1834; reprinted with translation, 1865), intended to show that the English articles and Roman doctrine are not essentially antagonistic. A two‑volume edition of his works appeared at Douai, 1885‑87.
Bnyioaanras: A. h Wood Alhersat Ozonienass, ed. P. Bliss, Vol. iii. 4 vole., London, 1813‑Z0; J. Gillow, Bibliographical Dictionary of English Catholics, ii. 24‑28, London (18881; DNB, ziv. 108‑109.
DAVENPORT, JOHN: One of the founders and first minister of the New Haven colony; b. at Coventry, Warwickshire, England, 1597 (baptized Apr. 9); d. in Boston Mar., 1870 (the day of the month is variously given as the 11th, 13th, 15th, and 16th). He was graduated from the University of Oxford (B.A., 1615; M.A. and B.D., 1625); was chaplain at Hilton Castle (12 m. n.e. of Durham) for about six months, 1815‑16; went to London, where he became curate of St. Lawrence Jewry, 1619, and vicar of St. Stephen's, Coleman street, 1624. He won great regard by his faithfulness to duty in 1625, when the city was devastated by the plague. In 1626 he joined in a scheme to purchase impropriationa (church property in the hands of laymen) and use the profits to maintain ministers in various parts of the kingdom, and was one of twelve feoffees (trustees) entrusted with the care of the funds raised for the purpose. The plan was considered by Laud and others a movement in the interest of non‑conformity, suit was brought against the feoffees, and in Feb., 1633, the association was dissolved as illegal and the impropriations which had been purchased were confiscated. In 1629 Davenport helped to obtain the charter for the Massachusetts Bay colony, gave E50 toward the expense, and his name was first on the committee to draw up instructions for the colonists He took alarm when Laud (who had long been suspicious of him) was appointed archbishop in 1833, arid late in the year went to Holland, where he became copastor with John Paget of the English church in Amsterdam. He did not approve of the baptism of children whose parents were not churchmembera, controversy arose between the two pastors on the subject, and after less than six months Davenport gave up preaching in public, but continued to hold meetings in his house. He returned to England about the beginning of 1632, decided to follow the advice of John Cotton and others to go to New England, and landed in Boston June 26. He was well received there, but in Apr., 1638, went to Quinnipiac (New Haven), as minister of the new colony. He approved of the provision in its constitution, which was settled in June, 1639, limiting the franchise and eligibility to office to churchmembers, and was one of the " seven pillars of state " who were charged with the government. In 1642 he declined an invitation to attend the Westminster Assembly, and in 1661 helped to shelter the regicides Whalley and Goffe. The New Haven colony was absorbed in Connecticut in Jan., 1665, contrary to his wishes; and dissatisfaction with his position after the event induced him to accept a call from the First Church in Boston in September. He was a leader of the opposition to the Half‑Way Covenant, and this caused a split in

pteva '(8‑T 'nI •umS II) salp coos um le ecm l: t;q
‑qsI '(LZ‑J 'II? 'umS II) qgof Sq P‑apinm sam
inq 'las‑ll RV 3O " aqi mqq OI P‑aHO PU's PIesQ
qiim paivliOSau p‑maaWs iauqV •(Z£‑0T 'IE '‑S
II) u'sldsa e,pieeQ 'qso f Sq paisa;ap auem Inq `miq
o3 qSPnf wfqng of paui .tauqV •(6‑g •ii •tHSS II)
Pull uSPJOf Ina aq1 u! urrsueqvIR
I'S POP6eai oqm InaS ;o u‑ "(qlaqsoq oTnU
‑qsI Pall'so XIIvsaua2 aaom) lnqqsI LIng 'f of aauvi2ans maA&g of 'uialdea s,lnsS
`aaUqV Sq peanpui MAL eaqial tuaqiaoU Qtly '(9 'e `TT 'II 'Tn'sS II) sqiUOOi xie PUV sisal UBnae JO; Sluo qspnp .Taeo Sug sum at( jug IV •(h‑T 'n •T ss II) 2upl unq patuislaoad susapnf aql esaqem 'uoaqaH ui apoqs eiq apsui pus 'qapn f ;o pull aqj uy a‑ld eiq Tool pings 'uoihanp atnnip.&q pafnooua
•puaii; gal xo; ;auk reuoaxad mq pule 2urmnoux re.Taua2 oqj pazilsl.Touiun Sllnnineaq esq piesQ ('I‑S II) « mOTi aql 3o 2uoS » sltl uI •('ixxx •msS I) uIBIs adam UsqjsUOf Uos sjq pug IneS pug 'soql<o lunojql Is paieafap adam ealfaexej aqy '('xxx 'aaMS I) .&looq aqj pataeoaet pinaQ Inq 'sali3lap;mV aql Aq paaaptmld uaaq allqmtnVaCR peq _*sl3PZ •(‑xixx 'uzsS I) 3lasq iuae aq pineQ Isql paIaieui SDUfi ‑sTqd aqj ;o sooui.Td aaqlo atll Inq 'laetsj pulu‑21e u2iadtuea a uc unq mof of piee(l pa3lss tlelqaV aaiel sea. V •(•gnxx I) SaInforg‑V Pug gN!jqZaf) ig aIunqsa0 0111 'Sol maql pa3losils aq .flqvaj m Inq 'susapnf aqi leuivf vft of paeoddne sum at[ :aouapisaa s .To; (uuqlf‑lag ;o leamqqnos jlelq s pus eanoq xis 'tplijraqnZ) 2UM
Z 3O Slia aqi tuiq OA92
pug juatuaajohiaw aiql paqdaoov.&lpsl2 oqm'qlv J 3o
tplqov fH of sameiae six[ paaa.Uo ox[ qepn f ui ,d
‑ruiq UTVjtqVU1 of alqa aa2UOl OU sum pinBQ UatL4&
.(.
=nlxx •tusS I) UrIti PantiB .flanoTHmsu‑qeut pieVQ 'aensod stq ut aoiml gam Wm3[ aqj q2noql `pus 'aaqlous of aoald‑2uipiq Quo tnoa; unq anoap InsS
•eno.Ta&sp ptTS sealleat sum qepn f;o ssiunoo i.taeap Pus 11iq oql ul silt sIH '('nxx '•mxx. `Z‑T •iixx 'OTSS I) sluaq pug pull 3o siaumo aql uodn painal einqi.Ti .iq pug aldoad eiq ;o saituaua aql uodn mloelis ploq Xq 3Tssunq Pw‑pOddna pus uata oot,;o pusq s 3o .tapsal aqj auieoaq at[ aaaH 'tpfpnf m m'sTTnPV anew aqj ui apoqu elq apstu uaill pine '(q l ‑OT •Ixx 'ursS I) sawlalpqd sill of luam wB Pln'sQ '(oxoQ ass ''nxx‑•ixx 'msS j) asnoq aloqm elq P joil'sI Otli OI IBIuattir.Tlap aumoaq qoH Is Wud aqj qoolauqqV Sq paiust2 aausieim, ally '(T •xx ‑HT 'x!x •meS I) ansal of puq uoos jnq `slaqdoid aqj ;o Buoloo aql m 1anuTSS IIIIAA a2n;aa jtlfos aUil s JO; pieaa 'Spin aqua 282‑9 0111 IV UjPAVf eiq Ilea InsS Ptm PIng(l of posIUIOid uaoq ioAau Pvq q‑9H tlolttm OI 2uTPaoaas 'Isut2<ao 0111 aatsau eduqaad sl jut2anjdaS aqj jo 2utitapuat aaldune aqj ptrs 'snoiuouusq IOU ei anllarxsU aqi 'ooI 'aaaH '(8I‑JI '?Imx '‑xx ' •tiinx 'tuaS j) diqspuau3 3o iuananoo s piesQ qiim epatH ail Inq sons; s<q m .iaqlv; atll aauangui IOU p1noo 'piewQ of paqoslls Sluuam sum oqm 'tmqiuuo f uos s,lnsS uana •(Lr ‑0T 'xlx 'TI •lllnx 'uTeS j) aFl sjpln'sQ Pau4eaiql Ual3O aj; '(LZ‑LT *MAX 'tueS I) PInsQ PanOT oqm 'Istlolyll aelq2nvp puooas aiq aneS Allueionjaa Spio pus 'aolaie aqj of paeluaoad pvq aq tuoqnA 'qsiayq .ralq2nsp eiq tuiq of paluap aj; '(6‑9 •iiinx 'tttMS I)
InjisruislP InvS opum ague; s,piesQ •Itmpodunun si '(g •xx •uatqp I 3a) 61 '!xx *U19S 11 JO M00016 uO duap amoe qaiqm '(samssruHd ass) qlsilOJ Paifso Sul‑ esm atniailiqd situ aaqjatIM 'OT 'nxx '6 • •UI'as I Sq sri li ae pantaiuoo 'lvoitoleltlun Sv paIaaW aq iou Brut 'jur2vnidaS aqj Sq paisalls 08113 91 qojq1A 'OUT
‑o1n s,ptnsQ `alga SUB IV 'pined uo xooq jualauV us of 2uolaq Am Aaqi also aallel atli ui uana 'Ixal jsaiuouso aqj oltn aaqul autsa Xaql aaqlatlm so BIInaipp aqi Wtqp!OAV ;o axus aqj ao; sa2ss ‑sed o,aql Ml;ulo ITn_'1enjdaS aql aaqlaqm paleq ap ei ll •2tniuBta sae 'TE‑Zi 'nnx oal'B 'g‑1 '!jinx ilhm .Taqla2ol '.bbs qq swum '•7vA •poa 'juifnldaS aqj ui qsqi Sqvomalou ai il '(3o sxoog `zxnnvS ass) saotnos iuaaajip aaata aaaql jqnop ou Ing *!AX 'dvqo qjj& 'pins moU3l IOU saop
InsS ataqm '89‑99 •fnx aziuOUUeq of '03111 IInaI$IP sI II V8J jo qI,s?IO:) Sim sm
2uqa s,q qj!‑ oqm 'Soq‑pxaqdaqe
Sv urs2e axeadds aq ‑jinx •tnsS I uj •aareaq‑aouue s,InaS apeta asm pus `2ui3l aql;o Jinds gna aql daeq elq Xq qg!‑q of IneS ;o ianoo aql of IUD‑ p!AvCj 'CZ‑tI 'inx •UIVS j of 9uipjoaa8 :(Zj 'nnx `pl 'iex 'OmS I) suos jq2ia ;o. lsa2lunof aqj sa staadds aq uoiseooo jsql uo '(ET‑I '?Ax 'umS I) TanuaeS Sq uiaqapllag lu SIlaioae palUioUVW Wg ssem pmVa
'anlue leouoqalq alliq onsq (snqdaso f ;o sIuautaisie aql '•2•a) saoiiou Isallqig‑Iaod eqy
•saaanos enoauwodutaquoo Isouile 2uiaolloj 'uuo; ‑lun In GATl‑su aql u2iai sill Inoqs aluautalvIs aqi uj 'Inoq2no.Tqi paisnlpm IOU ail saomos aqi pus `TUTOhun seal ei and IaaijaVa s,pinsQ ;o OATltuaVU aqy •eaismruopatd Veaaiui enoi2ilaa
aql Sams 'Ssem &stuume s m Sluo pa •saomog ‑isaal si &j!A!jov SsslqiUZ ptTS lvoiigod ;o uois
aiq pus 'elisnaad dqd‑2oisolaiq Iva! ‑nosl([ ‑i ‑iaqdotd atll janumS ;o Mooq ayl uj
'snqpta atli of saoluas s,ples(j aziseqdma oj.Vunms
9UOiiippV anl2 saloiuoaqa jo "ooq aqy •s2tng
pue janumS ;o Mooq aqj sl piesQ ;o apl atll ioj
aamos tneui aqy •qing aeailqgoR aqj pus zuog
'assaf jo siuatvdputu2 aql ‑u qinU ;o 3loog
aqy 'qvpn f ;o aqral aql ;o 'uiatlalqiag ;o assa f ;o
uos a gam aH •v•e 8L6‑0101 '(E88i 'uuog `az6op
‑ouo.syo) uasnsqdmeg of 2ulpaooos `.'wa qT‑9901
Inoqs 'uoiisIndwoo rauoilipuzI aqj of Sulpaooos
'papu pus 'Iataael ;0 2UT31 pU0aaS aqj gem pinsQ
		'(9 4) jaw‑q0
	'(9 $) en91n0 Bq3 M seoleaeg
'(i 1) ealllnowQ ‑13snalulusPv Pue OT ;eamoa
		'(E $) elnH A1'3'(
		'(Z 4) em A1'3•
	•(T §) seomos;o uolcenoelQ
'cAVQ
'ITT‑oTT'olz'SNQ •ET8T'uoPuoVT9i‑94y
•ln '‑vlund M ~o ‑:V7 '3f‑H 'fi •9981 'PJ0JPN]ft 'Tee ‑jag 'dd "At •daqo"i ‑ton '•ln •3jq'aalnuenW'jaqzuN uo3 ‑lop •8£3‑1011 '(LL81) FE '117"9 t‑07"H Ruoto0 uanaH mat, ao P a‑dvd eqa al 'aaaxeQ •g ‑,S uadvaoomelg

'(ZL9T) PaM‑Pu?d puD Pal‑ssV sayo.cnyo ?vuoit ‑v6a.16uoa /o J‑d au pine (T99T 'UOpUO7) s7sad ‑utalL Puv swwiS' 77TH ui P7ov‑joqauh s,7uPS OVd ata Isaaaqtn Iso‑ ,rp '9111!1 Slanlleraduioa aioam aH •qoanU qjnoS PTO aqj ;o uoiitnn.To; aqj pug '8991 "DOG ui paUvIscn sum atl uaqm qoanqo atli
3asQ	VIQHC1OZ3ADAIH Sf10IJI'Iau	199

David
did not approve of the murder of Abner and p ished those who slew Ishbaal (II Sam. iii. 28‑3
iv. 9‑12). All Israel then did homage to David,
but he seems to have continued his residence
Hebron (II Sam. ii. 11, v. 5; I Chron. xxix. 27
David soon perceived the necessity of making his seat at some central point, and with shrewd foresight selected the Jebusite fortress Jerusalem, which was taken by Joab in a bold attack (II Sam. v.1‑12). To this new center David transferred also the ancient national sanctuary, the ark of the covenant, and showed his humble adherence to his God (II Sam. vi.). His reign was spent in numerous wars against the neighboring peoples. By repeated victories he broke the power of the Philistines (II Sam. v. 17‑25, viii. 1‑13, xxi. 15‑22), and warred successfully with theAmmonites, who were in league with the Syrians, i.e., with Damascus, and the king of Zobah (in cuneiform inscriptions Zubft) (II Sam. viii. 3‑8, x. 15‑19). His army had experienced champions in the " mighty men " under the command of Abiahai, Joab's brother (II Sam. xxiii. 8‑39; I Chron. xi. 10‑.47; see AmsaA1), and David himself was surrounded by a body‑guard whose name points to a Philistine origin (see CHERETHITE$ AND PELETHITE$). With the organization of the army is no doubt connected the census which the prophet Gad censured as an offense for which David humbled himself (II Sam. xxiv.; I Chron. xxi. ).
Successful as were David's undertakings abroad, he experienced heavy affliction at home, the result of his own sins. His most disgraceful fall was the adultery with Bath‑sheba and the removal of Uriah, her husband (II Sam. xi.), for which he was called to account by the prophet Nathan (II Sam. xii.). The Eastern custom of polygamy was also detrimental to the kingdom, proved by the dissensions of the royal family, connected with which was the attempt of Absalom to supplant his aging father on the throne. After scheming for years, Absalom imagined that the time had
4. Domes‑ come to usurp the royal power.
tic and From Hebron, where he had been proAdmin‑ claimed king, the usurper advanced
istrative with his followers toward Jerusalem.
Difficulties. To save the capital, David went with his choice troops to Mount Olivet. On this sad retreat David exhibited magnanimity and presence of mind, and revealed an honest, deep piety. Absalom, spending his time in celebration of victory, missed his opportunity. With a great multitude he pursued his father over the Jordan, but lost the victory and his life in the " wood of Ephraim " (II Sam. xv.‑xxiii.). Though the people were still dissatisfied, David was honorably brought back to Jerusalem (II Sam. xix.) and reigned in peace unto his end. When, shortly before his death, his son Adonijah sued for the favor of the people and was supported even by Joab and Abiathar, this plan was frustrated by David at the advice of Nathan and Bath‑eheba, who had Solomon anointed king (I Kings i.).
The king, a lover of song, had always given special care to the coitus. He was seriously considering the idea of building a worthy sanctuary on Mount
pun‑
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Zion, where the ark of the covenant was. But the
9,prophet Nathan revealed to him, that this was not
d~	to be done by him, but by his successor,
at	5. Services adding the promise that God would
).	to the	build for himself a home and enter
	Coitus	into a paternal relation with his
		seed. The Chronicler ascribes to
David the Organization of Levitical chanting
(I Chron. xv. 16‑24; cf. xxiii. ).
	David's character has been differently estimated.
In subsequent times he was considered by his
people and by the greatest prophets the pattern of
a king after the heart of God‑‑ some modern writers
		by giving a one‑aided prominence to
	6. Char‑	his weaknesses and sins have made
	acter.	a caricature of him (Bayle, Tindal,
		Voltaire, Reimarus, and others). He
was the moat gifted of all the kings of Judah. It
needed his courage and presence of mind, his
direction and endurance, to unite under one royal
scepter the jealous tribes. How he spared his
people is learned from II Sam. xxiii. 17; how the
people loved him, from I Sam. xviii. 16; II Sam.
xviii. 3, xxi. 17. His imperial virtues were fruits
of the. childlike, devout piety which David pre
served as the deepest secret of his strength unto his
end. Many things with which he is personally
reproached may be explained from the notions and
customs of his time, e.g., the cruelty to conquered
enemies (II Sam. viii. 2, xii. 31). His sincerity
toward Saul's family is shown by his lamentation,
II Sam. i. (cf. I Sam. xxiv. 7). The incident re
lated in II Sam. xxi. must be understood from the
notions of the time concerning the necessity of an
atonement which the whole family had to make for
blood innocently shed. The same is true for the
last words of David (I Kings ii.) concerning Joab's
death. The unanimous agreement of tradition
that David was the gifted author of psalmody is
evidence that his love of God was sincere. The
opinion which in recent times ascribes not one
psalm to David is regarded by some scholars as
arbitrary skepticism (cf. James Robertson, The
Poetry and the Religion o/ the Psalms, Edinburgh,
1898). For the development of the kingdom of
God he did more than many a prophet. In con‑
	tradistinction to Saul, he showed that the true great
	ness of the anointed of the Lord consists in his
	relation to God, and thus mediated to the later
	prophets the lofty idea, which they bring out in
	their prophecies: that of the perfect Son of David,
	an idea which David himself represented only in
an imperfect manner.	See PSALMS; PSALMODY.
	C. VON ORELLl.
	BIHLIOaRAPnY: Besides the appropriate sections in the
	works on the History of Israel mentioned under Aaen,
	consult: A. KiShler, LehrbucA der bi6lisehen GeacAichte,
	II. i. 184‑188, 373 Erlangen, 1884 (an able character
	ization); L. P. Paton, Early Hint. of Sprig and Palestine,
	New York 1901. Of commentaries the two beet are K.
	Budde, Richter and Samuel, pp 210‑278, Giessen, 1890;
	H. P. Smith, in International Critical Commentary, New
	York, 1899. Other works worth consulting are: C. R.
	Conder Scenery of David's Outlaw Lice, in PEP , Qaar
	terlp Statement, 1871, pp, 41‑48; J. J. St#helin, Dos Leben
	Davida Basel, 1888 (useful for Oriental parallels cited);
L. von~Ranke, Weltpeaeh%rhte, i. 1, Leipaio, 1881; E. Meyer,
Geachichte lea Alterthama i, 381 sqq, Stuttgart, 1884;
A. Ksmphaueen, in ZATW, vi (1888), 43 eqq.; T.

383	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	David
Cheyne, Devout Study of Critieiam, part 1, London, 1892; 8. A. Cook, Critical Notes on O. T. History; the Traditions o/ Saul and David, ib. 1907; G. Beer, Saul, David, Salomo, Tiibingen, 1907; DB, i. 580‑573; ED, i. 1019‑35. For David's family and list of his mighty men: J. Marquardt, Fundaments israditischer and iiadiecher Geschich<e, Gottingen, 1896.
DAVID OF AUGSBURG: Franciscan mystic; b. at Augsburg about 1215; d. there Nov. 19, 1272. Of the life of David very little is known. He was master of the novices in the Franciscan settlement at Regensburg founded in 1226, and after 1243 probably also in Augsburg. Either alone or in company with his famous pupil and friend, Berthold of Regensburg (q.v.), he went about preaching and wrote his treatises for the novices. It is difficult to state which these treatises were, since the Epistola fratris David and the introduction prefixed to the Augsburg edition `of 1596 are wanting in other manuscripts, and all tractates for the novices are found also among the works of Bonaventura. Indeed, the very first of these treatises, De exterioria hominis reformations, is among Bonaventura's writings with the title De institutions novitiorum, and also, in a more original form, among the works of Bernard of Clairvaux, with the title Opuaculum in hoc verbs ;, ad quid venisti t It is therefore debatable how much in this tractate really belongs to David. The second and third treatises, De intergoris hominis reformations and De septem processibus religiosi, belong undoubtedly to David, though they are also printed among Bonaventura's works with the title De profectu religiosorum. To David also belongs the fourth book found in manuscript and extant in Bonaventura's works as De institutions novitiorum. To the treatises for novices belong also the two German traetates Die mben Vorregeln der Tugend and Spiegel der Tugend, whereas the other German treatises ascribed by Pfeiffer to David are undoubtedly spurious. The two German treatises are pearls of German prose; the Latin tractates are verbose. On account of these writings Preger called David a mystic. There is no doubt that he was mystic in tendency, but in the main this tendency is shown only in two larger sections of the Interioris haminis reformatio (ix.‑xv.) and the Septem processus (xxxv.‑xli.). David is too sober to be a true mystic; with him the principal things are the practical injunctions in which he refers to the pattern of Christ, especially to meekness, humility, and love. For a time David successfully served the Inquisition. The fruit of his experience appears in the treatise De inquisitions hcereticorum. Here he shows himself a child of his time. The heretics are foxes and wolves, who are neither to be refuted nor opposed with spiritual weapons, but are to be annihilated, and in such a hunt hunger, torture, lies, and treachery are allowed. In the last decade of his life he composed an " Exposition of the Rules of the Order of the Minorites," in which he tried to mediate between the clerical body and the community, but actually came to the point of view of the community. It is to be regretted that his sermons which John Trithemius had seen are lost. His characteristic was a sober common sense which was averse to everything untrue and exag‑
gerated. His importance lies mainly in his activity as preacher and in his silent work of educating the rising generation of monks, of whom Berthold of Regensburg was the most prominent. E, LEMPr.
BnaraoaaAPBY: The De inquisitions, ed. W. Preger, appeared in AMA, xiv. 2 (1879), 181235. Consult: F. Pfeiffer, Deutsche Mystiker do# 14. Jahrhunderts, vol. i., Leipsic, 1846; W. Preger, Geachichte der deutachen Mystik, i. 288 sqq., ib. 1879; E. Lempp, in Z%G, xix (1898), 15 sqq.
DAVID, CHRISTIAN. See UNITY of THE BRETH. REN.
DAVID OF DINAANT or DINAAN : Pantheistic philosopher; supposed to have been born either at Dinant (on the Meuse, 15 m. s. of Namur), Belgium, or at Dinan (14 m. a. of St. Malo) in Brittany; d. after 1215. He is said to have enjoyed the favor of Pope Innocent III. (1198‑1216) because of his subtle dialectics. At the provincial council of 1210 held at Paris, which condemned Amalric of Bena (q.v.), the Quaternuli of David was also ordered to be burned, and in 1215 the reading of extracts from David's work was prohibited in the University of Paris. David fled from France, and the further events of his life are unknown. Albertus Magnus finds the basis of David's teaching in the identity of everything real in the absolute. David distinguished three kinds of things, corporeal, spiritual, and divine substances. For each of the three kinds he assumed a general, indivisible principle; for the corporeal, a primitive "stuff "; for the spiritual, the spirit; for divine things: God. Between these three principles no distinction can exist; each can be conceived of only as an undifferentiated entity, and the three must accordingly be identical. The details of his system and eources of his pantheistic teaching can not be ascertained with certainty. At all events, he is not dependent on Amalric of Bena, but was rather influenced by Aristotelian writings and Jewish and Moorish comment on them. Some thoughts of Giordano Bruno and Spinoza show a relationship to the pantheistic system of David's. HERMAN HAUPT.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. H. Kr6nlein, De . . . Davidis de Dinanto doctrina, Giessen, 1847; W. Preger, Geschichte der deutwhen Mystik, i. 184‑191, Leipsie, 1874; MEowiras de d'acad6mie des inscriptions et belles lettres, xxvi. 2 (1870), 467‑498 (by C. Jourdain); B. Haurdau, MC»toire our la vraie source des erreura auribukn h David de Dinan, in MAmoires do l'aoa&mie, ut sup., xxix. 2 (1879), 319330; O. Bardenhewer, Die pseudoaristotelische Schrift fiber das reins Guts, pp. 212 sqq., Freiburg, 1882; J. E. Erdmann, Geschichte der Philosophic, i 352, Berlin, 1896, Eng. tranel., London, 1893; F. Ueberweg, Geschihte der Philosophic, pp. 208‑212, Berlin, 1898, Eng. tranal., i. 388‑402, New York, 1874; Neander, Christian Church, iv. 445‑448.
DAVID JORISZOON. See IoRls.

DAVID, SAINT: The patron saint of Wales. All that is known of him is that he died about 601, that he was bishop of Menevia (St. David's) in southwest Wales, and that he presided at two synods of the Welsh Church, the later of the two being held in 569 (cf. Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, i. 116‑118). His legendary and fictitious history makes him metropolitan archbishop of Wales, consecrated at Jerusalem, ascribes to him numerous foundations, and says that he extirpated Pelagian‑

Davidis
Davidson
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
ism in Wales at the synods already referred to; it is well decked out with miracles, visions, and the like. He was popular in both Wales and Ireland, where many churches were dedicated to him. His day is Mar. 1.
BIBLIOGRAPHY; W. J, gees Ly" o f &e Cambro‑Brdfiah
Saints pp 102‑144,402‑448, Llandovery, 1853; DCB, i.
791‑793; DNB, XIV. 113‑115.
DAVIDIS, FRANCISCUS.
6erviaes as s Reformer (¢ 1). Adoption of Unitarianism (¢ 2). Theology (¢ a>. Controversies ($ 4). Influence (¢ b).
Franciacue Davidia (Ferenez David), a Unitarian of Transylvania, was born at HIauseaburg (Kolozsvar; 72 m. n.n.w. of Hermannatadt), Hungary, 1510 (7); d. at Deva (37 m. s.w. of Karlaburg) Nov. 15, 1579. He was probably of Saxon descent. Franciscus, the episcopal vicar of Weiasenburg, enabled him to study ‑theology at Wittenberg. From 1551 to 1552 he was rector of a school in Biatrita. Later he accepted the Lutheran faith and was called to
Peteradorf (Peterfalva) as first Evan‑
r. Services gelical preacher. In 1555 he became
as a rector in HIsusenburg, in 1556 also Reformer, superintendent of the Evangelical Hun‑
garian Church in Transylvania. He soon became the champion of the Reformation in his country, following Melanchthon and combating Calvinism. The state assembly of Thorenburg m 1558 permitted only the Lutheran and the Catholic religion, but the controversies continued without interruption, especially on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, and the Calvinistic party headed by Peter Meliua (q.v.) gained many adherents among the nobility. Davidis himself, anxious to maintain and increase his influence, turned toward Calvinism. From the discord of confessions resulted a separation of nationalities, the Saxons under their superintendent Matthias Hebler remaining faithful to Lutheranism, and the Hungarians under Melius and Davidis accepting Calvinism; after 1564 both parties were legally acknowledged. Davidia became Calvinistic superintendent, and soon afterward court preacher of the sovereign John Sigismund Zs;polya.
At this time an irresistible current of Unitarian doctrines from Italy Switzerland, and especially from Poland, made its way into Transylvania, and the controversies turned from the Lord's Supper to the doctrine of the Trinity and the person of Christ.
Davidis, again following the current
s. Adoption of the time, accepted the new doctrine
of Unitari‑ and was chiefly influential in intro‑
	anism,	ducing Unitarianism at the court, and
		at the University of Klausenburg. In
1566 he attacked the doctrine of the Trinity in a
disputation with Peter KArolyi, rector of the uni
versity in HIausenburg. A number of conventions
were held, treatises were written, and the contro
versies assumed greater and greater dimensions,
Davidis and Meliua becoming the moat passionate
opponents. Davidis and Georgics Blandrata (q.v.),
court physician of the prince, succeeded in winning
the majority of the nobility over to Unitarianism;
and in 1567 the prince placed at their disposal a printing‑press at Weissenburg. The state assembly held at Thorenburg in 1568 granted entire freedom in matters of religion, and in the same year a great disputation was held at Weisaenburg with Peter Melius and Peter K6,rolyi on the one aide and Davidia and Blandrata on the other. The controversies were continued at synods and in treatises. In 1568 the Unitarian Church was constituted independently with Davidis as bishop. Its adherents were almost exclusively of the Hungarian and
Czech population, with HIaunenburg and Weisaenburg as their strongholds.
The fundamental thoughts of Davidis'a doctrine were that the Reformation must be placed upon a broader basis, and the ceremonies and articles of faith must be reduced to the simplicity of apostolic times. The main obstacle to such a reform is the scholastic doctrine of the Trinity, a product of Greek philosophy, and the source of all idolatry in the
Church. There is no triune God, but 3• geology, only one God, the Father and Creator
of the universe; to him alone divinity in the full sense is to be ascribed. Christ was born
of Mary in a supernatural manner. The Son of God exists eternally in the divine decree; but in reality he is not born from eternity, but has originated only with the incarnation of Christ. The Holy Spirit is not the third person of the Trinity, but the power that emanates from the Father and
is communicated to us through the Son for our sanctification. Davidis spread his doctrines abroad in Latin and Hungarian writings, in catechisms, sermons, and Latin disticha. But the predominance of Unitarianism in Transylvania was of but short duration. Z6,polya, the reigning prince, died in 1571, and his successor, Stephen BAthory, a Roman Catholic, called the Jesuits into the country. Most of the Unitarians took the part of Caspar BE;kes, a pretender, and were involved in his utter defeat in 1575. Bifthory immediately removed all Unitarians from the court, and their publications were subjected to a severe censorship; all innovations in religion were threatened with excommunication and punishment by the sovereign. Davidis, however, received important aid from Unitarians of foreign countries who sought refuge in Transylvania, as, for instance, Johann Sommer of Saxony, and Jacob Pala:ologus, an exile from Poland. Btithory succeeded in winning some of the Unitarians, especially Blandrata, over to his political cause. A separation from his wife injured Davidis's authority, and the liberties of the Unitarians were more and more restricted.
To make matters worse, Davidis's position became so radical that he rejected the worship of Christ
altogether. A controversy then ensued between
him and Blandrata, who, belonging to the more
		moderate party, invoked the aid of
	4. Contro‑ Faustus Socinus. The latter came in
versies.	person from Basel. Davidis expressed
	his views in four theses De non ixi‑
vocando Jesu Christo in Precibus sacris. He held a
synod with his adherents at Thorenburg, where he
decreed the Non‑adoratio. Thereupon Blandrata
and Socinua effected his suspension from office

385	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Davidis
		Davidson
	and imprisonment until a general synod should
	request him to revoke his heresy. In June of the
	same year a disputation took place at a synod in
	Thorenburg; and in July Davidis was tried at
	Weissenburg in the presence of the sovereign, con
	demned as innovator and blasphemer, and thrown
	into prison for life at the mountain‑fortress of Deva.
	His party did not disappear. Although Blan
	drata succeeded for the moment in winning the
	Unitarian divines over to an adorantistic confession
	of faith and in reintroducing the ceremonies of
	baptism and the Lord's Supper, there
	5. Influence. separated themselves from these New
	Unitarians the adherents of Davidis
	as Old Unitarians or Davidists or Non‑adorantes,
	and from the latter again there originated the sect
	of the Sabbatharians, thus completing the circle
	from Catholicism through Lutheranism, Calvinism,
	Unitarianism, Non‑adorantism to a sect in which
	Christianity closely approached Judaism. Davidis's
	literary works were occasioned by his controver
	sies, the most important being De falsa et vera unius
	Dei Patris, Filii et Spiritus Sancti, cognitione libri
	duo (Weiasenburg, 1567) and Refutatio scripti G.
	Majoris (1569). The latter treatise was occasioned
	by his controversy on the Trinity with G. Major of
Wittenberg.	Davidis also wrote in Hungarian
	" On the Divinity of the One God‑father and His
Blessed Holy Son Jesus Christ" (1571).
	K. HOLL.
	BIHLIoaaAPHY: The beet monograph, unfortunately only
	in Hungarian, is Elek Jakob, David Perena EmUke, 2
	vols., Budapest, 1879. Consult: F. C. Baur, Die ehrish
	liche Lehre won der Dreieinigkei4 iii. 144 sqq., Tdbingen,
	1843; O. Fock, Der Socinianismus, Kiel, 1847; P. Bad,
	Hist. Hungarorum eccl., ed. L. W. E. Rauwenhoff and
	J. J. Prinz, i. 397‑457, Leyden, 1888 (history of Unita
	rianism in Hungary); J. H. Allen, Hint, of Unitarians, pp.
	80‑88, 105‑112, New York, 1894. On the communion
	controversy: K. Landsteiner, J. Pal4ologus, Vienna, 1873.
	ZA t tement of Davidis's principles is in Opera J. Palwo
		~, 'Basel, 1581. Consult %L, iii. 1421‑23; ADB, iv. 787.
	DAVIDISTS: Followers of David Joris. See
JORIB.
	DAVIDS, THOMAS WILLIAM RHYS: English
student of comparative religion and Buddhist
scholar; b. at Colchester (51 m. n.n.e. of London),
Essex, May 12,1843. He studied at Breslau (Ph.D.,
1865), and entered the Ceylon Civil Service in
1866. In 1877 he became a barrister at the Middle
Temple, London, and in 1883 was appointed pro
fessor of Pali and Buddhistic literature at Univer
sity College, London. Since 1904 he has also been
professor of comparative religion at Victoria Uni
versity, Manchester. In 1882 he founded the Pali
Text Society, of which he has since been president,
also editing its Journal and other publications. He
was Hibbert lecturer in 1881, and has been secre
tary and librarian of the Royal Asiatic Society
since 1887. He has written, edited, or translated:
Ancient Coins and Measures of Ceylon (London,
1877); Buddhism (1878); Buddhist Birth‑Stories,
i. (1880); Lectures on the Origin and Growth of
Religion as Illustrated by Some Paints in the History
of Buddhism (Hibbert lectures; 1881); Buddhist
Suttas, in SBE, xi. (Oxford, 1881); Yinaya Texts,
ib. xiii., xvii., xx. (in collaboration with H. Olden
berg; 1881‑85); The Questions of King Milinda,
ib. xxxv. (1890); Buddhism, Its History and Litera
ture (New .York, 1896); Dialogues of the Buddha
(London, 1899); and Buddhist India. (1902). He
is also the editor of the Sacred Books of the Bud
dhists, for which he edited Dialogues of the Buddha
(London, 1899) and the Digha Nikaya (1899),
while to the Journal of the Pali Text Society he
contributed an edition of the Sumafigala V ildsini
in collaboration with J. E. Carpenter (London,
1886).
DAVIDSON, ANDREW BRUCE: United Free Church of Scotland; b. on the farm of Kirkhill, parish of Ellen (15 m. n. of Aberdeen), Aberdeenshire, 1831 (probably Dec., although the exact date is uncertain); d. at Edinburgh Jan. 26, 1902. He studied at Marischai College, Aberdeen (M.A., 1849), taught in the Free Church school of Ellen until 1852, and was graduated at New College, the divinity hoall f the Free Church, Edinburgh, in 1856. He filled several pulpits temporarily, but never held a charge. In 1858 he was appointed assistant to John Duncan, professor of Hebrew in New College, and in 1863 became full professor of Oriental languages and Duncan's colleague. After the latter's death in 1870 Davidson was sole professor until 1900, when he was senior colleague. He was an admirable Biblical scholar and critic, and a famous teacher. He was a member of the Old Testament Company of Revisers. He preached occasionally and with great acceptance, but reluctantly and preferably in obscure places. His literary work was relatively small in amount, but superior in quality. In addition to editing for The Cambridge Bible for Schools the volumes on Job (Cambridge, 1884), Ezekiel (1892), and Nahum, Habbakuk, and Zephaniah (1896), as well as Isaiah for The Temple Bible (London, 1902), he wrote: Outlines of Hebrew Accentuation, Prose and Poetical (London, 1861); A Commentary on Job (Edinburgh, 1862), which covers only the first third of the book; Introductory Hebrew Grammar (1874; 17th ed., 1902)'; The Epistle to the Hebrews with Introduction and Notes (1882); and Hebrew Syntax (1894; 3d ed., 1905). After Davidson's death his colleague, J. A. Patterson, issued his Biblical and Literary Essays (1902); Old Testament Prophecy (1902); and two volumes of sermons, The Called of God (1902; with a biographical introduction by A. T. Innes) and Waiting upon God (1903); while Principal S. D. F. Salmond edited his Theology of the Old Testament (1904).

DAVIDSON, RANDALL THOMAS: Archbishop of Canterbury and primate of all England; b. at Edinburgh Apr. 7, 1848. He studied at Trinity College, Oxford (B.A., 1871), was curate of Dartford, Kent, 1874‑77, and chaplain and private secretary to the archbishops of Canterbury Tait (1877‑82) and Benson (1882‑83). He was dean ofWindsor(18M‑91), became bishop of Rochester 1891, was translated to the see of Winchester 1895, and consecrated archbishop of Canterbury 1903. He was domestic chaplain to the Queen 1883‑91, and clerk of the closet to the Queen 1891‑1901, and to the King 1901‑03, a prelate of the Order of the Garter 18951903, while in 1904 he was created a Grand Corn‑

Davidson
y
THE NEW
mander of the Victorian Order. He has written Life of Archbishop Tait (2 vols., London, 1891; in collaboration with W. Beecham) and The Christian Opportunity (1904), and has edited The Lambeth Conferences of 1867, 1878, and 1888 (London, 1889).
DAVIDSON, SAMUEL: English Congregationalist; b. at Kellewater (4 m. s. of Ballymena), County Antrim, Ireland, Sept. 23, 1807; d. at London Apr. 1: 1898. He was graduated at the Royal Academlcal Institution, Belfast, in 1832. Three years later he was appointed professor of Biblical criticism at Belfast to the General Synod of Ulster, and retained this position until 1841, when he became a Congregationalist. In 1842 he was appointed professor of Biblical literature and ecclesiastical history in the Lancashire Independent College, Manchester. He resigned in 1857, on account of opposition to his views of inspiration, and in 1862 was elected Scripture examiner in London University, and removed to London. He was a member of the Old Testament Revision Committee. His theology was rationalistic. In addition to translations he wrote: Sacred Hermeneutics '(Edinburgh, 1843); Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament (London, 1848); Treatise on Biblical Criticism (2 vols., Edinburgh, 1852); The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament Revised from Critical. Sources (London, 1855); The Text of the Old Testament Considered, with a Treatise on Sacred Interpretation, and a Brief Introduction to the Old Testament Books and the Apocrypha (1856; vol. ii. of the tenth edition of T. H. Horne's Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures); An Introduction to the Old Testament, Critical, Historical, and Theological (3 vols., 18621863); An Introduction to the New Testament (2 vols., 1868); On a Fresh Revision of the English Old Testament (1873); The Canon of the Bible (1876); and The Doctrine of Last Things Contained in the New Testament, Compared with the Notions of the Jews and the Statements of the Church Creeds (1882).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Autobiography and Diary, with selection of letters, edited by his daughter, Miss A. J. Davidson, Edinburgh, 1899.
DAMES, JOHN LLEWELYN: Church of England; b. at Chichester Jan. 26, 1826. He studied at Trinity College, Cambridge (B.A., 1848; M.A., 1851), where he was fellow 1851‑59. He was curate of St. Anne's, Limehouse, 1851‑52, vicar of St. Mark's, Whitechapel, 1852‑56, and rector of Christ Church, St. Marylebone, 1856‑89, and rural dean 1882‑88. Since 1888 he has been vicar of KirkbyLonsdale, Westmorelandahire. He was honorary chaplain to Queen Victoria 1876‑81, chaplain in ordinary 1881‑1901, and is an honorary chaplain to King Edward VII., while he has been principal of Queen's College for Ladies, London, one of the founders of the Workingmen's College, London, and chairman of the committee of the New Hospital for Women. He was select preacher at Oxford in 1881, Hulsean lecturer at Cambridge in 1890, and Lady Margaret preacher at the same university ten years later. In theology he is a follower of F. D. Maurice. Among his numerous publications

may be mentioned: Morality According to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper (London, 1865); Epistles
SCHAFF‑HERZOG
of St. Paul (1866); The Gospel and Modern Life (1869); Homilies, Ancient and Modern (2 vole., 1884); Social Questions from the Point of View of Christian Theology (1885); and Workingmen's College, 1864‑1904 (1904).
DAMES, SAMUEL: Presbyterian; b. near Summit Ridge, New Castle County, Del., Nov. 3, 1724; d. in Princeton, N. J., Feb. 4, 1761. He studied at Samuel Blair's School at Fagg's Manor (Londonderry), Chester County, Pa.; was ordained in 1747 and sent to Hanover County, Va., where his position was difficult and delicate owing to opposition on the part of the authorities to dissenters. In 1753‑54 he was in England, with Gilbert Tennent, soliciting funds for the College of New Jersey (Princeton), and while there secured a royal declaration that the Act of Toleration extended to Virginia. Returning to America, he organized the first presbytery in Virginia in 1755. In 1759 he succeeded Jonathan Edwards as president of Princeton. He was an eloquent preacher, admired in England as well as in America.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: His sermons were printed in five volumes, London, 1787‑71; the beat Am. edition, 3 vole., New York, 1848 has an essay on his life sad times by Albert Barnes, and a separate Memoir was published at Boston in 1832. Consult also E. H. Gillett, History o/ the Presbyterian Church, chaps. vii., viii., Philadelphia, 1884. DAMES, THOMAS WITTON: English Baptist; b. at Nantyglo (16 m. n.w. of Newport), Monmouthshire, Feb. 28, 1851. He studied at the Baptist colleges at Pontypool and Regent's Park, University College and Manchester College, London (B.A., London University, 1879), and the universities of Berlin, Leipsic (Ph.D., 1898), and Strasburg. He was minister of the High Street Baptist Church, Merthyr‑Tydfil (1879‑81); professor of Hebrew, classics, and mathematics in the Baptist college at Haverfordwest (1881‑91); principal and professor of theology in the Midland Baptist College, Nottingham (1891‑98); and lecturer in Arabic and Syriac at University College, Nottingham (1896‑98). Since 1898 he has been professor of Semitic languages in the University College of North Wales, Bangor, and was also professor of Old Testament literature in the Baptist College, Bangor, 1898‑1906. In doctrinal theology he is in the main Evangelical, and in criticism is an adherent of the Graf‑Wellhausen school. He has written: Oriental Studies in Great Britain (Woking, 1892); Magic, Divination, and Demonology Among the Hebrews and Their Neighbours (London, 1897); The Scriptures of the Old Testament (in Welsh, Wrexham, 1900); Heinrich Ewald, Orientalist and Theologian, 1803‑i903: A Centenary Appreciation (London, 1903); and Psalms 73‑160 with Introduction and Commentary (in The Century Bible, 1906).

DAMS, JOHN D.: Presbyterian; b. at Pittsburg, Pa., Mar. 5, 1854. He studied at the College of New Jersey (B.A., I879), the University of Bonn (1879‑80), Princeton Theological Seminary (18801883), and the University of Leipsic (1884‑86). He has been instructor in Hebrew in Princeton Theological Seminary (1883‑84 and 1886‑88), and professor of Hebrew and cognate languages (1888‑92), of Semitic philology and Old Testament history

887	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Davidson
		Day
(1892‑1900), and Oriental and Old Testament lit
erature (since 1900), in the same institution. In
theology he is Calvinistic, and in Old Testament
criticism is a conservative. He has written Genesis
and Semitic Tradition (New York, 1894) and A
Dictionary of the Bible (Philadelphia, 1898).
	DAMSON, WILLIAM THEOPHILUS: English
Wesleyan; b. at Bath, Somersetshire, Oct. 5, 1846.
He was graduated at London University in 1869,
held various pastorates 1868‑81, was for ten years
professor of Biblical literature in Richmond College,
Surrey, was professor of theology in Handaworth
College, Birmingham, until 1904, and in 1905 re
turned in a similar capacity to Richmond College.
He is a member of the faculty of theology in Lon
don University, and in 1901 was president of the
Wesleyan Methodist Conference. He has written:
Praises of Israel (London, 1893); Wisdom Litera
ture of the Old Testament (1895); The Lord's Supper
(1895); Strength for the Way (1902); and Psalms in
The Century Bible (1903).
	DAWSON, SIR JOHN WILLIAM: Canadian
Presbyterian layman; b. at Pictou, N. S., Oct. 13,
1820; d. at Montreal Nov. 19, 1899. He studied
at the College of Pictou and the University of
Edinburgh (B.A., 1849). In 1850 he was appointed
superintendent of education in Nova Scotia, and
three years later was made professor of geology and
principal of McGill College and University, Mon
treal, holding this position until he retired as pro
fessor emeritus in 1893. He was the first president
of the Royal Society of Canada in 1883, of the
American Association in 1884, of the British Associa
tion in 1886, and of the American Geological So
ciety in 1893. He was made a Companion of the
Order of St. Michael and St. George in 1882, and
two years later was knighted. In theology his
position was conservative. He wrote more than
twenty books, of which those of special theological
interest are: The Bible and Science (London, 1875);
The Origin of the World According to Revelation and
Science (1877); Facts and Fancies in Modern
Science : Studies of the Relation of Science to Prev
alent Speculations and Religious Belief (Philadel
phia, 1882); Egypt and Syria, Their Physical Fea
tures in Relation to Bible History (London, 1886);
Modern Science in Bible Lands (1888); Modern
Ideas of Evolution as Related to Revelation and
Science (New York, 1890); and Eden Lost and
Won: Studies of the Early History and Final Destiny
of Man as Taught in Nature and Revelation
(London, 1896).
	DAWSON, WILLIAM JAMES: English Con
gregationalist; b. at Towchester (45 m. n.e. of
Oxford) Nov. 21, 1854. He studied at Didbury
College, Manchester, and entered the Wesleyan
ministry in 1875. He held pastorates at Wesley's
Chapel, City Road, London, and at Glasgow and
Southport until 1892, when he became a Congre
gationalist and was appointed minister of High
bury Quadrant Church, London, resigning this
position in 1905 to become an evangelist. He has
lectured widely on literary and historical topics,
and in 1891 was a delegate to the Methodist Ecu
menical Conference at Washington, D. C. He has
written: Arvalon (London, 1878); A Vision of Souls (poems; 1884); Quest and Vision : Essays on Life and Literature (1886); The Threshold of Manhood (1889); The Makers of Modern Poetry (1890); The Redemption of Edward Strahan : A Social Story (1891); The Church of To‑morrow (1892); Poems and Lyrics (1893); The Making of Manhood (1894); The Comrade‑Christ (sermonst 1894); London Idylls (1895); The Story of Hannah (1896); The House of Dreams (1897); Through Lattice Windows (1897); The Endless Choice and Other Sermons (1897); Table Talk with Young Men (1898); Judith Boldero : A Tragic Romance (1898); Makers of Modern Prose (1899); Savonarola : A Drama (1900); The Doctor Speaks : Episodes in the Experiences of John Selkirk, M.D. (1900); The Man Christ Jesus (1901); The Quest of the Simple Life (1903); The Reproach of Christ and Other Sermons (1903); The Evangelistic Note (1905); Makers of English Fiction (1905); and The Forgotten Secret (1906).
DAY, THE HEBREW‑ The civil day was reckoned by the Hebrews from sunset to sunset, so that the day began at that time both on ordinary occasions and on Sabbaths and feasts. In this matter the Hebrews were in accord with the Athenians, and the Greeks in general, as well as with the Germans; and this mode of reckoning goes well with the habits under a cult of the moon (see MooN, SEMITIC CONCEPTIONS oF). Yet according to Delitzsch and Dillmann (in their commentaries on Genesis i. 5), the reckoning indicated in Gen. i. 5 sqq. is not to be taken as from evening to evening, but after the Babylonian fashion, from morning to morning. Excepting only the seventh day, the days of the week had no proper names, that system of designation which gave the days the names of the sun, moon, and planets being rejected because of heathen associations.
For the divisions of the day, besides the ordinary terms of dawn, morning, midday, and evening, there were in use such expressions as " the heat of the day " (Gen. xviii. 1), " the height of the day," or " the perfect day " (Prov. iv. 18), and " the cool of the evening" (Gen. iii. 8). The reckoning by hours does not appear in the Old Testament until the book of Daniel, when the word used is Aramaic. In the New Testament the reckoning by hours is customary, the first hour is sunrise and the sixth is midday (cf. Matt. xx. 1 sqq. ), though it is debatable whether the Gospel of John does not follow the Roman civil mode by reckoning the hours from midnight (cf. John xix. 14 and xviii. 28 with Matt. xxvii. 45; Mark xv. 25, 33; Luke xxiii. 44). The hour, dependent upon the sun and the seasons, varies in the latitude of Palestine from forty‑nine to seventy‑one minutes in length. A sun‑dial (doubtless an obelisk with steps), which marked the hours as the shadow passed, was used by Hezekiah (II Kings,xx. 9‑10). The night was divided by the Hebrews into three watches (Lam. ii. 19; Judges vii. 19; Ex. xiv. 24). In New Testament times tile Roman division of the night into four watches was employed (Mark xiii. 35), though the Talmudists retained the earlier division into three
watches.	(C. VON ORELLI.)

Day of the Lord Deacon
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. L. Ideler, Handbuch der . , . Chr
	lopie, i. 80 eqq, Berlin, 1825; C. Wieseler, Chrono
W° Sder vier osanpdisn, PP. 410 eqq., Hamburg,
1843 Eng. tranal., Cambridge, 1877; Bensinger, Arch
Wi0. PP. 202‑203• Nowaek, Archdolopie,, i. 214‑215 DB, i. 573; EB, i. 1035‑38.
DAY OF THE LORD (Heb. Yom Yahweh, "Da
of Yahweh ") : A complex prophetic concept
brought into connection with Hebrew Mesaianis
and later .used with eschatological significance
The full expression " day of the Lord " is not always
used, the terms " the day," °` that day," " the day
of trouble," " the great and terrible day," " that
time," and other like phrases being interchangeable with it. Indeed, the word " day " itself, in Hebrew as in Arabic, often had a sinister content and was equivalent to " day of battle " (cf. Isa. ix. 4). The idea undergoes so great development in the history of Messianism that no general description of it applies to any one period. Its fun‑
damental and abiding characteristic is that it is the time of the manifestation of Yahweh as savior of (the actual or the ideal) Israel by the punishment of his enemies, when his benign purposes for that people will be accomplished. In its physical
aspects it is a day of terrifying phenomena, all nature partaking of the awe inspired by the presence of the Creator and showing that awe in heaven by the darkening or falling of the heavenly bodies and on earth by quakes and cataelysms and by the unbounded terror of the nations. The idea seems to have originated in the popular mind as a nationalistic ideal, founded not in ethics but in the crude religious ideas concerning the effect of the covenant by which Yahweh was conceived as bound to help his people simply because they were his people and served him alone.
This day bad from the very beginning and always retained two sides (cf. Mal. iv. 1‑2), judgment (of Israel's and therefore of Yahweh's enemies, later of the wicked) and redemption (of Israel, later of the righteous). It was taken into the circle of prophetic ideas by Amos, who lifted it out of the nationalistic and, unethical by the startling announcement that the day involved pot (as the people assumed) the punishment of Israel's enemies, but of Israel itself because of its offenses against a righteous God. Sinners were the enemies of Yahweh and not the Gentiles.as Gentiles, and on them the troubles of the day would fall. With this representation Hosea agreed, and Isaiah and Micah applied the same reasoning to Judah. In these cases the precedent, ever faithfully followed, was set of stating the purpose of the day to be the establishment of a righteous people. While the ethical element thus introduced remained dominant, it was frequently united with the nationalistic element, so that while the judgment was to discriminate between Israel and its enemies, it did so on the assumption that Israel was righteous while the enemy was wicked. The exact form which the conception took fluctuated according to the external conditions and the view of the individual prophet. Thus in Nahum and Habakkuk, dealing with times when Israel was oppressed, the view‑point is national and the judgment is to be against the (wicked) Assyrians and in favor of (righteous) Israel. In
ono‑ Zephaniah an advance is made, and the day of the
1°a''Lord becomes a world‑judgment; but this is a
corollary of the conception of Yahweh as not merely
God of Israel, but God of the whole earth (i. 8‑13,
ii. 1‑6, iii. 8). In the later prophets this is accom
plished by an assembling of the peoples (Isa. xlv.
t20; Zech. xii. 3; Joel iii. 2), when judgment is
mmeted upon them. In Jeremiah the day is once
more primarily against Judah, though other na‑
ystions are involved (i. 18, xxv. 15‑24; xxv. 27‑33 is
ya later interpolation). Already in Jeremiah the
tidea is becoming denationalized and individualized,
the cause of judgment being not collective or na
tional, but individual, and in Ezekiel this is fully
accomplished. The Messianic kingdom was to be
introduced by this day, and a regenerate Israel was
to survive. According to the exilic prophets, the
day inaugurated the Messianic kingdom, but the
guilt was largely individual. Haggai (chaps. ii.‑
iii.) and Zechariah (i. 15, ii.) returned again to the
nationalistic ideal, but their position was reversed
by Malachi. Up to this point the judgment was
conceived as taking plate and the kingdom being
established on the earth, and this kingdom was
earthly in character. This was changed in Isa.
Lev.‑lxvi. (before 400 B.C.), where a new heaven and
a new earth is introduced‑a fruitful suggestion for
further development. Joel (c. 350 B.C.) exhibits
the day in ail its terror (ii. 30,31), but returns to
the nationalistic view‑point (iii. 1‑2, 9‑21), and the
same idea prevails in Zech. xii.‑xiv. (of about the
same date as Joel). In Isa. xix. (c. 300) a univer
salism of worship of Yahweh (which is merely illus
trated by mention of Egypt, Assyria, and Israel)
is ushered in by " that day." In Daniel (186‑165)
the result of the coming of the day is the overthrow
of the world‑kingdoms, the establishment of the
kingdom of the Messiah, in which will share the
righteous dead of Israel, raised from the grave.
Here first appears the resurrection of the individ
ual, Ezekiel's resurrection (chap. xxxvii.) being
national. In the earlier Paeudepigrapha (q.v.) a
great development takes place, in part through the
doctrine that Sheol (see HADES) is a place of punish
ment for the wicked, heaven appearing by contrast
as the abode of the blessed (foreshadowed in the
Old Testament in Ps. xlia. 15, lxxiii. 24). The
resurrection is generalized, the wicked being raised
for final condemnation, the righteous for partici
pation in the new kingdom. Complete tranacen
dentalizing does not take place, since sometimes the
new Jerusalem is localized on earth, at other times
it is a heavenly city. In these earlier books " the
day " ushers in the Messianic kingdom. In the
later Pseudepigrapha the earthly Messianic rule is
only the temporary prelude to the real kingdom of
God, and " the day " with the final judgment comes
at its close. While the representation varies in
different books, development takes place on the
whole along these lines. In the Gospels the day is
implicit, and is involved in the paruaia (Mark
viii. 38 and parallels) which is to be heralded
by the same cataclysmic phenomena as accom
pany the day of Yahweh in the Old Testament
(Mark xiii. 7‑8, 24‑27). In Paul the " day of
Yahweh " has become the " day of our Lord

			of the Lord
389	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
		Deacon
Jesus Christ" (I Cor. i. 8). See FaaaAToLOOy;
and HADES. 	GEo. W. GILmORB.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The beset book is R. H. Charles, Critical Fliet. of as Doctrine of a Future Life, pp. 85 eqq. et paeaim, London, 1899. Consult further the literature on O. T. theology and Messianic prophecy, e.g., H. Schultz, O. T. Theolon, ii. 356 eqq., Edinburgh, 1892; C. A. Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, pp. 487‑490 et passim, New York, 1898; idem, Messiah of the Gospels, pp. 309 aqq., ib. 1894; P. Vola, JUdieche EWchatolopis von Daniel bia Akiba, Tebingea, 1Wa; A. B. Davidson, Theology of the O. T., pp. 374 sqq., ib. 1904; DB, i. 574, 434 eqq., 440, iii. 377, iv. 771; EB, ii. 1348 eqq.
DAY, CHARLES ORRIN: Congregationalist; b. at Catskill, N. Y., Nov. 8, 1851. He was graduated at Yale in 1872, and Andover Theological Seminary in 1877. He was a city missionary at Montreal 1877‑78, and pastor at William burg, Mass„ until 1884. He then spent a year in postgraduate study at the Yale Divinity School, after which he was pastor at Brattleboro, Vt., until 1898, when he became chaplain of the First Vermont regiment at Chickamauga during the Spanish‑American war. From 1898 to 1901 he was secretary of the Congregational Educational Society, and since the latter year has been president of Andover Theological Seminary and Bartlet professor of homiletics and practical theology.
DAY, JEREMIAH: Congregationalist, ninth president of Yale College; b. in New Preston, Conn., Aug. 3, 1773; d. in New Haven Aug. 22, 1867. He was graduated at Yale 1795, and the same year succeeded Timothy Dwight (q.v.) as principal of the Greenfield Academy; was tutor at Williams 1796‑98, at Yale 1798‑1801; was elected professor of mathematics and natural philosophy at Yale 1801; succeeded Timothy Dwight as president in 1817.; resigned in 1846. Besides a series of mathematical text‑books, he wrote An Inquiry Respecting the Self‑determining Power of the Will, a refutation of Cousin (New Haven, 1838), and An Examination of President Edwards on the Will, a conciliatory and apologetic defense of Edwards (1841).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A memorial address by President T. D. Woolsey is in The New Englander, xxvi (1867), 692‑724.
	DAYANAND, dd"yd‑nand', SARASWATI, ed"rds
wd'tf: Hindu reformer and founder of the Arya
Samaj (see INDIA, III., 3); b. of Shivite Brahmanic
parentage at Mori, a town in the n.w. of Kathiawar,
in 1827; d. at Ajmere Oct. 30, 1883. He early be
gan the orthodox course of study, and by the time
he had reached fourteen years of age had committed
to memory a Sanskrit dramatic work, a Sanskrit
vocabulary, the whole of the Yajur‑Veda, and part
of other Vedas. He very early felt the inconsist
ency between the religious ideas of the Vedas and
those connected with the worship of Shiva, and
he reluctantly yielded to his father's insistence
upon performance of the idolatrous rites of Shiva.
On one occasion, when thus taking part in this
worship, the ceremonies having continued long into
the night, his father and others fell asleep. While
watching the idol the boy saw a mouse take away
an offering that had been made to it. Suddenly the
inconsistency of worshiping God in the form of a
stone so overpowered him that he left the temple,
and never again worshiped an idol. Death in his
		III.‑2.1
family led him into deep thought of the meaning of life, and he determined to break away from external form and find the true path through the efforts of the soul. His parents, thinking the boy too meditative, determined on his marriage. The preparations were nearly completed when he silently left his home by night, and never returned from his wanderings in search of some one who could guide him to the truth. At last, in Nov., 1860, he found a welcome at Mathura, with a religious teacher named Swami Virjananda Saraswati. With this profound scholar of the Vedas, who had been blind from infancy, Dayanand studied the Vedas for four years. At the conclusion of his education Virjananda sent him forth to spread the enlightenment gained from the Vedas. In obedience he traveled over India, visiting especially places of pilgrimage where he denounced idolatry and the superstitions of Hinduism. In 1872 he visited Calcutta and met Devendranath Tagore (see TAaoaE, DEVENDEANATH) and Keshav Chandra Sen (see SEN, KHSSav CHANDRA), leaders in the Brahma Samaj movement (see INDIA, III., 1), with whom he had long and earnest conversations. In 1874 he arrived in Bombay, and after some months of effective labor organized the Arya Samaj, Apr. 10, 1875, extending it in 1877 in the course of a lecture tour in the Punjab. In 1883 he visited the Maharaja of Jodhpur. There he was greatly disturbed by the revelry and dissipation that marked the court life, and like John the Baptist rebuked the Maharaja to his face, as a consequence of which he wag poisoned by a woman whom he had offended by his rebuke.
Dayanand Saraswati taught the inspiration of the Vedas as the pure fountain of all true knowledge. He looked upon the forms of popular Hinduism as the result of ignorance through a falling away from the teachings of those books. He taught the personality of God as the sole object of worship. God and the soul are related as pervader and pervaded. The eternal and distinct substances are God, soul, and matter; salvation is the state of emancipation from birth to death. He denounced the system of caste and the worship of idols.
Jun= E. ABnorr.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Three of Dayanand's works have been trans‑
lated: The 0‑ of Mercy, Lahore, 1889; The Five Great Duties of Dayanand Saroauati, Ajmere, 1897, and A Hand‑book of the Arya Samaj, Arya Tract Society, 1906. Consult: Arian Singh, Dayanand Sassawati, Lahore, 1901; Bawa Chhaiju Singh, TAW Life. and Teachings of Stews Dayanand Saraswati, ib.; and literature under INDIA.

DEACON.
I. In the New Testament.
Origin of the Diaaonate (5 1).
Duties in New Testament Time (§ 2). II. In the Roman Catholic Church.
Change in Position after the Apostolic Age (f 1).
Duties in the Later Church (6 2). III. In the Protestant Churches. IV. The Modern Associations of Deacons in Germany.
Johann Hinrich Wichern (¢ 1).
Extension of Wichern'e Work. Conditions of Admission (¢ 2).
Training (1 3).
Organisation. Wide Extent of the Work (1 4).
I. In the New Testament: The term "deacon" (Gk. diakonm, " servant, attendant, minister," Lat. diaconus; also Gk. diak6n, Lat. dtaoones [pl.]

THE NEW
in Cyprian and synodical decrees) in its generic sense is used of all ministers of the Gospel as servants of God or Christ (I These. iii. 2; I Cor. HL b; II Cor. vi.A, m. 23; Col. i. 7, iv. 7; I Tim. iv. 6), also of magistrates (Rom. xiii. 4). In a technical sense it dotes the second and lower class of congregatiOnal officers, the other class being the presbyter‑bishops. Deacons first appear in the sixth chapter of Acts (under the name of the " seven "), and afterward repeatedly (as Phil. i. 1; I Tim. iii. 2, 8, 12). The word diakonia, " ministry," is also used frequently of the apostles (Rom. xi. 13) and others.
	Lice the	presbyterate (see PRz6BYTER), the
Christian disconate had a pent in the Jewish
synagogue, which usually employed three officers
for the care of the poor (cf. Lightfoot, Horse He
braica, ad Act‑, vi. 3). Vitdnga and some others
wrongly derive it from the hazzan (Gk. hype,
Luke iv. 20; John vii. 32), who was merely a sexton
or beadle. As related in Acts vi. 1‑8, the office grew
out of a special emergency in the congregation of
Jerusalem, in consequence of the complaint of the
Hellenists, or Greek Jews, against the Hebrews, or
Palestinian Jews, that their widows were neglected
in the daily ministration (Gk. diakonia) at the
common love‑feasts (Agapee). Hence the apostles,
		who had hitherto themselves attended
t. Origin to this duty, instructed the congregaof the Duo‑ tion to elect from their midst seven
	orate.	brethren, and ordained them by
		prayer and the laying on of hands.
The disoonate, therefore, like the presbytero
episcopate, grew out of the apostolic office, which
at fast embraced all the functions and duties of the
ministry=the ministry (diakon%a) of tables and of
the word (Acts vi. 2, 4). Christ chose apostles
only, and left them to divide their labor under the
guidance of his Spirit, with proper regard to times
and circumstances, and to found such additional
offices in the Church as were useful and necessary.
The " Seven " elected on this occasion were not extraordinary commissioners or superintendents (Stanley, Plumptre, W. L. Alexander, McGiffert, PP. 7879, Friedberg, p. 13, Bohm, and others), but deacons in the primitive sense of the term; for although they are not called " deacons " in the Acts (which never uses this word), their office is expressly described as one of " ministry " (diak0nia) or " serving at the tables." Exegetical tradition is almost unanimously in favor of this view, and many of the best commentators sustain it (as Meyer, Alford, Hackett, Large‑Lechler, Jacobson, Howson and Spence, Stokes in the Expositor's file, on Acts vi. 3; also, very emphatically, Lightfoot, Phi7ippiaria, pp. 185 sqq.). In the ancient Church the number seven was considered binding; and at Rome; for example, as late as the middle of the third century, there were only seven deacons, though the presbyters numbered forty‑six (Eusebius, Hist. wd., vi. 43; Harnack, T U, 'ii., pp. 92, 97. The number seven was given up in Romeunder Honorius II. (1124‑,301 and eighteen deacons were then appointed, to twelve of whom was given the care of the poor, while six served as papal assistants at the altar. Sixtus V. in 1586 finally fixed the number
SCHAFF‑HERZOG
870
of cardinal deacons at fourteen). There is indeed a difference between the apostolic and the ecclesiastical deacons, which is acknowledged by Chryeostom, (Ecumenius, and others; but the latter were universally regarded as the legitimate successors of the former‑‑as much so as the presbyters were the successors of the presbyter‑bishops of the New Testament‑notwithstanding the changes in their duties and relations. The deacons in the Apostolic Age are closely associated with the presbyter‑bishops and always are subordinate to them. This close association and subordination are maintained in the subapostolic age and later.
The diaconate was instituted first for the care of the poor and the sick. But this care was spiritual as well as temporal, and implied instruction and consolation as well as bodily relief, peal counts helps and ministrations (Gk. aretilepaeia) among the
spiritual gifts (I Cor. xii. 28). Hence 2. Duties in the appointment of such men for the flew Teats‑ office of deacons se were of strong meat Time. faith and exemplary piety (Acts vi. 3;
'	I Tim. iii. 8 eqq.). The moral quali‑
fications prescribed by pawl are essentially the
same as those for the bishop (presbyter). Hence the
transition from the disconate to the preabyterate
was easy and natural. Stephen preached, and
prepared the way for Paul's ministry of the Gen
tiles; and Philip, another of the seven deacons of
Jerusalem; subsequently labored as an Evangelist
(Acts viii. b‑40, xxi. 8). But they did this in
the exercise of a special gift of preaching, which
in the Apostolic Age was not confined to any par
ticular office. The patristic interpreters under
stand the passage in I Tim. iii. 13 of promotion
from the office of deacon to that of presbyter;
but " ° the good standing " which is gained by those
who " have served well as deacons " refers to the
honor rather than to the promotion. The liberty
of the Apostolic Church should not be confounded
with the fixed ecclesiastical order of a later age.
17. In the Roman Catholic Church: After the departure of the apostles, during the mysterious period between 70 and 150 A.D., where information is so scant, that change in the ecclesiastical organisation must have taken place which is found pretty generally established toward the close of the second century. The Didache knows only two classes of officers for the local churches, bishops cad deacons;
they were to be elected by the con‑
y. Change gregations, and are to receive honor is Position " together with the prophets and
after the teachers " (xv. 1‑2). Ignatius men‑
Apostolic lions deacons as a necessary part of Age. the governing body of the local church.
With him the bishops are raised above their fellow presbyters, and later they were regarded se successors of the apostles; the presbyters, at first simply pastors and teachers, were clothed with sacerdotal dignity (" priests "), which in the New Testament appears as the common property of all Christians; and the deacons became Levity, subject to the priests. They sic often compared to the Levites of the Old Testament. These three officers constituted the three clerical orders (ordines majonss or laierarc7eici.) in distinction from the laity.

371	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	D6i00n
An act of ordination marked the entrance. No one could become a bishop without passing first through the two lower orders; but in some cases a distinguished layman, as Cyprian or Ambrose, was elected bishop by the voice of the people, and hurried through the three ordinations. The subdeacon was later associated with the deacon and was declared a member of the " major orders " by Innocent 111. (1198‑1216; of. Friedberg, Kirchenrecht, p. 150; see ORDERS, HoLy). In fact, the Roman Catholic Church and the canon law have never formally decided whether the episcopate is a distinct order or not. The Council of Trent did not decide the question, although it speaks of the hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons (Schaff, Creeds, ii. 186‑187). The schoolmen, including Peter Lombard (Sent., IV. xxiv. 9), Hugo of St. Victor (De sacrdmentia, II. ii. 5), Thomas Aquinas (Suppiementum, xxxvii. 2, ed. Migne, iv. 1056), and Bonaventura (Breviloquium, vi. 12, ed. Peltier, vii. 327), say again and again that the episcopate is not a distinct order, but an office or function. They regarded the presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons as constituting the three major orders. The prevailing view to‑day in the Roman Catholic Church, if not the universal one (so Hergenrbther, Lehrbuch des katholiachen Kirehenrechte, pp. 208‑209, Freiburg, 1888), is that the episcopate is a distinct order and that the subdeaconate is not.
The deacons continued to be the almoners of the charitable funds of the congregation. Jerome calls them " ministers of the tables, and of widows." They had to find out and to visit the aged, the widows, the sick and afflicted, the confessors in prison, and to administer relief to them under the direction of the bishop. But in the course of time this primary function became secondary, or passed out of sight, as the sick and the poor were pth‑
ered together into hospitals and almsZ. Duties in houses, the orphans into orphan
	the Later asylums, and as each of these insti
	Church. tutions was managed by an appropriate
		officer. Another duty became the
prominent one‑viz., to assist in public worship,
especially at baptism and the holy communion.
Justin Martyr (Apol., lxv.; ANF, i. 185) says the
deacons distributed the bread and wine at the
Eucharist after they were blessed by the prodding
officer, and also carried them to the sick. They
arranged the altar, presented the offerings of the
people, read the Gospel, gave the signal for the
departure of the unbelievers and catechumens, re
cited some prayers, and distributed the oonseara
ted cup (in the absence of the priest, the bread also),
but were forbidden to offer the sacrifice. Preaching
is occasionally mentioned among their privileges,
after the examples of Stephen and Philip, but very
rarely in the West. Hilary the Deacon (Pseudo
Ambrose), in his commentary on Eph. iv. 11, says
that originally all the faithful preached and bap
tized, but that in his day the deacons did not preach.
In some cases they were forbidden, in others author
ized to preach. The Pond. ficale Romanum, how
ever, defines their duties and privileges with the
words " it is the duty of a deacon to minister at the
altar, to baptize, and to preach." They stood
near the bishops and presbyters, who were seated on their thrones in the church, and they were deputies and advisers of the bishops and often sent on confidential missions. This intimacy gave them an advantage and roused the jealousy of the presbyters. The Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 44; ANF, vii. 416) calls the deacon "the bishop's ear and eye and mouth and heart and soul, that the bishop may not be distracted with many cares." The archdeacon (q.v.) occupied a position little inferior to that of the bishop and hence he is called " the bishop's eye." He transacted the greater part of the business of the diocese. The canonical age for the deacon's order was set in 385 by Siricius, bishop of Rome, at thirty and later it was twentyfive, according to Num. viii. 24; the Council of Trent reduced it to twenty‑three (Seas. xxiii. 12).
IlI. In the Protestant Churches: In the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States deacons form one of the three sacred orders, as in the Greek and Roman churches. The canons require the age of twenty‑three years before ordination. Deacons are permitted to perform any of the divine offices except pronouncing the formula of absolution and consecrating the elements of the Lord's Supper. In practise the diaconate is merely a steppingstone to the priesthood. So the deacons are what in other church are called candidates for the ministry or licentiates. The archdeacon in England is a priest and a permanent officer next after the bishop, with a part of the episcopal power and jurisdiction: he is ex officra examiner of candidates for holy orders, and has a seat in convocation. The institution dates from Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, the first prelate who appointed an archdeacon in his diocese (1075).
In the Lutheran Church "diaconus" is merely a title, inherited from the Roman Church, of assistant clergymen and chaplaina of subordinate rank. They are often called second or third preacher or pastor. Luther desired the restoration of the apostolic deacons for the care of the poor and the church property (Works, ed. Walch, x'ii. 2464). In the last century the name, Ike the feminine form, " deaconess," was applied in Germany to members of certain fraternities, organized and trained for general Christian service (see IV., below, and the article DzACONE88, III.).
In the Reformed church the apostolic diaeonate was revived, as far as circumstances would permit, with different degrees of success. In the Reformation of the Church of Hesse (1526) it was Prescribed that each pastor (episcopua) should have at least three deacons as assistants in the care of the poor. The Church of Basel in 1529 made a aim,ar provision. Calvin regards the disoonate as one of the indispensable offices of the Church, and the care of the poor (curs pauperum) as their proper duty (" Institutes," bk. iv., chaps. 3, 9). The Reformed confessions acknowledge this office (Cmf. Gullica=, art. axis.; Con/. Beigica, art. xxe. and xxxi.). In the Dutch and German Reformed churches the deans are "to collect and to distribute the alms and other contributions for the relief of the poor, or the necessities of the congrar

THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
tion, and to provide for the support of the ministry of the Gospel." The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America teaches, in its form of government (chap. vi.): " The Scriptures clearly point out deacons as distinct officers in the church, whose business it is to take care of the poor, and to distribute among them the collections which may be raised for their use. To them, also, may be properly committed the management of the temporal affairs of the church." [In accordance with this principle, deacons are a normal part of the machinery of the local churches and receive ordination, though they are not members of the church session (the governing body of the local church; Bee PRESBYTERIANS). The Reformed Presbyterian Church has held (1878) that the office is open to women, and in several presbyteries they have been ordained to this service.]
In the Congregational or Independent churches the deacons are very important officers, and take the place of the lay elders in the Presbyterian churches At first the Pilgrim Fathers of New England elected ruling elders; but the custom went into disuse, and their duties were divided between the pastor and the deacons. Cf. H. M. Dexter, Congregationalism of the Lost Three Hundred Years, Boston, 1876, pp. , 131 sqq.
	In the Methodist Episcopal Church the deacons
constitute an order in the ministry, as in the Episco
pal Church, but without the jure divino theory of
apostolical succession. They are elected by the
annual conference, and ordained by the bishop.
Their duties are, " (1) To administer baptism, and
to solemnize matrimony; (2) To assist the elder in
administering the Lord's Supper; (3) To do all the
duties of a traveling preacher." Traveling deacons
must exercise their office for two years before they
are eligible to the office of elder. Local deacons are
eligible to the office of elder after preaching four
years. 	(PHILIP ScHAiimt) D. S. SCHAFF.
IV. The Modern Associations of Deacons in Germany: Like the similar deaconesses' organizations (see DEecoNEss, III.), these fraternities for Christian service are an outgrowth of the movement within the Protestant Church of Germany usually known as the " Innere Mission " (see INNERE MissioN). But this work, however much it might be regarded as incumbent on all, can not be so well done by untrained volunteers as by professional workers who devote their whole lives to it and receive the requisite special education. It was the " Innere Mission " which for the first time among German Protestants clearly perceived this truth and undertook to train such workers. The epochmaking dates are 1833, when the Rauhes Haus was founded for male workers, and 1836, when the first home for deaconesses was established at Kaiserswerth.
The Rauhes Ham, at Horn near Hamburg, was established by Johann Hinrich Wichem (q.v.) as a rescue‑home for neglected children. The original foundation speedily expanded into a community, where the children dwelt in " families " or groups, each group constituting a unit for the purposes of moral, intellectual, and manual training. The " housefather " associated with himself in the
s'ra
	administration of the work a number of assistants;
	and, as the work expanded and the number of
'			institutions increased, the necessity
		I• 10hann arose of a normal training for the
		Hinrich instructors. The Rduhes Haus became
		Wichern. therefore a seminary for the training
•			of workers in the field of the " Innere
	Mission," its early candidates coming almost ex
	clusively from the humbler classes and comprising
	men whose simple piety and Christian spirit of
	self‑sacrifice and devotion to duty qualified them
	admirably for this service. Wichern gave the
	name of " Brethren " to his first associates. In
	the execution of his wider plans he came into con
	flict with the authorities of the Rauhes Haus who
	regarded with mistrust the departure from the
	original idea of an institution for children, and he
	was finally allowed to proceed with his plans for
	a brotherhood only on condition that he should
	assume the financial risks of the venture. His
	devoted labors brought their reward; means were
	soon obtained for the establishment and main
	tenance of the fraternity which Wichern sought to
	organize on the model of the medieval Brothers
	of the Common Life so far as that was possible
	under modern conditions. He did not attempt to
	revive the office of deacon as it existed in the primi
	tive Church, and only reluctantly did he assent to
	the use of the term " deacon," which to him con
	noted a person officially set apart by the Church,
	while " brother " bore a more secular and inde
	pendent; signification.
		Wichern supplied the model upon which all later
	institutions of a similar nature have been founded,
	which differ from the original only in the general
	use of the name deacon, and in the wider scope of
	work which the necessities of other times produced.
	By the side of those institutions whose field em
	braced every phase of Christian charity, others
	arose devoted to particular branches of work. Thus
	in southwestern Germany there are institutions for
	the training of teachers for the poor, dating from
	the period of predominantly educational interest
	which saw the rise of the " Iunere Mission." Fur
			ther, there are associations for lay
		a. Eaten‑ preaching and others whose special
		sion of	field lies among the German Protes
		Wichera's tanta scattered in Catholic countries
	Work. Con‑ (see DIASPORA). The inner organi
		ditions of zation is practically the same every
	Admission. where, consisting of a clerical chief
			executive who exercises control over
	the educational and administrative work, and a
	curatoraum or committee of trustees in whom the
	property of the institution is vested. Common
	also are the conditions for admission, of which
	a summary of the regulations prevailing in the
	Rauhes Ham may serve as an illustration. Ap
	plicants must be of unblemished reputation, and
	masters of some trade or profession upon which in
	case of emergency they may fall back; admission
	for the purpose of acquiring a trade or profession
	is not tolerated. Candidates moat be between the
	ages of twenty and thirty, unmarried, and must
	have completed their term of military service.
	They must be prepared to yield absolute obedience

373	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Deacon
to the head of the house, submit to all tasks imposed upon them, and look upon their office not as a temporary calling, but as their mission in life. The course of training lasts three years, with an extension to five or six for those handicapped by a lack of the requisite educational qualifications, or preparing themselves for positions of responsibility in the service of the " Innere Mission." Candidates are not allowed to determine beforehand to which branch of the work they will devote themselves, and must be ready to pursue their work for a part of the time in affiliated institutions. The documents that must accompany applications for admission are comprehensive and deal minutely with the facts of the applicant's life and his moral and spiritual history, including the testimony of physicians, pastors, and parents or guardians. The greater number of candidates for admission are from the artisan and peasant classes.
The chief aim of the training to which candidates are subjected is the formation of steadfast Christian character, and in this respect the relations of the head of the house toward his associates and assistants are among the most decisive factors. The standard of intellectual acquirements set up is approximately that of the elementary school teacher or lower government official. In addition, however, there is the special knowledge of the main principles of pedagogy and of the history of education, studied chiefly in the form of biography, together with a mastery of catechetical methods.
The specialization of function must 3. Training. also be kept in view so that the needs
of the future colpotteur, instructor for the feeble‑minded, or elementary teacher may be provided for. The problem presented is by no means a simple one, in that it involves the training of students possessing the education of the child with the experience of the youth or the full‑grown man. Practical work is carried on side by side with theory, and every house of deacons stands in close connection with one or more relief institutions ‑rescue‑homes, hospitals, asylums for the feebleminded, homes for epileptics, etc. An important element is the religious life of the brotherhoods. Some satisfy their needs by attendance at the churches of the community of which they form a part, while others possess chapels of their own. The training of a brother once completed, he is detailed to outside duty, his graduation and dismissal being marked by a solemn service. The regulations of the Rauhes Haus, which may be taken again as typical, provide that on the acceptance by a brother of an office to which he is recommended by the head of the house he is pledged to render conscientious service and not to abandon his post without seeking the advice of the head of the house; failure to do so will exclude him from further appointment. A brother who abandons the service of the " Inxere Mission " ceases thereby to be a member of the fraternity. From the foregoing it is apparent that the brotherhoods possess their spiritual center in the deacons' houses. The truth is
briefly expressed in the following summary from the regulations of the Rauhes Ham: " The brethren of the Rauhes Haim are gathered in fraternal communion about the Rauhes Haus as a center, and their aim is to come to the aid of the community by devoting themselves to the welfare of those who have been estranged from the Church and its teachings. In belief and practise they live within the bounds of the Evangelical Church, to whose ordinances they submit themselves."
While the problem of the cooperation and communication is not a serious one with the minor fraternities, it is a weighty one in the case of the Rauhes Haus, whose branches are found in all parts of Germany. Here conferences em‑
4. Organi‑ bracing the organizations of the vari‑
	zation.	ous provinces are held every year, in
Wide Extent addition to which special conferences
of the Work. and general conventions are held from
		time to time at the Rauhes Haus.
With regard to their spheres of activity, every house
has its special field. AL the Rauhes Haus special
emphasis was laid in the beginning upon rescue
work; Duisburg devoted itself primarily to the
care of the sick; the summoning of Wichern to
Berlin led to the rapid rise of mission work in the
prisons. From many deacons' houses members
have been called to positions as colonial and home
missionaries, superintendents of labor colonies,
heads of other houses, etc. A complete list of in
stitutions wherein the members of the brotherhoods
have been active would include rescue‑homes, or
phan asylums, homes for destitute children, work
houses, hospitals, asylums for the feeble‑minded, the
insane, and the epileptic, industrial schools, appren
tices' lodging‑houses, city and harbor missions,
penal institutions, and institutes for the cure of
alcoholism. 		(THEODOR SCHXIMR.)
BIBLIOGRA°HY: I. J. B. Lightfoot, Commentary on Philippians, pp. 179 sqq., London, 1878; E. Hatch, Organization of the Early Christian Church. pp. 28 sqq., Oxford, 1888 (the preceding are the two authoritative discussions); R. Bohm, Kirchenrecht, Leipsie, 1892; F. J. A. Hort, Christian Ecclesia, London, 1897; A. C. McGiffert, Apostolic Ape, pp. 76‑77 687 sqq., New York, 1897; T. M. Lindsay, Church arid as Ministry in as Early Centuries, pp. 154‑155, 194‑195, London, 1902; W. Lowrie, The Church and its Organization, pp. 370‑383, ib. 1905; Schaff, Christian Church i. 59 sqq.; A. Harnack, in TU, ii. 5, pp. 57‑103, 1886; DB, i. 574‑575; EB, i. 1038‑40; and the various treatises on the Didache (q.v.).
II. and III. J. N. Seidl, Der Diaconat in der katholisehen Kirche, Regensburg, 1884; A. J. Binterim, Denkwitrdigkeiten, i. 335‑386, Mainz, 1825; J. C. W. Augusti, Denkw9rdigkeaten, xi. 194 aqq., Leipsie, 1830; Bingham, Oripines, book ii., chap. 20; DCA, i. 526‑533; KL, iii. 16601674; and for modern practise, the Book of Discipline of the various denominations.
IV. Important sources of knowledge are the Monatsschrift ffr Diakonie and Innere Mission, and Monatesehrift far Innere Vinion• also Aktenstacke aus der Verwaltunp des evangelischen Oberkirchenrathe, vols. iii. iv., Berlin, 1856‑57 (contain accounts of Fliedner, Wicbern, Jakobi, and others prominent in the movement). Consult: P. Schaff, Germany, its Universities, Theology and Religion, chap. xxxviii., Philadelphia, 1857; J. Wichern, Das Rauhe Haus and die Arbeitsfelder der Brader des Rauhen Houses, 1833‑83, Hamburg, 1883; idem, J. H. Wichern and die Brfiderschaft des Rauhen Hauses, ib. 1892; G: Uhlhorn, Die christliche Li,ebwthatipkeid, iii. 347 sqq., 365 sqq., Stuttgart, 1890.

I. In the Apostolic Age.
II. In the Patristic Age. Dmwuesees and Widows Age (§ 2). Duties (§ 3). Ordination (¢ 4). III. In the Protestant Churches.
1. The Earlier Period.
2. The Nineteenth Century.
I. In the Apostolic Age: The function dates from the earliest period of the Church, though the technical term in the feminine form, " deaconess " (Gk: diakonissa; Lat. diamnina, diacona), does not occur till a later period. Phoebe was a deaconess in the church of Cenchrea, the masculine form, diakorws, being applied to her (Rom. xvi. 1; . tranal. "servant" in Eng. versions). The women whose names are given in Rom. xvi. 12 were probably of the same class. It is not probable that there was a distinct order of deaconeases in the Apostolic Church in the modern sense. Nevertheless, Paul's mode of referring to Phoebe implies that she was recognized at Cenchrea and by himself as having a special work and authority. It is possible that deaconesses are referred to in I Tim. iii. 11. If so, they were distinguished from the " widows " (I Tim. v. 3‑16), who were not to be enrolled in that class till they had reached sixty years of age. From the earliest times the need must have been felt of a special class of women who should devote themselves to Christian service at times of baptism, visit the parts of the houses set aside for females, and perform other duties. While Phoebe is the only person in the New Testament distinctly called a deaconess, there are indications, as in the case of Dorcas (Acts ix. 36) and other eases, that woman's service was held in high esteem by the Church and had a distinctive character.
II. In the Patristic Age: The earliest reference in the subapostolic age to women functionaries in the Church is by the younger Pliny in his letter (x. 96) to Trajan about 110 A.D. He speaks of " young women who are called ministrce "; that is,
" deaconesses." The notices in the x. Deacon‑ literature of the second and third cen‑
esses and turies are very rare before the Apos‑
Widows, tolic Constitutions, which contain fro‑
quent references to both the widows and deaconesses and directions for their work and induction into office. When the Apostolic Constitutions were written the widows and deaconesses were distinct bodies (ii. 26; ANF, vii. 410), and the widows occupied a position inferior to the deaconeasea and are enjoined to be in subjection to them (iii. 7). Different rules are given for the consecration of each (vii. 19, 25). On the one hand, it is not clear that in the second century this distinction was maintained. On the other hand, it is clear that in the fourth century the order of widows was abandoned, while the order and term of deaconesses remained. The Council of Niceea (325) speaks only of " deaconesees." The Council of OrMans (533) speaks of the "widows who are called deaconesses."
In the literature of the second century, with the exception of the passage in Pliny, there is no ref‑
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
874
DEACONESS..
a Germany.
Origin. Theodor Fliedner(§1).
The Kaieerswerth Institute
Other Institutions (§ 3). b. England.
Sisterhoods (¢ 1).
Desconeseea in the Church of
England (§ 2).
Wesleyan 1)eaconessee (§ 3). o. Scotland. d. America.
The Lutherans (§ 1).
The Protestant Episcopal Church

The Methodists (§ 3).
Other Denominations (§ 4).
erenee to the deaconess by name and no distinct reference to any class but the widows. When Tertullian, at the beginning of the third century, speaks of " virgins " and distinguishes them from the " widows " (De virgintbus velarcdis, ix.; De »wrwgaynia, xi.; etc.) he does not seem to have in mind a class of functionaries in the Church. Ignatius in his letter to Symrna (xiii.; cf. Lightfoot, ii. 322 aqq.) speaks of " virgins who are called widows," and Polycarp in his letter to the Philippians (iv.; Lightfoot, ii. 912) calls " the prudent widows " the altar of God. This expression, which is also used in the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 26),
was interpreted . to mean that the women devoted themselves to prayer and holy thoughts. Polycarp is speaking of widows in their official relation, as he mentions them before deacons and priests. At the beginning of the third century the institution of widows seems to have been widely prevalent. Clement (Hom., xi. 36, Recognitiorees, xv.) and
Tertullian refer to them repeatedly. Lucian in his " Death of Peregrinua " also speaks of aged widows who ministered to Peregrinua in prison, bringing orphans with them. But a change took place and in the middle of the third century the " widows " at Rome were simply a class of poor women dependent upon the support of the Church (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VI. xliii. 11).
While the order of widows was given up in the West, it continued to flourish in the East. But they can not be followed beyond the time of composition of the Apostolic Constitutions. The term " widow " seems to have been dropped. On the other hand, the deaconess comes into prominence and is mentioned in the conciliar decisions of the East and the West and in the legislation of Justinian (Novelke, vi. 6, exxiii. 30; cf. G. Pfannmilller, Die kirchliche Gesetzgebung Juatiniasns, Berlin, 1902, pp. 72 sqq.). In the West, Ambrose, commenting upon I Tim. iii. 11, declared that women were forbidden to hold office in the Church, and Jerome in commenting upon Rom. avi. 1 and I Tim. iii. 11 (the quotations are given by Uhlhorn, p. 408) speaks of women functionaries as still existing in the East and gives the impression that they had ceased to exist in the West. However, there seem to have
been deaconesaea in Gaul as late as the sixth century, as attested by the Second Council of Ori6sns in 533. An inscription at Ticinum, dated 539, bears the came of the " deaconess (diaconiasa) Theodora " (Uhlhorn, p. 409). Deaconessea continued in the Eastern Church down to the eighth century. The terms " deaconess " and " archdeaconesa " were
used as designations of the officers in convents and they are still found in the twelfth century at Constantinople aiding in the communion.
The reason why the orders of widows and deacon‑

875	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Dswoaess
esses fell into desuetude is in part the abuses of the Montanists, who allowed women to preach, while Montanus himself went about with two women, a thing which gave much scandal. Some of the heretics, following Simon Magus, were mixed up with prophetesses who were supped to be subjects of revelation and taught contrary to the teaching of Paul. Other reasons were the moral dangers besetting such women. Rules were required distinctly forbidding clerics of the lower orders to visit widows and deaconesses without special permission from the bishop or priest and then not without an attendant (Synod of Hippo, 393; cf. Hefele, Conciliengeachichte, ii. 58). Still other reasons were the growth of monastic houses for nuns which offered a safe refuge as well as a distinct religious and clerical calling for women, and the cessation of the need of female ministries after adult baptism gave way to infant baptism.
The age at which women might enter the class of widows was reduced from sixty (Apostolic Conatitutiom, iii. 1). Tertullian (De virginibua mZandie, ix.) tells of a virgin who had been admitted into the order of widowhood at the age of twenty, but speaks of it as a notorious irregularity. The Theodosian code of 390 (cf. Hefele, ut sup., ii. 519) required obedience to the Pauline rule re‑
quiring the age of sixty. As for the
a. Age. deaconessee, the Council of Chaloedon
(451; canon xv.; of. Hefele, ut sup.) allowed their consecration at the age of forty, but only after probation. The Justinian code (Novello;, csxiii. 13) likewise prescribed the age of forty. In case a deaconess married, both she and her husband were to be anathematized. According to the Justinian code, if she married or allowed herself to be seduced, she became liable to the death penalty and the man suffered death by the sword (Pfannmtiller, ut sup., p. 72). Olympias (d. 420), the deaconess of Constantinople praised by Chrysostom and to whom he addressed seventeen letters, became a widow at eighteen and seems to have immediately entered upon diaconal functions.
The statement of the Apostolic Constitutions (iii. 15) is regulative of the functions of these women: " A deaconess is to be ordained for the ministrations toward women." She is Called the assistant or minister of the deacon (viii. 28). She was to be sent to do certain services for which it was distinctly ordered that the deacon should not be sent (iii. 15). At baptism she assisted the presbyter " for the sake of decency " (viii. 28). The bishop was in.
atructed to anoint only the head of a
3. Duties. woman and the anointing of the other
parts was left to the deaconess (iii. 15). A change, however, took place and this cue. tom was deliberately set aside. The Synod of Dovin in Armenia (527; Hefele, ut sup., p. 718) forbade the ministry of deaeonesses at baptism. The prohibition probably grew out of the unwillingness to allow to women even the appearance of performing clerical services. Tertullian (De baptiamo, xvii.) allowed laymen to baptize, but expressly forbade women both to baptise and to teach. The Aptolic Constitutions (iii. 9; also
Origen, Homily on Isa. vi.) state expressly that deaconesses were not to serve at the altar, and forbid them to teach and baptize or in any wise perform the functions of the priest. Another duty of the deaconess was to stand at the entrance to the church through which the women passed to their own place in the auditorium to greet those that entered, to show them seats, and to preserve order (ApoaWic CorutUutiona, ii. 57).
Roman Catholic scholars in interpreting the patristic statements on the induction of the deaconess into office deny that there was any rite of ordination. This interpretation has plainly in its favor the nineteenth canon of the Council of Nicms (Hefele, ut sup., i. 427), which distinctly states that " the deaconewes are without 'any impition of hands and are to be ranked with the laity." The Synod of Laodicea, a generation or two later, which speaks of presbutidea and prokathemetua:, that is, female presbytids (not presbyters; cf. Epipbanius, lxax.) and overseers, seems to deny them official pition in the Church, but the meaning of the passage is vague (cf. Hefele, i. 757). On the other hand, there are plain statements that a rite of ordination was performed. There was an imposition of hands (Epipbanius, ut sup.), and such imposition was made by the bands of
4. Ordina‑ the bishop and in the presence of the
	tion.	presbytery, the deacons, and those
		already belonging to the order of dea
conesses (Apostolic Constitutions, viii. 19). The
code of Justinian treats of their ordination (cf.
Pfannnuiiller, ut sup., p. 72). The form of prayer
used on such occasions is given in the Apostolic
Constitutions (viii. 20). The Synod of Orange in
441 (canon xxvi. ; Hefele, ii. 295) forbade the further
ordination of women and allowed them only the
consecration imparted to the laity. By the Synod
of Epao in 317 (Hefele, ii. 884) such ordination
was forbidden in all Burgundy. Similarly the
Second Synod of Orl6ans in 533 (Hefele, ii. 758)
denied to women " on account of the weakness of
their sex " the diaconal benediction. This would
seem to have been of the same nature as ordination
to the diaconate. During the Middle Ages the
heretical sects ordained deaconess (cf. D611inger,
i. 188, 203, and elsewhere).
III. In the Protestant Churches.‑i. The marker Period: The Reformers made no provision for the official recognition of women as functionaries in the Church. Among the rare notices of deaoonewss are those in connection with the Church of Wesel from 1575 to 1810 and the Puritan church of Amsterdam. One of the first acts of the Church of Wesel was to decide to employ women. After long delay the Synod of Middelburg in 1581 pro. nounced against the proposition " on account of various inconveniences which might arise out of it, but in times of pestilence and other eielrnewes where any service is required among sfolt women which would be indelicate to deacons they ought to attend to this through their wives or others whose services it may be proper to engage." The conclusions drawn up by Thomas Cartwright (q.v.) and Walter Travers as the result of several confessions of Puritan ministers in 1575 contained a clause

Deaconess
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
" touching deacons of both aorta, namely men and
women." Both were to be chosen by the congre
gation and " to be received into their office with
the general prayers of the whole Church " (cf. D.
Neal, History of the puritans, i., New York, 1855,
p. 140). In Gov. Bradford's Dialogue itis stated
that there was one deaconess " ° who visited the sick,
relieved the poor, and sat in s convenient place in
the congregation, with a little birchen rod in her
hand, and kept little children in great awe from dis
turbing the congregation. She did frequently visit
the sick and weak, especially women, and if there
were poor she would gather relief for them of those
that were able, or acquaint the deacons, and she
was obeyed as s mother in Israel and an officer of
Christ " (A. Young, Chronicles of the PxZgrim Fathers,
Boston, 1841, pp. 445‑446). Early American 6on
gregationalism recognized the office and ordered the
" ancient widows (where they may be had) to min
ister in the Church, in giving attendance to the
sick, and to give succor unto them, and others in
the like necessities " (Cambridge platforms 1648,
vii. 7). This theory was not put in practise (e f. W.
Walker, History of the Congregational Churchta in
the United States, New York, 1894, p. 230). The
Mennonites of Holland seem to have had the cus
tom of appointing deaconesses to serve among the
sick and poor and do other Christian and charitable
work.
2. The Nineteenth Century,: No more important feature characterizes the recent history of Protestantism than the development of woman's public activity in the Church. Woman's work among women and for women in the various missionary organizations and in other bodies is in the direct line of the diaconal work of Phcebe and other female "helpers " of the early Church. Some of the Protestant bodies have given official recognition to the vocation of the congregational deaconess in one form or another, without, however, sanctioning an order of deaconesses in the sense that the order of deacons is sanctioned. It is difficult to make a sharp distinction when an ecclesiastical body commends training‑schools for deaconesses and yet denies their election and setting apart to their office by the individual congregation.
d. Germany: The organization and official training of women for Christian work in the Protestant Churches were developed in the early half of the nineteenth century, and found their first embodiment in the institution of deacronesaes founded by Pastor Theodor Fliedner (q.v.), which has been the model for similar organizations throughout the Protestant world. This institution was founded in 1836 at Kaiserawerth on the Rhine, near Dusseldorf. Fliedner was not moved
in the first instance by the pious idea 1. Origin. of reviving the apostolic order of
Theodor female helpers, although he believed
Fiiedaer. it to have been in existence in primi‑
tive times. He was animated by practical considerations to meet a pressing need of his day, the proper care of the sick and the training of neglected children. A feeling existed in certain pious German circles that the Church needed an
order of trained women, similar to the sisterhoods of the Roman Catholic Church. Thin feeling found expression in a pamphlet published by Pastor K1tSane of Bialicli near Wesel in 1820, entitled " The Revival of the Deaconeaees of the Ancient Church in our Ladies Societies." In 1835 the pious Count Adalbert von der Recke‑Vohneratein began the publication of a periodical " Desconesaes, or Life and Labors of the Handmaids of the Church in Teaching and Training and in Nursing the Sick." It was Fliedner, however, who gave practical embodiment to this feeling. Before 1836, on his visits to Holland in 1823 and 1832, he was struck with the employment of deaconesses among the Mennonites. They were appointed by the official boards of the churches and did their work without remuneration. In his description of his experiences in Holland he wrote: " This praiseworthy early Christian institution of deaconesses should be revived by other Protestant communions." He was also struck, on his visit in England in 1832, with the contrast between the fine architecture of the hospital buildings and the incompetency of the attendants within. Impressed by the need of trained women, after these visits he prepared a constitution for " the Order of Deaconeeses for the Rhenish Provinces," which was signed in the house of Count. Stolberg at Diiaseldorf, 1836. In October of the same year the first deaconess, Gertrud Reichard, entered the Institute. Two years later it sent the first deaconesses to the city hospital of Elberfeld.
The Institute has grown to large proportions. It educates three kinds of deaconesaes. The first class devote themselves to the care of the nick, the poor, and the fallen in Magdalen asylums. The second dedicate themselves to teaching; the third class aid ministers in pariah‑work. The fundamental conditions of admission are
2. The Christian character and a strong con‑
8sisers‑ stitution. Other rules are that candiw‑th In‑ dates must be of suitable age, must be
stit7'at°wnmarried or widows, and must consecrate themselves for five years to the office. Candidates are accepted on probation for a year. The Kaiaerawerth deaconesses take no vows, wear no crucifixes, and are distinguished by a simple and distinctive, but not necessarily uniform, dress. The internal organization of the houses comprises as a rule a clergyman as rector and chaplain, assisted by a woman superior, of whom the former exercises general administrative control, while the more intimate detail's of domestic economy are in the hands of the sister superior. In a few institutions the influence of Roman Catholic models may be discerned in that the clergyman acts only in the capacity of spiritual adviser to the sisterhood. The Kaiserewerth institutions lay stress upon their form of organization. The time of training lasts from two to six years according to the attainments of the women on entering the Institute and according to their aptness. The instruction includes a thorough course of training in Biblical knowledge. At the the of the term of preparation the deaconesses are consecrated by a fitting ritual and with the laying on

377	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Deaoonsss
of hands, and promise obedience and fidelity in their work.*
	The Kaiserewerth Institute supplies not only
many hospitals, orphanages, and other establish
ments in Germany with deaconesses, but has under
its control hospitals in foreign lands, e.g., in Jeru‑
		salem (founded 1851), Constantinople
	8. Other	(1852), Smyrna (1853), Alexandria
	institu‑	(1857), Florence (1860), Cairo, etc. In
	tions.	1861, at the twenty‑fifth anniversary of
		the Kaiserswerth Institute, the number
of daughter institutions in Germany, Austria, Bohe
mia, Hungary, Holland, France, England, Scandi‑

e More detailed information is given in the article Diakonan‑ and DiakoniasenMussr by Theodor Sohiter in the Hauok‑Hersog RE se fellows:
The conditions for admission are the same to the minutest degree for all establishments, and an extract from those of the house at Altons may serve as an example. The future deaconess must be of unblemished reputation, and is required to offer evidence of the facts of her life and her relations to family, employers, and an others under whose authority or influence she may have come. Sognd health is a requirement, but it is recognised that womAn of alight physical constitution have shown themselves capable of excellent service in charitable work. Eighteen and tbirtyeQx are set as the age‑limits, but the rule may be waived in exceptional cases. Candidates are supposed to possess a common school education, and it in desirable that they shall have had some experience in housework. The documents to be submitted in applying for admission comprise a short autobiography of some minuteness, evidence of permission granted by parents or guardians, a testimonial of moral character supplied by the applicant's pastor, medical, baptismal, and confirmation certificates. Statistics have shown that the great bulk of candidates come from the peasant and artisan classes and the class of small officials, but large numbers, too, are the children of clergymen, professors and teachers, merchants. and landed proprietors.
Successful applicants are retained conditionally for a few weeks, after which they enter upon a year of actual probation. During this year the neophyte is brought to a thorough 'understanding of the conditions confronting her in her future calling, the chief object being to discern the existence of inclination and adaptability for the work. In most houses the hospital is the first and most important school of practise. Parallel with practise in the hospital runs theoretical instruction under the direction of the head physician. Where necessary, instruction is given also in elementary subjects. The religious side is not neglected; in many institutions a few hours are devoted every week to religious instruction in which as many of the younger sisters as can be spared from their daily work participate. Under the head of religious instruction is included instruction in the theory and history of charitable work, while the religious factor proper is supplied by a study of Bible history and geography, church history, the catechism, and the liturgy.
After the completion of the probationary year the candidate is admitted to the novitiate, and after a further training, ranging from two to six years, there follows the dedication. In this the deaconess promises obedience. faithfulness, and devotion in her chosen calling and to remain in it so long as it shall please the Lord to allow her. This is not a vow such as is taken in the Roman Catholic orders. From the day of her dedication the neophyte has full rights of membership in the sisterhood. She has become the daughter of the house which is to be her actual home through life, her guide and her provider in sickness and in old age Long before her dedication, the future deaconess may be despatched on service to any post which the authorities of her house may select; and such service is in fact a part of her preparation. She is never assigned to any permanent position, but is subject to whatever arrangements the sisterhood may make for her eerviow. Marriage in not allowed for practical reasons purely. The list of institutions wherein the desoonesses have been active includes hospitals, poorhouses, orphan asylums, elementary schools, industrial schools, rescue‑homes, homes for fallen women, and prisons.
navia, Italy, and the United States was twentyseven. Among the earlier ones were the home in Paris (1841), St. Loup near Lausanne (1841), Strasburg (1842), Dresden and Utrecht (1844), Bern, and Bethany in Berlin (1845), Stockholm (1849), Riehen near Basel (1852), Stuttgart (1854), St. Petersburg (1859), Copenhagen (1863). In 1904 there were in Germany forty‑six institutions connected with the Kaiserswerth mother house. The yearly expenditure of the mother house averages 700,000 marks. A triennial conference of homes has been instituted. Many institutions have become members of the association which are not the direct daughters of the Fliedner mother house, for example the Milwaukee Lutheran Deaconesses' home. In 1905 the conference included seventy five institutions with 14,501 deaconesses.
Independent deaconesses' institutions have also been founded in different cities of Germany which have adopted the Kaiserswerth idea, e.g., the Elizabeth hospital and Deaconesses' home in Berlin founded by Gossner in 1840; Sarepta in Bielefeld (1869), where the eminent philanthropist Friedrich von Bodelschwingh assumed the superintendency in 1872; in Neuendettelsau by the philanthropist Wilhelm L6he (1854); Stuttgart (1865); Altona (1867); etc. The Moravians established one at Niesky in 1842. The Methodists of Germany agitated the matter in the sixties and in 1876 opened their first house at Frankfort and then in Berlin (1883), Hamburg (1886), Magdeburg, Munich, Vienna, Strasburg, Zurich, and other cities. They also have a home in Gothenburg, Sweden, founded 1900. The Evangelical Association in Germany has homes at Berlin (1887), Hamburg (1888), Strasburg (1889), Elberfeld (1890), Stuttgart (1896), and Carlsruhe (1900). The German Baptists have the deaconesses' home, Bethel, in Berlin (1887).
b. England: The influence of Kaiserswerth upon the Protestant Churches of England and Scotland resulted in a general discussion of the subject of deaconesses and in the establishment of deacon‑esses' institutions. With Elizabeth Fry and Florence Nightingale (qq.v.) the permanent efforts at organization may be said to have begun, and they came under the immediate influence of Pastor Fliedner and the Kaiserewerth work. ‑ Miss Nightingale went through a thorough course of training at Kaiserswerth before taking charge of the female sanitarium in London, and Mrs. Fry, after a visit to the German town, established the first English institution for the training of nurses in London in 1840. In 1846 Fliedner brought four deaconesses to the German hospital in London.
A new development was furnished in the sisterhoods established within the pale of the Anglican Church. These were due in some measure to the Anglo‑Catholic movement led by Pusey and the Tractarians, and it is not improbable that with the high reverence which this party had for Roman
Catholic institutions they would have
1.91ster. established sisterhoods even if the hoods. deaconess movement had not gone be‑
fore. The first Protestant sisterhood was established or consecrated by Dr. Pusey in 1847 in Park Village near London. The same year

THE NEW
SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Prlacfila Lydia Sellon organised the Sisterhood of Mercy at Devonport, binding herself with three other ladies to an association for the relief of the sufferings of the poor. They adopted a uniform dress, the use of the cress, etc. They founded at Devonport a house of destitute children, a " House of Peace " for older girls, and an industrial school. Miss Sellon was addressed as mother superior. Since then many sisterhoods with various names have been founded in the Church of England, e.g., the Sisterhood of St. John the Baptist at Clewer, founded in 1849, which devoted itself more especially to the reformation of fallen women. The difference between the sisterhoods of the Church of England and the order of deaeonesses consists in this, that the sisterhood leans in its organization to the convent as its model. The sisters take vows, live strictly in communities, acknowledge a mother superior, and often find refuge in the sisterhood for the sake of pious devotion more than for philanthropic activity.
The deaconess idea as. carried out at Kaiserewerth was formally commended by Dr. Tait, then bishop of London, in his charge May 2, 1850. From 1868 to 1871 woman's work was the subject of animated discussion in the convocation of Canterbury. In 1881 Bishop Tait 'invested Elizabeth Catherine Ferard (d. 1883) with the office of deaconess, and it was generally regarded as a revival of the apostolic office. Miss Ferard had been trained at Kaiserswerth and with the aid of Dean Champneys and others opened the deaconesses' institution of North London, a diocesan institution founded on the Kaiserewerth model. In 1871 rules were laid
down for diocesan deaconesses' homes 8. Deacon. and signed by the archbishop of Can‑
6112615
		in the terbury and eighteen bishops. The
	ohnmh of "Principleeetsforth"that adeaeon
	11nalwad. ess is a woman set apart by the bishop
		under that title for service in the
Church. She is at liberty to resign her commission
as deaconess or may be deprived of it by the
bishop." . She was to be an auxiliary to the
pastorate, and not a conventual. Dean How‑
In contended for this idea and he saw it
1011
prevail. The institution was taken up as a diocesan matter and in 1904 there were deacon' homes in the dioceses of Canterbury, Chester, Ely, London, Salisbury, Winchester, Llandaff, Exeter, and Rochester. Them! are also deaconeeses' institutions in Lichfield, Durham, and Worcester. The Mfidmay institutions with the deaconesses' home as the center were due to the real and ova _
power of William Pennefather, an English clergyman. The beginning was made at Barnet in 1880, and the institutions moved to Mfidmay in 1884. The deaconesses' department has three branches. medical work, parish work, and foreign mission work. The Institution has stations in Malta, Jamaica, and Hebron. While the Mildmay institutions were founded by Anglicans, they are not intended to be strictly denominational. The only mother house in England belonging to the Kaiserswerth group is Tottenham, North London, founded in 1877 by Dr. Michael Leseron, a converted Jew, and his wife, and aided by Samuel Morley with a
378
gift of £7,000. Dr. Laseron was very successful in training deaconesees. The institution supplies a number of hospitals, including one in Sierra Leone.
	The Weeleyans of England have been active in
promoting the work of the deaconess. In 1888 the
Rev. Hugh Price Hughes (q.v.) formed an organiza
tion called " The Sisters of the People " with a
home near the British Museum, named Catherine
House after his wife; in 1891 it was removed to
larger quarters in Viceroy Street. The sisters do
		all kinds of mission work, visit the
8. Wesley‑ poor, conduct midnight missions, teach
an Dew‑ in kindergartens, etc. The Wesleyan
	°°n*°°°°•	Deaconess' Institution was founded
		in 1890 by the Rev. T. B. Stevenson,
and has two trainingechools, Newborn House,
London, N. E., and Calvert House, at Leicester.
The deacon are stationed in all parts of Eng
land and are employed chiefly in parish work.
The institution has stations in New Zealand, South
Africa, and Ceylon. There are three departments of
work contemplated by the training: the teaching
and care of children, nursing the sick, and home and
foreign mission work. The training includes Bibli
cal and medical instruction, and lasts a year. The
Institution was formally adopted by the Wesleyan
Conference in 1902. The following extract from
an official report gives an idea of the Wesleyan
conception of the deacons and her work:
What is a Wesleyan deaconess t One who belongs to the Order no‑ogled, governed by the Council, and eano_ boned by the Wesleyan Methodist Church. But her work in not sectarian, and she may by arrangement serve other than Methodist churches . . . . The work of the des. oonees is anything that the cause of Christ and the poor demand. She is nurse teacher, visitor, even preacher when necessary. She is a helper in. sorrow and a r from all sin. Her work varies in every locality.
c. 6ootland: Fliedner visited Scotland in 1848 and met Chalmers. In 1888 the Church of Scotland took the matter of deaconesses' work seriously in hand, and in 1887 the Assembly commended the establishment of deaconeeeea' training‑schools and more especially the Edinburgh House, a home for deaconeeees established the same year. Dr. Archibald H. Charterie was the most influential person in bringing about this consummation. St. Ninian's Hospital is connected with the home. The first deaconess was installed in office Dec. 9, 1888. The work is incorporated is the constitution of the Established Church, which not only commended the training of deaconeesee, but established rules for their admission, garb, etc.
d. Amerioa: ‑Practically all denominations in the United States have adopted in one force or another the special training of women for Christian work. Some have made the work of the deaconess a part of their constitution, or have officially recog. nixed the deaconess as a local church official or functionary appointed by the local church. The
fathers of the deaconess movement in the United States Were the Rev. W. A Paseavaut and the Rev. W. A. Muhlenberg (qq.v,), the former a Lutheran, the latter an Episcopalian of Lutheran birth. The
Lutheran Church first recognised the gsisergwerth movement. At the age of twenty‑four Dr. Passer vent was sent se s delegate to the meeting in Lon‑

379	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Dasooness
don in 1846 which resulted in the foundation of the Evangelical Alliance, and he afterward visited Kaiserswerth. In his annual report of Jan. 1, 1847,
Fliedner said, " We have been urgently 1. The requested to send deaconesses from Lutherans. here to North America." In 1849 he
	accompanied four deacons to Pitts
burg, where they were stationed in a hospital
already opened by Dr. Passavant and dedicated
July 17, 1849, Fiiedner being present. On May
28, 1850, the first American deacons, Katherine
Louisa Marthens, trained under Dr. Passavant,
was consecrated (cf. Spath, p. 25). Dr. Passavant
was not successful in budding up a permanent
deaconesses' home in Pittsburg, and the enterprise
was given up because women did not come forward
for the work and for other reasons. The Passavant
hospital in Pittsburg still employs deacon, as
do the affiliated institutions for epileptics in Roches
ter, N. Y., and for orphans at Zelienople, Pa.
The hospital at Jacksonville, Ill., formerly em‑ .
ployed them. The Mary J. Drexel Home in Phila
delphia, opened in 1888, is a Lutheran institution
and occupies the finest building consecrated to
deaconesses' work in America. It was founded by
Dr. Lankenau as a memorial to his wife, and asso
ciated with the German Lutheran hospital of
Philadelphia, of which Dr. Lankenau was treas
urer. This deaeoneasea' home was started in 1884.
In 1894 it was brought into organic relation with
the Lutheran Church and joined the group of the
Kaiserswerth institutions. The deaconesses labor
in kindergartens and hospitals and in parish work.
The Milwaukee Deaconesses' Home was established
in 1891, Dr. Passavant having founded a hospital
in that city in 1863, of which his son, the Rev. R. W.
Passavant, was made director in 1900, but lived less
than a year to administer the office. There are
other Lutheran deaconesses' homes connected with
the various branches of American Lutheranism:
in Baltimore (founded 1895), Omaha (Swedish,
1887), Brooklyn (founded by Mrs. Boers, wife of
the Norwegian consul, 1883), Minneapolis (Nor
wegian, 1888), Chicago (1900), Buffalo, and St.
Paul. In most cases, if not in all, these institutions
were organized with the aid of one or more deacon
essea from Germany or Scandinavia. In 1905 the
Mary J. Drexel, Milwaukee, and Omaha houses had
respectively 47, 19, and 22 deacons, and 25, 13,
and 15 probationers. The sixth annual conference
of the " ° Evangelical Lutheran Deaconess' Mother
houses in the United States " was held in Milwaukee
in 1905.
The Protestant Episcopal Church followed the Lutherans in the deacon' work in America. In 1843 Rev.W. A. Muhlenberg,thenrectorof theChurch of the Holy Communion, New York city, organised a sisterhood, which, however, was not formally constituted till 1852, when a house was erected adjoining the church. A dispensary was started and developed into St. Luke's Hospital. The second organizer tion was the Sisterhood of the Good Shepherd in Baltimore, formed into a community in 1863, but its history dates back to 1855, when, with the approval of the bishop of the diocese, the Rev. Horace Stringfellow of St. Andrew's Church inaugurated
the movement. A sister superior stands at the head of the community. The Sisterhood of St. Mary in New York was founded in 1865, five sisters being consecrated to their work Feb.
g. The 2, by the bishop of the diocese in St. protest Michael's Church. The sisters take Npisoopai vows and none but members of the
	Church.	ProtestantEpiscopal Church are admit
		ted to these bodies. The Sisterhood
of St. Mary is probably the most influential in
the Episcopal Church. It carries on an extensive
work in New York and beyond. The Sisterhood
of St. John was established in Washington in 1867.
The Sisterhood of 8t. John the Baptist (New York,
1881) is a branch of the similar body in England.
The Sisterhood of All Sainte was transferred from
London to Baltimore in 1891, and the Sisterhood
of St. Margaret from East Grinstead, Eng., in 1873
to Boston. The Sisterhood of the Holy Childhood
of Jesus was established by the Rev. C. C. Grafton
in Providence, R. I., in 1882. The Protestant
Episcopal Church has not officially approved the
sisterhoods, but it has given approval to the dear
conesses' organizations and the office of deacons.
In 1864 a diocesan deacon' institution was
formed in Mobile, Ala. On Feb. 11, 1872, Bishop
Littlejohn of Long Island consecrated six to the
office of deacons in St. Mary's Church, Brooklyn.
The General Convention of the Episcopal Church
had before it for a number of years the subject of
woman's work and the question of reviving the
primitive order of deaconess. In 1889 action was
taken by the Triennial Convention and a " Training
School for Deacons "was opened by Bishop
Potter in New York in 1890 and placed under the
jurisdiction of the Rev. W. R. Huntington and
Grace Church. It provides a course of training
covering two years. Matriculants must be of the
age of eighteen. After the course they are at
liberty to labor under the direction of a bishop or to
join an association of deaconesses or a sisterhood.
Similar institutions have been begun in Phila
delphis and in Toronto, Canada. The deacons
idea has also found incorporation in the English
colonies under the charge of the Anglican episco
pate (cf. Golder, pp. 464 sqq.).
The Methodists of the United States have done more than any other American denomination to utilize the movement started by Pastor Fliedner and to modify it according to their needs. By action of the General Conference in 1888, due especially to Rev. J. M. Thoburn, afterward bishop of India, the deaconess is recognized as an official of the Church (cf. Wheeler, pp. 269 sqq.). She takes no vows; " her duties are to minister to the poor, visit the sick, pray with the dying, care for the orphan, seek the wandering, comfort the sorrowing, save the sinning, and, relinquishing wholly other pursuits, to devote herself in a general way to such forms of Christian labor as may be suited to her abilities." Each annual conference through a board, composed partly of women, exercises oversight over the work and issues diaconal certificates to women properly accredited. In 1900 the General Conference perfected the law of the Church on this subject. The bishops are now a general dea‑

Deaconess
Death
conessea' board, having general supervision over all
deaconesses'	work throughout the Church. One
	of its duties is to authorize new dea‑
	8. The	conesses' homes. The committee of
Methodists. the annual conferences is continued
		as established by the conference
of 1888. Deaconesses are licensed and conse
crated to their office after two years of continuous
probationary service and an examination. They
must be twenty‑three years of age and unmarried.
The work of the deaconess is thus an integral part
of the discipline of the Methodist Church. There
is also in the Methodist Church " The Deaconesses'
Bureau of the Woman's Home Missionary Soci
ety " and " The Methodist Deaconessea' Society,"
with headquarters in Chicago. The " Chicago
Training School for City Home and Foreign Mis
sions " was established as early as 1885 by Mrs.
Lucy Rider Meyer. In 1890 the first deaconesses'
home, under that distinctive name, was opened in
Detroit by Mrs. Jane Bancroft Robinson, who was
instrumental in opening similar homes in Phila
delphia Baltimore, Buffalo, Pittsburg, Los Ange
les, and other cities. The " Elizabeth Gamble
Deaconesses' Home and Christ's Hospital " was
founded in 1888 in Cincinnati. The " Lucy Webb
Hayes Deaconesses' Home and National Training
School" was founded in Washington in 1889 and
has associated with it the Sibley Hospital (1894).
The same year a training‑school was founded in
New York. One of the largest houses in the Method
ist Episcopal Church and in the United States is
the " Rebecca Deaconesses' Home and Asbury
Hospital " in Minneapolis, founded in 1891. At
the present time there are over one hundred deacon
eases' homes and training‑schools in the United
States under the care of the Methodist Church.
It has also deaconesses' homes in Madras, Calcutta,
Lucknow, and other cities of India. In 1902 the
value of their properties was $2,402 000.
The German Reformed Church has a home in Cleveland, founded 1892. The Evangelical Association has one in St. Louis (1890). The German Methodists have homes in Cincinnati (Bethesda, 1891), St. Paul (the " Elizabeth Haas Deaconess Home," 1891), Chicago (the "German Deaconesses' Institute," 1892), Louisville (1895), Kansas City (1897), and elsewhere. The United Brethren incorporated the deaconess office and idea into their discipline in 1891. The Congregationalists of Illinois secured a charter for " the American Congregational Deaconesses' Association " in
4. Other 1901 and established a training‑school
Denomina‑ in Chicago. The first organization in tions. the Baptist Church was the " Baptist Deaconesses' Society of the City of New York," organized 1895. The first deaconess was ordained after a full course of study in 1897. The deaconesses wear a special garb and are called sisters. The Christian Church under the lead of Rev. A. M. Harvuot established a " Training School for Pastoral Helpers " in Cincinnati in 1899, now removed to Des Moines and connected with Drake University. The Presbyterian Church, North, in 1899 refused to recognize the special office of the congregational deaconess, but several churches have
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
880
elected and set apart deaconeasea by a special form
of consecration. In accordance with action of the
General Assembly in 1892, which commended the
establishment of institutions and training homes
for the instruction of godly women duly recom
mended by sessions and presbyteries for practical
Christian work, a training‑school for deaconesses
was opened in connection with the First Presby
terian Church of Baltimore in 1903. The Presby
terian Church, South, in 1879 provided for the recog
nition of godly women in church work by the sessions,
and in 1906 the synod of the United Presbyte
rian Church sanctioned congregational deaconesaes.
Lastly, a class of interdenominational deaconesses'
homes may be mentioned, such as the " German
Deaconeases' Home " in Cincinnati founded in 1888;
the " Protestant Dea,conesses' Home " in Indian
apolis (1894); and the " German Deaconesaea'
Home" in Buffalo (1895). For a further presenta
tion of the work of women in the Church see the
article WomAN's WORK. 	D. S. SCHAFF.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: On I. and IL: Bingham, Origdnea, books i., ii., iv.; L. Thomassin, Yetua et nova eccleaim dieciplina, I. iii., chaps. 47‑50, Paris, 1728; A. J. C. Pankowaki, De diaconiaaia tommentatio, Regensburg, 1868; T. Zahn, Ignatius von Antiochien pp 580‑587, Goths, 1873; G. Uhlhorn, Die chriatliche L%ebeathdt%pkeit, 3 vole., Stuttgart, 1881‑90, vol. i. In der alter KCrche, 1881, Eng. transl., Christian Charity in the Early Church, New York, 1883, vol. ii. In Mittelater, 1884, vol. iii. Seit der Reformation 1890; J. B. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, ii. 322‑324, 913 s4q., London 1885• J. J. I. D8llinger, Beitrttge zur Sektengeachichte des M%tlelaltera, Munich, 1890; the Commentaries on Romans especially Lange's New York, 1889, and by $anday and Headlam, in International Critical Commentary, New York 1895; works on the Apostolic Age, such as Schaff, Christian Church, i. 499, cf. iii. 259‑282; DCA, i. 532‑535.
	Ill.: The classical work on Deaconesses in the modern
Church is T. $chafer Geachichte der meiblichen Diakonie,
3 vols., Stuttgart, 1887‑94. Consult: Florence Nightin
gale, The Institution of Deaeoneaeea, London, 1851; Mrs.
Jameson, Sisters of Charity, ib. 1855; P. Schaff, Germany,
its Universities, Theology and Religion, chap. xxm iii.,
Philadelphia, 1857; J. $. Howson, Deaeoneaaea, London,
1882; idem, The Diaconate of Women %n the Anglican
Church, ib. 1886; J. M. Ludlow, Woman's Work in the
Church, ib. 1865• H. C. Potter, Sisterhood. arid Dea
eaneaaea New York 1873; A. $path, Phoebe the Deaconess,
Philadelphia, 1885; H. Wheeler, Deaconesses Ancient
and Modern New York 1889; Jane M. Bancroft, Dea
coneaaea in Europe, ib. 1889; L. R. Meyer, Deaconeneea,
ib. 1889; H. J. Cooks Mildmay, the First Deaconess In
stitution, London, 1892; J. M. Thoburn, The Deaconess
and Her Vocation, New York, 1893; G. M. Maynard,
Pictures of Mildmay, London 1895; C. Robinson, The
Ministry of Deaconeaaea ib. 1898; C. Golden Hint. of
the Deaconess Movement in the Christian Church, New
York, 1903; G. H. Gerberding, Life and Letters of W. A•
Paaaavant, Greenville, Pa., 1906; Livinis L. Dock and
Mary A. Nutting, AHiatory of Nursing, 2vols., New York
and London 1908; the Reports of the Conferences of the
Evangelical Lutheran Mother‑houses in the United States.
A concise review of the modern movement is given is the
Addresses, Reports, Statements . • . of the National Coun
cil of Congregational Churches of !he United States, 1907,
pp. 292‑308, Boston, 1907.
DEAD SEA. See PALESTINE.
DEAR: A word which comes from the Latin decanvs, originally a military term, designating the
leader of a decania or body of ten soldiers. It early acquired the general meaning of overseer of a small number of inferiors, and was used in households for the overseers of slaves, subsequently in Conatantinople for police officials. In ecclesiastical

381	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	~thnees
usage there are: (1) Monastic deans, whose authority
extended over ten novices (Augustine, De moribus
eccleaim, i. 31). (2) Deans (also called archpres
byters) appointed by a bishop to visit and oversee
a part of his diocese, having supervision of the
official and private conduct of the priests, pre
siding (from the ninth century on) at their dis
trict conventions, etc. A dean of this sort was
dependent upon the archdeacon (Friedberg, %ir
chenrecht, 188‑189; see ARCHDEACON AND ARCH
PRIMST). (3) Deans of cathedrals are recognized
cathedral officers as early as the eighth century.
In the Church of England the dean is the next
ecclesiastic to the bishop. Deaneries of the " old
foundation " (those older than the Reformation)
are elective; those of the "new foundation"
(created by Henry VIII.) are appointed by the
crown. The jurisdiction of the dean is supreme in
his cathedral in all matters except those which
affect doctrine. The deans of Westminster and
Windsor are independent of all superior ecclesias
tical authority. (4) The rural deans of England
are clergymen appointed by the bishop " to execute
the bishop's processes and inspect the lives and
manners of the clergy and people within their
jurisdiction " (Phillimore, Ecclesiastical Law).
"The dean and chapter" is the name given in
England to the body electing a bishop. (5) In
the Lutheran Churches the title dean is for the
most part synonymous with superintendent (q.v.),
but sometimes signifies a subordinate official. In
the Reformed Churches a dean is an overseer of
clergy or the head of a classis in France. The oldest
cardinal is usually the dean of the Sacred College,
presides in the consistory in the pope's absence,
confers upon a newly elected pope the orders he
may not have received, and presides at the pope's
coronation. 	D. S. SCHAFF.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. G. Hofmann, De desania et dwaniesie, Wittenberg, 1739; P. Baldauf, Dos . . Decanatamt, 8 vols., Gras, 1836; P. Hergenr8ther, Romiaches Kirchenrechk Freiburg, 1905; SL, iii. 1430‑32; DCA, i. 537539; Bingham, Originea, books i., iv., v., vi., viii.

DEATH.
Various Representations (§ 1). Three Kinds of Death Mentioned in Scripture (¢ 2). The Origin of Death (§ 3). The Abolition of Death (¢ 4). The Condition of Death (§ 5).
	Among the Greeks, Thanatos, or death, was
represented as a god, and the twin‑brother of
		sleep (Hesiod and Homer). They en
	r. Various deavored to exclude all that is revolting
	Represen‑ from the idea. The representation of
	tations. it, however, at a later period, under
		the figure of a priest in sable garments,
cutting the hair from the heads of the dying to
offer it to the gods of the underworld, betrays the
natural dread of death common to the race. The
Romans brought forward prominently the awful
features, describing death as a pitiless divinity,
pale, and haggard of aspect, furnished with black
wings, etc. The mythologies of northern nations
presented him under the figures of a fowler spread
ing his net, or a reaper with sickle in hand, or a
skeleton. In the Scriptures also death is person‑
ified, and described as intelligent (Job xxviii. 22), as sitting on a pale horse (Rev. vi. 8), or cast with hell into the lake of fire (Rev. xx. 14). Scripture expresses a universal sentiment of mankind when it calls death the king of terrors (Job xviii. 14), and an occasion of suffering and fear (Ps. Iv. 4; Heb. ii. 15). But it also speaks of it as a release from pain (Job iii. 17), the passage to a better life (II Cor. v. 4), as " being gathered to one's people " (Gen. xxv. 8), a taking‑down of the pilgrim's temporary tent (II Cor. v. 1), a sleeping with the fathers (I Kings ii. 10), or with Christ (I Cor., xv. 18; I Thess. iv. 13‑15), a departure (Phil. i. 23; II Tim. iv. 6), a dissolution of the earthly house (II Cor. v. 1), and a rest (Rev. xiv. 13).
There are three kinds of death mentioned in the Scriptures‑physical death, spiritual death, and the second or eternal death. Physical death is the dissolution of the body into its component parts.
The spirit takes its flight (Eccles. xii. 2. Three 7), and the body passes back into the Kinds of dust from which it was taken (Gen. Death Men‑ iii. 19; Eccles. iii. 20). The time of
	tioned in	this dissolution is known to God only
	Scripture.	(Ps. xxxi. 15; Matt. xxv. 13). It
		must be regarded as a benignity for
the righteous man (Num. xxiii. 10; Rom. vii. 24),
but as a dread calamity to the impenitent, whom
it ushers to his own place (Acts i. 25), and for all as
" the night in which no man can work " (John
ix. 4). Spiritual death is a state of sin and darkness,
in which man is alienated from God, the fountain
of life and light (I John i. 5), and consequently
destitute of true spiritual life. The whole world, at
the coming of Christ, was sitting in the shadow of
this death (Luke i. 79). All men, without excep
tion, are dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. ii. 1,
5; Col. ii. 13; cf. Luke xv. 32). Our Lord became
subject unto the death of the body, but was always
in communion with the Father, and free from sin.
The entrance upon a life of faith is called arising'
from the dead (Eph. v. 14), or becoming alive unto
God (Rom. vi. 11). Spiritual death is not a stag
nant condition, but a progressive state, the heart
becoming more hardened, the eyes more blind
(John xii. 49; Rom. i. 21), the conscience seared
as with a hot iron (I Tim. iv. 2), and the pleasure
in lust and hatred of God increased (Rom. i. 26‑31).
The second or eternal death (Rev. ii. 11; xx. 6, 14;
xxi. 8) signifies the final loss of the power and op
portunity to repent and turn to God. The per
sonality is not destroyed; but God's image is
wholly defaced, and heavenly blessedness forfeited.
This terrible doom of the second death is described
under the figure of an exclusion from what is good
(Rev. xxii. 15; cf. Matt. xxv. 30), and of a lake
burning with fire and brimstone, into which the
finally impenitent are cast (Rev. xx. 14,' xxi. 8).
Those who overcome (Rev. ii. 11), and are partakers
of the " first resurrection " (regeneration, cf. Eph.
v.14, etc.), shall in no wise be hurt of it (Rev. xx. 6).
The same idea is expressed by the words "per
ishing" (John iii. 15), " eternal punishment" (Matt.
xxv. 46), " destruction" (Phil. iii. 19), " everlasting
destruction " (II Thess. i. 9), and " corruption "
(Gal. vi. 8).

Death
Deoalogme
Gin and death are indissolubly associated in the Old and New Testaments. Death is not merely the natural fruit of sin (Jas. i. 15), but
3. The its just punishment or wages (Gene ii.
Origin of 17; Rom. vi. 23), and expression of
	Death.	the divine wrath (Ps. xc. 7‑10; Rom.
		ii. 5‑8). We are subject to it because
we are subject to the law of sin, and in virtue of our
union with Adam (Rome v. 17; 1 Cor. xv. 22). It
has been denied by Pelagius and the $ocinians that
physical death was included in this penalty. The
body is regarded as having been mortal before the
fall. This view is in contradiction to what seems
to be the plain meaning of the words, " In the day
thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die " ([.e.,
begin to die, or become mortal‑Gen. ii. 17), when
read in the light of the curse in Gen. iii. 19, " Unto
dust thou shalt return." Although our first parents
did not actually return to dust the very day they
sinned, nevertheless, the principle of death then
began to work in them (Augustine, De peccatorum
meritis, i. 21).
Christ has abolished death (II Tim. it 10). This has been accomplished by the defeat of him who had the power of death (Hob. ii. 14),
4. The and the spoliation of the kingdom of Abolition darkness (Eph. iv. 8; Col. ii. 15). of Death. Christ could not be holden of death (Acts ii. 24), and triumphantly rose from the grave. The dead were raised by his word of power (Mark v. 41; Luke vii. 15; John xi. 44). He quickens with new spiritual life whom he will (John v. 21; Eph. ii. 5), so that moral death has no more dominion over us (Rome vi. 9). He that believeth is "passed from death unto life" (John v. 24). The death of the body becomes, for those thus spiritually revived, a sleep (I Thess. iv. 14) and a rest from labor (Rev. xiv. 13), from which they shall be raised to an estate of eternal blessedness (II Cor. xv. 21, 22; 1 Tress. iv. 13‑16). The sea then (Rev. xx. 13), as well as all earthly graves, shall give up their dead. And so effective is this quickening power of Christ that they who are raised by him can nevermore die (Luke xx. 36); and so perfect is the life in heaven that there is no death there (Rev. xxi. 4).
The states following the moment when the bodily organs cease to perform their functions are treated in other articles (seeGEHNNNA; HADES;
5. The HxAvEN; PusoAToxr; RHsvaxexTloN Condition OF THE DEAD; etc.). The body of of Death. Jesus saw no corruption. It is a pious belief held in the Roman Catholic Church that this was true also of the body of Mary. The belief was stated at an early period, and in its most popular form comes through Juvenal, bishop of Jenwalem, who told it to the emperor Marcian at Chalisedon, 451. Whether the soul sleeps at the death of the body until the general resurreotion was answered negatively by Calvin in his tract Psychopannychia (written at Orleans 1534 against some of the Anabaptists who held to that opinion). John XXII. denied the doctrine of the immediate beatific vision of the blessed dead. His successor declared this view heresy. The Westminster Shorter Catechism (question xxxvii.) "tea
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
88B
the doctrine that the bodies of the dead rest in their graves till the resurrection, but that their souls do immediately pees into glory. This was the view of the Reformers. D. 8. Scaeah•
Branroaesraz: For the Biblical aide: F. Delitseoh, Sys
	ton "'1°'' b`bli'ok°" P°ychotogio. Leipeio, 1881, Eng. travel.,
	Edinburgh, 1865; J. T. Book, Umries der tribliachen 8es
	lenlehre, Stuttgart, 1871; H. $ebults, AlttestamsntticAe
	ThooloPie. 2 vole., GSttingen, 1898 Eng travel., Lon‑

don, 1892• W. Beyeohlag, lyea~„~;d, Tpeolvie2 vole.. Halle, 1896, Eng travel., Edinburgh, 1898. On the general aspect consult: F. $pGttgerber Tad Fork leben and Au/ersfehunp. Hells 1889• J. J. 4. Wilkinson, Oripdna and Issues of Lisa and Death, lb. 1885; A. $chopenhauer, Uebx den Tod and aein Verh0ldnias sur UnseratdrbarksU, Leipeio, ;1888• J. C. Bellett, The Dead in Christ, London 1887; A. 8abatier, Easai ear la role et la snort, Paris, 1892• H. M. Alden, A Study of Deatn, Lon‑
don, 1896; L. Bordesu, Le Probltrne de, to ntort, Pads, 1900;. C. de Frei, Dar Tod, daa Jens,its, ,Tens, 1901. For the literary treatment consult: P. Bornstein, Der Tod in de'' "odernen Littoatur, Leipaio. 1900.

DEATH, DANCE OF: A famous subject of art, especially in the fifteenth century. Death, in the figure of a skeleton, is depicted in the company of representatives of every class of society. The fell enemy is represented in the most various attitudes; now harshly tugging at the victim, and now gently leading him; now walking arm in arm, and now beating him. An hour‑glass is usually found somewhere in the pictures. The Dance of Death was painted on the walls and windows o€ churches, on house‑fronts, in illuminated books, and on bridges. Among the oldest representations are those of Minden (1383), Dijon (1436), and Bagel (1441); the principal ones are those of Basel, Bern, and Erfurt. The subject was also frequently represented in England, as at Croydon, Salisbury Cathedral, Stratford‑on‑Avon, and elsewhere. Moral and descriptive verses were frequently printed below the pictures, and usually closed with such a sentence as, " Death awaits all." Hans Holbein is the only painter of fame associated with these curious works of art, who, however, never went farther than to make sketches. These were engraved on wood by Liltaelburger, and appeared at Lyons (1538). As might be expected, they were characterized by humor and poetic imagination. The Dance of Death was also represented on the stage; at least two cases are well attested, one before Philip the Good of Burgundy at Bruges in 1449 (called a certain ieu, hiacoire d moralitk our le fait de la dense macabre), and one at Besangon in 1453. D. 8. $casiri".

Brnrroaasrar: A very full list of books is given under .. Dance of Death " in the British Museum Catalogue. Consult: a. Peignot, RaheraAsa cur lu Dansea des i1lorfe, Paris, 1828; F. Douse, The Dana of Deatlh, London, 1833: G. Kastner, Las Da‑ den Morb Paris, 1852; Dance o/ Death by go‑ Hol6ein, with introductory Note by A. Dobson, London, 1872; W. Sul‑, Die Totenfdnss den bfifktafters, Nordlingen, 1892; [J. J. Berthier], La plus Aneienne Danes Macabre au Rlinpenthat it BQIs, Paris, 1S8: A. G3tte. Hol6eihs Totentans and seine Vorbikler. Strasburg, 1897: E. $. Chambers, The Medieval Stops, 2 vole., Oxford, 1903; W. Combo, The Bnplish Dance of Death: from As Designs of T. Rowland‑ by am author of ' Doctor Syntax," new ad.. 2 vole, New York, 1903.
DEBORAH, deb'o‑rd or d6‑bo'rti (" Bee "); The name of two women of the Bible.

888
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
1. The nurse of Rebekah who accompanied her from, Mesopotamia to Canaan when she married Isaac.
2. Prophetess and Judge: She belonged to one of the northern tribes and was the wife of a certain Lappidoth. While the Canaanites occupied the open country, she acted as prophetess and judge oh Mount Ephraim. When for twenty years the country had been oppressed by the enemy Deborah proclaimed a war of liberation. She ordered Barak of Kedesh in Naphtali with 10,000 men from the tribes of Zebulon and Naphtali, who, according to Judges v. were joined by others, to encamp on Mount Tabor and to attack the hostile general who was about to gather his forces in the valley of Kiahon. Barak consented only when' Deborah declared her readiness to go with him; she predicted, however, that on account of this timidity, he would yield the prize of victory to a woman. Of the subsequent battle there are two independent records, each distinguished by peculiar details, which supplement each other: the prosaic narrative in Judges iv. and Deborah's song of victory, chap. v. From the two it appears that, by the attack of the Israelitic infantry, the army of the enemy was completely beaten at Taanaeh and Megiddo. A thunder‑storm threw the Canaanitic chariots into confusion, and the violent downpour caused the overflow of the river Kishon, which became the grave of the heavily equipped, disorderly mass (Ps. lxxxiii. 9). This may have happened in the narrow pass of Haritieh. Sisera fled on foot over the northern mountain, and came to the tent of Jael, who belonged to a branch of the Kenites tenting near Kedesh in Naphtali (cf. Josh. xix. 37). The unhappy general arrived exhausted and found a hospitable reception in the tent of Jael, but also a disgraceful death at the hand of his hostess. Thus, in accordance with the utterance of the seer, Jael anticipated the pursuing Barak. The assertion of Wellhausen that the prose narrative in chap. iv. is only a version of the song is refuted by the fact that the narrative mentions many details wanting in the song, and makes no use of many things peculiar to the latter. The contradictions which some have thought they discovered between chaps. iv. and v. are doubtful. The position of Jabin, " king of Canaan," at Hazor in the narrative might give rise to objection, since no reference is made to him in the song, whereas Sisera, his general (according to iv. 2), seems in the song to have the household of a prince. On this account many suppose that Jabin did not originally belong to the narrative, but was incorporated from Josh. xi. 1. But the song (v. 19 ) speaks of kings of Canaan who took part in the battle, and it is conceivable that the king of Hazor was their head, whereas another of these " kings," Sisera, commanded in the field. Other alleged contradictions between chaps. iv. and v. are of no importance. The song of triumph which Deborah sang after this decisive victory bears so much the stamp of originality that the critics almost unanimously recognize in it an authentic testimony. Language and style are peculiar and ancient. The narrative betrays the cutting wit as well as the holy seriousness which was peculiar to the new nation.
Deaa'logms
Alongside of the stormy savageness of the time, there
appears in Deborah a tender, genuinely female
sense, which comes out in the singer and the " moth
er in Israel." For the critical treatment of the
history of Israel this ancient song is of great im
portance. 	C. VON O1tHLL1.
BIHwoa6APH7: Of the highest importance is G. F. Moore, Commentary on Judges, New York, 1895. Consult: G. A. Cooke, Hiet. and Song of Deborah, London, 1892; H. Winckler, AltorientaliscAs Forschunpen, ii. 192, iii. 291. Leipsic, 1894; K. Budde, Act" du dixitms conprtt d'orientalistee, ii (1898), 20 eqq.; J. Marquart, Fundaments israslitiuhar and jidiwhar Geachiehte, pp. 1‑10, GSttingen,189a; D. H. MOller, Act" du dixilme oonprde d'orisnWistes, iv (1898). 281'mq.; DB, i. 678‑679; BB, i. 1047‑48; JR. iv. 490.
DECALOGUE.
Names and Character (1 1). Divieione and Original Form (1 2). Variations in Expressions (¢ 3). Mosaic Origin (f 4).
The decalogue is the fundamental moral law of
Jews and Christians. The words which, according
to Ex. xx. 1; Dent. iv. 12, 13, v. 4, 19‑23, God
spoke at Sinai to the assembled Israelites, given Ex.
xx. 2‑17 and, in slightly different form, Dent. v.
6‑78, are called the decalogue. These, according
to the plain statement of Deut. iv. 13, v. 19, ix.
		10, 11, x. 4, and the implication of
	:. Names Ex. xxiv. 12, xxxi. 18, and other
	and Char‑ passages, God had written upon the
	acter. two tables of stone which became
		part of the contents of the ark of the
covenant. The name generally given to this code
is " the ten commandments "; the Old Testament
calls them the " ten words " (Ex. xxxiv. 28; Dent.
iv. 13, x. 4; cf. Ex. xxiv. 3), because they poer
sessed a preeminent excellence, spoken as they were
to the people by their God. They alone were written
on the two tables, which received the name " tables
of the covenant," while the box in which they were
deposited was called the " ark of the covenant,"
since they were the " witness " of the covenant
(see COYzNANT) made on Mount Sinai. The decay
logue is an independent and complete code, express
ing the relations existing between the Creator and
created man. The mass of laws which make up
the codes of Israel may be considered the unfolding
of the ethical‑religious idea expressed in the ten
words. The prohibition to worship other gods and
to make images have a place only in antiquity,
and the commandment concerning Sabbath‑observ
ance steps outside the purely ethical sphere and
demands a cult which in Deuteronomy is applied
to Israel. Again the ten commandments have
reference to external acts only, the prohibitions
outnumber the precepts, the threats ‑and promises
are limited to this life; nevertheless, the form is
such as to be able to receive the whole content of
the New Testament concepts of the divine will.
As the Christian sees in the Yahweh of the Old
Testament the God who in Jesus revealed himself
as Father, so he finds stated in the deoalogue the
fact that God is the only good to be desired, that
the material must be kept apart from the spiritual,
and that there is a Sabbath afterlife's week of .toil
and travail. While it is the people as a whole who
are addressed by the code, the commands tame

Decolasaroatio
Dn of Indulgence	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	884
also to the individual; so Christians, to whom this
tribal law has become the law of humanity, refer
it to every individual within the range of its voice.
	About the division of the decalogue churches
differ: the Jews count Exod. xx. 2 as the first
commandment, 3‑fi as the second, and 17 is con
sequently the tenth; the Greek and Reformed
churches make 3 the first, 4‑6 the second, and 17
the tenth; the Roman and Lutheran churches see in
3‑6 one commandment and in 17 two command
ments. The oldest witness favors the second view,
held by Josephus and Philo, and this is undoubtedly
the correct one; there is no reason for seeing in 17
two commandments, moreover, the text forbids
division; verse 2, though a highly important state
		ment, is not a commandment, and
s. Divisions 4‑5 may well on internal grounds be
	and Orig‑ taken as independent of verse 3. The
	inal Form. Samaritans have after Exod. xx. 17
		and Deut. v. 18 another command
ment, borrowed from Deut. xxvii. 2‑7 and xi. 30,
and wrongly affirm that the Jews have only nine
commandments. The decalogue is divided in Exo
dus generally into nine, and in Deuteronomy al
ways into ten sections. While the division into nine
sections is certainly as old as the other, it has no
necessary connection with that into ten " words."
It is noteworthy that the prohibition to covet is
nowhere divided into two verses. That there were
two tables is witnessed by all the sources except
E. It may be surmised that each contained five
" words," and putting the fifth (Ex. xx. 12) on the
first table gives excellent balance, the first table
containing the commandments of piety, the second
those of probity. Less attractive is the arrange
ment of Augustine and Calvin, who place the fifth
commandment on the second table as enjoining
performance of duties toward fellow men. The dif
ference in length in the commandments is remark
able; and since this seems due to the addition of
explanations, threats, or promises, the conviction
is forced that originally the decalogue contained
ten short sentences about as follows, which alone
the designation " ten words " truly fits: (1) Thou
shalt have no other gods besides me, (2) Thou shalt
not make unto thee any image, (3) Thou shalt not
take the name of Yahweh thy 03od in vain, (4) Re
member the Sabbath day to keep it holy, (5) Honor
thy father and thy mother, (6) Thou shalt not kill,
(7) Thou shalt not commit adultery, (8) Thou shalt
not stead, (9) Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbor; (10) Thou shalt not covet
thy neighbor's house. In this form the decalogue
may easily have been written on two stone tables.
	Among the additions certain expressions occur
frequently, or only, in Deuteronomy, but this does
not involve that these additions have been imported
into Exodus from Deuteronomy. For, to the
additions which the two statements have in com
		mon, Deuteronomy has others which
	3. Varia‑ mark it as the younger, and has be
tions in Ex‑ sides a different vocabulary in the
	pressions. fourth, ninth, and tenth command
		ments. Changes are evidently not wil
ful; they are due rather to the fact that at the time
of the Deuteronomist the text was still fluctuating.
In common with other peoples of antiquity, Israel cared very little for verbal correctness, and thus it need not cause surprise that they did not end these discrepancies by consulting the original tables, since they were difficult of access. Notable in this connection is the commandment concerning Sabbathobservance. E bases it on the creation week, D on the exodus from Egypt; it is difficult to believe that D would have dropped the former, had it stood in his copy. However, the conclusion that the reference to creation was incorporated into the decalogue later is by no means certain; while the common view now is that it is. a poatexilic enlargement on the basis of Gen. ii. 1‑4a, the expressions in the decalogue do not agree with those in Genesis (cf. W. Lotz, Quaestiones de haatoria sabbati, Leipsie,1883, 94‑100).
The Mosaic origin of the decalogue, at least in the shorter form, is admitted by Delitzsch, Dillmann, Lemme, K6nig, Kittel, Driver, and others. But N6ldeke as early as 1869 declared that view extremely doubtful, and lately Wellhausen, Stade, Cornill have rejected it, while Smend and H. Schulz have lost faith in it. The main argument has always been that the prohibition to making
4. Mosaic images could not date back to Moses,
	Origin.	since the worship of Yahweh under
		the form of images persisted in the
northern kingdom, and in Judah was found at least
until Solomon. But it is pure assumption that,
while the image‑worship existed, it was not dis
pleasing. As far as is known, the true champions
of the Yahweh‑religion always stood for imageless
worship, and where the ark stood, at Shiloh and
at Jerusalem, there was no image (on the ephod,
I Sam. xxi. 9; see EPHOD). But that the mere
existence of the prohibition would make image
worehip impossible and would cause Jeroboam to
refrain from introducing calf‑worship no one would
affirm who considers what even to‑day is possible
in the Christian Church. The other argument
against the Mosaic origin is that the fourth com
mandment presupposes settlement in Canaan.
While the Sabbath rest has less meaning when
applied to nomads than when related to agricul
tural conditions, it must not be forgotten that
Israel at Moses's time was not wholly nomadic.
Again, it is urged that the mode of thought is that
of the prophets, and is not met in preprophetic
time: But it is not certain that the prophets in
vented the ethical standard; and, inasmuch as their
teachings in complicated and developed form far
surpass what in the decalogue is given in the most
simple and fundamental precepts, the latter can
not be the mere precipitate of the former. It
is the narrative of E in which the decalogue in
Exodus is found. That the writings of P contained
it is denied by no one, though the doubtful opinion
is advanced by Wellhausen, Julicher, Budde, and
others, that J had a different Sinaitic decalogue,
namely Ex. xxxiv. 14‑26. But while it is pos
sible on good grounds to have the conviction that
the decalogue as an inheritance of the Mosaic time
has stood in all Pentateuch sources, others, such as
Meissner, Steuernagel, and Staerk, on religioua
hfstorical and philological grounds have denied
that even E contained it.	(W. Loxz.)

385	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	DD=eclaratieon of Indalgaaos
BIBLIOOHAPHT: The subject is treated in moat of the crit
	ical works on the history of Israel and the introduction
	to the O. T. Consult: A. Kuenen, Origin and Composi
	tion of the Hozateueh, London, 1888; R. Kittel, Qesehichte
	der Hebraer, 2 vols., Gotha, 1888‑92, Eng. tranel., Lon
	don, 1895‑98; B. BAataeh, Das Bundeebuoh, Halle, 1892;
	H. Schultz, Alttestamentliche Theotogis, 2 vols., G6t
	tingen, 1896, Eng. tranal., London, 1892; E. K6nig, Ein
	leitunp in das A. T., Bonn, 1893; A. Dillmann, Adttesta
	mentliehe Theolopie, Leipsie, 1895; W. H. Green, Higher
	Criticism of the Pentateuch, New York, 1895; C. A. Briggs,
	Higher Criticism of as Pentateuch, pp. 242 eqq., New
	York, 1897; C. H. Cornill, Einleitung in das A. T., To
	bingen, 19(1,5, Eng. tranel., Load., 1907; H. L. Strvak, Ein
	kitunp in doe A. T., Munich, 1898; C. Caverno, The Ten
	Words, Boston, 1899; R. amend, AltteRmnentliehe Re=
	ligionsgesehichte, Freiburg, 1899; J. Wellhausen, Compo
	sition des Hexateucha, Berlin, 1899; J. E. Carpenter and
	G. Harford Battereby, The Hezateuch, 2 vole., London,
	1900; S. A. Cook, in The Guardian, Dec. 17, 1902 (on a
	new papyrus with early text); DR, i. 680‑582; EB, i.
	1049‑51; JR, iv. 492‑498. Earlier homiletical litera
	ture is given in J. F. Hurst, Literature of Theology, pp.
	149, 184, 392, 528, New York, 1898. Consult also L.
	Lemme, Die relipionapeseAichdiehe Bedautunp des Deka
	lops, Breslau, 1880.
DECIUS, di'shi‑us, CAIUSS MMrUS QUINTUS TRAJANUS: Roman emperor 249‑251; b. near Sirmium about 200, of a Roman or Romanized family; d. in the marshes of Dobrudja, Rumania, in the summer or autumn of 251. He began his career in the army, became governor of Dacia and Moesia under Philippus Arabs, and was placed in command of the forces sent to crush the Gothic invasion. Discouraged by its defeats, the Danubian army proclaimed him Augustus in 249, and his victory at Verona, in which the emperor Philippus fell, won him the throne in the same year. Deoius was essentially a soldier, also eager to revive and strengthen the moral and religious forces which still existed, but he lacked political insight, and was unable to secure permanent results during his brief reign. A new inroad of the Goths soon recalled him from Italy and Rome to the Danubian countries, where he fell after a series of disastrous battles.
In the course of his turbulent reign Decius began a persecution of the Christians, which endangered the Church more than any which had preceded it. The religious policy of Philippus, who had favored the Christians, may have made the new emperor regard them as his opponents, but a stronger motive was his personal anti‑Christian bias, based on his adherence to the ancient faith, and directed primarily against the clergy. It is also probable that the censor Valerian, who later became emperor, and was in high favor with Decius, was active in this persecution, and as chief civil magistrate was required to carry it through. It is with justice, therefore, that Christian tradition combines the name of the emperor with that of his chief officer. It is even possible that Valerian was the real leader. The repression, which seems to have begun about the end of 249, and which lasted, at least in part, until Decius fell, was premeditated from the very first, while the uniformity of its execution is shown by the reports from North Africa, Rome, Egypt, and Asia Minor. All, without exception, were commanded to offer sacrifice. In case of refusal, however, further proceedings were left to the discretion of the judge, and the penalties which were inflicted III.‑25
ranged from light punishment to death, sometimes in such cruel forms as starvation, burning, and atoning. The only uniformity observed was the desire to kill the chief clergy, and many bishops, as at Rome, Antioch, and Jerusalem, suffered martyrdom, while others saved themselves by flight. The attitude of the laity was, on the whole, a feeble one. Origen was tortured, and the general picture of devastation is described by the Roman presbyters with the words (Cyprian, Epist., xxx. 5): " Look upon almost the whole world devastated, and observe that the remains and the ruins of the fallen are lying about on every side." These conditions gave rise to the difficult problem of the attitude of the Church toward the lapsed, among whom the so‑called libellatici now appeared for the first time in the history of the persecution of the Christians (see LAPSED); yet beside those who wavered the Church could also point to many courageous, steadfast souls.
	In view of its destructive effect the Decian perse
cution has always been regarded as one of extraor
dinary severity. Nevertheless, this persecution
was not general in scope, although it was intended
to be so. In many places the imperial edicts were
disregarded, and in others executed only formally.
The turbulent political conditions of the period
forbade strenuous and uniform action, and the
Decian persecution was, consequently, merely
transitory. 	VICTOR SCHULTZE.
BIHLIOa$APHT: The sources are, from the Roman side, Prosopoprayhia imperil romani see. i.‑iii., part ii., ed. H. Dessau, p. 388. Berlin, 1897; from the Christian side, Cyprian, De lapsia, Eng. trans]., in ANF, v. 437‑447; and Eusebius, Hiet. eccl., vi. 40‑42, Eng. transl., in NPNP. 2d series, i. 281‑288. Consult: L. $. Is N. de 71llemont, dfftwires . . . eocUsiastiques, iii. 2, pp. 123 eqq., Brussels, 1695; E. G. Hardy, Christianity and as Roman Government, London, 1894; H. Sehiller, Gesehiehte der r6miaehen Kaiserseit, i. 2, pp. 804 aqq., Goths, 1883; J. A. F. Gregg, The Deeian Persecution, Edinburgh, 1897; L. Pullan, Church o/ do Fathers, pp. 158 aqq., New York, 1905; Neander, Christian Church, i. 130‑138; Schaff. Christian Church, ii. 8Q‑83; Gibbon, Dedins and Pall, ii. 113‑114. .
	DECILTS, Nl$OLAUS: According to P. J. Reht
meyer : Kirchengesehiehte der Stadt Braunschweig
(5 vole., Brunswick, 1707‑15), iii. 19‑translator or
adapter of the Gloria in excedais, the Sanctm, and
the Agnus into Low German verse; d. Mar. 21,
1541 (?). About 1519 he was provost in Steter
burg, near Wolfenbattel; after his conversion to
Lutheranism, 1522, teacher in Brunswick; and fi
nally preacher in Stettin. Attempts to identify
him with a Nicolaus a Curia who was preacher in
Stettin about 1523 and with others are not con
vincing. 	(FERDINAND COH$8.)

DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE: An act of Charles II. of England, whereby he suspended all penal laws against both Roman Catholics and dissenters, Mar. 15, 1872. A royal proclamation of the same king, issued ten years earlier, promising modification of the severity of the Act of Uniformity (q.v.), is sometimes called the First Declaration of Indulgence. The king's motive in both cases was believed to be a dire to favor Roman Catholies and revive the royal prerogative of dispensing with the execution of laws, and opposition arose

Decree
Defilement and Pnriftostlon	THE NEW
even among Protestant dissenters. Strong antagonism developed in parliament, the legality of the king's action was questioned, and the declaration was recalled Mar. 8, 1673. Another declaration of indulgence was issued by James II., Apr. 4, 1687, granting full religious liberty to all his subjects. The same opposition developed, and the king failed to obtain parliamentary sanction even from a packed parliament. The king reissued the declaration Apr. 22: 1688, and ordered all clergy to read the declaration in their pulpits. But the order was generally disobeyed and called forth a protest written by Archbishop Sancroft (q.v.) and signed by himself and six other bishops, for which they were committed to the Tower (June 8); they were acquitted by jury when broughttotrialattheendof themonth. On the same day the invitation was despatched to William of Orange to become king of England.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Declaration of James II. is reproduced in Gee and Hardy, Documents, pp. 641‑844. Consult: T. B. Howell, Complete Collection of State Trials, Vol. xii., London 1809‑28; G. D'Oyly, Life of William Sancroft, ib. 1840; W. H. Hutton, The English Church 1t1.e6171/, pp. 184‑227, ib. 1903; Robinson, European History, ii. 256‑259.
DECREE, DECRETAL: In the canonical sense the latter is an authoritative resoript of a pope in
SCHAFF‑HERZOG
reply to some question. The original name was
deeretale congtitutum or decretalis epistola ; afterward decretalis. A decree is a papal ordinance enacted with the advice of the cardinals, but not as response to an inquiry.
DECRETUM GRATIANL See CANON LAW.

DEFENDER OF THE FAITH (Defensor W): A title borne by English sovereigns. It was first conferred by Leo X. on Henry VIII., as a reward for his Assertio aeptem sacramentorum, in the bull Ex
supernm dispositionis (Oct. 11, 1521), and confirmed by Clement VII. on Mar. 5, 1523. After the breach
with Rome it was recognized by	Parliament in
" An Act for the Ratification of the King's Majesty's
Stile," 35 Henr. VIII. 	(A. HAucg.)

DEFENDER OF THE MARRIAGE‑TIE (Defenaor matrimonii): An official in every diocese in the Roman Catholic Church deputed, according to the bull Dei miseratione of Benedict XIV. (Nov. 3,
1741), to prevent by all proper means the dissolution of the marriage‑tie where proceedings to that end have been begun. The office was instituted in
America by the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1884.
DEFILEMENT AND PURIFICATION, CEREMONIAL.
I. Defilement.
1. The Region of Polluting Exietences. Animals (§ 1). Women in Childbirth (¢ 2). Leprosy (§ 3). Bodily Secretions (§ 4). Death (¢ 5). Booty (¢ 6).
2. The Character of this impurity. The Hebrew Fame (§ 1).
L Defilement: In order to define What Old Testament purification covers, it is necessary first to describe what is there declared to defile or make impure.
1. The Region oi; Polluting Existences: Certain animals polluted if they were eaten (see DIETARY LAWS oh THE HEBREWS). Unclean animals might
‑ be brought to God neither as free‑will 8. offerings (Gen. viii. 20) nor as firstlings (Num. xviii. 15) nor as tithes (Lev. xxvii. 32), but contact with living unclean animals is not forbidden.
In the case of women in childbirth (Lev. xii.) the cause of uncleanness is not the fact of giving birth, but the condition resulting which resembles that of the menses. The duration of the uncleanness is seven or fourteen days followed
!3. Women in by thirty‑three or sixty‑six days, ao‑
Child‑
	cord	as the child is male or fe
	male, during the whole of which period
	(forty or eighty days) the woman is
barred from approach to things holy. The period
of seven or fourteen days involves a completer or
more " contagious " impurity than that of the
remaining thirty‑three or sixty‑six days. The
manner of purification of person and clothing by
washing is as in the menses (cf. Lev. xv. 11, 16‑18,
21, 27).
Impurity not Simply Physical
But Religious‑Ethical‑Esthetic (¢ 3). 3. Antiquity and Development of the Idea in Israel.
Evidence in the Prophetic Writings U 1).
4. Ethnic Analogies.
b. Origin of the Old Testament Doctrine of Uncleanness.
Unsatisfactory Explanations
The Principal Idea the Relationship to Death (§ 2).
II. Purification.
1. The Removal of Uncleanness. Women in Childbirth (§ 1). Leprosy (§ 2). Emissions (§ 3). Dead Things (§ 4). Booty (§ b).
2. Underlying Conceptions.
III. Poatcanonicsl Development.
Leprosy (not always the real leprosy; cf. P. Haupt, Babylonian Elements of the Levitic Ritual, 3. Leprosy. pp' 64‑65, 1900), during its continuance, defiled the person or thing with which it came into contact. " House‑leprosy " defiled any who entered the house pronounced leprous by the priest.
	Certain secretions of the human body (Lev. xv.),
such as unhealthy secretions from the male organ
(vv. 1‑12), defiled by contact with the person
afflicted. The case in w. 16‑18 is peculiar; noo
		turnal emissions polluted things
4. Bodily which they touched (verse 17); the Secre‑
	tions.	man who had the emission polluted
		persons whom he touched, e.;., the
wife by his side. Lev. xix. 20 reprehends the lying
together of persona of different stations in life (a
freeman and a bondmaiden). In the earlier in
stance (Lev. xv. 18) sexual intercourse is not in
volved by the phrase " lie with " (cf. Lev. xv. 24
with xx. 18; in the former passage the phrase carries
only the meaning " being in the same bed," while
the latter passage makes sexual intercourse under
the circumstances named a capital offense). The
section Lev. xv. 16‑18 deals with involuntary
emission and does not involve defilement through
sexual intercourse. This (correct) interpretation
was the view of the Masoretes and of Luther (the

887	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Deoree
		Defilement and Pnrifioation
latter translates " the woman near whom such a
one lies "); but another view, that verse 18 made
sexual intercourse a defilement became common
among the Jews. The Old Testament makes the
sexual act only relatively polluting; for example,
before performing a religious act or touching a
sacred object (cf. Ex. xix. 15; 1 Sam. xxi. 5‑6; I Cor.
vii. 5), just as drinking of wine was not absolutely
and always forbidden to the priests, but only when
sacred functions were to be performed. A woman's
menses (Lev. xix. 19‑24) rendered her unclean for
seven days, anything that she touched till the eve
ning, and the husband who occupied the bed with
her while she was in that condition for seven days.
Any other issue of the kind carried the same dis
ability.
	Death rendered unclean. The dead body of
unclean beasts made him that touched them un
clean for one day (Lev. xi. 8, 24‑25, 28). Lev. xi.
29‑38 names eight varieties of creeping animals
the dead bodies of which defiled things and persons,
	5. Death. except fountains, cisterns, and seed,
		unless the last were soaking in
water. These animals were generally found near
human habitations. The body of a clean beast
which had died, i.e., was not slaughtered in the
legal way, defiled for the day him that touched
or ate it (Lev. xi. 39‑40; cf. Ex. xxii. 31; Lev.
xxii. 8). A corpse rendered unclean for seven days
him who touched it, defiled the tent and any who en
tered it, as well as any uncovered vessel which was
in the tent (Num. xix. 11‑14). Contact with a
corpse in the open, with a human bone or a grave,
defiled for seven days; and whoever engaged in the
purification of such a defiled person was himself
unclean till the evening (Num. xix. 7‑8, 10, 21‑22).
	Booty taken from Gentiles rendered unclean for
seven days (Num. xxxi. 23‑24). This impurity of
		booty differed from that of heathen
	e. Booty. lands (Amos vii. 17), which was
rather unholiness and did not render unclean the
Hebrew who dwelt there.
	2. The Character of this impurity: This depends
nn the meaning of the Heb. fame, " unclean,"
which is connected with the ideas " submerged,"
" besmirched," " concentrated," hence " dark,"
" gloomy." The usage involves both external
		impurity and that of the spirit (Is.
1. The vi. 5; Gen. xxxiv. 5; Num. v. 13; Lev.
Hebrew
	Tame.	xviii. 19). The actions described in
		these passages are " abominations,"
as was the Moloch cult. The word is used
of immorality and irreligion. and takes in both
express abominations and such unsanctity as that
of a heathen land (cf. II Kings v. 17‑19) and
its population. The synonyms of fame give various
consonant meanings, such as " degraded," " soiled,"
" smirched," applicable in both the physical and
the moral spheres, just as the antonym kodhesh
refers to both physical and moral states.
Considerations which decide the character of uncleanness are the following. Impurity was not simply physical, since the usual sources of the evil did not belong to the region of this impurity. Yet defilement of a bed might be wrought by a corpse or by excrement, and ablutions were a partial means
3. But
Relig
ious
Ethical
Eathetic.
to holiness. The ultimate thought was relation to the deity. In the case of childbirth the distinction
between absolute and relative impurity 2' D°‑ was based on the flow of blood, and
purity in the menses stoppage of the flow
not Simply _ Physical. ipso facto restored purity so far as the
basis was physical. Even then impurity had for Israelites a moral‑religious significance, since for the reestablishment of purity a religious rite was performed (e.g., Lev. xii. 6‑8). That a spring or cistern or seed for sowing was not contaminated by a dead unclean beast proceeded from the thought that the spring and the seed renewed themselves, while the body of water in the cistern was relatively large. Against the merely physical character of uncleanness can be alleged the fact that through eating of creeping things the soul was thought to be defiled (Lev. xi. 43), and the fact that the impurity of a woman is regarded as more absolute than that of a man. This appears in the doubling of the period of impurity after the birth of a girl as compared with that following the birth of a boy, and in the circumstance that issue from a woman defiles for seven days, from a man only one (Lev. xv. 18, 24). Yet washing or aspersion with water and searing with fire point to the external character of the impurity. On the other hand, the Old Testament teaches that animals and things inanimate suffer under man's culpability.
Impurity had then the significance of a religiousethical abnormality. But this was not all, since it was not always mere psychological immorality.
Impurity is sometimes called baseness or sin, which, however, did not communicate itself as contagion nor was it purged exactly through sacrifice. It is noteworthy that the person who came into contact with the sin‑offering
of the Day of Atonement was not called unclean (Lev. xvi. 24, 26, 28), as was he who touched the ashes which purified from contact with the dead (Num. xix. 7, 8, 10). If then impurity has an ethical‑religious character, it has also an external character as a secondary factor. 1t is best to gather these qualities in one phrase, and to speak of impurity as religious‑ethical‑esthetic.
3. Antiquity and Development of the Idea in Israel: From those prophetical writings the date of which is certain the following is gathered, those passages where unclean is taken in a mere religioethical sense, and as not immediately belonging here, being put in brackets: [Amos: unclean is the land outside of Palestine (vii. 17).] Hosea: Israel shall eat unclean things in Assyria (ix. 3‑4); [Israel is defiled on account of irreligion and immorality (3).] [Micah: uncleanness (i.e., abomination) causes destruction (ii. 13). Isaiah: the Israel of the time of salvation will defile his former idols (xxx. 22).] Jeremiah: the houses of Jerusalem shall be defiled as the place of Tophet (xix. 13). This defilement was brought about by Josiah (I1 Kings xxiii. 10), since he defiled the high places in the cities of Judah, not by physical defilement (as 11 Kings x. 27), but as, in the case of the altar at Bethel (II Kings xxiii. 15‑16), by bones out of the sepulchers. [Israel has polluted himself by

Defilement and Puriftoation	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	ass
idolatry (Jer. ii. 23), and his land (ii. 7, vii. 30, xxxii. 34). Lamentations: polluted with blood (iv. 14‑15).] In Ezekiel are parallels to I. 1: food 1. Evi_ baked with dung of man is unclean d nee (iv. 12‑13); the menstruating woman in the 's mentioned (xxii. 10); the defiled
	Prophetic	land is compared to her uncleanness
	writings.	(xxxvi• 17); that which dieth of itself,
		or is torn in pieces, is unclean (iv. 14)];
Yahweh's house is defiled by bones out of the sepul
chers (ix. 7, xliii. 7); priests may defile themselves
only in the case of the death of father, mother,
son, daughter, brother, or unmarried sister (xliv.
25); [the sanctuary and Jerusalem are defiled by
idols (v. 11, xiv. 11, xxii. 3, 15, and often); ancient
Jerusalem is defiled by blood (xxiv. 9, 11); unclean
ness and apostasy together (xxxix. 24); the neigh
bor's wife is defiled by adultery (xviii. 6, 11, 15,
xxii. 11); God pronounces Israel unclean because
of sin (xx. 26); but will cleanse Israel (xxxvi. 25, 29,
xxxvii. 23); finally the soul becomes polluted by
uncleanness (iv. 14)]. Ezekiel laments over the
priests who made no difference between the unclean
and the clean (xxii. 26), and makes it a special duty
of the priests to teach this difference (xliv. 23).
Deutero‑Isaiah: The uncircumcised and unclean
shall come no more into Jerusalem (Isa. Iii. 1);
"touch no unclean thing" (11); the unclean shall
not be in the land in the Messianic time (xxxv. 8).
Haggai: A dead body defiles (ii. 13). Since the
oldest literary monuments of Israel contain essen
tially the same laws of uncleanness as are contained
in LeV. xi.‑xv., Num. xix., there can be no question
that Israel's views concerning purifications are,
for the most part, very old.
4. Ethnic Analogies: Among the Aryans the impurities described in the Hindu Manu‑shastra have an esthetic, not a religious‑esthetic, character. Greeks and Romans used lustmtions after contact with the dead (Vergil, A;neid, vi. 229), and reckoned hair, wool, and nail‑parings as impurities. Spiegel, Justi, and Tiele regard Persian conceptions as differing in starting‑point and area from the Hebrews', though Hitzig ascribes to Persian thought a considerable influence upon Old Testament religion. That Babylonians made a distinction between clean and unclean is proved, and on specified days certain kinds of meat were unlawful. Regulations existed also concerning contact with the dead and resulting disability, also concerning sexual relations. The Sabe'ans and Arameans, according to Chwolson, prohibited as food the flesh of the camel and of animals which had incisors in both jaws, also of swine, dog, and ass, except in the yearly swinesacrifice. They refused also doves, birds of prey, and certain vegetables. Those afflicted with certain diseases were considered unclean. Emission and the menses received attention from them, and contact with a corpse necessitated purification. Prayer was forbidden those in an impure state. Among the northern Xandeeans distinctions were made as to clean and unclean animals,the woman who had given birth to a child was isolated, contagious diseases were defiling, and the results of nocturnal emissions and the menses were similar to those among the Hebrews. Of the Syrians
Lucian reports (De den Syria, liv.) that swine were
neither eaten nor sacrificed. Fish they eschewed,
since Derceto had the form of a fish, and doves,
because Semiramis had been transformed into a
dove. Uncleanness for a day resulted from the
breach of some of these taboos. Pheniciana also
had distinctions as to kinds'of animals fit for food,
but in respect to birds their distinctions were not
those of the Hebrews. In the mystic sacrifice they
offered men, dogs, and swine (Smith, Rel.o f Sem., 220
221). In northwestern Arabian inscriptions direc
tions with respect to sexual relations, contact with
a corpse and a menstruating woman are found.
Egyptians feared to eat doves, ascribed unclean
ness to certain plants, and in general had the dis
tinction between clean and unclean.
The result of this inquiry is, therefore, that, while the Hebrews inherited a stock of notions upon the subject, comparison shows that in their religion they developed thesenotionsalonglinesoftheirowachoosing.
	6. Origin of the Old Testament Doctrine of Un
	cleanness: The idea of the Old Testament is that
	in the specified objects actual uncleanness inheres,
	but not that the result is absolute and nece$•
	nary psychological irreligiousnees and immorality.
	While symbolical interpretations have from time
	to time been offered (e.g., $arnabas, Epxatle, x.;
	Philo, De apricultura Nose, xxv.‑xxxi.; Clement of
	Alexandria, Padagogu8, iii.; Kurtz, Opferkultus, pp.
	7‑8, Mitau, 1862), such an interpretation is not
	indicated in the Old Testament and is not
	consistently applicable. The view has been ad
	vanced that the object was to protect the dwelling
	of God from approach by a man in a
	1. Unsat‑ condition unbecoming a worshiper, or
	i~ p a~ that Israel was by the laws eoncern
	natins, ing purity separated and differentiated
	from other peoples. But these replies
	simply put the question a stage farther back. The
	explanation has been given that the regulations
	arose from fear of contagion, from disgust or natural
	abhorrence or instinctive revulsion. But these ex
	planations do not cover all the facts, particularly
	the omissions (for example, of a contagious disease
	like the plague). Physiological motives are in
	sufficient. Riehm and Schlottmann have brought
	the subject into relation with sin; but the rela
	tionship of sin to uncleanness is a late notion,
	coming out in Ezekiel. As Gieeebrecht remarks
	(Grundxiige der isrnelitiachsn Geachichte, p. 111, Leip
	aic, 1903), "the conceptions clean and unclean have
	nothing immediately to do with the ethical."
	Others have brought in the two factors of final
	being, birth and death, procreation and corrup
	tion, origin sad end, with the idea that the ethical
	opposition to absolute holiness inherent in these
	relegates them to the sphere of the
2. The	sinful and impure (e.g., G. F. Oehler,
	Principal Alttestamentliche Theologie, §§ 123‑124,
Ides	Ttibingen, 1873‑74). But this theory
the 8e‑	is met by the objection that the new
	born child was never regarded by the
Death.	Hebrews as unclean. The principal
	idea in the Old Testament conception
of uncleanness was the relation to death appar
ent in the given phenomena. The opposition

889	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Defilement and Purification
between the holy living God and the death which results from a sickness is thoroughgoing, and in insensate and finite things that corruption was considered inherent which is the opposite of God. In particular it may be remarked that since the disgust at blood, the seat of the life, was an old inheritance, it follows that those animals were not regarded as fit for food which devoured other animals in their blood; and a similar line of reasoning applies to the unclean birds of prey or carrion. The loss of blood at childbirth seemingly puts the mother into connection with death‑phenomena‑the issue of the vital fluid. The delimitation of the areas of cleanness and uncleanness through the action of instinctive repulsion and disgust reveals the basis of uncleanness in a religious‑ethical‑esthetic relationship. An unpleasant odor (like that of the camel) or repugnant habits or appearance may have helped to put some animals in the class of unclean. The derivation of the Old Testament presentations about unclean beasts from religious‑historical, demonistic, and totemistic origins, which derivation is approved by Stade, Bensinger, Frey, and Matthes, simply refers the matter to an earlier stage.
II. Purification.‑1. The Removal of Unoleannew: For unclean beasts there is no purification. The woman in childbirth.‑For seven or fourteen
days respectively (i.e., after the birth 1. Woman, of a boy or a girl) the woman is as
thoroughly unclean as in the time of ate‑ her menstruation; and, after washing birth. herself and her clothes, she is clean from positive impurity, but not from negative impurity (i.e., keeping aloof from holy things and from the sanctuary), which can be removed only by presenting a lamb one year old as a burnt‑offering, and a young pigeon or turtle‑dove M a sin‑offering; but, if she be poor, a pigeon or a turtle‑dove suffices for the burnt‑offering also (Lev. vii. f1,8).
In cases of leprosy, he who has shown a doubtful symptom of leprosy on his body has only to wash his garments; garments affected with leprosy must be burned; garments or stuffs which showed a, ~p~gy, only doubtful signs of leprosy are to
be washed (Lev. xiii. 8, 34, 52, 54, 55, 57‑58). At the purification of the leper, one of the two clean live birds is to be killed over a vessel containing spring water; the other is to be dipped in the mixed blood and water, together with cedar‑wood, hyssop, and a crimson thread or band. The fluid is then sprinkled upon the convalescent seven times, and the living bird is allowed to fly away. The convalescent then washes his garments, shaves his hair, and bathes, as he is to do again on the seventh day. Of the blood of the lamb killed as trespass‑offering the priest sprinkles upon the top of his right ear, upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot; then some of the oil is sprinkled seven times toward the holy place. Next the ewe‑lamb is presented as a sin‑offering, and the second he‑lamb as a burnt‑offering, accompanied by the usual bloodless oblation of the flour. In case of poverty, for the sin‑offering and burnt‑offering two turtle‑doves or two young pigeons are accepted (Lev. xiv. 4‑32). A leprous house is to be broken down, and he who
slept or ate in it must wash his garments. But, if the house is declared clean, its purification is effected as described above (Lev. xiv. 4‑7, 45‑53).
A man with a discharge, after recovering is to wash his garments, and bathe in running water; he presents two turtle‑doves or two young pigeons, one for a sin‑offering and the other for a burntoffering. Persons defiled directly or indirectly by such a person have only to wash their garments, and bathe their bodies. Earthen vessels touched by the patient must bg broken; wooden ones rinsed with water. Nocturnal accidents render the persons unclean till
s'°nA' the evening, when they must bathe, while all stained garments require washing (Lev. xv. 5‑18). For the menstruating woman no purification is indicated; but the persons indirectly defiled by her must wash garments and person (Lev. xv. 21 22). Since, however, the irregular issue of blood on the part of the woman is regarded only as temporary, different from the regular issue, having the same defiling qualifications, it may be taken for granted that the lawgiver intended the same purificatory laws for the menstruating woman as for the one afflicted with an irregular issue of blood (Lev. xv. 25‑26, 29‑30).
Whoever carries the carcass of unclean animals must wash his garments; the objects upon which a carcass accidentally falls, such as utensils of wood, garments, or skins, require cleansing by being left in water till the evening; earthen vessels, ovens, and stoves must be broken. Carrying the carcass of a clean animal requires washing of garments (Lev. xi. 25, 28, 32, 33, 35, 40). Defilement
	4. Dead	from a corpse requires a red heifer
		without spot, and upon which never
		came yoke. The ashes of the,burned
heifer are put into running water, which be
comes the water of abomination, i.e., the water
appointed for the purification of uncleanness (in
this sense the word may niddala, Num. xix. 9, is to
betaken). Withthis water, those who have become
defiled directly or indirectly for a dead person, as
well as the house of the dead and its vessels, are
to be sprinkled, by means of hyssop, on the third
and seventh day after the defilement; and on the
seventh day the person shall purify himself, and
wash his cloth. The latter must also be done
by him who prepares, keeps, and uses the ashes.
The officiating priest, as well as the man who burned
the red heifer, have, besides, to bathe their flesh in
water (Num. xix. 1‑8, 10, 12‑13, 17‑21). The
Nazirite who became defiled by a sudden death
was to shave his head on the seventh day, offer
two doves or young pigeons, one as a sin‑offering,
the other as a burnt‑offering, and a lamb as a
trespass‑offering, and lose the time passed in
Naziritic separation before his defilement (Num.
vi. 9‑12).
Of the booty taken from heathen nations every thing that may abide the fire is to go through it,
	5. Booty.	and must be purified with the water
		of separation; all that abideth not
the fire is to go through the water; and a per
son touching such booty must wash his clothes on
the seventh day (Num. xxxi. 23).

Dfimment and PnriBeation	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
2. Underlying Conceptions: The destruction of unclean things, in whatever form or manner, needs no explanation. Going through fire is easily understood, since fire is often mentioned as a purifying means (Ps. xii. 6). That water should be used for removing the ethico‑esthetic impurity is a matter of course; and it is possible that " living " water is meant, even where it is not expressly stated. The sin and burnt sacrifices required of the woman after childbirth, the leper, the man having a running issue, and the woman having an issue of blood, have their usual signification. In the purification of the leper all materials and actions show the great step which the person to be purified took from the awful nearness of death to the gladsome communion of untroubled life. In removing the impurity caused by the touch of a dead person the red color of the cow, as symbol of the source of life, being in the blood, must be considered. As a yoke had never come upon her, she was the emblem of virgin energy. Cedar‑wood, crimson thread, and hyssop, which were also used, represent emblems of incorruptibility, medicine against impurity, and symbol of life.
III. Postcanonical Development: When, in the time of Ezra, Israel undertook to observe even the laws concerning clean and unclean according to the Pentateuch, the scribes assumed clearly to define, not only the laws in the canon, but also inferences deduced from them. These rules and regulations are found in the treatises ,Hullin, Niddah, Tebul Yom, Ohalot, `Abodah Zarah (ii. 6), Mikwa'ot, Yadayim (see TALMUD). Evident among the restrictions were those against entering the house of a Gentile (cf. John xviii. 28; Acts x. 28), which resulted in defilement like that caused by contact with the dead accounted for on the supposition of the burial of abortions in the house. The idea of a heathen land's conveying a like impurity finds support in Amos vii. 17, cf. Num. xxxi. 23. Water was used, as well as fire, in purifications; but the hand‑washing, of which much appears in the New Testament, is not an Old Testament phenomenon. But not all Israelites took part in these rigorous purificatory efforts. Religious indifference led to laxness (Tobit i. 10‑11), while overscrupulousness led to the formation of special societies, the most rigorous of which was that of the Chasidim (q.v.).
That the Old Testament ideas of impurities and purifications existed before and after the time of Christ is seen from I Magic. i. 62‑6.3; II Mace. vi. 18, vii. 1‑2, xi. 31; Tacitus, Hist., v. 4‑5. The sixth part of the Mishnah (compiled about 180 A.D.) shows a development of the Old Testament purificatory laws. But partly in consequence of the declarations of Christ‑though he did not abolish the ideas of his times concerning clean and unclean (Matt. viii. 4; Luke xvii. 14) when dealing with unconverted persons‑concerning the spirituality of the Old Testament religion and morals (Matt. v. 17, 21 sqq., vii. 12, xi. 30, xii. 8, xv. 11); partly in consequence of the work of the Holy Spirit, who reminded the disciples of the new spiritual foundation of the Christian religion (John xiv. 26), and showed to Peter in
a vision that the difference of food has lost its authority in the Christian eon of salvation (Acts x. 15), Jewish Christians were at a very early period converted to eat with Gentile Christians, by receiving Christ as the new living lawgiver (Gal. ii. 12‑20). The departure of this JewishChristian part of the first Christians from Jerusalem, and the destruction of the temple, became, at least to the less rigorous among them, a guide to regard the lax ceremonialis of the Old Testament (cf. Heb. ix. 1) as perfected, i.e., spiritualized, in Christianity. The Church of Christ knows, it is true, that death is the wages of sin (Rom. vi. 23), and groans to be relieved from the body of this death (vii. 24); but she does not regard the death of the body as the evil most to be avoided, but the spiritual and everlasting death (Matt. viii. 22; Luke ix. 60). " Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God." See for ethnic parallels COMPARATIvE RELIGION, VI., 1, C.
E. K8NI0.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: From the comparative side the best three
books are: J. G. Frazer Golden Bough, especially i 323325, ii. 204‑233, 304‑309, London, 1900; E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, especially ii. 25‑27, 431‑433, ib. 1891; F. B. Jevons, Introduction to the History of Religion, pp. 57‑58, 75‑78, 102, 116‑127, ib. 1896. For the Semitic world consult: Smith, Rot. of Sem., 122, 324 eqq., 447448; idem, Kinship, chap. viii., 304‑311 et passim; D.,Nielsen, Die altarabiache Mondreligion, pp 204‑208, Strasburg, 1904; M. J. Lagrange, 2tudea Bur lea religions a€mitiquea, pp. 140 sqq., 161, 237, 395 sqq., Paris, 1905. For other regions consult: F. C. Movers, Die Ph6nizier, 2 vols., Bonn, 1841‑56; D. A. Chwolson, Die Seabier, i. 146 sqq., 8t. Petersburg, 1856; L. Krehl, Religion der vorialamiachen Araber, pp. 30‑34, Leipsie 1863; F. Spiegel, Eraniache Altertumakunde, ii. 144‑145, ib. 1873; F. Justi, Geachichte des alter Peraiena, pp. 144‑145, ib. 1879; P. E. Lucius, Der Baaeniamus, Strasburg, 1881; E. Westermarek, History of Human Marriage, chaps. xiv.‑xv., London, 1894; A. Wiedemann, Die Toten and ihre Reiche im Glauben der alter Aegypter, pp. 25 sqq., Leipsic, 1900; Wellhausen, Heidentum, pp. 113 sqq.
On the custom of the Hebrews consult: H. Ewald, Altertitmer lea Volkea Israel, pp. 192 sqq., G&ttingen, 1866, Eng. transl., pp. 142 sqq., Boston, 1876; W. Baudissin, Studien our aemitischen Religionegeschichte, ii. 20 aqq., 90 sqq., Leipsie, 1878 (important discussion); Benzinger, Archbologie, § 72; Nowack, Archdologie, ii. 287 aqq.; J. Fray, Tod, Seelenglaube and Seelenkult im alter Israel, pp. 127, 137 eqq., Leipsic, 1898; Matthes, in ThT, 1899, pp. 293 sqq.; V Zapletal, Totemismua and die Urreligion Israel., pp. 81 sqq., Freiburg, 1901; W. Bousset, Religion lea Judentuma, pp. 202 sqq., Berlin, 1903; K. Marti, Geachiehfe der iaraelitiaehen Religion, Stuttgart, 1903; the commentaries on Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy; and the works on O. T. theology.
DEFINITOR: An official of religious orders who, according to the reformed constitutions of the Middle Ages, stood at the head of a district (de finitio). The orders consisted of congregations, which were divided into defcnitiones, each including a certain number of monasteries. The heads of the houses were subject to the definitor, the latter to the provincial, and the provincial to the general.
DEGRADATION: A severe penalty inflicted upon delinquent clerics by the ancient ecclesiastical discipline (see JURISDICTION, ECCLESIASTICAL). By the end of the twelfth century the doctrine of the indelible character of holy orders had been generally accepted; and in connection with it and with the struggle of the Church for clerical immunities the earlier penalty of deposition was divided into what was now called deposition (the

391	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	DefilemeUt sad Purification
		Deism
removal of a cleric from his office and benefice with
the prohibition of the exercise of his orders) and
degradation, which, in addition, withdrew from
him all the privileges of the clerical state. The
degradatio verbalis involved the pronouncement of
the former penalties; and was performed by the
bishop with the assent of the chapter in the case of
the minor orders, of three bishops in that of deacons,
and of six bishops, mitered abbots, or other digni
taries in that of priests. The solemn degradatio
actualia went further and involved the observance
of special formalities‑‑the stripping of the culprit
of his vestments, the shaving of the head to oblit
erate the tonsure, and the scraping of the thumbs
and fingers as if to remove the unction bestowed
at ordination. These ceremonies were supposed
to take place in the presence of the secular authority,
to whose jurisdiction the delinquent, as now no
more than a mere layman, was then handed over.
	DE HIERETICO COMBURENDDO: A writ for
the burning of heretics by the secular power after
they had been condemned by the ecclesiastical
power. It was issued in England under Henry IV.
in 1401; expanded under Henry V. in 1415; re
pealed in the twenty‑fifth year of Henry VIII.
(1534), and again in the first year of Edward VI.
(1547); revived in the first year of Mary (1553);
repealed in the first year of Elizabeth (1559), and
finally in the twenty‑ninth year of Charles II.
(1678). In its original form it was directed against
the Lollards, and was the earliest step taken by
Parliament in their suppression, but was afterward
used against Protestants in general. It solemnly
abjures them to abstain entirely from preaching
or otherwise circulating their " new doctrines and
wicked, heretical, and erroneous opinions "; orders
them to give up the books which advocate the same;
threatens them with imprisonment for disobedience
if they refuse; and on their condemnation by the
ecclesiastical authorities lays it upon the secular
authorities to burn them.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The full text of the writ is given in Gee and
	Hardy, Documents, pp. 133‑137. Consult: J. Gairdner,
	The English Church in the 16. Century, pp. 146, 231, 249,
	348, 362, London, 1903; J. H. Overton, The Church in
	England, i. 300, 418, ii. 19, ib. 1897.
		DEISM.
I. England.		Shaftesbury, Mandeville,
	Lord Herbert of Cher‑			Dodwell, Bolingbroke
		bury (¢ 1).			(¢ 8).
	Hobbes and Others (12).		Hume's Influence (19).
	Charles Blount ($ 3).	II. France.
	John Locke (4 4).		Voltaire (§ 1).
	Toland, Collins, and		The Encyclopediats (12).
		Others (§ 5).		Holbach and the Ideo
	Matthew Tindal ($ 8).			logical School (¢ 3).
	Morgan, Annet, and Mid‑		Rousseau (f 4).
		dleton (¢ 7).
The term " Deism " properly denotes a belief in deity that is rational and universal, in contrast to Atheism and Pantheism (qq.v.), on the one hand, and to uncritical Theism (q.v.), on the other. Deism, which originated in England, represented an effort to find a standard of religious truth by which the conflicting claims of individual creeds and the pretensions of supernatural revelation might be tested, and which should harmonize with the metaphysical results of the new sciences. It
is in this sense that " natural religion " and the term " natural " itself are so intimately bound up with the history of Deism (see NATURAL THEOLOGY). Since the habit was to regard religion as a system of metaphysics, the desired standard of truth was sought in a metaphysics that should be universally cognizable and whose validity might be tested by the facts of experience. The development of Deism in consequence is closely bound up with the development of sensualism and mechanism, and with the struggle between the a priori philosophy and empiricism, as well as with the development of the theory of morals which at the same time had succeeded in emancipating itself from the sway of theology and sought to lay its foundations upon epistemology and psychology (see ETHics). Since the entire conception of natural religion is nothing but a restatement of the Stoic lox naturce (see NATURAL LAw), Deism may be taken as the point of departure for the employment of the epistemological and psychological methods in the philosophy of religion. At the same time, in the attempt to decide between the conflicting claims of particular revelations, Deism made its chief problem the study of the historical connection between natural religion and revelation, and became a philosophy of the history of religion in which the relation of elemental truth, as determined by the mind, to Christian revelation and to pagan truth was fixed on purely rational lines. Criticism of historic Christianity and the recognition of the relative truth contained in other creeds led to the abandonment of the system of the philosophy of history at first adopted and made way for the modern principles of the philosophy of religion.
As a contributory force, with Puritan radicalism, to the opposition with which the Anglican Church was confronted, Deism was naturally at odds with respectable conservatism in the State, the Church, and the world of literature and learning. Not till Hume and Gibbon took them up did the problems of Deism attain full scientific treatment in lasting and really literary form. Far more profound was the influence it exercised on French literature. The real tendency of Deism is best expressed in the name " freethinkers," which its advocates adopted; by their opponents they were designated as Naturalists on account of their opposition to supernatural revelation.
L England: The beginnings of Deism appear in the seventeenth century. Its main principles are to be found in the writings of Lord Herbert of Cherbury (d.1648), one of the most original thinkers
of his century, who devoted the calm evening of a
life spent in a military and diplomatic career to a
search for a standard and a guide in the conflicts
of creeds and systems. He was a friend of Grotius,
Casaubon, and Gassendi, and during a long sojourn
		in France made himself acquainted
	1. I:Ord with the thought of Montaigne, of
	Herbert Bodin, and especially of Charron. His
	of works are: De Veritate (Paris, 1624);
	Oherbnry. De rdigimw Gentilium errorumqm mpud
eos causis (London, 1645); and two minor treatises,
De cauAia errorum and De religions laid. The first

THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	$92
work advances a theory of knowledge based upon the recognition of innate universal characteristics on the object perceived, and rigidly opposed to knowledge supernatural in its origin and determinable only by strife and conflict. The second work lays down the common marks by which religious truth is recognized. These are a belief in the existence of the Deity, the obligation to reverence such a power, the identification of worship with practical morality, the obligation to repent of sin and to abandon it, and, finally, divine recompense in this, world and the next. These five essentials (the so‑called " Five Articles " of the English Deists) constitute the nucleus of all religions and of Christianity in its primitive, uncorrupted form. The variations between positive religions are explained as due partly to the allegorization of nature, partly to self‑deception, the workings of imagination, and priestly guile.
Herbert's influence disappeared in the storms of the Puritan Revolution, and Deism found the most important impetus supplied to its progress in ecclesiastical circles. the learning of the Renaissance had served to incline the clergy of the Establishment to a moderate rational theology, and in the conflict between Puritans and Anglicans, and between Roman Catholics and Protestants, it became common to invoke Reason as arbiter. Later Deists could appeal to the arguments of leading theologians, as well as to those of the Cambridge Platonists (q.v.), who, in their conflict against the sensualism of Hobbes, exalted the authority of moral intuitions. The Revolution served to intensify the growing feeling against what was arbitrary in religion, and emphasized the demand for subjective independence in the field of reason and the need of unity in the realm of practical morality.
Antagonism to theological supernaturalism stands out as the most conspicuous characteristic in the system of Hobbes (d. 1679; see HOBBFE, THOMA6), inspired by the teachings of the new mathematical and natural sciences. The different religions are explained as the product of human fear inter
8. Hobbes preting natural phenomena in anthro‑
and pomorphic form, or, in their higher Others. aspects, as the outcome of reflection on causal relation in the universe. Miracles and revelations are in themselves improbable, and may be most easily explained as the imaginings of the ignorant. Positive religion is the creation of the State, and the sovereign justly possesses unconditional power to enforce its prescriptions, for only in this way can religious strife be avoided. Between religion thus naturally explained and a prophetic and Christian revelation Hobbes, nevertheless, attempted to mediate; he mentions as the means that might lead to such a reconciliation the rational interpretation of miracles, the differentiation between the inner moral sense of Scripture and mere figurative expression, and the historical criticisms of Biblical sources. The entire apparatus of Rationalism is here to be found, limited only in its application. Further, Spinoza's Tractatus theologico‑Ooliticus (1670) and Bayle's Dictionnaire (1695‑97) were effective in shaping the character of Deism. Of no small im‑
portance, also, was the rise of a literature of comparative religion and the publication of ethnographical studies and works of travel. China, Arabia, Egypt, Persia, India, savage nations even, were brought within the horizon of religious investigation. Philosophy, beginning with Locke's theory of knowledge, and natural science, with Newton's theory of gravitation, contributed to the opposition with which dogma was confronted. Yet their attitude was not one of hostility to religion, which they sought rather to utilize for the purpose of establishing the desired universal standard of truth. Newton and Boyle succeeded in reconciling the creed of the Church with their mechanical metaphysics; and this union remained characteristic of England, so that even men like Priestley and Hartley did not shrink from supporting their materialistic theories by theological arguments. We have here the blending of a sensualistic epistemology, a mechanical‑teleological metaphysics, a historical criticism, and an aprioristic ethics whose product in the shape of natural religion was destined first to undermine Christianity, then to compete with it, and finally to supplant it.
These various tendencies could not show themselves fully under the ecclesiastical restraint of the Restoration, yet they appear clearly enough in the writings of Charles Blount (d. 1693), usually $. Charles placed second to Herbert in the lists
	Blount.	of Deists. Like his predecessor, Blount
		dwells on the conflict between rival
religions, and finds a standard of adjustment
in a fusion of Herbert's theory of universal char
acteristics with Hobbes's prescription by the State.
Like Hobbes and Spinoza, he touches serious prob
lems of Biblical criticism at this early date. Free
dom from prejudice is his boast; he asserts the
supernatural character of Christianity on the basis
of its miracles, after he has already rendered them
dubious by parallels with non‑Christian miracles.
His works were: Anima mundi (London, 1679),
Great i8'Diana of the Ephssians (1680), and The
Two .First Books of Philostratus concerning the Life
of Apollaniua Tyaneus, published in English with
notes (1680).
The Revolution of 1688, the establishment of the freedom of the press in 1694, the political favor that was bestowed on the new tendencies in theology, in opposition to the stricter Anglican‑
	4. John	ism which was tainted with Stuart
		partizanahip, were conditions favor
		able to the development of the seed
that had already been planted. Parallel with the
liberalization of orthodox dogma, there ran a more
radical development aiming at the attainment of
a standard for the testing of the contents of reve
lation. Of surpassing importance in this direction
was the influence and work of John Locke (d. 1704),
who, in the field of theology, found his starting
point, like most prominent thinkers of the age, in
the conflict of systems, doctrines, and practises.
Out of his reflections on the data of experience he
developed a mechanical‑teleological metaphysics
and an empirical‑utilitarian ethics, the latter agree
ing with the old idea of lex naturce in that ethical
experience merely confirms the connection eatab‑

393	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Christianity. Further problems of Biblical criticism and the distinction between the diverse parties in primitive Christianity are advanced in Toland's Amyntor (1699) and Nazarenus ; or Jewish, Gentile and Mahometan Christianity (1718). In like manner, Anthony Collins (q.v.; d. 1729), in his Discourse of Freethinking (1713), developed the consequences of Lockes propositions. Revelation depends for its sanction upon its agreement with reason, and what is contrary to reason is not revelation. Practical morality is independent of dogma, which, on the contrary, has been the cause of much evil in the history of the world. Christ and the Apostles, the prototypes of the freethinkers, never made use of supernatural authority, but confined themselves to simple, rational demonstration. Collins's work elicited numerous replies; but none really made answer to his main thesis. After remaining silent for eleven years, Collins renewed the contest with a contribution on prophecy and miracles. Setting out from Locke's proposition that revelation was truth sanctioned by reason, he found it a simple step to reject prophecy and miracles as non‑essential characteristics of religion, amounting at most to mere didactic devices. The mathematician William Whiston (q.v.; d. 1752) gave a new impulse to the controversy by the publication of The True Text (1722), in which the lack of real concordance between the New Testament interpretation of Old Testament prophecies is pointed out, and the prevailing allegorical method of reconciling such differences summarily rejected. The present form of the Old Testament is characterized as a forgery perpetrated by the Jews, and an attempt is made by Whiston to restore the original text. Collins, in his Discourse on the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion (1724), agreed with Wbiston as to the discrepancies between the two Testaments, but defended the allegorical method of interpretation. Thomas Woolston (q.v.; d. 1733) came to the support of Collins in this controversy over the Biblical prophecies; and when his opponents shifted their appeal from the prophecies to the miraculous acts of Jesus he applied his destructive allegorical method to those also, in his Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour (1727‑30).
Matthew Tindal (q.v.; d. 1733), in his dialogue
Christianity as Old as the Creation, or the Gospel a Republication of the Religion of Nature (1730), produced the standard text‑book of Deism. Proceeding from Locke's proposition of the identity of the
truths of revelation with those of
e. Xat‑ reason, he adduces a new array of thaw arguments in support of that position.
The goodness of God, the vast extent of the earth, the long duration of human life on earth render it improbable that only to Jews and Christians was vouchsafed the favor of perceiving truth. We now have brought in the classic example of the three hundred million Chine who surely could not all be excluded from the truth, and Confucianism begins to be extolled against much that is repugnant and harsh in the Mosaic law. Christianity, to be the truth, must find itE substance in all religions; it must be as old as creation. The doctrines of the fall and of original
lished by a teleological government of the universe between certain acts and their consequences. In spite of his supernaturalist tendencies, Locke nevertheless maintained, in his Letters on Toleration (1689‑92), that only rational demonstration, and not compulsion or mere assertion, can establish the validity of revelation. In the Essay concerning Human Understanding (1690) he had investigated the conception of revelation from the epistemological standpoint, and laid down the criteria by which the true revelation is to be distinguished from other doctrines which claim such authority. Strict proof of the formal character of revelation must be adduced; the tradition which communicates it to us must be fully accredited by both external and internal evidence; and its content must be shown to correspond with rational metaphysics and ethics. Revelation is revelation; but, after it is once given, it may be shown a posteriori to be rational, ire., capable of being deduced from the premises of our reason. Only where this is possible is there a presumption in favor of the purely mysterious parts of revelation. Where these criteria are disregarded the way is open to the excesses of sects and priesthoods by which religion, the differentia of reasoning man, has often made him appear less rational than the beasts. Locke advances therefore the remarkable conception of a revelation that reveals only the reasonable and the universally cognizable. The practical consequences of the thesis are deduced in his Reasonableness of Christianity as Delivered in the Scriptures (1695), which aims at the termination of religious strife through the recovery of the truths of primitive, rational Christianity. From the Gospels and the Acts, as distinguished from the Epistles, he elicits as the fundamental Christian verities the doctrine of the Messiahship of Jesus and that of the kingdom of God. Inseparably connected with these are the recognition of Jesus as ruler of this kingdom, forgiveness of sins, and subjection to the moral law of the kingdom. This law is identical with the ethical portion of the law of Moses, which in its turn corresponds to the lax naturce or rationis. The Gospel is but the divine summary and exposition of the law of nature, and it is the advantage of Christianity over pagan creeds and philosophies that it offers this law of nature intelligibly, with divine authority, and free from merely ceremonial sacerdotalism. To do this it requires the aid of a supernatural revelation, whose message is attainable through reason also, but only in an imperfect way.
Deducing the full consequences of Locke's theory, John Toland (q.v.; d. 1722), in his Christianity not
6. Toland Mysterious (1696), maintained that Collins, ' the content of revelation must neither and contradict nor transcend the dictates
	Others.	°f won. Revelation is not the ba
		sis of truth, but only a " means of in
formation " by which man may arrive at knowl
edge, the sanction for which must be found in
reason. Primitive Christianity knew nothing of
mystery, whose sources are Judaic and Greek, and
the original Christian use of the word mysterium
conveyed no idea of that which transcended reason.
The basis is thus laid for the critical study of early

Deism	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	394
sin can not stand, since it is irrational to believe in the exclusion from the truth of the vast majority of humanity. Tindal's position is orthodox to the extent that Judaism and Christianity are acknowledged as revelations, though revelations only of the lex raturce, which is identified with natural religion, the primitive, uncorrupted faith, consisting in " the practise of morality in obedience to the will of God." An echo of the teachings of Tindal is found in Thomas Chubb (q.v.; d. 1747), whose True Gospel of Jesus Christ (1738) attempts to prove that what Jesus sought to teach his followers was but natural morality, or the law of nature.
Thomas Morgan (q.v.; d. 1743) continued Tindal's argument on its historical side in The Moral Philosopher (1737‑40), displaying much 7. Morgan, originality in tracing the development
Annet, of heathen religions, as well as of and
Middleton. Judaism and Christianity. Abandon
	ing the old method of deriving specific
religions from priestly deception, he explains their
rise through the gradual supplanting of the one
God of the law of nature by a crowd of divinities
connected with definite natural phenomena. The
legislation of Moses, under Egyptian influences,
imposed a rigid and nationally restricted form upon
the lex naturce, and the Jewish ritual and ceremonial
is in essence a purely political institution. Full
revelation of the law of nature came with Christ,
who gave to the world in concentrated form the
truth that had already been revealed to Confucius
Zoroaster, Socrates, and Plato. The protagonist
of this divinely revealed truth after Christ was Paul,
who, in his form of expression, indeed, was com
pelled to make concessions to the influence of
Judaism, and in whom, therefore, much is to be
taken figuratively. Peter, on the other hand, and
the author of the Apocalypse misunderstood the
import of the revelation of Christ and corrupted
it in the spirit of Messianic Judaism. Persecution
forced the two tendencies into union in the Catholic
Church,, and the Reformation has only partially
succeeded in separating them. Morgan's argu
ment results, therefore, in the rejection of the
formerly assumed identity between the law of
Moses and the lex naturce, and the restriction of the
latter, in the fulness of revelation, to Christianity.
His conclusions were denied by William Warburton
(q.v.) in The Divine Legation of Moses (173811).
When the Christian apologists substituted for the
argument from miracles the argument from per
sonal witness and the credibility of Biblical evi
dence, Peter Annc `. (d. 1769), in his Resurrection o f
Jesus (1744), assailed the validity of such evidence,
and first advanced the hypothesis of the illusory
death of Jesus, suggesting also that possibly Paul
should be regarded as the founder of a new religion.
In Supernaturals Examined (1747) Annet roundly
denies the possibility of miracles. Conyers Middle
ton (q.v.; d. 1750) in his later writings sought to
bridge over the gulf between sacred and profane
history, and to test them equally by the same
method. His Inquiry into the Miraculous Powers
(1748) demonstrates that the belief in miracles
is common to primitive Christianity and heathen
creeds, and that it developed to great proportions
in the later life of the Church, so that one is there confronted with an endless succession of miracles to which belongs the same degree of credibility that the apologists attributed to the miracles of the Bible. Though special reference to the New Testament was omitted, Middleton propounded a question to answer which no serious attempt was made when he asked why credence should be granted to one faith that is denied to another.
The Deistic controversy died out in England about the middle of the eighteenth century. The Deistic literature had exhausted its stock of materials, while its tenets had never obtained a strong hold on the people. The cold, inflexible, rational supernaturalism of Palsy (q.v.; d. 1805) was considered as the final settlement of these long conflicts. From the beginning, however, there had been a class of critics, representatives of the old Renaissance spirit, and inimical, therefore, to the Stoic and Christian ethics, who had only partially shared the views of the Deists, and in some ways had advanced to a position far beyond them. Shaftesbury (q.v.; d. 1713), in opposition to the utilitarian and supernaturalist ethics of Locks and Clarks, developed the conception of a strictly autonomous moral code having its basis in a moral instinct in man whose
8. shaftes‑ end is to bring individual and society
	bury,	to harmonious self‑perfection. Ber
Xande. nard Mandeville (1733) adopted the
Ville,
Dodwell, Epicureanism of Hobbes and Gassendi,
Soling‑	studied moral problems in the akep‑
	broke.	tical spirit of Montaigne and La
		Rochefoucauld, gave the preference
to Bayle over the Deists, and developed empir
icism into a sort of Agnosticism. He criticized
the prevailing morality as a mere conventional
lie. Christianity‑which the Deists had wished,
while reforming, to maintain‑he declared im
possible, not only as a religion, but as a system of
morality. His Free Thought on Religion (1720)
has caused him to be included in the ranks of the
Deists; but his real position is brought out in the
Fable of the Bees (1714). Henry Dodwell (q.v.; d.
1711), in Christianity not Founded on Argument
(1742), attempted to demonstrate the invalidity
of the rationalistic basis for Christian truth con
structed by the Deists, from the very nature of the
religious impulse, which, being opposed to rational
argumentation, calls for the support of tradition
and mystery, and finds fascination in the attitude
of credo quia absurdum. The only proof proceeds
from a mystic inner enlightenment; logical dem
onstrations like those of Clarks or the Boyle lec
tures are only destructive of religion. Bolingbroke
(d. 1751) voices the French influence in a capricious
and dilettante manner. Despising all religions as
the product of enthusiasm, fraud, and superstition,
he nevertheless concedes to real Christianity the
possession of moral and rational truth; an advo
cate of freedom of thought, he supports an estab
lished church in the interest of the State and of
public morals (Letters on the Study and Use of His
tory, 1752; Essays, 1753).
Far greater is the influence of David Hume (q.v.; d. 1776), who summarized the Deistic criticism and raised it to the level of modern scientific method

895	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Deism
by emancipating it from the conception of a deity conceived through the reason and by abandoning its characteristic interpretation of his‑
9. Hume's tory. He separates Locke's theory of In$u‑ knowledge from its connection with ence. a scheme of mechanical teleology, and confines the human mind within the realm of sense perception. Beginning then with the crudest factors of experience and not with a religious and ethical norm, he traces the development of systems of religion, ethics, and philosophy in an ascending course through the ages. He thus overthrew the Deistic philosophy of religion while he developed their critical method to the extent of making it the starting‑point for the English positivist philosophy of religion. Distinguishing between the metaphysical problem of the idea of .God and the historical problem of the rise of religions, he denied the possibility of attaining a knowledge of deity through the reason, and explained religion as arising from the misconception or arbitrary misinterpretation of experience (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, written in 1751, but not published till 1779; Natural History of Religion, 1757). Against the justification of religion by other means than rational Hume directs his celebrated critique of miracles, in which to the possibility of miraculous occurrences he opposes the possibility of error on the part of the observer or historian. Human experience, affected by ignorance, fancy, and the imaginings of fear and hope, explains sufficiently the growth of religion. Hume's contemporaries failed to recognize the portentous transformation which he had effected in the character of Deism. The Scottish " common‑sense school " saved for a time the old natural theology and the theological argument from miracles to revelation; but in reality Hume's skeptical method, continued by Hamilton and united to French Positivism by Mill and Browne, became, in connection with modern ethnology and anthropology, the basis of a psychological philosophy of religion in which the data of outward experience are the main factors (Evolutionism, Positivism, Agnosticism‑TyIor, Spencer, Lubbock, Andrew Lang, etc.). In so far as Hume's influence prevailed among his contemporaries, it may be said to have amalgamated with that of Voltaire; the " infidels," as they were now called, were Voltairians. Most prominent among them was Gibbon (d. 17 94), whose Decline and Fall offers the first dignified pragmatic treatment of the rise of Christianity. The fundamental principles of Deism became tinged in the nineteenth century with skepticism, pessimism, or pantheism, but the conceptions of natural religion retained largely their old character.
II. France: With other English influences Deism entered France, where, however, only its materialistic and revolutionary phases were seized upon, to the exclusion of that religiosity which had never been lost in England. French Deism stood outside of theology. The English writers who camg to exercise the greatest influence were Hobbes, Locke, Shaftesbury, Pope, Bolingbroke, and Hume. Of the true Deists only Collins, the most critical and the least theological, became prominent.
Voltaire (q.v.; d. 1778) embraced the conception of natural religion with ardor, and entered 1. Voltaire. Into a polemic against intolerance in
Church and State as well as against the philosophy of the Church and the prevailing religious Cartesianism (Essai sur les mmurs et l'esprit des nations, 1754‑58; Dictionnaire philosophique, 1764). He derived his natural philosophy from Newton and Clarke, his theory of knowledge and his ideas on toleration from Locke, the main principles of his ethics from Shaftesbury, his critical method and the conception of natural religion from the Deists. All phenomena are explained historically by the interaction between man and his environment, and all things are governed by God acting only in accordance with natural laws. Natural morality and religion are not entirely innate ideas, but rather simple and universally prevalent conditions standing in need of development and following a course that leads through errors arising from ignorance and fear to an ultimate standard truth which is characterized as the " fruit of the cultivated reason." Deism is thereby emptied of all religious content and restricted to the field of morals and rational metaphysics. All that is essentially characteristic of human nature is the same everywhere; all that depends on custom varies. The chief influences for changes in the human mind are climate, government, religion, and in opposition to these one should seek to arrive at the underlying, undiversified unity. " Dogma leads to fanaticism and strife; morality everywhere inspires harmony." The rise of positive religions may be studied psychologically in children and savages. Fear and ignorance of the law of nature are the primary causes; the parallel growth of social groups and the need of authority cooperate. In China alone natural religion has escaped this pernicious development. India became the home of theological speculation, and influenced the religions of the West, of which the most important was Judaism as the parent of Christianity and Mohammedanism. Moses was a shrewd politician; the prophets were enthusiasts like the dervishes, or else epileptics; Jesus was a visionary like the founder of the Quakers, and his religion received life only through its union with Platonism. Voltaire's conception of the evolution of history entered deep into European thought.
By the side of the party of the juste milieu and of " good sense," of which Voltaire is the most prominent representative, there arose a school which carried the doctrines of mechanism and sensualism
		to their furthest consequences and
	2' The	evolved a philosophy of materialism.
	Ency‑	They removed from Deism the great
	lope	factor of natural religion, retaining
		only its critical method as applied to
the history of religion, The head of this school
was Denis Diderot (q.v.; d. 1784), and its great
orga:. of expression was the Encyclopedic (see
ENCYCLOPEDIST$). The state censorship, however,
compelled the projectors to call to their aid a num
ber of contributors of conservative views and to
bring their skeptical method to the task of defend
ing the compromise between reason and revelation.

Deism
Delitzsoh
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
In this spirit the main religious topics were treated, but by a subtle infusion of the spirit of Bayle and the expedient of cross‑references from these articles to topes which might he handled with greater freedom, Diderot succeeded in supplying the desired corrective.
It was the circle of Holbach (q.v.; d. 1789) that dared to apply the most extreme consequences of materialism to religious questions. Helv46tius (q.v.; d. 1771) prepared the way with his De l'esprit (1758), in which he expounded a materialistic psychology and ethics. Their moral theories, deriving though they did from Hobbes and Hume, lost all connection with the position of Deism, which became for them a mere armory of weapons for the destruction of all religion with its consequences, intolerance and moral corruption. Holbach is undoubtedly the author of the Syst6me de la nature, which appeared in 1770 as the work of Mirabaud. The Systsme is not original in ascribing the beginnings of religion to human hope and fear and to ignorance of the laws of nature. Fraud, ambition, and unhealthy enthusiasm have made use of it as a means of political and social influence and have succeeded in crystallizing its primitive emotions into positive creeds, within which animistic tendencies have been developed and subtilized into systems of metaphysics and theology‑the sources of irrational intolerance. Christianity s. 8olbaoh ;s but Galilean doctrines translated
and the into platonic metaphysics. d i~ 	ants
l~ 	theology to the present day hovers
	School.	between the extremest anthropomor
		phism and the most abstract specu
lation. The natural religion of the Deists dif
fers from the concrete religions only in that it
proceeds not from fear and ignorance but from
an optimistic interpretation of life; however, in at
tempting to prove by natural science the good
ness of God and man and the adaptation of the
world to the purpose of creation, it is but a half
matured critical method vainly endeavoring to
reconcile the old irrationalism with the spirit of
the new sciences. It is guilty of clinging to the
naive view which regards the world as anthro
pocentric instead of recognizing the existence of
laws to which man is indifferent‑the purely causal,
not teleological force of matter. Further, the whole
scheme of identifying morality with religion‑the
psychological support of the Deistic position‑is
repudiated by Holbach, who defines morality as
based solely on the natural law of self‑preservation
and self‑perpetuation. Step by step Deism is thus
stripped of its connection with revelation, with
metaphysics, and finally with morality, and nothing
is retained but its method of interpreting religion
and its criticism of the facts of Christianity. From
Holbach and his circle, and from the cognate group
of the Encyclopedists, proceeded the so‑called
ideological school, who held the main problem of
philosophy to be the analysis of the mental con
ceptions aroused by sensations from the material
world (Condorcet, SieyAs, Naigeon, Garat, Volney,
Dupuis, Saint‑Lambert, Laplace, Cabanis, De Tracy,
J. B. Say, Benjamin Constant Bichat, Lamarck,
Saint‑Simon, Thurot, Stendhal). Out of this
sae
school, in turn, developed the positivism of Comte. J. J. Rousseau (q.v.; d. 1778) gave quite a different tendency to Deism. Accepting in the main the sensualism of Locks and the metaphysics of Clarks and Newton, he maintains after the manner of Shaftesbury and Diderot a belief in inborn moral instincts which he distinguishes as " sentiments "
	4. Sons‑ from mere acquired ideas; he is true
		to the position of Deism in connecting
		this moral " sentiment " with a belief in
God, and lie protests against the separation between
the two which the skepticism of Diderot had
brought about. He was influenced by Richard
son, as well as by Locks. " Sentiment " becomes
the basis of a metaphysical system built up out of
the data of experience under the influence of the
Deistic philosophy, but redeemed from formalism
by constant reference to sentimentality and emotion
as the primary sources of religion. The nature of
religion is not dogmatic but moralistic, practical,
emotional. Rousseau, therefore, finds the essence
of religion, not (like Voltaire) in the cultivated
intellect, but in the naive and disinterested under
standing of the uncultured. Conscious, rational
progress in civilization, no lees than supernaturalism
in Church and State, is an outcome of the fall, when
the will chose intellectual progress in preference to
simple felicity. With Rousseau natural religion
takes on a new meaning; " nature " is no longer
universality or rationality in the cosmic order, in
contrast to special supernatural and positive phe
nomena, but primitive simplicity and sincerity, in
contrast to artificiality and studied reflection. In
his scheme of the rise of religions he sets out from
the common standpoint of the discrepancies and
contradictions prevailing among historic creeds.
Yet positive religion to him is not so much the
product of ignorance and fees as the corruption of
the original instinct through the selfishness of man,
who has erected rigid creeds that he might arrogate
to himself unwarranted privilege or escape the
obligations of natural morality. Something of the
true religion is to be found in every faith, and of all
creeds Christianity has retained the greatest meas
ure of the original truth, and the purest morality.
So sublime and yet so simple does Rousseau find
the Gospel that he can scarcely believe it the work
of men. Its irrational elements he attributes to
misconception on the part of the followers of Christ
and especially of Paul, who had no personal inter
course with him. It was natural that between the
advocate of such views and the party of the ma
terialists strife should arise, and in fact Rousseau's
religious influence in France was alight. On the
rising German idealism, however, he exercised a
mighty influence. 	(E. Txoavrecs.)

Bn9rxoassra:: On the preparation for Deism in the Aufnc (" enlightenment ' ) consult: H. Henke, Qs aekieAta der rhriatiichen %irdse, vole. iv.‑vi.. Brunswick,
1804; K. Erdmann, Die Autk7drunp, Hamburg, 1846; H. von Bueohe. the freie reZipiBb Autkidrunp, Darmetadt,
1848; F. C. Schlosser, OeedaiclUe des 18. Jahrhundmta, 7 a voln., Heidelberg', 1853‑b7; E. Henke, 1Veuero Hirehen‑
peachichte, vol. ii., Halls, 1878; O. Pfleiderer Relipioni‑
Philoaophis, Berlin 1898, Eng. kranel.. Philowphy of Rs. liyion, 4 vole, London, 1888‑88.
Books which treat of Deism in general we: J F Horst,
History o/ Ragonalina, New York, 1902; L. Nosok, Du

397	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Ddxm
		Delitzsch
	FWidenker in der Religion, 3 vols., Bern, 1853‑55; A.
	S. Farrar, Critical History of Free Thought, Lectures iv.
	viii., London, 1863; C. J. Abbey and J. H. Overton, Eno.
	Church in the 18th Century, chap. iv., London, 1878 (" an
	admirable summary "); J. H. Overton and F. Relton,
	The English Church (171.¢‑1800), chaps. iii. iv., London,
1905.
	On English Deism the classic is J. Leland, Deistical
	Writers, 5th (best) ed. with Appendix by W. L. Brown,
	continuation by C. R. Edmonds, London, 1837. Con
	sult: J. Hunt, Religious Thought in England, vole. ii.‑iii.,
	London, 1870; J. Cairns, Unbelief in the 18th Century, ib.
	1881; 'L. Stephen, Hist. of Eng. Thought in the 18th Cen
	tury, ib. 1881; E. Bayous, Les D6stes anplais, Paris, 1882;
	W. Arthur, God without Religion; Deism and Sir James
	3taphen, ib. 1887; W. E. H. Lecky, Hiat. of . . . Ration
alism in Europe, 2 vols., ib. 1899.
	On Deism in France consult: C. Bartholmiee, Hiatoire
	critique des doctrines religisuass modernes, Strasburg, 1855;
	H. Taine, Lee Johiloeophes franraie du 19. suds, ib. 1887;
	F. Ravaimon, La Philosophic franyaiee au 19. sitcls, ib.
	1868; F. Picavet, Lee Id6olagues, ib. 1891; J. Texts,
	Rousseau et lea origin" du coemopolitiame liMmire, ib.
1895.
	On the German phase consult: K. R. Hagenbach, Ger
	man Rationalism, Edinburgh, 1865; G. C. B. Punier, Go
	achichte der christlichen Relipionaphilosophie, 2 vole.,
	Brunswick, 1880‑83, Eng. tranel., Edinburgh, 1887; F.
	A. Lange, Geachichts die Materialismue, Leipsio, 1887,
Eng. trans]., 3 vole., London, 187781.
	DEISSMAIP, dais'man, GUSTAV ADOLF: Ger
man Lutheran; b. at Langenscheid‑an‑derLahn,
Nassau, Nov. 7, 1866.	He studied at Tiibingen
	(1885‑88) and Berlin (1888), and the theological
	seminaries at Herborn (1889 90) and Marburg
	(1891‑92). He became privet‑dtxent at Marburg
	1892; tutor in the Herborn theological seminary
	1895; professor of New Testament exegesis at
Heidelberg, 1897, and at Berlin, 1908.	In 1906
	he made an archeological tour of Asia Minor and
Greece.	His publications include a translation of
	IV Maccabees in E. Kautzech's Apokryphen and
	Pseudepigraphen des Allen Testaments (Tabingen,
	1900); Die neutestdmentliche Formel " in Christo
	Jesu" (Marburg, 1892); Johann Kepler and die
	Bibel: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Autard&
	(1894); Bibelstudien : Beilrdge, zumeist aus den
	Papyri and Inschriften, zur Geachidde tier Sprache,
	ties Schrifttums, and der Religion des hellenistischen
	Judentums and des Urehristentums (1895; Eng.
	transl. by A. Griere, Edinburgh, 1901); Neue
	Bibelstudien: Sprachgeschichtliche Beitr4ge, zumeist
	aus dent Papyri and Inschriften, zur Erkldrung
	des Neuen Testaments (1897); Briefs eines Herborner
	Classicus aus den Jahren 1606 untd 16176 (Herborn,
1898);	Die sprachliche Erforschung der grieehi
	schen Bibel, ihr gegennartiger Stand untd ihre Auf
	gaben (Giessen, 1898); Ein Original Document taus
der diokletianiechen Christenverfolgung :	Papyrus
	713 des British Museum (T(ibingen, 1902; Eng.
	transl., " The Epistle of Psenosiris," London, 1902);
	Evangelium and Urchristentum : Des Neue Teda
	mentt im Lichte der historiachen Forschung (Munich,
	1905); Die Septuagint,‑Papyri uned andere altchrist
	liche Texte der HeidelGerger Papyrus‑,Sammlung
	(Heidelberg, 1905); and New Light on the New Tes
	tament, from Records of the Gra!co‑Roman Period,
	Transl. from the Author's MS. by R. M. Straehan,
Edinburgh, 1907.
DELANY, WILLIAM: Irish Roman Catholic
and president of University College, Dublin; b. at
Leighlinbridge (12 m. n.e. of Kilkenny), County Carlow, Ireland, June 4, 1835. He was educated at Carlow College (1851‑53), Maynooth College (1853‑56), and the Gregorian University, Rome (1865‑68), and entered the Society of Jesus in 1856, being ordained priest at Rome in 1866. He was professor in Clongowes‑Wood College 1858‑60 and in St. Stanislaus's College, Tullamore, 1860‑65. In 1868‑70 he was vice‑president of the latter institution and its rector 1870,80; rector of St. Ignatius's College, Dublin, 188183; president of University College, Dublin, 1883‑88, and since 1897. He was on the staff of the Gardiner Street Jesuit. Church, Dublin, 1888‑97. He has written Lectures on Christian Reunion (Dublin, 1896) and Irish University Education (1904).
DELITZSCH, d6'lich, FRANZ: Lutheran; b. at Leipsic Feb. 23, 1813; d. there Mar. 4, 1890. He came of Hebrew parentage; studied at Leipsic, and became privet‑docent 1842; was called as ordinary professor to Rostock 1846; thence to Erlangen 1850; and back to Leipsic in 1867. In early life he was an adherent of the theology represented by Hofmann of Erlangen, but his Biblical criticism was freer than Hofmann's hyperconservative position would allow. He was as rich in spirit as in learning, though his theology was not free from theosophic influences, as is shown by his System der biblischen Psychologie (Leipsie, 1855; Eng. transl. Edinburgh, 1867). He especially distinguished himself as an exegete. At Rostock he wrote De Habacuci prophets' vita (Leipsie, 1842), but his exegetical activity really commenced at Erlangen, where he prepared independently and in connection with Keil some of the best commentaries on the Old Testament which had been produced in Germany. These were soon translated into English and published at Edinburgh (Job, Pa., Prov., Cant., Eccl., Isa.). In their earlier editions they show the influence of Hofmann, but his " Commentary on Hebrews " (Leipsic, 1857; Eng. transl., 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1870) was written in defense of the old Protestant doctrine of atonement, as opposed to Hofmann's position. In spite of his confessional attitude, Delitzsch opposed the idea " of fencing theology off with the letter of the Formula of Concord," and when his colleague Kahnis was attacked, he published a defense of him (1863). He published in 1869 his System der christlichen Apologetic, which was followed by a Hebrew translation of the New Testament (1877; 11th ed. 1890), and, in connection with S. Baer, an edition of the Old Testament text, except ExodusDeuteronomy (Leipsic, 1861‑97).
	The effect caused by the investigations of Well
hausen on his followers induced Delitzsch con
scientiously to examine his own position with re
gard to the critical questions raised, and to give up
whatever was not tenable. He published in Lu
thardt's Zeitschri ft,1880 and 1882, a series of article,
on the Pentateuch which prepared the way for the
fifth edition of his Genesis (1887), which he justly
regarded as a new work. In the Introduction he
made it clear that his position in relation to Old
Testament problems was in the main what it had

DeUtasoh
Demon	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	398
been, and that the Bible, as the literature of a divine revelation, can not be permitted to be charged with a lack of veracity or to be robbed of its historic basis. In the fourth edition of his Isaiah (Leipsic, 1889, dedicated to Driver and Cheyne of Oxford; Eng. transl., 1890), and in his Messianische Weissagungen (Leipsie, 1890; Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1891), the preface of which is dated five days before his death, a modification of his views also appeared. For those who took offense at his concession to the modern critical school he wrote Der tiefe Graben zwischen alter and moderner Theologie. Ein Bekenntniss (Leipsie, 1888; 2d ed., 1890). Besides the works already mentioned, he wrote: Zur Geschichte der jiidischen Poesie (Leipsie, 1836); Wissenschaft, Kunst, Judentum (Grimma, 1838); Anekdota zur Geschichte der mittelalterlichen Scholastik enter Juden and Moslemen (Leipsic, 1841); Philemon oder das Buch von der Freundschuft in Christo (Dresden, 1842); TVer sind die Mystiker t (Leipsie, 1842); Das Sakrament des wahren Leibes and Blutes Jesu Christi (Dresden, 1844; 7th ed.,1886); Die biblisch‑prophetische Theologie (Leipsie, 1845); Symbolm ad psalmos i7lustrando isagogicm (1846); Vier Biicher von der Kirche (Dresden, 1847); Vom Hause Gottes oder der Kirche (1849); Komplutensische Varianten zuinalttestamentlichenTexte(Leipsie, 1878); Fortgesetzte Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der komplutensischen Polyglotte (1886); Iris. Farbenstudien and Blumenstiicke (1888). He took a lively interest in the conversion of the Jews, for whose benefit he translated the New Testament into Hebrew, and published works like Jesus and Hillel (Erlangen, 1867; 3d ed., 1871) and Handwerkerleben zur Zeit Jesu (Erlangen, 1868; 3d ed., 1878; Eng. transl., New York, 1883). He also defended them against anti‑Semitic attacks and wrote Ernste Fragen an die Gebildeten yiidischer Religion (Leipsie, 1888; 2d ed., 1890), and Sind die Juden warklich das auserwdhlte Volk f (Leipsie, 1889) against Jewish pretensions and invectives. In 1886 he founded at Leipsic a seminary in which candidates of theology are prepared for missionary work among the Jews, and which in memory of him is now called Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: $. I. Curtiss, F. Delifzach, London, 1891; H. V. Hilprecht, in Old Testament Student, vi. 209 eqq.; T. K. Cheyne, in Academy, xxxvii (1890), 169, and Athenaum, 1890, i. 308; W. Baudisain, in Expositor, 1890, pp. 465 sqq.; A. K6hler, in Neue kireUuhe Zeitachrdft, i. 234 sqq.

DELITZSCH, FRIEDRICH: German Assyriologist; b. at Erlangen Sept. 3, 1850. He studied at Leipsic, where he became associate professor of Semitic languages and Assyriology in 1877. In 1893 he was called to Breslau as full professor of the same subjects, and since 1899 has held a similar position in Berlin, in addition to being director of the Asiatic section in the Royal Museum. He has written Assyrische Lesesfcke (Leipsie, 1876); Wo lag das Paradies f (1881); The Hebrew Language Viewed in the Light of Assyrian Research (London, 1883); Die Sprache der Kossder (Leipsic, 1884); Prolegomena eines neuen hebrdisch‑aramdischen T orterbuchs zum Alien Testament (1886); Assyrisches TV orterbuch zur gesammten bisher verb ff entlichten Keilachriftliteratur (3 parts, 1887‑90); Assyrische Gram‑
matik (1889; Eng. transl. by A. R. S. Kennedy, London, 1889); Geschichte Babyloniens and Assyriens (Calw, 1891); Beitrdge zur Entzifferung and Erkldrung der kappadokischen Keilsehrifttafeln (Leipsic, 1893); Die Entstehung des altesten Schriftsystems oder der Ursprung der Keilschriftzeichen (1896); Das Buch Hiob nee iibersetzt and erkldrt (1902); Babel and Bibel (2 parts, 1902‑03; Eng. transl. by C. H. W. Johns, London, 1903), which was based on lectures delivered before the Emperor of Germany and roused vehement opposition in certain conservative circles; Die babylonische Chronik (1906); and Mehr Licht (1907). He collaborates with Paul Haupt in editing the Assyriologische Bibliothek (Leipsie, 1881 sqq.) and Beitrdge zur Assyriologie and semitischen Sprachwissenschaft (1889 sqq.).
DELLA VOLPE, FRANCESCO SALESIO: Cardinal; b. at Ravenna, Italy, Dec. 24, 1844. He studied at the seminary of Bertinovo, the Seminario Pio, Rome, and the Pontificia Accademia dei Nobili Ecclesiastici. At the age of thirty he became a privy chamberlain of Pope Pius IX., and five years later was appointed secretary of the Congregation of Indulgences. He became Maestro di Camera in 1886 and Majordomo in 1892. He was created cardinal in petto in 1899, although his appointment was not publicly announced until 1901, when he received the title of cardinal priest of Santa Maria in Aquiro. Since 1903 he has been prefect of the Congregation of the Propaganda.
DELUGE. See NOAH.
DEMAREST, WILLIAM HENRY STEELE: Reformed (Dutch); b. at Hudson, N. Y., May 12, 1863. He studied at Rutgers College (B.A., 1883), and was graduated at the New Brunswick Theological Seminary in 1888. In the same year he was ordained to the ministry, and held pastorates at Walden, N. Y. (1888‑97), and Catskill, N. Y. (1897‑1901). From 1901 to 1906 he was professor of ecclesiastical history and church government in New Brunswick Theological Seminary, and in 1906 was elected president of Rutgers College, having already been acting president in 1905‑06. He has written History of the Church of Walden (New York, 1893); Outline of Church Government (New Brunswick, N. J., 1903); and Outline of Church History (1904).
DE MENT, BYRON HOOVER: Baptist; b. at Silver Springs, Tenn., May 17, 1863. He was graduated at the University of Nashville in 1885, and studied at the University of Virginia (1888‑90), and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky. (1896‑1900). He was professor of Greek and Latin in Doyle College, Doyle, Tenn., 1885‑86, and from 1893 to 1896 was pastor at Lexington, Va. In 1900‑03 he was pastor of the Twenty‑second and Walnut Street Baptist Church, Louisville, Ky., and of the First Baptist Church, Waco, Tex., 1904‑06. In 1903‑04 he was professor of Hebrew and practical theology in Baylor University, Waco, and since 1906 has been professor of Sunday‑school pedagogy in Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky. He was a member of the Texas Baptist Education Commission in 1903‑06.

399	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	DeBtzsch
Demon
DEMETRIUS OF ALEXANDRIA. See ORIGEN,
I., § 3. 	DEMON, DEMONISM.
Background of Demonology (§ 1). Nature of Demons (§ 2). The Se'irim and Shedhim (§ 3). Other Hebrew Demonic Conceptions (§ 4).
	The Greek daimon (diminutive, daimonion), the
original of the English " demon," did not connote
necessarily the idea of evil. It was rather neutral,
and might even be used as a synonym of theos,
" god "; it was also generally employed to desig
nate a tutelary genius (Lat. lar, lemur, genius), and
came to be applied to any departed soul. In the
Septuagint of the Old Testament, in the New Tes
tament, and in Christian usage the connotation is
		sinister and always involves an evil
	r. Back‑ spirit. The origin of the idea of de
	ground of mons lies far back in the empirical
	Demon‑ dualism of man's animistic concep
	ology. tions, according to which all nature is
		peopled with spirits which are believed
constantly to affect or control human acts and des
tiny (see COMPARATIVE RELIGION, VI., 1, a, § 4).
Man's efforts may turn out to his satisfaction or
to his disappointment, and he attributes the re
sults to the assistance or hindrance of spirits whom
he regards as good or bad according as they seem
to assist or to thwart his efforts. This primitive
bipartition of the spirit‑world into good spirits
(which may become angels) and bad (which be
come demons) persists through many stages of un
folding in civilization and in religion, and remains
as a belief even in the period of enlightenment.
Traces of animistic belief have not been wholly
eradicated from the Old Testament; cf., e.g., the
serpent of Gen. iii. which has speech, mentality,
and evil purpose, and also the anointing by Jacob
of the stone to which he attributed his wonderful
dream (Gen. xxviii. 18). The narrative in Num.
xxii. 22‑34 presupposes a belief in the vocal power
of animals, though the impression given by the
narration is rather that of miraculous impartation
of speech to an otherwise mute animal. The en
tire religious provenience out of which the Hebrew
religion sprang is full of demonism (see AssYRIA,
VIL, § 8; BABYLONIA, VIL,1, §§ 4‑6). The Baby
Ionian religion divided its spirits into good and bad.
These were again classified and grouped, and to the
classes and groups names were given, though in
general the individual demons did not receive
names. This is in accordance with the general law
that only in the more developed stages do the
spirits become so individualized as to be named.
This appears in the Hebrew representation, where
in the earlier writings individual spirits are merely
referred without individualization to classes (cf.
the unnamed " evil spirit " which tormented Saul,
I Sam. xvi. 14‑15, and the " evil spirit " which by
divine commission came between Abimelech and
the Shechemites, Judges ix. 23), while Satan, not
at first as devil, but as one belonging to God's com
pany, or at least admitted to his presence (Job i.
6 sqq.; Zeeh. iii. 1 sqq.), Azazel, and Asmodeus
(see below) emerge as personal spirits possessing
names Only in the late (postexilic) literature. A
wealth of demonic conceptions quite equal to the
Babylonian is found also in the Arabic religion, according to which demons swarm in the regions of air, earth, and water, lying in wait for the unwary. The magic and incantations of Arabic folk‑lore are hardly less prominent and numerous than those of Babylonia, and where these exist belief in demonology is sure to be found (see DIVINATION; and MAGIC).
The characteristics of the demons in the Semitic sphere are like those of demons among other peoples. These beings, whose power is greatest during the hours of darkness, are responsible for ills of the flesh, of the mentality, and of the spiritual life. They cause disease, aberration of mind, and perverseness toward the gods; they con‑
e. Nature trol the atmosphere and bring storms;
	of Demons. by their mastery of the waters they
	bring floods and destruction; they
	enter the bodies of human beings, are especially
	dangerous to women and children, and at the crit
	ical periods of life are alert to work them harm.
	They may be warded off by attention to the proper
	ritual, by the use of drugs and herbs, and by the
	potency of incantations and charms (the later Jews
	regarded the shema, " Hear, O Israel," of Deut.
	vi. 4 as a protection). Yet they may be welcomed
	by the individual and become so at home in his
	person that he becomes virtually one of their num
	ber. In accordance with their perverse nature, the
	demons have their dwelling‑places in spots shunned
	by mortals‑in the deserts, among ruins and in
	cities which have been destroyed by the enemy,
	among graves, in miasmatic morasses, and in like
	places. The demonology of the Old Testament and
	the New exhibits many of these traces. Yet it is
	to be observed that not even in its monotheism
	does the religion of Israel show a loftier elevation
	above the faiths of the surrounding peoples than
	in its demonology. The most numerous traces
	appear in the period of depression when national
	disaster had enforced contact with the pregnant
	demonism of Babylonians, Persians, and the in
	vading Arabs. As a matter of course, the nature of
	demons is ever va.~ncly treated, and the exact no
	tions about them are difficult to determine. De
	mons were regarded as not of flesh and blood (cf.
	Eph. vi. 12), yet they ate and drank, reproduced
	their kind, and might be wounded and killed.
	They were pictured with the passions and even the
	lusts of mankind (cf. Tobit vi. 14). They were
	above the laws of nature, and could transform
	themselves into various shapes, even into those of
	angels of light (cf. II Cor. xi. 14). In Judaism they
	were regarded as especially the opponents of the
	Messiah (see DEMONIAC). Their origin is seldom
	accounted for in popular belief. They come down
	as elemental spirits in the common belief of the
	people, and their number is added to as the souls
	of the departed become regarded as malignant.
	When an angelology develops, the angels are re
	garded as falling from their high estate and adding
	to the number of the demons. So in the earlier
	stag s of the Hebrew religion demons are not ac
	counted for; but in late Jewish works, especially in
	the Book of Enoch (see PsEUDEPIGRAPHA), the de
mons are largely derived from the episode narrated

THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
in Gen. vi. 1‑4 or from the conceptions of the fall of the angels who thereby became demons. In the same region demonology developed pari passu with angelology, and a demonarchy with Satan and archdemons at the head were opposed to the hierarchy of God and the archangels and angels which left its traces in all Western and some Eastern literatures.
The word daimon was introduced into the Biblical sphere through the Septuagint as a translation of the two Hebrew words sa'ir (pl. se'irim) and
shedh (pl. shedhim; cf. Assyr. ahedu, 3. The like the Gk. daimon, originally a word
Hebrew of neutral signification, found also in
Se'irim and Phenician inscriptions, and possibly Shedhim. etymologically connected with Shad‑
dai, one of the patriarchal names for God, e.g., Gen. xvii. 1, R. V., margin, and also with the Arabic sa'id, sayyid, " lord "). The former occurs Lev. xvii. 7 (A. V. " devils," R. V. " he‑goats," margin " satyrs "); Isa. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 14 (A. V. and R. V. " satyrs," R. V. margin " he‑goats "); and II Chron. xi. 15 (A. V. " devils," R. V. " hegoata," margin " satyrs "). Shedh (shedhim) occurs in Deut. xxxii. 17 and Ps. evi. 37 (A. V. " devils," R. V. " demons "). In Isa. xiii. 21, regarded as exilic or later, the reference is to the desolate site of Babylon where repulsive creatures and dancing se'irim are to abide. The conception is evidently that of hairy goat‑like creatures, not unlike the satyr or Pan of Greek myth; some varieties of the Arabic jinn are also represented as having somewhat of the same form (Wellhausen, Heidentum, pp. 151‑152). This representation is in full accord with that of Isa. xxxiv. 14, also exilic or postexilic, in which the sa'ir cries " to his fellow " in Edom, which has become a waste inhabited by wolves and by the night monster (Heb. With, R. V. " night‑hag," see below). Further, light is cast on the subject by the passage Lev. xvii. 7, which forbids sacrifice to the se'irim, here mentioned as the objects of worship. This worship may have been simply avertive, after the primitive fashion of bringing offerings to beings whose ill will it was desired to avoid. It is significant that the purpose of the entire passage is to proscribe sacrifice in " the open field "‑Le., apart from the dwelling‑place‑‑‑which may mean the desert, the assumed home of evil spirits. Similar in purport is Deut. xxxii. 17, where the fathers are said to have sacrificed to ahedhim, and Pa. evi. 37, in which case sons and daughters were the offerings presented. It is questionable whether these two cases are mere invidious comparison of false gods to demons (W. von Baudissin, in Hauck‑Herzog, RE, vi. 4), since this comparison is not met again for several centuries, possibly not till apostolic times. The entire provenience of the passages and the ideas connected are best suited by the supposition that offerings of as avertive character are here referred to, and that not the heathen deities, but actual demons were conceived as objects of worship. The possible renascence of totemistic practises (probably under the influence of Arabic immigration) suggested by Ezek. viii. 10 and Is&. lxvi. 17 is in favor of this conclusion.
400
Mention of With (Isa. xaxiv. 14, A. V. " screechowl," margin and R. V. " night monster," R. V. margin " Lilith ") has already been made. There can be no doubt of the Babylonian origin of this word. The god of Nippur was known as En‑lil, " lord of spirits " (see BeBrroxie, VII., 2, § 2), and the Assyrian Ulu, lilutu had the signification '< sprites." The Semitic lilatu, " night," may be compared, and the fem. Lilith is named in the cunei‑
form inscriptions se an attendant of 4. Other Namtar, the deity of plagues (see
Hebrew Beayr.oxra, VIL, 2, § 8). In late rab‑
Demonic binic literature Win means female deCoaceptiona. mons, and Lilith herself bears no slight
part in legend and was conceived as living in the desert whence she emerged to make her attacks. A kindred conception is that of Prov. xxx. 15 (Heb. 'alulcah, A. V. " horseleech," R. V. margin " vampire," described as having daughters ever crying " give, give "), to which what is at least a parallel, if not a cognate conception, is found in the Arabic 'aluk. The circumstances of the reference suit much better the conception of a demon than that of a horseleech, especially the circumstance of the insatiable daughters. Azazel (Lev. avi. 8 sqq.) is the name of a demon whose home is in the desert, whose character and aims are opposed to those of Yahweh. The name has not yet yielded to investigations on the aide of Hebrew philology, and is unique as being the one element of this character entering into the ritual of the Hebrews. Asmodeue, mentioned is Tobit, is either derived from Persian sources or is a literary imitation of a Persian conception. Heylel (Isa. w. 12), the " day star, fallen from heaven," is interesting as an early instance of what, especially in pseudepigraphic literature, became a dominant conception, that of fallen angels. The Septuagint translates by daimonia the elilim of Pa. xcv. 5 (A. V. and R. V. " idols," R. V. margin " things of naught "), probably rendering aright the conception of the author of this late psalm. It is not improbable that behind the " pestilence " and " destruction " of Ps. xci. 6 are animistic conceptions of mischief‑working demons, and that they are not mere personifications. A belief closely akin to that in demons is referred to in the obh, " familiar spirit," of I Sam. xxviii. 7 aqq. 1n direct line with this and connecting the belief of the early Hebrews with that of surrounding nations are the teraPhim (q.v.), the best explanation of which relates them to ancestral spirits that are sought among the graves (cf. Iea. lxv. 4; cf. Deut. xxvi. 14; Ps. evi. 28). Etymologically connected with teraphim is the word rephaim, " giants," and this again connects the Hebrews with the beliefs of other peoples who speak of earlier inhabitants of their land as still remaining, though in the shape of elves, dwarfs, and fairies. In the Assyrian tongue the words utukku and ukimmu designated both a class of demons and also the spirits of the dead, and they are compared with zaki*u, " wind," recalling the " spirits " mentioned above as unclassified (cf. Heb. rush). The idea which underlies that of rephaim is uneubstantiality, and ruhim becomes a late Jewish word for demons. The Hebrew popu‑

401
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
lar belief in demons is attested further by the many injunctions against sorcery which appear in the legislative and prophetic utterances. In ethnic custom one of the universally employed means of averting the harmful action of demons is the use of the magic word or act. The fact that the people needed this admonition so constantly speaks more strongly for the abiding belief in demons than the few specific references which are found. For the New Testament doctrine and for later Jewish belief in demons see DEMONIAC, §§ 1‑4.
GEO. W. GILMORE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. Kohut, Angelologie uwd Ddmonologie in ihrer Abhdngigkeit vom Parsiamus, in Abhandlungen fiir die Kunde des Morpenlandes, iv., 1866; W. Baudissin, Studien zur semitischen Religionegeschichte, i. 110‑146, Leipsic, 1876; P. Scholtz, G6tzerulienat and Zauberwesen, pp. 133‑137, Regensburg, 1877; J. T. de Visser, De Daemonologie van hot O. T., pp. 80‑83, Utrecht, 1880; H. Schultz, O. T. Theology, London, 1892; R. Stubs, Jiidi9ch‑bmbylonische Zaubertexte, Halle, 1895; W. R. Newbold, Demon Possession and Allied Themes, in New World, Sept,, 1897; E. Stave, Ueber den Ein;duss des Paraismus auf das Judentum, pp. 235‑280, Haarlem, 1898; Smith, Rol. of Sem., pp. 119‑120; DB, i. 590‑594; EB, i. 10691074; JE, iv. 514‑521. On Lilith consult: J. A. Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judentum, ii. 413 sqq., Frankfort, 1700; W. Gesenius, Jesaia, i. 916‑920, Leipsic, 1821. On ethnic demonology consult: F. Lenormant, La Magie chez les Chaldeens, Paris, 1874; J. Wellhausen, Heiden^ tum, pp. 151 sqq.; J. L. Nevins, Demon Possession and Allied Themes, New York, 1895; E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, London, 1903. Consult also the literature under DEMONIAC.
DEMONIAC.
Jewish and New Testament Demonology (§ 1). New Testament Ideas Concerning Demoniacs (§ 2). Symptoms of Possession (§ 3). Exorcism by Jesus (§ 4). Exorcism in the Early Church (§ 5). Exorcism by Jews (§ 6). Modern Explanations (§ 7).
A demoniac is one supposed to be possessed by a demon or evil spirit or by several demons. The name " demon " originated in Greek mythology and was introduced into the Bible and Christianity through the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew se'irim and shedhim (see the article DEMON for the Old Testament demonology). In postexilic Judaism demonology gained ground, either through foreign influence or by a recrudescence of primitive Semitic or Israelitic folk‑lore. The New Testament reflects the current beliefs of its time. The demonic powers are represented as spirits, not flesh and blood (Eph. vi. 12); they can assume any form, even appearing as angels of light (II Cor. xi. 14); they dwell in ruins (Rev. xviii. 2), in tombs (Mark v. 1 aqq.), and especially in the desert (Matt. iv. 1 sqq., xii. 43). In the Talmud their generic name is mazzikin (" injurers "). They lead men to sin (Enoch lxix. 4, 6), and return more readily
to the sinner than to the righteous I. Jewish (Testament of Naphtali 8); yet it and New is possible to resist the devil (Eph. Testament vi. 12; James iv. 7; 1 Pet. v. 8),
Demon‑ and even to stop the way of the ology. evil spirits by opposing them (Matt.
xii. 43 aqq.). One who transgresses the commandments falls an easy victim to the demons (Debarim rabbah 4), although he is protected by the recitation of the Shema, or by fIL‑26
Demon
Demoniac
the strict observance of other commandments (Berako 5'; Pesik, to 18T ). The devil and his hosts are the special foes of the Messianic kingdom (Rev. xii. 10). The mission of Jesus was the conquest of the " strong man" (Matt. xii. 29), although, according to Luke xxii. 3, I Cor. ii. 8, he apparently fell a victim to the evil one; yet, as he had expressed the conviction that he had cast out the kingdom of Satan by the spirit of God (Matt. xii. 26, 28), he inspired his disciples and all early Christianity with the consciousness of victory over the demons (Luke x. 17 aqq.). They, on the other hand, recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Mark i. 24, and frequently). According to Rev. xii., which is confirmed by allusions in the Pauline writings, the devil, having been cast down from heaven, is come to earth to work evil during the little time which still remained to him, and must be resisted continually, although he can win no real victory. The Pauline concept of the " rudiments of the world " (Col. ii. 20; cf. ii. 15; Rom. viii. 38; Eph. vi. 12) refers not only to the sovereigns of the Jews and the Gentiles (Gal. iii. 19; iv. 1‑4, 8‑9; Enoch lxxxix. 59‑60), but also to the gods of the nations and of idolatrous Israel (Deut. xxxii. 17; Ps. xcv. 5, cvi. 37). This comparison of the pagan deities to shedhim recurs in postexilic Judaism (Enoch xix. 1; Rev. ix. 20), in the writings of Paul, and throughout ecclesiastical antiquity. Though Paul denied the existence of idols (I Cor. viii. 4 aqq.), declaring them dead (I Thess. i. 9) and no gods by nature (Gal. iv. 8), he expressly stated that the sacrifices offered to pagan deities were really given to devils (I Cor. x. 19 aqq.; cf. Justin, i. 5, 10, 12, 23, ii. 1, 12, 13; Tatian, Oratio ad Grwcos ; Tertullian, Apol., xxii., xxiii., et passim; Origen, Contra Celsum).
The principal source for the Biblical view of demoniacs is the historical books of the New Testament. According to the general concept of the various passages, the demon enters into man as a second personality (Luke viii. 30), dwelling in him as in a house (Matt. xii. 44; Luke xi. 24), so that evil spirits dread to be banished into z. New Tes‑ the abyss (Luke viii. 31), or (Mark v.
tament 10) to be expelled from a land they
Ideas Con‑ love, preferring to inhabit the bodies cerning of swine. The demon tortures man Demoniacs. (Matt. xv. 22), driving him whither he would not go (Luke viii. 29). The demoniac is often so thoroughly possessed by the evil spirit that he lives in sepulchers and other lonely places, a danger to passers‑by (Matt. viii. 28) and unable to be bound by even the strongest fetters (Mark v. 3‑6); he even speaks as though he were himself the demon, using the plural when possessed by many evil spirits (Matt. viii. 29; Mark i. 24, v. 9; Luke iv. 34, viii. 28).
The manifestations of demoniac possession are extremely varied. The boy at the foot of the Mount of Transfiguration (Mark ix. 14‑27) is represented as seized with convulsions, writhing on the ground, and foaming at the mouth. At the first attack the boy wallowed dumb upon the ground, nor did he cry out until the demon had been expelled, although the account of Luke (ix. 39) states that

THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
402
the child screamed at every attack, and that the evil spirit " braising him, hardly departeth from him."
Both Mark and Luke record symp‑
3. Symp‑ toms of epilepsy; the account in Mat,
toms of thew not only omits all these details,
Possession. but especially characterizes the disease
as lunacy (xvii. 15), thus giving a preferable explanation of the falling of the boy into fire and water, which has no specific cause in Mark, and is altogether lacking in Luke. The passage in Matthew is the more interesting since in iv. 24 he distinguishes " those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatic, and those that had the palsy." The demoniac met by Jesus in the synagogue at Capernaum (Mark i. ‑23‑28) does not exhibit the characteristic foam of epilepsy, but shows symptoms of epileptic hysteria, especially as Luke iv. 35 notes that the fit did him no harm. It is evident, from a summary of the cases in Matthew and Mark, that such attacks were regarded as demoniac in origin, and to the same agency are ascribed the superhuman strength, the selfinjury, the dwelling among tombs, the threatening gestures, and the nakedness of the demoniac of Gadam (Mark v. 2‑5; Luke viii. 27‑29). Other complaints of a less serious nature, however, are also referred to the agency of demons, such as dumbness (Matt. ix. 32; Luke xi. 14), or blindness and dumbness (Matt. xii. 22), although no mention is made of the expulsion of demons in the accounts of the healing of the dumb and the blind in Matt. ix. 27‑31; Mark vii. 32, 37, viii. 22‑26, x. 46‑52. In like manner, Luke iv.40‑41 (cf. vi.17‑18, vii. 21) regards the curing of demoniacs as a special phase of healing, and in Acts viii. 7 demoniacs are distinguished from the paralytic and the lame. On the other hand, the woman bowed with " a spirit of infirmity eighteen years " was " bound by Satan" (Luke xiv. 11‑16), and the fever of Peter's motherin‑law seems to have been believed to be demoniac (Luke iv. 38‑39). The healings at Capernaum (Matt. viii. 16) were in the main exorcisms of demons, and these formed a large part of the activity both of Jesus (Mark i. 39) and of the Twelve (Mark iii. 14‑15, vi. 7, 13; Matt. x. 8).
The gloom and asceticism of John the Baptist gained him the reputation of a demoniac (Matt. xi. 18; Luke vii. 33), and this charge was brought against Jesus himself (Matt. ix. 34, xii. 24; Mark m. 22, 30; Luke xi. 15; John vii. 20, viii. 48, x. 20). Nor was it an easy matter to distinguish between spirits of evil and spirits of God (Matt. xxiv. 11, 24; 1 John iv. 1‑3), so that the " discerning of spirits " was regarded as a special grace (I Cor. xii. 10, xiv. 29). Even a storm (Mark iv. 37‑41; of. Rev. vii. 1; Enoch lx. 11 sqq.; Jubilee ii.) was considered the work of demons. It is surprising, on the other hand, that moral defect. and delinquencies are seldom represented as demoniac either by popular belief or by Jesus himself. Neither Matt. A. 18; John vii. 20, viii. 48, 52, nor Luke xi. 24‑28 admits of such an interpretation, the only passages really entering into consideration being Luke xxif. 3; 31 and the account of the temptation, where, however, Satan is rather the avowed opponent of all Messianic work than the principle of evil.
In the exorcisms of Jesus the demoniac. are agitated at his approach (Mark i. 23, iii. 11, v. 6, ix. 20), while the evil spirits, recognizing him as the Son of God, implore him not to torment them before their time (Matt. viii. 29). Such recognition,
although rebuked by Jesus (Mark i. 4. Exor• 25, iii. 12), receives its explanation
cism by in the supernatural power of per‑
Jesus.	ception possessed by the evil spirits,
since by means of his Spirit God wrought through Jesus all his miracles, wonders, and signs. The rebuke of Jesus is sufficient in most caste to exorcise evil spirits (Matt. viii. 16; Mark i. 25, ix. 25), even at a distance (Mark vii. 29, 30). The successful exorcism of the demon is recognized by the quiet and repose of the patient (Mark v. 15, vii. 30), or by a loud cry from the person possessed (Mark i. 26), while the transfer of the demon from the man of Gadara to the swine in Mark v. 2‑13 finds its probable explanation in the fright of the animals at the final paroxysm of the maniac. The historicity of Jesus' successful treatment of demoniacs is admitted in principle even by adherents of the critical school. Exorcisms,were the order of the day and were expected from a Messianic prophet, and the chief proof for their historicity lies in statements of Jesus which represent their importance for himself and his activity as the Messiah (Matt. xi. 5; Luke vii. 22). It becomes clear from Matt. xii. 25‑32 and Luke xi. 17‑23 that Jesus believed not only in the existence of demons (cf. Matt. xii. 43‑45; Luke xi. 2426), but, like his contemporaries, in exorcism (Matt. xii. 27; Luke xi. 19). The expulsion of demons implied the debilitation and the destruction of the " kingdom of Satan " (Matt. xii. 26; Luke xi. 18), thus representing victories over the principle of evil in the dawn of the Messianic age (cf. Assumption of Moses x.). It is clear, from the allusion to the " strong man " in Matt. xu. 29, and Luke xi. 21‑22, that Jesus deduced his victory over the demons from his previous conquest of Satan, their lord, in his tkmptation (cf. Luke x. 18‑20).
The accounts of the Gospels receive their full explanation, however, only in the light of the history of religion, which shows that the belief in demoniac possession was not restricted to the time of Jesus
or to his surroundings. Exorcism 5. Exor‑ continued to be practised in the early cism in the Christian Church (Acts v. 16, viii. 7).
Early	Of particular interest is the account
Church. of the " spirit of divination," in Acts
xvi. 16‑18. The narrative in Acts xix. 13‑19, on the other hand, contains no exorcism in the strict sense of the term, but merely shows the power of the name of Jesus over those possessed with demons (cf. Mark ix. 3839; Luke ix. 49). Jesus himself admitted the success of other exorcists and sanctioned them as helping to destroy the kingdom of Satan, so that the failure of the Jewish exorcists (Acts xix. 13‑16) is an exception to the general rule. Although the epistles contain no direct statements concerning demoniacs and exorcisms, such beliefs must be attributed to Paul when he mentions among charismata the ability to discern between spirits (I Con xii. 10). The con‑

403	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Demoniac
		Dempater
viction that "the Son of God was manifested that
he might destroy the works of the devil " (I John
iii. 8) continued active in the early Church. Thus
Irenaeus (II. xlix. 3) asserts that certain exorcisms
" mightily and truly expel demons"; while Ter
tullian put the belief in the form of a challenge
(Apol., xxiii.; of. De corona, xi.; De idolis, xi.;
Minucius Felix, xxvii.; Origen, Contra Celsum,
vii. 4, viii. 58, etc.). While in the earliest period
many Christians expelled evil spirits, exorcists are
definitely mentioned as special officials of the
Church as early as Cyprian (Epist., xvi.; of. the
tenth canon of the Council of Antioch and the
twenty‑sixth of the Apostolic Constitutions).
[The energumens (Gk. enertgoumenoi, " worked
upon," "influenced," i.e., by an evil spirit) con
stituted a special class. They were not permitted
to enter the church if they were violent, but were
commanded to stand in the porch, so that they
could hear the singing and prayers; and with them
might be found lepers and persons of offensive
lives (cf. the seventeenth canon of the Synod of
Ancyra, 314; Hefele, ConeiU,enrgeschichte, i. 235
237); after the prayers they came in to receive the
blessing of the bishop. If they were quiet, they
were allowed in the church, yet separated from the
catechumens, and listened to the sermon. They
were also called cheimazomenoi (" storm‑tossed ").
The exorcists daily brought them food, laid their
hands upon them, and prayed for them. After
their recovery they kept a twenty to forty days'
fast, then partook of the sacrament; a particular
prayer was made for them by the priest, and their
names were entered upon the church‑records, with
especial mention of their recovery.] The belief in
demoniac possession and the power of exorcism
has continued in the p Church down to modern times.
See BENEDICTION; SACRAMENTALB.
	This phenomenon loses its singularity in view of
its ethnic distribution. In the Old Testament a
special instance is the evil spirit which troubled
Saul after the spirit of God had departed from him,
mentioned by Josephus (Ant., VI. viii. 2, xi. 2) as
a case of demoniac possession, and the lying spirit
of I Kings xxii. 20‑23. The cases of Judges ix. 23;
II Kings xix. 7; Isa. xxix. 10 are more doubtful,
but the underlying concept is clearly that of pos
session by evil spirits. Josephus expressed a firm
belief in possession. According to him, in a case
			which be observed, the exorcist held
	6. Exor‑ to the patient's nose a ring containing
	cism by	under its seal one of the roots which
		Jews.	Solomon had endowed with healing
			power, thus drawing the demon from
the nostrils of the person possessed. The patient
then fell down, and the exorcist conjured the demon
not to return, commemorating Solomon, and pro
nouncing the incantations which he had composed.
Jewish exorcists are mentioned by Jesus (Matt. xii.
27) as well as in Acts xix. 13‑20, while Origen
(Contra Cehsum, I. xxviii., xxxviii.) declared exor
cism an art which the Jews had learned from the
Egyptians. Lucian (Philopseudes, xvii.) describes
exorcists in terms which resemble those of the New
Testament, mentioning particularly a Palestinian
and an Arab conjurer. Especially famous were
the exorcisms of Apollonius of Tyana (q.v.), although there is no foundation for Baur's view that they were imitations of the Gospel narratives.
Strong evidence for the wide‑spread extent of the ancient belief in demoniac possession are the countless incantations still preserved, and the mass of magic papyri recently discovered. A distinct category is formed by the " Ephesian letters," a mixture of foreign and unintelligible names, including many Hebrew words and even verses from the Bible. In these formulas the Hebrew name of God and the name of Jesus recur with great frequency, both being regarded as especially potent.
	In spite of the progress of modern thought and
of the natural sciences, the primitive conception of
all these things as supernatural has by no means
been eliminated. In the Roman Catholic and
orthodox Protestant churches it finds a strong
support in the Scriptural narratives and in the
		general supernatural standpoint from
7. Modern which their exposition is approached. Explana‑ The natural view of these phenomena
	tions.	was first taken by the rationalist
		school, especially by Semler, and is to
day fully recognized in historical theology. Theo
logians are now willing to adimt their need of infor
mation on the underlying psychological facts at the
hands of specialists, especially the medical men
who in recent years have made careful study of
phenomena of this class. The labors of Charcot,
Richer, Snell, and others have led to a prevalence
of the view that cases of so‑called possession are
usually to be regarded as acute hysteria, and the
cures, the accomplishment of which is still possible,
as the work of suggestion. This would have been
all the more likely to operate effectively in the
early days of Christianity, when powerful religious
excitement and extreme submissiveness of faith
would have offered the most favorable conditions
for its exercise. 	(JOHANNES WEISS.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: On Biblical presentations consult: F. C. Conybeare, in JQR, 1896‑97; W. Baudissin, Studitn, part 1, Leipsic, 1878; G. Hafner, Die DamoniacAen des N. T., Frankfort, 1894; H. Laehr, Die Damonischen des N. T., Leipsie, 1894; R. Stubs, Jfdisch‑babylonischs Zaubertexts, Halle, 1895; W. M. Alexander, Demoniac Possession in the New Testament, Edinburgh, 1902; DB, i. 590‑594; 811‑813; EB, i. 1089‑74, ii. 1451‑53; JE, v. 305‑306. On the relationship of Christ to the subject consult: F. Nippold, Die psychiahcache Heilthatipkeit Jesu, Bern, 1889; idem, Engels‑ and Satansidee Jesu, ib. 1891; Schwartakopff, in Zeitachrift f11r Theolopie and Kirche, 1897. For beliefs and practises of the Middle Ages cf. Schaff, Christian Church, v. 1, pp. 878 sqq.
On ethnic belief consult, besides the literature under COMPARATIVE RELIGION: A. Harnaek, Medizinisches aus der alten Kirchengeschichte, in TU, viii. 4 (1892),111 sqq.; J. L. Nevins, Demon Possession, Chicago, 1895 (Chinese phenomena); W. R. Newbold, Demon Possession, in New World, 1897, pp. 499 aqq.; W. M. Townsend, Satan and Demons, Cincinnati, 1902. The medical side may be consulted in J. M. Charcot, Lee Maladies du sysMme nerveux, 3 vols., Paris, 1888‑87. Consult J. M. Cheroot and P. Richer, Les Demoniaquea dons fart, Paris, 1887.

DEMPSTER, THOMAS: Scotch scholar; b. (according to his own not altogether trustworthy account) at Gliftbog, near Muiresk (32 m. n.w. of Aberdeen), Aberdeenshire, Aug. 23, 1579; d. at Bologna Sept. 6, 1625. He led an adventurous life as student at Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, at Paris,

Denio	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	404
Denmark
Louvain, Rome, and Douai; and as teacher at
Tournai, Paris, Toulouse, Nimes, Pisa, and Bologna.
He possessed a remarkable memory, and accumu
lated a great store of learning; was impetuous,
contentious, and ill‑mannered, and his personal
character is not free from reproach. The best
	known of his writings (all in barbarous Latin) is
the Historia ecclesiastica genus Scotorum (Bologna,
	1627; ed. David Irving for the Bannatyne Club,
	2 vois., Edinburgh, 1829), a biographical dictionary
	of Scotchmen, remarkable for its fictions rather
	than its facts. He wrote also upon Roman an
	tiquities, Etruria, etc., and edited and annotated
	Benedetto Accolti's De bello a Christianis contra
barbaros gesto (Florence, 1623).
	DENIO, FRANCIS BRIGHAM: Congregational
	ist; b. at Enosburg, Vt., May 4, 1848. He was
	graduated at Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vt.,
	in 1871 and Andover Theological Seminary in 1879,
	and was ordained in 1881. He was instructor in
	New Testament Greek in Bangor Theological Sem
	inary 1879‑82, and has been professor of Old Tes
	tament language and literature since 1882. His
	theological position is moderate. His has written
	Outlines of Old Testament Theology (Bangor, Me.,
	1897) and Supreme Leader; Study of the Nature and
Work of the Holy Spirit (Boston, 1900).
	DENIS (DIONYSIUS), SAINT: First bishop of
	Paris and patron saint of France; d. a martyr at
	Paris either under Valerian (253‑260) or Maximian
	(285‑305). He is said to have gone to Gaul about
	250, established himself on the island in the Seine
	now known as La Citg in Paris, and, with miracles
	attesting the divine. favor, to have built a church
	there and ordered the church life. Persecution
	broke out, Denis was arrested with Rusticus, a
	priest, and Eleutherius, a deacon, and after cruel
	tortures the three were beheaded. They were
	buried where they fell on the heights of Montmartre
	(Mons martyrum according to tradition, though the
	original name was more likely Mons Martis). The
	place became a great resort of pilgrims, and won
	ders were wrought there. Thence in the seventh
	century the relics were transferred to the famous
Abbey of St. Denis founded by Dagobert I.
	In the first half of the ninth century Hilduin,
	abbot of St. Denis (q.v.), at the request of Louis the
	Pious, wrote a life of the saint (MPL, cvi, 23‑50);
	and here, for the first time, St. Denis is identified
	with Dionysius the Areopagite. All the great ac
	tivity which the Abbey of St. Denis developed in
	the field of French history from the ninth to the
	fourteenth century is centered in the idea that
	Dionysius the Areopagite (q.v.) is the patron saint
	of France. Abelard (q.v.) had his doubts; and it
	was not until the middle of the seventeenth cen
	tury that Launoy (De Areopagitieis Hilduini, Paris,
	1641, and De duobus Dionysiis, Paris, 1640) and
	Sirmond (Dissertatio in qua ostenditur discrimen
	Dionysii Parisien.sis et Dionysii Areopagitce, Paris,
	1641) succeeded in exploding the audacious hy
	pothesis. The shrine of St. Denis grew immensely
	rich, and the abbey became a storehouse packed
	with valuable historical memorials (cf. M. Fiflibien,
	Histoire de l'Abbaye de Saint Dens, Paris, 1706).
During the Revolution it was plundered (Nov. 12, 1793) by a mob led by one of its own priests; and its relics, jewelry, etc., were carried on six carts into the Convention, where they disappeared. Denis is one of the Fourteen Helpers in Need (q.v.). His day is Oct. 9.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The early documents are printed in ASB,
	Oct., iv. 925‑951; also, in part, ed. B. Krusch MGH,
	Auct. ant., iv., part 2 (1885), 101‑105. Consult: J. E.
	Darras, S. Denys l'Areopagite, Paris, 1863; E. Taillar,
	Apostolat de S. Denys done lea Gaules en .260 Amiens,
	1868; F. Arbellot, Etudes sur lea origines chretaennee de
	la Gaule, part 1, Paris, 1881; A. Vidieu, S. Denys Z'Areo
	pagite, Paris, 1884 (richly illustrated, but not historical).
DENISON, GEORGE ANTHONY: Church of England; b. at Ossington (6 m. n. of Newark), Nottinghamshire, Dec. 11, 1805; d. at East Brent (14 m. w. of Wells), Somerset, Mar. 21, 1896. He studied at Christ Church, Oxford (B.A., 1826), and was ordered deacon and ordained priest in 1832. Until 1838 he was curate to the bishop of Oxford, and then resigned his fellowship and became vicar of Broadwinsor, Dorset, and so remained until 1845, when he became vicar of East Brent, and also exam‑
ining chaplain to the bishop of Bath and Wells, who in 1851 made him archdeacon of Taunton. In theology he was a High‑churchman, and from 1854 to 1858 was unsuccessfully prosecuted for maintain‑
ing the doctrine of the Real Presence. From 1839 to 1870 he was prominent as a Church champion in the school controversy between the Church of England and the civil power, which resulted in the Elementary Education Act, the final and decisive victory of the civil power. He wrote Proceedings against the Archdeacon of Taunton (London, 1854); Defence of the Archdeacon of Taunton (1856); Church Rate a National Trust (1861); Notes of my Life, 1806‑78 (1878); and Mr. Gladstone (1885). He also translated Hadrianus Saravia On the Holy Eucharist (1855).
DENK (DENCK), HANS: Anabaptist; b. at Heybach (Habach; 30 m. s.w. of Munich) c. 1495; d. at Basel Nov., 1527. He studied at Ingolstadt, and in 1520 is found at Augsburg among the Humanists. Thence as a Protestant he went to Basel, was proof‑reader and befriended by CFcolampadius, who secured for him the rectorship of St. Sebaldus' school in Nuremberg in the autumn of 1523. There he mingled with those who were dissatisfied with the dominant theology, and on the charge of heresy he was expelled from the city Jan. 21, 1525. Thenceforth he was a wanderer. He allied himself with the Anabaptists and his learning made him a valuable acquisition. He was expelled from Augsburg in Oct., and from Strasburg in Dec., 1526, from Worms in Aug., 1527. He is heard from as a leader of the Anabaptists in Augsburg, Nuremberg, and Ulm in 1527; but, weary of continued persecution and his enforced wanderings, he went to Basel
in the fall of that year, threw himself upon the protection of GJcolampadius, who again befriended him and tried in vain to convert him to the established Protestant theology. The plague soon after released him from his troubles. By the Anabaptists he was highly honored; and even his detractors conceded his ability, personal high character, and scholarship. His translation of the prophetical

405	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Denio
		Denmark
books of the Old Testament with L. Haetzer (Worms,
1527) is still esteemed. His tracts are now ex
tremely rare (cf. Mennonitische Bldtter, xxx. 56).
One is in the British Museum, Was geredt seyn, gas
die Schrift sagt, Gott thue and mache gigs and b5ses
(1526). His principal works were reprinted in
Geistliehes Blunxengdrtlein (Amsterdam, 1680); his
yon der wahren Liebe was republished by the Men
nonite publishing house, Elkhart, Ind.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: L. Keller, Ein Apostet der Wiedert&ufer,
	Leipsic, 1882 (best); cf. idem, Die Reformation and die
	dlteren Reformparteien, ib. 1885; idem, J. von Staupitz
	and die Anfdnge der Reformation, ib. 1888. Consult also:
	G. E. Roehrich, La Vie . . . de . . . Jean Denck, Stras
	burg, 1853; C. Beard, The Reformation of the 16th Cent.,
	London, 1885; A. Baur, Zuingtis Theologie, ii. 175 sqq.,
	Halle, 1889; H. Lfidemann, Reformation and TBufertum,
	pp. 53 sqq., Bern, 1896; A. H. Newman, Hiat. of Anti
	Pedobaptism, pp. 163, 242 sqq., Philadelphia, 1897.
	DENMARK: A kingdomof northwestern Europe.
The country proper covers an area of 15,289 square
miles, with a population (1906) of 2,588,919. The
Danish colonies comprise Iceland (q.v.), part of
Greenland, the Faroe islands, and the islands of
St. Thomas, St. Croix, and St. Jan in the Caribbean
Sea. Since 1863 the Lutheran faith has been the
established religion of Denmark, and the only one
receiving the support of the State. The king must
belong to this Church. Other denominations, how
ever, are allowed full religious liberty, with no dis
abilities whatever. The census of 1901 shows the
following distribution of the population according
to creeds: Lutherans, 2,436,084; Roman Catholics,
5,373; Greek Catholics, 106; and Jews, 3,476.
There are, besides, a small number each of Re
formed, Protestant‑ Episcopalians, Methodists,
Catholic Apostolics (Irvingites), Baptists, and
Mormons.
	The ecclesiastical divisions of Denmark com
prise seven stifter, or bishoprics, as follows: (1)
Zealand, (2) Funen (with the neighboring islands
of Aero, Langeland, etc.), (3) Laaland and Falster,
(4) Aalborg, (5) Viborg, (6) Aarhus, and (7) Ribe.
Iceland constitutes a separate stift. The bishops,
like the rest of the clergy, are appointed by the
king; and upon them it devolves to ordain minis
ters and to inspect churches and schools. Under
the Ministry of Public Instruction and Ecclesias
tical Affairs the bishops constitute the highest eccle
siastical authority, officiating in some cases inde
pendently, in other cases in association with the
secular head of the stift (the etiftsamtmarut, or gov
ernor). Each stift is divided into provstier (" pro
			vostries "), Zealand having 18, Funen
	Ecclesias‑ 11, Laaland and Falster 4, Aalborg
	tical Divi‑ 10, Viborg 9, Aarhus 13, and Ribe 8:
		sion of	total 73. Each provsti is superin
		Country. tended by a provost, who officiates as
			preacher also. He has to look after
all	ecclesiastical affairs within his precinct, and,
together with the local amtmand and a member
appointed by the School Commission, he super
vises the parochial schools of his provostry (the
eighteen secular divisions of Denmark are called
amts‑" counties "‑each amt being governed by
an amtmand). The amts within each stift are again
ruled by a stiftsamtmand. Each provostry is divi‑
ded into sognekald, the total number of which is about 1,070, each comprising one or two (rarely more) sogna, or parishes. Sognekalds of ordinary dimensions have each a minister who preaches alternately in the different parish churches. Large sognekalds, however, may have two officiating clergymen. The minister is also a school commissioner. The parish is thus the unit in the ecclesiastical organization of Denmark. By royal resolution of 1883 an ecclesiastical council was established, and the clergymen who are members of this body frequently assemble to discuss religious matters and questions pertaining to the affairs of the Church. The minister of each parish is, as already stated, a member of the school committee, and in this way the Church exercises a direct supervision over the parochial schools, of which there are nearly 3,000. The religious instruction given in the communal schools is based either upon Luther's smaller catechism or upon Balslev's version of the same.
The Danish clergy receive their education at the University of Copenhagen, which has a theological faculty consisting of five ordinary professors. The curriculum includes Old and New Tes‑
Education‑ tament exegesis, dogmatics, ethics, al Institu‑ and church history. There is also a tions. theological seminary, in which two resident clergymen lecture on homiletics and catechetics, while a member of the juridical faculty expounds canon law. The Icelandic clergymen are mostly educated at the theological seminary in Reikiavik, although many frequent the University of Copenhagen. Several stipends are awarded by the Danish State for the promotion of theological studies.
While it was originally compulsory upon a Danish resident to frequent the church in his own parish, and to pay tithes and feast‑offerings to the local clergyman, important laws modifying these obliga, tions were enacted on Apr. 4, 1855, and Mar. 25, 1872. By the former legislation every citizen was granted the right to identify himself with any church according to his own choice, being obliged only to notify the local provost of the desired change. He would thenceforth have to pay to the minister of his home parish only the stipulated levies on real estate, produce, etc., while the feast‑offerings were to go to the clergyman of his choice. The law of 1872 extended this grant so that a citizen may now have his church ceremonies (baptisms, funerals, weddings) conducted by an outside clergyman in the church of his own parish, provided, of course, that the church is not occupied for other purposes.
	A Danish	Society for the Inner Mission was
founded in 1853, and has exerted a highly meri
		torious influence among the lower
Inner classes. Its activity received special Mission. impetus when Wilhelm Beck, minister of the parish of Oerslev on Zealand, became its head. Under his leadership the society was completely reorganized, and has since maintained a staff of about 120 missionaries, who conduct religious meetings especially for young men and women. The society has upward of 250

Derv sahk	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	408
meeting‑houses and a valuable free library. The Inner Mission is not merely an activity, but a religious trend; and if it should come to a breach between this society and the established Church, a sect would be created which ‑might well be compared with the English Methodists. A local Society for the Inner Mission in Copenhagen (founded by the Rev. Mr. Frimodt in 1865) has a beautiful prayer‑house, the Bethesda, where popular meetings are regularly held. The party founded by N. F. S. Grundtvig (q.v.) has been especially active in establishing the so‑called Folkeh6jskoler (" people's high schools"), which have won great and well‑deserved recognition as educational mediums.
The Danish Society for Foreign Missions was founded in 1821. It has stations among the Tamils in India (established 1864; ten missionaries), in Dagusan and Port Arthur, China (1892; five missionaries), and in Syria (three missionaries). In western Greenland Christianity is so firmly established that one may speak of a Greenlandic Church there; but in the eastern parts the Danish State had no missionary until 1894, when a station was established at Angmagsalik. Among other societies the following may be mentioned: Danish Bible Society (founded 1814); the Society for Missions among Seamen (stations in Hamburg, London, Hull, and Newcastle); and the Society for Danish‑American Missions, which supplies the Danish congregations of North America with
preachers. 	(F. NIELSEN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. Nielsen, Statakirke op Frikirke, Copenhagen, 1883; H. 0. 8aabye, Om Sekterne i Danmark, ib. 1884; H. L. 8. P. Koch and H. F. R6rdam, Danmarks Kirkehistorie, 1617‑18/,8, 2 vols., ib. 1889; T. J. A. Elmquist, Kirken og dens hellipe Handlinper, Odense, 1892; E. A. F. Jessen, Die Hauptetr6munpen des relipibisen Lebens in D6nemark, Gtltereloh, 1895; T. Loegetrup, Nordiake Missionaerer, Copenhagen, 1897; F. S. 0. A. Nygard, Kristentiv i Danmark . . . 1741‑18.;0, ib. 1897; A. V. C. Kj6lhede, Haandbop for den danske Polkekirke, ib. 1899; Studier op Aktatykker vedkommende de danske 6slifters Historie, ib. 1899; A. T. JSrgensen, Den danske Folkekirkes Bekendelsesekrifter, ib. 1900.
DENNEY, JAMES: United Free Church of Scotland; b. at Paisley Feb. 5, 1856. He was graduated at Glasgow University (M.A., 1879) and Free Church College, Glasgow (B.D., 1883). He was minister of East Free Church, Broughty Ferry, Fifeshire, from 1886 to 1897, and since 1897 has been professor of New Testament language, literature, and theology in the United Free Church College, Glasgow. Ile has edited for The Expositor's Bible Thessalonians (London, 1892) and II Corinthians (1894), and Romans for The Expositor's Greek Testament (1900). He has also written Studies in Theology (London, 1895); Gospel Questions and Answers (1896); The Death of Christ (1902); and The Atonement arid the Modern Mind (1903); and has collaborated in Questions of Faith; Lectures on the Creed (1904).
DENNIS, JAMES SHEPARD: Presbyterian; b. at Newark, N. J., Dec. 15, 1842. He studied at Princeton (B.A., 1863), the Harvard Law School (1863‑64), and Princeton Theological Seminary (B.D, 1867) and went as a missionary to Syria in 1868, studied at Sidon till 1872, and then made a
brief visit to the United States. From 1873 to 1891 he was principal and professor of systematic theology at the Theological Seminary at Beirut. He returned definitely to the United States in 1891, and has since devoted himself to the promotion of foreign missionary work by the preparation of missionary literature and lecturing. He was Students' Lecturer on missions at Princeton in 1893 and 1896, and in 1900 was chairman of the committee on statistics of the Ecumenical Conference on Foreign Missions in New York City. He is a member of the Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions. He is the author of Arabic theological treatises on the evidences of Christianity, on the science of Biblical interpretation, and on systematic theology, chiefly based on the works of Charles and Archibald Alexander Hodge. In English he has written Foreign Missions after a Century (Chicago and New York, 1893); Christian Missions and Social Progress (3 vole., 1897‑1906); Centennial Survey of Foreign Missions (1902); and New Horoscope of Missions (1908).
DENS, PETER: Roman Catholic; b. at Boom (8 m. s. of Antwerp), Belgium, Sept. 12, 1690; d. at Mechlin, as archpriest of St. Rombold'a cathedral, Feb. 15, 1775. He was the author of a Theologia moralis et dogmatica, which was often reprinted (e.g., 8 vole., Dublin, 1832), and much used as a textbook in Roman Catholic seminaries. Various books of extracts from this work exposing its alleged errors and immoralities have appeared from anonymous compilers (Dublin, 1836,,1851; Philadelphia, 1847; Boston, 1855). The best known of such publications is by J. F. Berg, Synopsis of the Theology of Peter Dens (Philadelphia, 1840; 4th ed., 1869).
DENUNCIATION: Properly, a making known, especially by public proclamation; hence, sometimes used of the publication of banns of marriage; commonly the word signifies in church usage a complaint before authority to initiate action by the latter. The denurtcialio evangelica is the course recommended in Matt. xviii. 1 rr17, and is approved by the Church where applicable. When it fails the denureciatio judicialis follows and brings the case before the ecclesiastical courts; its form and procedure are regulated by the canon law (cf. book v., title 1, and commentators). The detturtciatio txinonicn is the obligatory announcement of obstacles to a proposed promotion, ordination, or marriage. See JURISDICTION, ECCLESIASTICAL,
DEPOSITION: A severe penalty inflicted upon delinquent clerics by the ancient ecclesiastical diecipline (See JURISDICTION, ECCLESIASTICAL), originally equivalent in practise to Degradation (q.v.),
but now denoting the deprivation of the delinquent's office and benefice with the prohibition of the exercise of his orders. Unlike degradation, it may be removed, restoring the penitent offender to the exercise of his functions by a mere act of jurisdiction, without reordination. It does not remove the general clerical privileges of the delinquent nor absolve him from general clerical obligations; and the canon law assumes that he will be confined for the purpose of amendment in a monastery or house of correction. In the Protestant Churches gen‑

407	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	mark
Dervish
erally, in accordance with their view of the nature
of orders, the only sentence of this kind is the
deprivation of a specific office. In the Church of
England " deprivation " is the term commonly used
whether for the taking away of a benefice (depri
vation a bene ficio) or the withdrawal of the right to
exercise clerical functions (deprivation db officio).
In the American Episcopal Church the term " depo
sition " is used for the latter; it, is pronounced by
the bishop to whom the cleric is subject, and may be
at his own request, for causes not affecting his moral
character, or after trial for certain grave offenses.
DEPRIVATION. See DEGRADATION; DEPOSITION.
DEPUTATUS : The title of an office in the Greek and Roman Catholic Churches. According to Codinus, the third in the ninth pentad of officials of the megala ekkluia was termed depotatos, while the other lists name several depotatm in addition to the one official of this name, who was the first and drew double pay. The first depotatos socompanied the bishop on the street to make room for him, and in the service the depotatoi escorted him to the pulpit and to the Holy Table, bearing the mantles and the candles. The depotatoa was allowed to marry a second time, since he was ineligible for any higher order. It is doubtful whether this office still exists, since Chrysanthos (about 1700) seems to depend for his statements on books rather than on actual usage.
In the Roman Catholic Church deputad act in certain districts as the administrators of the regiunculce, or subdivisions of large deaneries. They are usually subject to the dean and often set as his representatives, but occasionally they receive their orders immediately from the bishop, in which case the dean becomes merely first among his peers. (PHILIPP MEYER.)
DE PUY, WILLIAM HARRISON: Methodist; b. at Penn Yen, N. Y., Oct. 31, 1821; d. at Canaan, Conn., Sept. 4, 1901. He was educated at Genesee College, Union University, and Mount Union College, and was professor of mathematics and natural philosophy in Genesee Wesleyan Seminary 18511855. He was associate editor of The Christian Advocate 1865‑84, and editor of The Methodist Year Book 1866‑89. He also edited The People's Cyclopedia of Universal Knowledge (3 vole., New York, 1882); The People's Atlas of the World (1886); and University of Literature (1896), and wrote Threescore Years and Beyond: or, Experiences of the Aged (New York, 1872); Home and Health and Home Economics (1880); and The Methodist Centennial Year Book, 1784‑1884 (1884).
DERESER, de‑r6'ser, THADDZUS ANTON: German Roman Catholic; b. at Fahr, in Franconia, Feb. 9, 1757; d. at Breslau July 16, 1827. He studied at Warsburg and Heidelberg, became priest at Mainz (1780), and was made professor of Oriental languages and Biblical interpretation at Bonn in 1783. He moved to Strasburg in 1791, returned to Heidelberg in 1797, and went to Freiburg in 1807. In 1810 he was made priest at Carlsruhe, but was dismissed the following year because of a funeral sermon over the Grand Duke of Baden. He then
became professor and head of the episcopal seminary at Lucerne, but was removed in 1814, and in 1815 became professor in Breslau. He belonged to the liberal wing of his Church, and his Com»tentatio bxbliea in effata Christi: Tu es Petrua (Bonn, 1789) was put on the Index. He wrote Biblical commentaries, continued the Bible translation begun by Brentano (see BIBLE VERBIONs, B, VII., 1 5), and published a Hebrew grammar (Freiburg, 1812), a German breviary, and a prayer‑book.

DE ROSSI, GIOVANNI BALLISTA. See Rossi.

DERVISH.
Origins and Objects of the Institution (f 1). Character and MembereMy of the Orders (1 2). Number and Insignia of the Orders (¢ 3). Names and Exercises of the Orders (1 4).
A dervish is a member of one of the orders which in Mohammedanism have some correspondence to the monasticism of Buddhism and Christianity. The name is Persian, but its derivation is disputed. The first syllable means " door," and the last is taken to mean either "sill " or " to beg." The sense derived in either case is " to be destitute " or " to be dependent (upon God)." The Arabic fo$ir, " poor," " ascetic," is the equivalent in general use. The word is often popularly misused to mean the tribes still in a nomadic state; it is also misapplied to beggars, jugglers, and to impostors.
The existence of the orders is due to the union of two general characteristics of religion, the ascetic and the mystic. Their formation was stimulated
in early times by the example of the
r. Origins Christian monastics who were nu‑
and Objects merous in the lands conquered by the of the In‑ Moslems. They began by gathering
stitution. about an individual whose mode of
life had gained him repute for piety; a shelter was built for winter quarters, and developed into a monastery. The continuance of the institution is decided by several considerations, such as the prestige, religious and political, which the orders enjoy, a sincere devotional spirit which the exercises satisfy, the food for vanity furnished the individual members by a reputation for sanc. tity, and by the value placed upon the ecstatic condition sometimes induced by the exercises. The theology is usually mystical and pantheistic, and therefore heretical, and the orders are sometimes considered a protest against the scholasticism of orthodox Islam.
Mohammedan monasticism, however, differs much from Christian. The vows are relative, not absolute. They do not usually involve celibacy or poverty, obedience to the sheikh, or head of the house, being the essence of the vow. Even this may be retracted, and the dervish may withdraw
from the order. Ile members are
s. Charac‑ not required to reside at the monas‑
ter and tery. Full membership involves a Member‑ novitiate which may run from a year
ship of the to four or five years, varying with the
	Orders.	assumed fitness of the candidate.
		During his novitiate the candidate in
under instruction, and learns the rulers and ritual
of the order. Very many do not pass beyond the

Dervish	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	408
Descartes
novitiate. Most of the orders have what corre
sponds to a lay membership. Certain of the orders
are in favor with certain professions or trades.
Thus the fishermen of Egypt are nearly all mem
bers of the Kadariyah, and join in the religious
processions, carrying colored fish‑nets a.4 banners.
With some of the most prominent of the orders it is
common for influential classes to become associated,
doubtless that they may share in the prestige of
those orders. Theoretically there is no distinction
of rank within the orders except that of sheikh
and members and novitiates. Practically indi
viduals are differentiated; those supposed to be
	miraculously endowed are called walis: the begging
friars go by the name of fakirs. The office of
sheikh is in some orders hereditary; thus the rule
of the Mawlawiyah has remained for nearly eight
centuries in the family of the founder.
		The number of orders is usually given as thirty
six, but this number is rather ideal than founded
upon actual‑count. Some of the orders are divided
into sects, and these are confounded with the orders.
Each sect has its distinguishing insignia of cap or
turban, girdle, cloak, rosary, and banner, its own
			color and method of wearing it. Some
	3. Number times the orders are distinguished
	and Insig‑ simply by the number of gores in the
	nia of the cap. Theoretically the orders trace
		Orders.	their origin to Ali, except three which
			claim to go back to Abu Bekr, and
thence to Mohammed. The time of actual forma
tion is unknown, but there is great probability that
the first monastery was founded at Damascus about
772. The bloom of Mohammedan monasticism is
to be placed in the twelfth to the fourteenth cen
	tury, when most of the orders now in existence were
founded. But the formation of orders has gone on
	continuously, one of the most influential being that
	of the Sanussites founded by Mohammed ibn Ali
	al‑Sanussi in 1837, which has spread throughout
	the Mohammedan world, with headquarters in the
	desert between Egypt and Tripoli.
		A number of these orders are noted both inside
	and outside the circle of Mohammedanism. The
	Mawlawiyah (founded by Jalal ad‑Din al‑Rumi c.
	12990 are known to travelers as the whirling or
	dancing dervishes from that part of their exercises
	which consists of the " mystic dance," a spinning
movement continued often till unconsciousness or
	ecstasy supervenes. It is the order most popular
	among the Turks, many of the upper classes of
	whom are affiliated with it, and is the best endowed
			of all the orders. The Rufaiyah
		4. Names (founded by Abroad al‑Rufa'a c. 1190)
	and Exer‑ are the " howling dervishes," espe
	cises of the cially popular in Egypt, a part of
		Orders.	whose exercise consists of a chant or
			shout which generally consists of,t'he
	Mohammedan formula " There is no God but Allah,"
sung while a swinging motion of the body is main
	tained. This exercise is also often continued till
exhaustion and catalepsy result. The Kalan
	dariyalr (the " Calendars " of the Arabian Nights,
founded c. 1350) are the wandering dervishes,
	really bound by a vow of poverty. The Naksh
	bendiyah (founded c. 1360) are influential, and
their exercise is mainly that of contemplative devotion upon the names of Allah and the precepts of the order. The Baktashiyah (founded c. 1380) are celebrated because of the connection with them of the Janizaxies. It is a military order, corresponding somewhat with the crusading Knights of the Temple or of St. John. The Kadiriyah (founded c. 1160), the Badawiyah (c. 1280), and the Ahmadiyah are most numerous in Egypt.
The exercises, varying with each order, are intended to be devotional. Some of them are repulsive in their effects and methods, and include selfmutilation with broken glass or sharp instruments, handling and even eating of serpents and scorpions. That they often produce a cataleptic condition makes them the more highly esteemed, since that condition is regarded as one of communion with higher powers, from which enlarged capacities and increased sanctity are supposed to result.
GEO. W. GILMORE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. P. Brown, The Dervishes, Philadelphia,
1868 (contains much material, but undigested); D. Ohsson, Tableau g6neral de l'empire Ottoman, vol. ii., Paris, 1790 (gives a list of thirty‑two orders with the dates of their founding, but is unreliable); J. Malcolm, Hist. of Persia, London, 1829; E. W. Lane, Modern Egyptians, 2 vols., ib. 1871; T. P. Hughes, Dictionary of lalam, articles Faqir, Zikr, ib. 1885; M. Ansiaux, Les Confreries musulmanes Paris, 1891; O. Deport and X. Coppolani, Les Confr&ies religieuses musulmanes, ib. 1897; Pbre Petit Confr6ries musulmanes, ib. 1899; S. M. Zwemer, Arabia, the Cradle o/ Islam, New York, 1900.

DESCARTES, d6"cdrt', RENE. As Student and Soldier (§ 1). Seclusion in Holland (§ 2). Publications. Controversies (§ 3). Death in Stockholm. Works Proscribed (§ 4). His Skepticism. The Self and God (§ 5). His Dualism. Ethics (§ 6). Estimate of His Work (§ 7).
Rend Descartes (Renatus Cartesius), French phi‑
losopher and mathematician, was born at La Haye
(105 m. s.w. of Orldans) Mar. 31,1596; d. at Stock
holm, Sweden, Feb. 11, 1650. From 1604 to 1612 he
		attended the College of Jesuits at La,
	r. As Stu‑ F16che, which had just been estab
	dent and lished (1604) by Henry IV., and in
	Soldier. 1610 he was one of the twenty‑four
		gentilshommes sent forth from that
institution to receive the heart of the murdered
king. From 1613 to 1617 he resided in Paris,
devoting himself chiefly to the study of mathe
matics. The next four years he spent as a volun
teer, serving successively under Prince Maurice of
Nassau, Maximilian of Bavaria, and Count Bouc
quoi. After a further period of travel and study
he settled in Paris in 1625. He was now recognized
as one of the leading mathematicians of the day.
	Late in 1628, after having taken part in the siege
of La Rochelle, he left Paris and settled in Amster
	dam the following spring. For the
z. Seclusion next twenty years he lived almost ex‑
in	elusively in Holland, developing and
	Holland. defending his philosophical theories,
	carrying on scientific investigations,
	and writing tire works that have made him
famous. His interests were varied, and in his
correspondence not even phonetic spelling escapes
his attention. During this period his place of

409	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Dervish
		Descartes
	abode, which he changed more than twenty times,
was a secret known only to a few friends, particu
	larly Marin Mersenne, his Paris correspondent.
	Descartes claimed that he was only seeking the
	quiet and seclusion necessary for study, but he was
	probably hiding from the Roman Catholic Church.
	Professedly an orthodox Catholic, he did not wish
to offend the Church with a theory of matter out of
	harmony with the doctrine of transubstantiation,
or with his equally objectionable theory of the
	earth's motion. Indeed, he was long deterred
from publishing his work by the experience of
Galileo (q.v.).
		In Holland Descartes had made enthusiastic
	disciples; and under the leadership of Henri Reneri,
	and his successor at the University of Utrecht,
			Henri Le Roy (Regius), the new phi
	3. Publics‑ losophy was triumphant. However,
	tions. Con‑ soon after the publication of the
	troversies. Discoura de la methods (Leyden, 1637)
			he began to experience opposition;
	and on the appearance of his Meditationes de prima
	philosophia (Paris, 1641), which was followed by
	his Principia Philosophic, (Amsterdam, 1644), he
found himself the center of the most bitter theo
	logical controversies. He was attacked by Protes
tants and Catholics alike. Gisbertus Voetius (q.v.),
	who had become rector of the University of Utrecht
	in 1641, led the Calvinist opposition. He stopped
	the teaching of Descartes's doctrine, induced the
	city magistrates to take action against Descartes,
	and all but succeeded in having his works burned
	by the public hangman. Descartes finally had to
	appeal to the Prince of Orange to end the persecu
	tion towhich he was being subjected by the Voetians.
	In a measure he escaped these troubles by two
	visits to France, where, in 1644, he conciliated his
	old teacher, Father Bourdin, who had led the
	Jesuit opposition against him, and in 1647 received
a pension of 3,000 livres from the French king.
		On the occasion of his last visit to France (1648),
the lukewarm reception accorded him at the court,
			due to the disorders of the time,
	4. Death in caused him to abandon the intention
	Stockholm. he had formed of settling in Paris,
		Works	and in Sept., 1649, on the invitation of
	Proscribed. Queen Christina of Sweden, he set out
			for Stockholm to teach his philosophy
to that eccentric sovereign. Less than four months
	after his arrival in Stockholm he succumbed to
	pneumonia. He died in the Roman Catholic faith
	and was buried in the Catholic cemetery in Stock
	holm. In 1667 his remains were reinterred with
	imposing ceremonies in St. Genevi6ve du Mont (the
	modern Panth6on), Paris, though the funeral ora
tion prepared for the occasion was suppressed by
	the court.	In 1819 his remains were removed
to St. Germain‑des‑Pros; where they now rest.
	Despite the efforts of Descartes during his lifetime,
	and those of his friends after his death, to convince
	the Church of his orthodoxy, his works were placed
on the Index at Rome in 1663, and in 1671 the
	teaching of Cartesianism at the University of Paris
was prohibited by royal order. However, Car
	tcsianism, which had now become an intellectual
	fad, remained the only philosophy of the day and
continued to be taught in numerous private academies in Paris, and also in the Dutch universities.
The philosophical views of Descartes will be found in the three works mentioned above. In reflecting over his scholastic studies at La Fl6che,
he came to the conclusion that all g. His Skep‑ generally accepted knowledge is open ticism. The to doubt. From this sweeping in‑
Self and dictment he reserved morals and
	God.	religion; but it was inevitable that,
		once enunciated, skepticism, as a
method, would be extended to these fields. Both
Father Bourdin and Voetius foresaw this. Thus,
rejecting all supposed knowledge, Descartes set
about to build up a philosophical system de novo.
He begins by establishing the reality of the self.
In questioning the truth of everything he finds at
least one fact that he can not doubt; viz., the very
fact of doubting itself. This doubt, of course, is a
form of thought; but before there can be any thought
there must be a subject that thinks. Hence, his
famous cogito, ergo suns, a modification of Augus
tine's fallor, ergo sum. From the reality of the
self he then develops his proof of the existence of
God. Among other innate ideas he finds the idea
God, a perfect being, omniscient, omnipotent, in
finite. Since an effect can not be greater than its
cause, we ourselves, as finite beings, could not have
produced this idea. In fact, only a perfect being
could have produced it; but, since existence. is an
attribute of a perfect being, this being must neces
sarily exist‑a form of Anselm's ontological argu
ment, which was demolished by Rant (q.v.). In
searching for the ground of the certainty of his
knowledge regarding his own existence and that of
God, Descartes finds that it lies in the clearness and
distinctness of the idea. He then lays down the
obscure and highly questionable rule that whatever
is perceived clearly and distinctly must be true.
Since he has already demonstrated that there is
a God, God's veracity (another attribute of per
fection) becomes the guaranty of our knowledge.
Hobbes was the first to point out that this argu
ment moves in a circle.
In addition to an infinite substance, or God, Descartes, retaining the dualism of the schoolmen, finds in existence two created substances, mind (res cogitans) and matter (res extensa). These are abso‑
lutely heterogeneous and not further 6. His reducible the one into the other. Dualism. While the essence of the one is think‑
	Ethics.	ing, the only quality of the other is
		extension, such supposed qualities as
color, odor, etc., being merely subjective. The dif
ficulty in conceiving of any causal relation between
these two incompatible kinds of being does not
seem to have presented itself to Descartes. Since
in the case of man there is apparently such a relation
there must be some point of contact between the
spatial body and the non‑spatial soul. This point
Descartes locates in the pineal gland. The body
itself he regards as an automatic mechanism, so
far as the functions of digestion, circulation, and
the affections of love, hate, etc., are concerned;
though the immaterial soul, which God has fused
into the body, directs all conscious movements.

a or Christ into sell	THE NEW S%HAFF‑HERZOG
410
Animals he regards as soulless, mechanical automata which are moved by vital springs after the analogy of a watch. He denies that death is due to the departure of the soul from the body, holding, on the contrary, that the soul departs because the machine that we call the body has run down. In conformity to this mechanical view of animal life, Descartes and his followers practised vivisection freely, interpreting the cries of their victims as the creakings of breaking machinery. For Descartes the whole sensible world was a mechanism whose essential qualities were extension and mobility. Given these, he was ready to reconstruct a priori, and with mathematical exactness, the whole universe. The idea of necessity was so strong in him that in an unguarded moment he even identified God with the order of nature. He did not attempt a systematic treatment of ethics; but when he touches the Subject, in his letters to Queen Christina and Princess Elizabeth and in Les Passions de lame (Paris, 1649), he follows Greek rather than Christian ideals. He counsels humility from practical considerations, and usually interprets moral obligation in a eudemonistic sense.
Descartes is properly called the father of modern philosophy, for it was through him that the away
of scholasticism was finally brokep 7. Estimate and a new method and content given
	of His	to philosophy. He stands at the head
	Work.	of the modern rationalistic develop
		ment, both in philosophy and the
ology; and in his insistence on the importance of
experiment he rivals Bacon as one of the founders
of English empiricism. The rationalistic school that
he established was practically dominant till the time
of Kant; and, indeed, most speculation since Des
cartes has been an attempt to overcome the intel
lectual difficulties of his extreme dualism. If mind
and matter are absolutely opposed to each other,
how can they react on each other? This was the
problem of Descartes' successors. Geulincx and
Malebranche solved it with the theory of occa
sional causes (occasionalism), Leibnitz with his
preestablished harmony, Spinoza with his unica
aubstantia, or pantheism, others with materialism.
Kant showed that the spatial, as well as the tem
poral, aspect of our experience is only a form of
sense‑perception.. His German successors then
took the further step to absolute idealism.
In the history of mathematics Descartes is famous as the founder of analytic geometry. He also systematized the use of exponents, and gave new significance to negative quantities. He was the first to hit upon the undulatory theory of light, afterward developed by his pupil Christian Huyghens; and in his view that the world was evolved from a chaotic state by vortical motions he anticipated the nebular hypothesis of Kant and Laplace. The most important Latin and French editions of Descartes's works are. Opera omnia (8 vols., Amsterdam, 1670‑83; 9 vols., 1692‑1701); tEuvres (13 vols., Paris, 1724‑29; ed. Victor Cousin, 11 vole., 1824‑26). The best English translations of the philosophical works are: The Method, Meditations, and Selediona from the Principles of Descartes, by J. Veitch (London and Edinburgh, 1850‑
1853; new ed., New York, 1899); The Philosophy of
Descartes in Extracts from his Writings, by H. A. P.
Torrey (New York, 1892). A monumental edition
of his works is now in preparation under the aus
pices of the French Academy (10 vols., Paris, 1897
sqq. ). See MATERIALISM, § 5; and ELIZABLVII,
ALBEHTINE. 	HUHEST EVANB.
Branromersr: On the life consult: A. Baillet, La Vie de M. Du Caries, 2 vole., Paris, 1891; A. Prtvost, (gum" . de Descartes, pr&6d&s dune notice cur, so role, ib.
1855; J. Millet, Descartes, 2 vole., ib. 1867‑70; W. Ernst, Descartes, Leipa, 1869; C. J. Jeannel, Descartes et la prinoven Palatine, Paris, 1869; J. P. Mahaffy, Descartes.
Edinburgh, 1881; x. Fischer, Qeechichte der neueren Phi
losophic, vol. 1, Heidelberg, 1897, Eng. tranel., New York,
1887; Elisabeth S. Haldane, Descartes, London, 1905.
On his philosophy consult: V. Cousin, in the 4Turores of
Descartes, i. 1‑80, ‑ Paris, 1824; J. B. Bordao‑Demoulin,
Le Carthianieme, 2 vole., ib. 1843; F. %. Schmid, Rent
Descartes and seine Reform der Philosophic, NSrdlingen,
1859; F. Bouillier, Riot. de la philosophic carthienne,
Paris, 1868; C. Waddington, Descartes et to apiritualisme,
ib. 1868; W. Cunningham, The Influence of Descartes on
Metaphysical Speculation in England, London, 1876; F.
Bowen, Modern Philosophy, pp. 22‑87, New York, 1877;
R„ A. Meincke, Descartes' Bewviae von Dasein Gottes,
Heidelberg, 1883; A. Barthel, Descartes' Leben and Mda
physik. Erlangen, 1885; G. Monchamp, Hiet. du oarvaia
nisne en Belgique, Brussels, 11887; E. Caird, Essays on
Literature and Philosophy, Glasgow, 1892 G. F, Herding,
Descartes' Besiehunp sur $choloatik, Munich, 1899; J.
Iveraeh Descartes, Spinoza, the New Philosophy, Edinburgh, 1904.
DESCENT OF CHRIST INTO HELL. New Testament Data (§ 1). The Older Church Doctrine (; 2). The Protestant Doctrine (§ 3). Conclusion (¢ 4).
The sentence " He descended into hell " (Lat. descendit ad inferna or ad inferos), expressing a christological fact following the death and burial of Jeeps, is found in the Apostles' Creed and the Athanasian Creed, but is lacking in the NioenoConstantinopolitan Creed and the Old Roman Symbol. Its first official statement; as far as a date can be assigned, was formulated in 359 and 360 at synods at Sirmium in Pannonia, Nicss in Thrace, and Constantinople, held under homoiousian influence. A few decades later it formed, according to the testimony of Rufinus (Exposit‑io symboli Aquileienais, xviii.), a part of the confession of the Church of Aquileia (see AQuII.ItIAN CREED). But it was taught much earlier by the most various writers of the Church. The older assertion that
it was received into the confession to combat the Apollinarian heresy has long been refuted. It is simply the crystallization of an old unassailed Christian tradition.
The New Testament tells only that the soul of Jesus was for a time subject to the realm of the dead like that of any other man. According to
Acts 127, 31, the characteristic feature is not that
	he descended into Hades, but that he
I. New Tes‑ soon returned from it by his resurreo‑
	tament	tion. Paul also assumes probably, in
	Data.	Rom. x. 7, Christ's real presence in
		the intermediate place of the deceased
since he speaks of the " deep " (Gk. abyaaoa) in coo‑
nection with the awakening of Christ. In Luke
xxiii. 43 Christ assures the thief on the cross that
he shall be with him in paradise, thus adding,

411	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Descartes
		Descent of Christ into Hell
according to the meaning of the word paradeisos in the current usage of the Jews, a further testimony that the soul of Jesus was in the realm of the dead, more particularly in that part of it which was destined for the just. But it must be observed that in these passages a descent into hell is not expressly taught, but is presupposed as something which naturally follows death.
Concerning the activity of Christ in Hades, the First Epistle of Peter (iii. 18 sqq. and iv. 6) has occasioned great dispute. According as the " spirits" (Gk. pneumata) have been understood to be the souls of deceased men or real spirits (i.e., fallen angels), and according as Christ, who descended to them, has been thought of as incarnate or preexisting, this passage has been interpreted in four different ways: (1) Christ preached after his death to the departed souls of the unbelieving contemporaries of Noah. Origen, Bengel, K6nig, Glider, Usteri, and others assumed that the purpose of Christ's preaching in Hades was of a redeeming nature, while since Flacius and Calovius many Lutheran interpreters and dogmaticians have looked upon it as a damnatory manifestation of judgment against the rejected, in the evident effort to adopt the text of the Bible to the churchly conception of the descent as a triumph of Christ over the power of Satan. (2) Following Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Beza, and many Reformed theologians after him, especially A. Schweizer, interpreted the passage as a sermon of Christ before his incarnation, which proceeded either from the mouth of Noah, the " preacher of righteousness " (II Pet. ii. 5), or coincides with the " long suffering of God " expressed in iii. 20. (3) Spitta tried to solve the problem by assuming that the Messiah before his incarnation, in the time before the flood, preached to the fallen angels, who, according to Gen. vi. 1 sqq., Enoch vi.‑viii., united with the daughters of men and corrupted mankind. His words, according to Spitta, were identical with the announcement of punishment with which Enoch was entrusted according to the book bearing his name (xii. seq.), since in pre‑Christian Judaism the representations of Enoch and the Messiah were frequently confused. (4) F. C. Baur shares the view of Spitta that Christ announced condemnation to the fallen angels, but not until after his awakening from the death on the cross. The fruit of the innocent suffering of Christ consists in the victory over these corrupting beings by which man is brought to God (I Pet. iii. 18).
It may, however, be proved from history that the passage I Pet. iii. 18 sqq. has not formed the basis
for the development of the church 2. The doctrine of the saving activity of
Older	Christ in Hades. Among early Chris‑
Church tian writers it is cited only by Origen,
Doctrine. and, in very incidental manner, by
Hilary of Poitiers, while other Old and New Testament passages are brought forward in great number. It is evident from Matt. xxvii. 5253 that, in consequence of the death of Jesus and his descent into Hades which followed as a natural consequence, many departed saints were delivered from the bonds of death. There was a general belief in the old Church that the salvation accom‑
plished by Christ was made available for the prophets and the pious men of the Old Testament in the time between Christ's death and leis resurrection. Since the soul of Jesus with its inseparable divinity appeared in Hades, Satan was deprived of the sovereignty which he had exercised hitherto in an unlimited way in the nether world. There was a difference between the Occidentals and Orientals in regard to the question to whom the announcement of salvation referred. The Occidental Church confined it strictly to the patriarchs, prophets, and other believers of the Old Testament, while in the Oriental Church a more universalistic tendency made itself felt. The scholastics of the Middle Ages emphasized again and again that the salvation which Christ brought to Hades referred simply to the limbos patrum, and not to any persons who had died without faith or to the limbos infantium. According to the Catechismus Romanus, the soul of Christ descended into Hades while his body lay in the grave, not because he was subject to the law of man, as the older Church taught, but of his own will, in order to conquer the demons.
The Protestants rejected, with purgatory, also the Limbos (q.v.), and retained only two conditions after death; hence originated the tendency to identify
Hades with hell; i.e., the place or condi‑
3. The Prot, tion of condemnation. The Lutheran estant Church adopted the thought of Lu‑
Doctrine. ther, contained in his Torgau ser‑
mon (1533), according to which Christ in his whole personality, God and man, body and soul, really and truly descended into the hell of the damned and conquered the devil. The Formula of Concord stood on the same ground. Christ descended on the early morning of the resurrection, just before his appearance as the risen one on the earth. The interval between the crucifixion and the descent he had spent in paradise. The descent of Christ is considered the first stage in his exaltation (see JESUS CHRIST, TWOFOLD STATE OF), since then for the first time he made an unlimited use of his divine idiomata by triumphing over the power of Satan.
The Reformed theologians regarded the descent into hell as a figurative expression for the unutterable sufferings of Christ's human soul, which he endured in the last moments of his vicarious dying (Calvin," Institutes," bk. ii., chap. xvi., §§ 8‑21). It was a part of his humiliation, not, as in the Lutheran view, the first stage of his exalted state. Beside this view, others have been held concerning the meaning of the clause. It was only another way of saying that Christ was buried (Beza, Drusius, and others) or denoted the state of death regarded as an ignominious one for the Prince of Life (Piscator, Arminius, and others).
It was only in the period of the Enlightenment that the text in I Peter iii. attracted new attention in an exegetical respect. It was held that it implied a sermon of glad tidings to persons who had died without salvation. The rationalists looked upon it as well as upon the descent into Hades as a passing Jewish conception, while dogmaticians like De Wette, Marheineke, and Hase discovered in it as in a myth a permanent Christian idea.

Descent of Christ into Hell Dgvay
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
412
Presupposing the actuality of an intermediate state, a great number of theologians have proclaimed this sermon of salvation on the part of Christ as an essential factor by means of which the universality of Christianity is realized. But in recent times the descent into Hades is treated with great reservation, if not entirely passed over.
In looking back upon the doctrine of the descent, we find that from the standpoint of the New Testa‑
ment, as well as from that of the his4. Conclu‑ tory of dogma, two distinct features sion. stand in the foreground‑the sojourn
of Christ in Hades and the triumph over the powers of hell. The sentence of the Apostles' Creed, descendit ad inferos, relates primarily only to the former. If it is desired to connect a certain activity with Christ's sojourn, one may believe with the old Church that he carried life and salvation to the believers in Hades. But in so far as Hades, from which the patriarchs were to be delivered, was under the dominion of Satan, the prince of darkness was to be conquered, and this idea came to the foreground, since the interest in the fate of the patriarchs and pious men of preChristian times gradually diminished and the expression inferi became in the course of time in popular as well as theological representation the place of the damned and evil spirits. Finally, inasmuch as the assumption of a sermon of salvation to all deceased persons in the intermediate state is based upon the very questionable interpretation of a single Bible text and can hardly be harmonized with other passages (II Cor. v. 10; Gal. vi. 8; Rom. ii. 6; etc.), it is unjustly considered indispensable for the maintenance of the principle of divine justice and love; for the belief that God gives all men somehow an opportunity to obtain full salvation in Christ is independent of the definite way in which some think it is realized.
(M. LAUTERBURG.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. A. Dietelmayer, Historia dogmatica de descensu Christi ad inferos, Nuremberg, 1741; E. Gilder, Lehre von der Erscheinung Christi unter den Todten, Bern, 1852; A. Schweizer, Hinahgefahren zur HUle, als Mythus, Zurich, 1868; C. Hodge, Theology, ii. 616‑621, New York, 1871; F. Huidekoper, The Belief of the First Three Centuries Concerning Christ's Mission to the Underworld, ib. 1876; E. H. Plumptre, The Spirits in Prison, ib. 1885;
C. H. H. Wright, Biblical Essays: St. Peter's Spirits in Prison, Edinburgh, 1886; J. M. Usteri, Hinabgefahren zur Hblle, Zurich, 1886; F. Spitta, Christi Predigt an die Geister, G6ttingen, 1890; Briney, in Christian Quarterly
Review, 1897; C. Brustow, La Descente du Christ auz enfers, Paris, 1897; A. C. McGiffert, The Apostles' creed, pp. 193 sqq., 1902; Schaff, Creeds, i. 14‑23; the commentaries on I Pet. iii. 19‑22 and iv. 6; Rufinus. Commentarius in Symbolum AposWorum. Later text with notes by C. Whitaker, 3d ed.; London, 1908; and the literature under APOSTLES' CREED.
DESERT, CHURCH OF THE. See CAMISARDS; COURT, ANTOINE; HUGUENOTS; RABAUT, PAUL.
•DES MARETS, de m8"r6' (MARESIUS), SAMUEL
Representative of the Reformed polemic orthodoxy; b. at Oisemont (75 m. n.n.w. of Paris), Picardy, Aug. 9, 1599; d. at Groningen May 18, 1673. He studied in Paris in Saumur under Gomarus, and in Geneva at the time of the Synod of Dort. He was ordained in 1620, and preached at Laon until a controversy with Roman Catholic
missionaries, which led to an attack on his life (1624), forced him to leave. He became professor at S6dan (1625), pastor at Maestricht (1632). pastor and professor at Bois‑le‑Duc (1636), and at Groningen (1643), where he won a reputation that led to calls to Saumur, Marburg, Lausanne, and Leyden. He wrote more than one hundred works, including a Systhema theologize (Groningen, 1.645; 4th and best ed., 1673, with an appendix giving a list of his writings), worked out in scholastic fashion, which was much used as a text‑book. But his literary activity was chiefly polemical‑against Roman Catholics, Socinians, Arminians, Amyraldism as represented by Dallwus, Chiliasm, etc.
(S. D. vAN VEEN.)
DESSERVANT. See CHAPLAIN.
DESUBAS, db"su"ba'. See MAJAL, MATHIEU.

DETERMINISM: The common name for all theories of the human will which represent it as absolutely determined by motives which lie entirely outside of it, thereby reducing its freedom to a mere delusion. There is a dogmatic determinism, which, in order to glorify the majesty of God, excludes all other causality from human action but God himself (Luther, De servo arbitrio); and there is a philosophical determinism, which explains all human actions as results of surrounding circumstances (La Mettrie; many modern socalled " social reformers "). There is a fatalistic determinism, which places God himself in the grip of an iron necessity (the ancient idea of Nemesis, Islam); and there is a pantheistic determinism, which makes even the faintest gleam of human freedom vanish into the darkness of a natural process (the Hindus, Stoicism, Spinoza). One of the most interesting forms under which determinism has appeared in theology is that which it received from Schleiermacher and his school. See WILL.

DEUSDEDIT, d6"us‑db'dit: The name of three men who figure in church history.
1. Pope 615‑618. He was a Roman, chosen pope after the death of Boniface IV., 615, and consecrated Oct. 19. He died Nov. 8, 618. Nothing is known of his activity; miracles and spurious decretals are attributed to him, and he is honored as a saint on Nov. 8.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Liber pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, i., pp. cclvi., 319, Paris, 1886; ed. Mommsen, in MGH, Gest. Font. Rom., i. 166‑167, Berlin, 1898.

2. Sixth archbishop of Canterbury and the first of English origin; d. at Canterbury July 14, 664. He was a West Saxon whose native name was Frithona, and succeeded Honorius as archbishop after an interval of a year and a half, being consecrated by Ithamar, bishop of Rochester, Mar. 26, 655. The insignificance of Canterbury in his time is shown by the fact that he consecrated only one English bishop (Damian, successor of Ithamar at Rochester); all others were consecrated abroad or by Celtic bishops. He was not present at the Synod of Whitby, and no mention is made of any one to represent him there. After his death the see remained vacant for some time.

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Descent of Christ into Hell
	Dgvay
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Vita by Gozalin is given in part in ASB, July, iv. 48‑50. Consult: Bede, Hiat. eccl., iii. 20, 29, iv. 1; Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, iii. 99‑113; DNB, xiv. 422.
8. Cardinal; d. about 1099. Of his earlier life it is related merely that he was once a monk in Todi. At the Roman November synod of 1078 he belonged to the clerics in the circle of Gregory VII. who agreed with Berengar of Tours. He is said to have been in Spain as legate of this pope; he was certainly in Germany, perhaps in the same capacity. It was probably also under Gregory VII. that he became a cardinal. The significance of Deusdedit lies primarily in his literary achievements on behalf of the Gregorian party. His Liber canonum, doubtless suggested by Gregory VIL, was completed in 1087 (ed. P. Martinucci, Venice, 1869, and recently republished with detailed investigations by V. W. von Glanvell, Die Kanonensammlung des Kardinals Deusdedit, Paderborn, 1905). Deusdedit participated in the public questions of his time by composing in 1097 the Libellus contra invasores et symoniacos (MGH, Libelli de lite, ii., 1892, 300 ff.), important for its treatment of simony, investiture, and the value of sacraments administered by simoniac priests. Probably he is the author also of the so‑called Dietatus papee Gregorii VIl. (Gregorii VIl. Reg,, II. 55a). [Mann,, Popes, i. 304, calls him " the best of the eleventh‑century canonists."]
CARL MIRBT.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. von Giesebrecht, Miinchener Historiachea Jahrbuch, 1866; E. Saekur, Neues Archiv tar die tfltere deutsche Geschichtskunde, xvi., xviii.; C. Mirbt, Die Publi2istik im Zeitalter Gregory VII., Leipsie, 1894; W. Martens, Gregor VIL, ib. 1894; G. Buschbell, Die profeeaiones fidei der Pdpste, Monster, 1896.

DEUTERONOMY. See HEXATEUCH.
DEUTSCH, deich, SAMUEL MARTIN: German Protestant; b. at Warsaw, Poland, Feb. 19, 1837. He studied at Erlangen and Rostock (Ph.D., 1857), and, after being for many years instructor in a gymnasium in Berlin, was appointed in 1885 associate professor of church history in the university of the same city. He has written Die Lehre des Ambrosius von Si'ende and Sfndentilgung (Berlin, 1867); Drei Aktenstiicke zur Geschichte des Donatismus (1875); Der Synode von Sens (1141) and die Verurteilung Abdlards (1880); and Peter Abdlard, ein kritischer Theolog des zwolften Jahrhunderts (Leipsic, 1883). He edited K. R. Hagenbach's Leitfaden zum Religionsunterricht from the sixth to the ninth edition (Leipsic, 1881‑1905).

DEUTSCHMANN, JOHANN: Lutheran theologian; b. at Jiiterbogk (27 m. s. of Potsdam) Aug. 10, 1625; d. at Wittenberg Aug. 12, 1706. In 1657 he became extraordinary professor, and in 1662 ordinary professor at Wittenberg. During the syncretistic and pietistic controversies he represented the extreme orthodox Lutheranism; and opposed especially the younger Calixtus and the theology of the pietists. Against Spener, the leader of the pietists, he charged no less than 263 heresies. Being the son‑in‑law of the orthodox professor Calovius, he used the weak man as a blind tool in his hand. To his scientific fancies
belonged the development of the so‑called Theologia paradisiaca, i.e., that Adam, the patriarchs, and the whole Old Testament agreed with the Augsburg Confession and Formulas of Concord. To prove this, he published an Antiquissima theologies positiva primi theologi Adami, a Symbolum apostolicum Adami; and Der christlutherischen Kirche Prediger‑Beicht and Beichtstuhl von dem grossen Jehova‑Elohim im Paradiese gestiftet.
PAUL TSCHACKERT.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: M. Ranfft, Leben der churadchsiechen Gotte8gelehrien, i. 243, Leipsic, 1742; ADB. v. 93.
DEVAY, MATYAS BIRO: Hungarian Reformer; b. about 1500 at Deva (140 m. n.e. of Belgrade), Transylvania; d. perhaps 1545 in Debreczin. Where he received his earlier education is unknown; some Hungarian authors call him a pupil of Grynwus at Ofen. Hungarian students of Transylvania at this time usually visited the University of Cracow, and Dtvay with his fellow Reformer KAlmlincsehi is matriculated there for the winter semester of 1523. On his return from Cracow two years later, he joined a monastic order, and is found in 1527 a zealous Roman Catholic priest, on the estate of Stephan Tomory. By this time the Reformation had made great progress in Hungary. D6vay was won over and went to Wittenberg to arm himself for its defense and propagation, and studied at the university for a year and a half, during which time he had free board and lodging with Luther. Returning well recommended by the great Reformers, he appears in the spring of 1531 in Ofen‑Buda as minister of its Hungarian congregation, spreading the Reformation. He then wrote his De sanctorum dormitione, against the invocation of the saints, and fifty‑two propositions in defense of the Reformation. As Hungary had no priilting‑press, the tracts circulated only in manuscript, and their contents are known only through his polemic works published later in other countries. Before the end of the same year he was called to Kaschau (Kassa) as preacher. Here his zeal for the Reformation aroused the wrath of the Roman clergy, and Thomas Szalahizy, bishop of Erlau, arrested him on higher orders, Nov. 6, 1531. Though the citizens resisted his arrest, he was imprisoned, first in Likava, then in Presburg, finally in Vienna. Here he suffered much, and was several times examined before the bitterest enemy of the Reformation, Bishop Faber. Released, he went again to Ofen, then under Ferdinand's rival John Zipolya, but his zeal led him into captivity, 1534‑35. From Ofen he went under the protection of Count Nddasdy, a rich Hungarian magnate and an open and active Reformer, to Sarvar, where he used the count's splendid library in the composition of his Latin polemic treatises. Gregory Szegedy, provincial of the Franciscans in Hungary, a chief persecutor of Protestants, finally fulfilled his threat and replied to Ddvay's tracts, already mentioned, under the title Censurce Fratris Gregorii Zegedini, O. F., in propositiones erroneas Matthia; Devay . . . (Vienna, 1535). D6vay at once set himself to reply and toward the end of 1536 went to Germany to see to the publication of his

Development	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	414
Devil
rejoinder. In the spring he was at Wittenberg,
enjoying the friendship of Melanchthon. Before
fall habook was published in Nuremberg, with the
title Disputatio de statu in quo sint beatorum animm
post hanc vitam, ante ultimi judicii diem. Item de
prwcipuis artieulis Christiante doctrinm, and an in
troduction perhaps by Melanchthon or Grynseus.
Returning soon after to Hungary, he joined Count
Thomas Ndd'asdy and John Sylvester (Erd6si) in
the endeavor to strengthen the Reformation by
means of schools and a national literature. He
wrote his Orthographia Ungarica (the first book
printed in Hungary in the Hungarian language), in
which he incorporated the fundamentals of Prot
estantism and the children's prayers from Luther's
Shorter Catechism. During this time Ddvay wrote
a " Handbook of Religion " in Hungarian (2d fac
simile ed., Budapest, 1897). Meanwhile the Turk
had invaded Hungary in aid of Ferdinand's rival,
whose party was hostile to the Reformation. Ddvay
and his comrades were forced to flee, and are found
in Dec., 1541, in Wittenberg. Ddvay took the op
portunity of visiting Switzerland, and became a
decided adherent to the Swiss doctrines, which at
first surprised and later angered Luther. After
about a year and a half he returned to Hungary
and labored for a while in Miskolcz in Upper Hun
gary, then in Debreczin.	(K. R11cvLsz.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. Bauhofer, Geachichte do epanpelisehen
	Kirehe in Ungarn, Berlin, 1854; F. Balogh, Geschichta
	der unparisch‑protestantiechen Kirche, Debreeain, 1882;
	P. Bod, Hint. Hungarorum eoct., ed. Rauwenhoff, 3 vole.,
	Leyden, 1889‑90.
	DEVELOPMENT, THEOLOGICAL AND HIS
TORICAL: The Evangelical Protestant theory
maintains that Christianity objectively considered
is perfect in Christ and the New Testament, but
that its understanding and application is gradual,
and progressing from age to age.	The rationalistic
theory holds that Christianity itself is imperfect,
and will ultimately be superseded by philosophy
or a humanitarian religion, or that reason will take
the place of the Bible as a rule of faith and action.
The theory advocated by Cardinal Newman, in his
Development of Christian Doctrine (London, 1845),
written just before he went over to Rome, but
never indorsed by the Roman Catholic Church, is
that the New Testament contained the germs of
certain doctrines, i.e., those distinctive to the Roman
and Greek Catholic Churches, which, under divine
care, have been developed into their present shape.
The reply to Newman's position is that, while de
scent from earlier formulas maybe traced for many
later doctrines, it does not follow that the develop
ment was always along legitimate lines. The Prot
estant criticism of Roman Catholic development is
that the latter is often in a direction contrary to
the spirit of the Gospel. See DoaTRiNEs, HISTORY
OF.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Philip Schaff, What is Church Historyf A
	Vindication of the Idea of Historical Development, Phila
	delphia, 1846; W. A. Butler, Letters on the Development
	o/ Christian Doctrine sn Reply to Mr. Newman's Essay,
	Dublin, 1850; O. Pfleiderer, Philosophy of Religion, 4 vols.,
	London, 1886‑88; A. V. G. Allen, Continuity of Chris
	tian Thought, Boston, 1887; J. Kaftan, Truth of the
	Christian Relsglon, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1894; J. Orr,
	Progress of Dogma, New York, 1901.
	DEVIL.
I. The Old Testament III. The Church Teaching.
	Teaching.	The Fathers (§ 1).
II. The New Testament	The Middle Ages
		Teaching.		(§ 2).
	Names and Description	Popular Notions (§ 3).
		(§ 1).	Luther (§ 4).
	The Belief of Jesus (§ 2).	Modern Views (§ 5).
I. The Old Testament Teaching: The Old Testament does not contain the fully developed doctrine of Satan (Heb. Satan, " adversary ") found in the New Testament. It does not portray him as at the head of a kingdom, ruling over kindred natures and an apostate from the family of God. The belief in evil spirits is distinctly alluded to (see DEMoN). In the older books God is described as the source from which come influences noxious to man (Ex. viii. sqq., xii. 29); but there are not wanting references to evil spirits as evil agencies (I Sam. xvi. 14; I Kings xxii. 20 sqq.). In this connection the parallel statements of II Sam. xxiv. 1 and I Chron. xxi. 1 should be compared; it will be found that the same event is attributed in the first passage to God as its author, and in the second to Satan (cf. Luke xii. 5 and Heb. ii. 14).
The term " Satan " is used in the general sense of adversary (Ps. cix. 6 etc.), but more particularly also as the spirit of evil, who comes into collision with the plans of God, and plots the hurt of man. It is not definitely stated in the account of the fall that the serpent who tempted Eve was the devil, or his agent. The first identification of the two is in the Book of Wisdom (ii. 23‑24; cf. II Cor. xi. 3; Rev. xii. 9), and it is taken for granted in the expression " that old serpent called the devil " (Rev. xii. 9; cf. John viii. 44). This inference is justified by the words which the serpent used, and agrees with the portrait of the devil as the tempter. Lev. xvi. 8 has been thought to contain a reference to Satan (see AZAZEL; DEMON). In the Book of Job he is brought out as a distinct personality. He presents himself before Yahweh with the sons of God (i. 6), and, after questioning the motives of the patriarch, secures permission to tempt and torment him, but not to kill him (i. 12). In Zech. iii. 1 he is portrayed as standing at the side of Joshua the high priest to " resist " him (A. V.; A. V. marg. and R. V., " to be his adversary "). In the Book of Enoch and the Hebrew Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha the doctrine of the personality of the devil is developed and grotesque features are introduced.
	II. The New Testament Teaching: The New
Testament is full of allusions to the personality and
agency of the devil (Gk. diabolos, " calumniator ").
He bears the titles of " tempter " (I Thess. iii. 5),
the " wicked " or " evil one " (Matt. xiii. 19 etc.;
cf. vi. 13), " Beelzebub " and " prince of devils "
(Gk. daimones; Matt. xii. 24), " the prince of this
world" (John xii. 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11), "the
		god of this world " (II Cor. iv. 4),
i. Names "prince of the power of the air"
and De‑ (Eph. ii. 2), the " dragon," and the
	scription.	"serpent" (Rev. xii. 9, xx. 2). He
		has a kingdom (Matt. xii. 26), which
is hostile to the kingdom of Christ (Acts xxvi. 18),
and dominates a realm of demons (Matt. ix. 34).

416	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	pest
Created one of the angels, be became an apostate (John viii. 44), and fell from heaven (Luke a. 18; Jude 6). He is the indefatigable adversary of the kingdom of good, but will ultimately be overthrown, and cast into everlasting fire (Matt. xxv. 41). No hope is set forth in the Scriptures of his redemption. He endeavored to seduce Christ himself (Matt. iv. 1), worked among the apostles (John xiii. 2), and worketh in the children of disobedience (Eph. ii. 2). Conversion is the passage and deliverance from his kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light (Col. i. 13). He is restlessly sowing seeds of error and doubt in the Church (Matt. aiii. 39), blinding the eyes of them that believe not (II Cor. iv. 4), goes about as a roaring lion (I Pet. v. 8), and has the power of death (Heb. ii. 14). Christ has given a more definite description of him (John viii. 44) as a " murderer and liar." His chief characteristics are power and craft. He is as a " strong man " (Matt. xii. 29), and his subtlety (cf. Gen. iii. 1) is exhibited in treacherous snares (II Tim. ii. 26), wiles (Eph. vi. 11), and devices (II Cor. ii. 11), and the delusive shift of transforming himself into an angel of light (II Cor. xi. 14). The Book of Revelation is a sublime drama in which Satan is one of the chief figures.
It was to undo the desolation, and destroy the works of Satan that the Son of God was manifested (I John iii. 8). It has been attempted to make him out to be a mere personification of evil, and to show that evil exists only as it is found in the human heart. Schleiermacher thinks that Jesus accommodated himself to the ideas and language that then prevailed in Judea, but did not himself regard Satan as a real and living person. Objection is made to this view that, if he were not a distinct personality, Christ
s. The would hardly use so strong language
Belief of in speaking of him and would not bid
	Jeans.	the disciples beware of his craft and
		power. In the exposition of the par
able of the tares Christ makes the didactic state
ment that the enemy who sowed them was the
devil. Another view adopted by advocates of a
humanitarian christology is that Jesus shared the
ignorance of his age in ascribing certain maladies
to demoniac influence and asserting the personality
of the devil. A remark of Bernard Weiss is here
apposite (Die Religion des Neuen Tegtamenta, p.
121, Stuttgart, 1903) : " The deeper the sense of sin
is the more confidently is the supernatural power
of sin, by which man is deceived and dominated,
ascribed to a superhuman adversary of God, for
sin can not be traced back to God. The Scrip
tures and Jesus take this fact for granted and give
it the weight of their authority."
III. The Church Teaching: The Fathers agreed in representing Satan as an apostate angel. According to Origen the fallen angels, who sinned less grievously, are of most subtle constitution. The stars belong to them. The devil and the demons, who sinned most grievously, inhabit the air (F. Loofs, Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte, p. 127, Halle, 1893). At last even the devil will return to God and thus the ‑ restoration of all
things " (Gk. apokatastasis yanton, Acts iii. 21; see ArocaxesTAsis) be accomplished. The fall, however, may be repeated again in the
:. The course of the eons. In the develop‑
	Fathers:	ment of the doctrine of the atonement
		(q.v.) from Irenseus on (cf. Schaff,
Christian Church, ii. 686 sqq.) the satisfaction of
Christ was regarded as a payment made not to
God, but to the devil, who through the disobedi
ence of our first parents acquired a right to us.
Origen says sinful man is the devil's property
(Loofa, p. 129). John of Damascus expressly re
jected this theory (Loofa, p. 186). The second part
of his system of theology devotes much space to
the devil, and is in this respect a precursor of the
medieval systems. In the West Augustine repre
sented Christ's work as a redemption from the devil
rather than as a reconciliation to God (Loofa, p.
220), but he gave the impulse to the later doctrine
enunciated by Anselm. He pronounced the pagan
gods demons (De civitate Dei, v. 12, xviii. 18). Like
the good angels, the bad spirits have bodies and
by God's permission have power to stir up storms
and blast harvests, and they cohabit with men
and women. They have no power to create new
substances, but they have power to accelerate the
growth of seeds and germs, and the development
of potencies hidden to men, but known to their
own shrewd senses. Gregory the Great (d. 604)
went even to greater lengths than Augustine in
giving experiences of demonic and diabolic influ
ence. Harnack (Dogmengeschichte, iii. 235) has
called him the " Doctor of angels and the devil."
The popular belief in the devil and bis immediate
influence in antagonizing holy aspirations and
practises had a copious illustration in the weird
experiences of the hermits of the Thebaid and
Chalcis. St. Anthony and other ascetics thought
they had frequent encounters with him, and their
cells were often turned into pandemonium by the
shrieks and howls of the demons whom they im
agined Satan called forth to torment them in their
lonely solitude (cf. Schaff, Christian Church, iii.
147 sqq.; Charles Kingsley, The Hermits, London,
1868).
In the Middle Ages the devil and demonology were among the subjects which received most elaborate treatment. The leading achoohnen devote long sections filled with Scriptural quotation and argumentative reasoning to show the origin, the mode of existence, and the influence of the devil and the evil spirits. To these disquisitions of the study are added the popular stories which fill the pages of some of the most interesting talewriters of all times. To schoolmen and compilers must be added another class of writers,
The men of liberal culture like Walter Mapes Middle and John of Salisbury and Ittienne de Ages. Bourbon of France (ed. A. Lecoy de la Marche, Paris, 1877). Mapes treats Ceres, Bacchus, Pan, the satyrs, and the fauns and dryads as fallen spirits, and represents the devil as himself bearing witness to the truth of this view (De nugis curialium, ed. T. Wright, ii. 14, London, 1850). John of Salisbury has no doubt about the fell alliance of demons with men and women and

Devil
Devotion
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
their power over. the weather (Polycraticus, chaps. viii.‑xiii.).
According to the medieval theology the devil is at the head of a realm of demons divided into prelacies and demonarchies. Pride was the cause of Lucifer's fall. The region where the devil was cast down is the tenebrous air, where, in pits of darkness, he and his followers are reserved till the day of final judgment, and not till then will their full degree of torment be meted out to them (Peter Lombard, ii. 6). Albertus Magnus, of all the schoolmen, speaks with most precision upon the locality. There are three zones or interstices in the air, and it is the middle zone which is inhabited by the devil and his angels (" Sentences," II. vi. 5, ed. Borgnet, xxvii. 152). There the tempests are bred and the hail and the snow are generated. There the demons start the clouds on fell missions and send forth the thunders and other natural terrors to frighten and hurt men. For until the time of their final torment they have power to trouble men (Thomas Aquinas, Summa, I. lxiv. 4; Peter Lombard, II. vii. 6). As for their mental power, the devil and his angels are more acute than men, and their long experience enables them to foretell the future. Albertua Magnus says they are far more shrewd in watching the stars and predicting future events than are the astronomers. The miracles they perform are for the most part legerdemain and juggleries by which they deceive and outwit. But, as Thomas Aquinas asserts (Summa, I. cxiv. 4), quoting Augustine, they have also supernatural power and cause sickness and death, blast the crops, produce all sorts of frealts upon the progeny of men, and make women sterile. About 1250 the witchcraft craze began to sweep through Europe. From the time when Gregory IX. issued his bull on the subject in 1233 the punishment for such satanic influence and heresy went side by side, for heresy also was considered the work of the devil (see INQUISITION). Thomas Aquinas gave full doctrinal statement to the popular view, declaring that all practisers of witchcraft and sorcery were in league with the devil, and advocated the penalty of death. From that time pope after pope issued orders not to spare those who were under the direct agency of the devil (see WITCHCRAFT).
The popular writers of the Middle Ages, Caesarius of Heisterbach (Dialogus), Thomas Cantimpratensis (Bonum universals de apibus), and Jacobus de Voragine in his "Golden Legend:' are full of the most marvelous postures and feats of the evil one and his minions. They saw them with their eyes. Usually they were clad in black. Sometimes they had the face of a. woman and were veiled. The devil himself appeared
3. Popular in meetings of witches and other. per
Notions. sons as a great black tom‑cat but also as a dog, a Moor, and in other shapes. .Sometimes the demons had the forms of children with faces of iron. In convents the devil was a frequent visitor. Sometimes poor monks lost their minds through the devil's influence. Sometimes he imparted to them an unusual gift of preaching. The most gruesome of all these tales are those
which represent the devil as tormenting the naked soul after death and driving his sharp claws into it (Caesarius of Heisterbach, i. 32, v. 10, etc.). These stories were fully believed, and all these experiences are in accord with the principles laid down by the great echoolmen, Peter Lombard, Bonaventura, Thomas Aquinas, and Albertus Magnus. The schoolmen, following Anaelm (who wrote a special treatise, De casu diaboli) in his Cur deus homo, set aside the old view that Christ's death and sufferings were a payment made to Satan. Thomas Aquinas (Summa, III. xlviii. 3) says, "Christ offered his blood, which is the price of our redemption, not to the devil, but to God."
The Reformation brought only partial relief from these harrowing medieval notions. In Protestant lands persecution went on for those who were supposed to be under the special influence o€ Satan. Luther threw his inkstand at the devil, and on one occasion when he was awakened by a noise from sleep he finally composed himself by saying, " 1 heard one walking on the
4. Luther. floor above my head, but, as I knew it to be only the devil, I went quietly to sleep." He said, " Let a Christian know this, that he is sitting in the midst of devils, and ithat the devil is closer to him than his coat or shirt or even his very skin." Nevertheless, in the domain of theology Luther made an advance when he denied to the devil all right to us and power over us (" Recht and Macht "). Christ's death was not a payment to him, but to the wrath of God (cf. R. Seeberg, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, ii., Leipsic, 1898, p. 252).
	In more	modern times there have been theo
logians who have denied wholly the personality of
the devil; for example, the German rationalists,
beginning with the eighteenth century. Even
Schleiermacher combated the view of a personal
Satan (see above, II., § 2). Later theologians like
Martenaen, Nitzsch, Twesten, Julius Mtiller, Dor
mer, and others hold firmlv to his personality.
Martensen says he was "Christ's younger brother,
and became God's adversary because he was not
content to be second, but wanted to be first; be
cause he was unwilling to bear the light of another,
and wanted to be the light itself." Jakob Bbhme
says: " Lucifer envied the Son his glory; his own
beauty deceived him, and he wanted to place him
self on the throne of the Son." An attempt has
even been made to fix the date of his apostasy.
Lange thought it occurred on one of the days of
the creative week; while Kurtz and others held
that the formless and void chaos of the world (Gem.
i. 2) was the result of Satan's fall. Whatever may
		be said of these theories, evangelical
5. Modern theologians agree in three points: (1)
	Views.	The possibility of Satan's apostasy is
		as conceivable as the fall of man; (2)
The inveterate hostility of Satan to the kingdom
of Christ makes the denial of eternal punishment on
the ground of the divine compassion untenable;
(3) In proportion as the Christian consciousness of
sin is deep does the belief in the personal agency of
Satan prevail. In the New Testament the apos
tles feel that they are participants in the struggle

417	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Devil
Devotion
between the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of Satan, and this conviction draws forth the vivid exhortations to fight manfully and with the armor of God, and to resist by prayer and vigilance. It may be said with Dorner that the conviction of a great struggle going on between the two kingdoms of darkness and light, a struggle in which we all may take part, is adapted to produce an earnest conception of evil, and develop watchfulness and tension of the moral energies. D. S. SCHAFF.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lists of literature (very partial) are found in M. Osborn, Die Teufelaliteratur des xvi. Jahrhunderta, Berlin, 1893; Bibliotheca diabolica: A Selection of Books relating to the Devil, New York, 1874.
On Biblical ideas consult the works on Biblical theology, particularly: H. Schultz, O. T. Theology, London, 1892; A. B. Davidson, Theology of O. T., pp. 300‑355, Edinburgh, 1904; W. Beysehlag, N. T. Theology, Edinburgh, 1896; DB, iv. 407‑412; EB, iv. 4296‑4300; JE, mi. 68‑71.
On the Christian conception the works on dogmatics, especially those by J. P. Lange, ii. 569 sqq., Heidelberg, 1852; H. L. Martensen, pp. 213‑231, Copenhagen, 1850, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1865; J. J. van Ooeterzee, ii. 413‑422, Utrecht, 1872, Eng trans]., New York, 1874; J. A. Dorner, ii. 188‑217, Berlin, 1881, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1880‑82. Also Harnack, Dogma, passim, consult Index. Special treatment in: R. Gilpin, Demonologia sacra, London, 1877; A. D. White, War/are of Science and Religion, 2 vols., New York, 1898; J. Hansen, Zauberglaube, Inquisition and Hexenprocess im Mittelalter, Munich, 1900; idem, Quellen and Unterauchunpen des Hexenwahna and Hexenverfolgung, Leipsic, 1901; Graf yon Hoensbroeeh, Dae Papattum in seiner kulturellen Wirksamkeit, i. 207‑380, ib. 1901.
On the general subject: G. Roskoff, Geachichte des Teu/els, i. 175‑186, Leipsic, 1869; M. D. Conway, Demonology and Devil‑lore, London, 1871; F. T. Hall, Pedigree o/ the Devil, ib. 1883; E. H. Jewett, Diabolology: The Person and Kingdom of Satan, New York, 1890; P. Carus, Hist. of the Devil, Chicago, 1900 (disappointing); raivre, La Peraonalite du Satan, Montauban, 1900; and the works cited under DEMON; and DEMONIAC.
DEVOLUTION, LAW OF: A law which provides for the filling of ecclesiastical offices in an extraordinary manner when those whose duty it is to fill a vacancy fail illegally to observe the proper time or violate the canonical rules. The earlier canon law knows of no devolution right. It arose with the development of a time limit for tile filling of vacancies in ecclesiastical offices. At the Lateran council held under Alexander III. in 1179 (capitula 3, 8) it was enacted that all lower livings shall be filled within six months from the time they became vacant, and in case either the bishop or chapter are negligent, the one must act for the other; in case both are negligent, the metropolitan must fill the vacancy. Innocent III. extended this law at the Lateran Council of 1215, and in the collections of decretals and by doctrine and 'practise the institution was further developed. The present law of the Roman Catholic Church is this: in case the authority having the right of collation illegally fails to fill a vacancy within the prescribed time, or culpably transfers the office to an unworthy person, or violates the rulei to be observed on such occasions, the next ecclesiastical superior has the collation ipso jure, he can resign his privilege and allow an appointment by another in due order; but in case he makes use of his right, tile same rules apply to him as to the original collator, the difference being only in the person making the
appointment. 	E. SEHLING.
IIL‑27
DEVOTION: The response of man to God's revelation of himself. The impression of his reality is so strong upon us that we gaze in awestruck silence upon his incomparable majesty; and devotion is based on this conviction. Its object, the living and eternal God, is beyond and above this world; and hence this spirit has a tendency to shun the world, which may easily be exaggerated. We can not escape from the world, which is the product of our own living consciousness. When man tries, as in what is called mysticism, to grasp the idea of God without relation to this world, he attempts the impossible. This transcendental God can only be found of men when he draws near to them by‑revealing himself to them; and their devotion to him can only be their willingness to listen when he speaks. God reveals himself in the world about us, to each man in the mode of his own existence, and thus to each in a different way. Knowledge of God is a personal conviction to be gained by each soul for itself. This will not remove us from the world, or free us from the claims of environment. We are rather to find in the latter the source of the strength which is to enable us to realize the invisible and prepare us for the life beyond.
It has been said, as a reproach against religion, that it is much easier to be " devout " than to live a moral life. But this reproach is based upon a false conception of devotion, which is wholly different from mere idle dreaming or emotional enthusiasm. Devotion, while it brings with it the most entrancing delight, is a call to the greatest exertion of spiritual energy. The way to it is through the conscience. A man must know what he is to do and be. This condition once fulfilled, all about him perceive a power from above in him. He is conscious himself of the force of the right. His moments of realization testify for him to the presence of an invisible agent, and lead his thoughts to God.
To abide in the God who has thus revealed himself to us, in what for us are such undeniable facts, is devotion. The words in which others who stand in his presence tell of what they have realized are valuable means to it; they may kindle the fire‑but they are not the flame itself. And so likewise the purpose of devotion is not fulfilled until it is translated into activity. It means the decision of the will in favor of good: and this brings light and order into man's ideas of his actual existence, of the significance of his individual position in the world. The realization of duty forces action. Where devotion does not issue in the activity proper to one's vocation the emotions felt fail of their effect. This is the case with some forms of Roman Catholic piety, in which devotion grows not out of a revelation made to the individual, but of the contemplation of traditional conceptions; in which intercourse with one's fellows and labor in the world are considered an interruption of intercourse with God. The Church is bound to proclaim that for the individual the divine revelation consists of the facts whiah lie himself recognizes as indubitable parts of his own existence , such revelation does not necessarily

De Wette	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	418
Dickinson
come to him in the first place as facts formally
orthodox. If it is given to us to see as such facts
the person and office of Jesus Christ; then and
then only may we become Christians and find in
the devotion of Christians the beginning of a life
of blessedness.	(W. HERRMANN.)
	DE WETTE. See WETTE, WILHELM MARTIN
LEBERECHT DE.
	DE WITT, JOHN: The name of two American
clergymen. 1. Reformed (Dutch); b. at Albany,
N. Y., Nov. 29, 1821; d. at Irvington, N. Y., Oct.
19, 1906: He was educated at Rutgers College
(B.A., 1538) and the New Brunswick Theological
Seminary, from which he was graduated in 1842.
He was then pastor successively at Ridgeway, Mich.
(1842‑44), Ghent, N. Y. (1844‑49), Canajoharie,
N. Y. (1849‑50), and Millstone, N. J. (1850‑63).
From 1863 to 1884 he was professor of Oriental lit
erature at Rutgers College, and from the latter year
until his retirement in 1892 was professor of Hellen
istic Greek and New Testament exegesis in the same
institution. He was one of the American Old Testa
ment Revision Company from its foundation, and
wrote The Sure Foundation, and how to build on it
(New York, 1848) and The Praise Songs of Israel, a
new Rendering of the Book of Psalms (1884).
	2. Presbyterian; b. at Harrisburg, Pa., Oct. 10,
1842. He studied at Princeton (B.A.,1861), studied
law for a year, and then theology at Princeton and
Union seminaries, graduating in 1865. He held pas
torates at Irvington‑on‑Hudson, N. Y. (1865‑69),
Central Congregational Church, Boston (1869‑76),
and Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia (1876
1882); was professor of church history in Lane Theo
logical Seminary, Cincinnati, O. (1882‑88); professor
of Christian apologetics at McCormick Theological
Seminary, Chicago (1888‑92), and since 1892 has
been professor of church history in Princeton The
ological Seminary. In theology he adheres to the
Reformed confessions. He has written: Sermons
on the Christian Life (New York, 1885); What is
Inspiration f (1893); and History of Princeton
University (in Princeton Sesquicentennial Volume,
1896).
	DEXTER, HENRY MARTYN: American Con
gregationalist; b. at Plympton, Mass., Aug. 13,
1821; d. at New Bedford, Mass., Nov. 13, 1890.
He was of both Pilgrim and Puritan descent. He
entered Brown University in 1836, but went to
Yale in 1838, and was graduated there in 1840.
After teaching a year in Rochester, Mass., he was
graduated at Andover Theological Seminary in
1844. He was ordained first pastor of the Frank
lin St. Congregational Church, Manchester, N. H.,
Nov. 6, 1844, and was pastor of the Pine St. Church
(now Berkeley Temple), Boston, 1849‑67. He
joined the staff of the Congregationalist in 1851,
and was editor‑in‑chief, excepting during 1866,
from 1856 until his death.	In 1854 he drew up
the memorable antislavery Nebraska Protest to
Congress against the Missouri Compromise. In
1858 he was one of the founders of the Congrega
tional Quarterly. In 1880 he was moderator of the
National Congregational Council at Oberlin and,
later, one of its Creed Commission. In 1884, with
Dr. G. E. Day, he represented the American Home Missionary Society to the Independent Churches of Norway and Sweden, and in 1889 he was invited to preach the opening sermon before the first International Congregational Council, at London in 1890, but died before the appointed date arrived.
	Dr. Dexter wrote many articles and volumes,
and. was an expert on Congregationalism and
American Colonial history.	His chief books are:
Congregationalism ; What it is, Whence it is, How
it	Works, Why it is better than any other form of
Church Government, and its Consequent Demands
(Boston, 1865); and The Congregationalism of the
Last Three Hundred Years as Seen in its Literature
(New York, 1880), the latter embodying his South
worth Lectures at Andover in 1877 and contain
ing a valuable bibliography of 7,200 titles. He
traveled extensively and made special studies
abroad of the Pilgrim movement. His unfinished
manuscript on this subject was edited and rewrit
ten by his son Morton Dexter, and published as
The England and Holland of the Pilgrims (Boston,
1905). 	MORTON DEXTER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A sketch of Dr. Dexter's life is in the Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for 1891; consult also W. Walker, Hist. of Congregational Churches, pp. 385‑388, New York, 1894.
DEXTER, MORTON: Congregationalist; b. at Manchester, N. H., July 12, 1846. He was graduated at Yale in 1867 and Andover Theological Seminary in 1870. He was pastor of Union Congregational Church, Taunton, Mass., from 1873 to 1878, and was then associate editor of the Congregationalist, Boston, until 1901. He was secretary and treasurer of the committee of the Congregational National Council which erected and dedicated the memorial tablet to John Robinson on St. Peter's Cathedral, Leyden, Holland, in 1891, and he was a delegate to the first International Congregational Council held at London in the same year, and to the second at Boston eight years later. In theology he may be described as a Broadchurch evangelical. He has written The Story of the Pilgrims (Boston, 1894) and The England and Holland of the Pilgrims (1905).
DIACONICON, dai"[or dl"]a‑cen'i‑con: A Greek word which denotes the semicircular extension on the southern side of the bema in the Greek churches, corresponding to one on the north side which is known as prothesis. It is the place occupied by the deacons, and is used also for the custody of various things used in divine service. This use of the term was definitely established at least as early as the end of the Middle Ages. The word is also applied to a selection from the great Euchologion of the Greek Church which contains all the liturgical functions of deacons (officially called Hierodiakonikon), and to certain prayers in the Greek liturgy recited by the deacon.
(PHILIPP MEYER.)
DIALOGUS DE RECTA IN DEUM FIDE: A dialogue directed against the errors of the Marcionites, Bardesanites, and Valentinians. From the use of the name Adamantius for the speaker who maintains the orthodox position, it has passed under his name‑a proof that the real author was

419	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	De Wette
		Dickinson
unknown. The fact that Origen bore this name
led Basil and Gregory of. Nyasa to attribute the
dialogue to him, and this view was wide‑spread in
the Middle Ages; but on both internal and ex
ternal evidence it is untenable. The work was
composed (according to i. 21) in a time of perse
cution; but the text was altered later (probably
between 330 and 337) to suit changed circum
stances. In the first of the five parts the discus
sion turns on the theory proposed by the Mar
cionite Megethius of three principles‑the good
God, the demiurge, and the evil principle. Mege
thius attempts in a large number of antitheses to
show a distinction between the Old Testament
Creator and the good God of the New. These the
author probably took from an anti‑Marcionite
treatise, probably that used by Irenseus and Ter
tullian and identified with good reason with a lost
treatise of Theophilus of Antioch. For the sec
ond dialogue, in which the Marcionite Marcus de
velops his extreme theory of a good God and an
evil demiurge, the author had probably looked
into Marcion's New Testament. In the third
part, the Bardesanite Maximus brings up the
questions of the origin of evil, the incarnation of
the Word, and the resurrection of the body. For
the first of these, which extends through the third
and fourth dialogues, considerable parts are taken
literally from the dialogue of Methodius of Olym
pus (q.v.) on the freedom of the will, unless both
Methodius and this author borrowed alike from a
treatise on matter purporting to have been writ
ten by Maximus. The fifth dialogue deals with
the resurrection, and here again borrows from the
Aglaophon of Methodius. The work was probably
written in Syria, most likely at Antioch. It dis
plays no great literary art.
		(ERWIN PREUSCHEN.)
BIBLIOORAPfiY: The editio princeps, by J. R. Wetstein,
	Basel, 1674, is also in C. E. Lommatzsch, Origenia .
	Opera, xvi. 254 sqq., Berlin, 1844, and MPG, x. The
	latest ed. is by Van de 8. Bakhuyzen, Berlin, 1901. The
	Lat. trans]. by Rufinus is edited by C. P. Caspari, Kir
	chenhistoriache Anerdota, pp. 1 aqq., cf. pp. iii.‑v., Chris
	tiania, 1883. Consult: T. Zahn, in ZKG, ix (1888), pp.
	193‑239; idem, Geachichte des newestamentlichen Kanona,
	II. ii. 409‑426, Leipsic, 1891; Krilger, History, pp. 245
	247; DCB, i. 39‑41.
	DIASPORA (Gk. "a scattering, dispersion "):
A term used in the New Testament and other lit
erature about the beginning of the Christian era
to denote the Jews living outside of Palestine after
the Captivity (see ISRAEL); also applied to the
Christians as the spiritual Israel among those of
other faiths (Jas. i. 1; I Pet. i. 1; cf. Schiirer, Ge
schichte, Eng. transl., II. ii. 31). The Moravians
used the word to signify their friends living apart
from them and in spiritual union with them, but.
not officially and constitutionally belonging to
them. In modern German usage the term sig
nifies any people living scattered among those of
another faith, and more particularly a Protestant
minority in a Roman Catholic region.
	Special conferences have been instituted to in
crease the efficiency of the Diaspora pastor; e.g.,
the Conference of Rhenish Prussia, founded in
1858; the Conference of Posen, 1860; that of the
Middle Rhine, 1868; of Westphalia, 1871; and of Upper Swabia, 1882. See GOTTEBKABTEN, LuTHERISCHER; and GUsTAv‑ADOLF‑VEREIN.
(THEODOR SCHAFER.)
DIATESSARON, dai"[or di"ja‑tes'a‑ren. See TATIAN; and HARMONY OF THE GosPEIB.
DIAZ, JUAN. See SPAIN, THE REFORMATION IN.
DIBELIUS, di‑b5'li‑us, FRANZ WILHELM: German Lutheran; b. at Prenzlau (58 m. n.e. of Berlin) Jan. 6, 1847. He studied in Berlin, was assistant pastor at the Berlin cathedral and inspector of the institute for the training of canons 1871‑74, and pastor of the Annenkirche, Dresden, 1874‑84.. Since 1884 he has been city superintendent and first pastor of the Kreuzkirehe in Dresden, and is also a councilor of the high consistory. His writings include: Gottfried Arnold (Berlin, 1873); Die Einfiihrung der Reformation in Dresden (Dresden, 1889); Die Kreuzkirehe in Dresden (1900); and Vom heiligen Kreuz (1903). He has edited Beitrage zttr sdchsischen Kirchengeschichte since 1882.
DICK, THOMAS: Scotch Secession Church; b. at Dundee Nov. 24, 1774; d. at Broughty Ferry (5 In. e. of Dundee) July 29, 1857. He studied at Edinburgh, and preached as a probationer for two years (1803‑05); taught school for twenty years at Methven and Perth, and after 1827 devoted himself entirely to literature. He wrote a number of scientific, philosophical, and religious works in popular style, which had a large sale. Perhaps the best known were: The Christian Philosopher, or the Connection of Science and Philosophy with Peligzon (London, 1823); The Philosophy of a Future State (1828); Celestial Scenery, or the Wonders of the Heavens Displayed (1838); The Sidereal Heavens (1840); The Solar System (1840); and The Practical Astronomer (1845).
DICKEY, SAMUEL: Presbyterian; b. at Oxford, Pa., Nov. 27, 1872. He studied at Princeton (B.A., 1894), Princeton Theological Seminary (1897), and the universities of Berlin, Marburg, Erlangen (1897‑99), Athens (1901), and Jena (1904). He was professor of classical and Hellenistic Greek at Lincoln University, Pa., 18991903; adjunct professor of New‑Testament literature and exegesis at McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago, 1903‑05; full professor since 1905.
DICKINSON, JONATHAN: Presbyterian; b. at Hatfield, Mass., Apr. 22, 1688; d. at Elizabeth, N. J., Oct. 7, 1747. He was graduated at Yale in 1706, and in 1709 settled at Elizabeth (then called Elizabethtown). He covered an extensive field as preacher, serving regularly six or seven congregations. He was a man of general culture and read and practised medicine, in addition to his pastoral work. As a scholar and wise leader lie was not excelled in the American Presbyterian Church in his time, and his name stands out in
the early Presbyterian history of the middle colonies much as that of Jonathan Edwards does in New England. A strong Calvinist, he opposed a rigid subscription to the Westminster standards as a test of ordination. He was prominent in the adoption of the so‑called Adopting Act of 1729

Dickinson
Didaohe	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	420
passed by the Synod of Philadelphia. It declined to make a literal subscription to the Westminster standards a condition of ordination, as the Presbytery of New Castle had asked should be done, and demanded that the candidate accept and approve of them " as being in all essential and necessary articles good forms of sound words and systems of Christian doctrine." In case he had any scruples he had a right to state them, and the synod or presbytery was to judge whether they concerned " articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship, and government." In the course of the discussion, Dickinson wrote in a letter that he regarded it " as the most glorious contradiction to subscribe chap. xx. of the Confession which calls ` God alone the Lord of Conscience' and then impose the rest of the chapters." He took a prominent part in the measures which led to the formation of the synod of New York (1745), the second synod of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. David Brainerd and Indian missions found in him a warm friend. He also took a deep interest in education, and was the most prominent among the founders of the College of New Jersey (Princeton University). Under his counsel a charter was received for the institution in Oct., 1746. His election as the first president was announced Apr. 27, 1747, and in May the college was opened in his house. He died the following autumn. He took the side of the Tennents and Edwards in favoring the evangelistic movement led by Whitefield.
Mr. Dickinson's defense of the Five Points of Calvinism in his True Scripture Doctrine concerning some Important Points of Christian Faith, particularly Eternal Election, Original Sin, Grace in Conversion, Justification by Faith, and the Saints' Preservation, represented and applied in five discourses (Philadelphia, 1741; Elizabethtown, 1793) is one of the soundest expositions of Calvinism which America has produced. His other works are Four Sermons on the Reasonableness of Christianity (Boston, 1732); A Di.Rplay of God's Special Grace (1742); Familiar Letters upon Subjects in Religion (1745); Vindication of God's Saving Free Grace (1748). A complete edition of his Sermons and Tracts appeared at Edinburgh, 1793.
D. S. ScHAFr.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. B. Sprague, Annals o/ the American Pulpit, iii. 14‑18, New York, 1858; the histories of the Presbyterian Church by C. Hodge, Philadelphia, 1839‑1840: E. H. Gillett, ib. 1873; J. H. Patton, ib. 1887; R. E. Thompson, ib. 1895. Also J. Maclean, Hint. of the College of New Jersey, Philadelphia, 1877; John De Witt, in Memorial Book o/ the Sesquicentennial Celebration of the Founding of the College of New Jersey, pp. 348‑352, New York, 1898.

DICKSON (DICK), DAVID: Scotch commentator; b. in Glasgow about 1583; d. 1663. He studied at Glasgow and taught philosophy there till 1618, when he was ordained minister of Irvine, Ayrshire; was deprived in 1622 for testifying against the Five Articles of Perth, but was permitted to return the next year; became professor of divinity at Glasgow 1640, in Edinburgh 1650 was ejected in 1662 for refusing to take the oath of supremacy. He was moderator of the General
Assembly at Edinburgh in 1639. His commentaries include Explications upon the Psalms (3 vols., London, 1653‑55), an Exposition of Matthew (1651), an Explanation of Hebrews (Aberdeen, 1635), and an Exposition of all the epistles (Latin, Glasgow, 1645; English, London, 1659). He also published Therapeutica sacra, seu de curandis casibus conscientice circa regenerationem per fa?derum divinorum applicationem (London, 1656 ; Eng. transl., 1695) and True Christian Love (Edinburgh, 1655), a collection of short poems " to be sung with any of the common tunes of the Psalms," which includes the familiar O mother dear, Jerusalem.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: His life by R. WOdrOW was prefixed to Truth's Victory over Error, Glasgow, 1752, and was reprinted by the Wodrow Society in Select Biographies, vol. ii., Edinburgh, 1847; a volume of his Select Practical Writings also contains a life by T. Thompson, Edinburgh, 1845; DNB, xv. 41‑42; Julian, Hymnology, 293, 580.
DICKSON, WILLIAM PURDIE: Church of Scotland; b. at Pettinain (26 m. s.e. of Glasgow) Oct. 22, 1823; d. at Glasgow Mar. 9, 1901. He studied at St. Andrews (M.A., 1851), and after being minister of the parish of Cameron, Fife (1851‑63), was professor of Biblical criticism (1863‑73) and of divinity in the University of Glasgow. He was convener of the Education Committee of the Church of Scotland from 1874, and in that capacity had charge of the training colleges in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Aberdeen, while after 1866 he was curator of the University of Glasgow library and superintended the preparation of the catalogue. He wrote St. Paul's Use of the Terms Flesh and Spirit (Baud lecture for 1883; Glasgow, 1883) and translated T. Mommsen's History of Rome (4 vols., London, 1862‑66) and six volumes of H. A. W. Meyer's Commentary on the New Testament and revised the translation often (Edinburgh, 1873‑80).
DIDACHE, dai'dak‑R or dfdak‑8.
I. Contents and Arrangement. II. Title. Address, and Purport.
III. Transmission and Integrity.
IV. Language and Vocabulary. V. Sources. Biblical Writings (¢ 1). Barnabas (§ 2). Hermas and Jewish Writings (¢ 3).
VI. The Author's Standpoint.
The Author not an Ebionite (¢ 1).
Was He a Jewish Christian? (§ 2).
VII. Time and Place of Composition.
Limits 70‑180 A.D.
Not Before 120 A.D.
VIII. History of the Document.
IX. The Witnesses.
X. Importance of the Work.
In a manuscript (written in 1056 by a notary, named Leon), discovered by Bryennios (q.v.) in the Jerusalem Convent at Constantinople, from which he edited in 1875 the complete epistles of Clement, there is found between the epistles of Clement and Ignatius a work of the size of the epistle to the Galatians entitled Didache ton dodeka Apostolan, which the discoverer published in 1883, showing at the same time that the work belongs to the first half of the second century and is identical with the " Teaching of the Apostles," which Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Athanasius, and other Fathers knew.
1. Contents and Arrangement: The work is di‑

421	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Dickinson
		Didache
vided into two, or perhaps three parts. The first
contains precepts of Christian morality, and brief
instructions for the specific ecclesiastical acts which
gave Christian character to the Church (i.‑x.); the
second, directions for churchly intercourse and life
(xi.‑xv. ); the closing chapter (xvi.) is an exhorta
tion to be ready for the coming of the Lord. The
first part, again, contains, i.‑vi., under the form of
a description of the " Two Ways," the way of life
and the way of death, the laws of Christian moral
ity; while vii. deals with baptism; viii. with fast
ing and daily prayer; and ix.‑x. with eucharistic
prayers. In regard to specific points: baptism
should be preceded by fasting; the Lord's Prayer,
given in the words of Matthew with slight altera
tions and with the doxology, should be said three
times every day. The Lord's Supper should be
partaken of only by the baptized; and the " proph
ets " were at liberty to use, instead of the euclia
ristic prayers given, such thanksgiving as they
would. The second part lays down rules for the
treatment of the teachers of the Divine Word and
of the peripatetic brethren, and gives distinguish
ing tests of their character (xi.‑xiii.), and also the
usages each congregation should observe (xiv.‑xv.).
	II. Title, Address, and Purport: The manuscript
has two titles: " Teaching of the Twelve Apos
tles" and "Teaching of the Lord through the
Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles." By "the Gen
tiles " were meant the Christians who had come
from heathenism, just as the epistle " to the He
brews " was addressed to Christians who had come
from Judaism. The document, consequently, is
not addressed to catechumens‑for it is not adapted
to lead persons to Christianity, but to those al
ready Christians, that they might learn from it how
to conduct their lives upon Gospel principles, and
what they were to impress on the newly won
brethren [cf. Schaff's edition, pp. 15 sqq. The docu
ment is commonly quoted and referred to simply
as the " Didache," which means the " Teach
ingl.
	III. Transmission and Integrity: The present
text has comparatively few errors, yet the appear
ance of the document in later recensions has raised
suspicions whether it is so free from interpolations
as it seems to be. Suspicions are caused only
through derived works cited in patristic sources.
	IV. Language and Vocabulary: The idiom is
Hellenistic, more exactly the idiom of the Septua
gint of the poetical books and of the Old Testa
ment Apocrypha. There are numerous Hebra
isms, but the Greek is better than that of Hermas.
The style is simple, popular, and concise, while
being somewhat rhythmical and liturgical. The
document contains 2,190 words (about 10,700 let
ters), and 552 different words. Of these 504 are
found also in the New Testament; 38 of the re
maining 48, in the Septuagint, Barnabas, or other
older Greek writers (cf. Schaff, ut sup., pp. 95‑‑113).
	V. Sources: There is no known, primitive Chris
tian writing which, with originality in arrangement
and form, so combines dependence upon older
writings. The author avows his dependence, for
he seeks merely to set forth the teaching of the
Lord through the twelve apostles, and finds no
room for his own ideas. There are eight express quotations: two (xiv. 3, xvi. 7) are from the Old Testament (Mal. i. 11, 14; Zech. xiv. 5); five from the Gospels, introduced by certain formulas (viii. 2, ix. 5, xi. 3, xv. 3, 4), and one (i. 6) from some unknown" Sacred Scripture." The Old Testament
is, moreover, frequently drawn upon r. Biblical in the first five chapters, the decalogue Writings. and the Wisdom literature (Prov.,
Eccles., Tobit) being used. The Old Testament alone is " Sacred Scripture "; of a New Testament Canon there is no trace. The author in the five cited passages does not draw from the written Gospel alone; throughout he weaves into his writing references and longer or shorter citations, twenty‑three in all, from what he calls " the Gospel," which he presupposes his readers know. Seventeen of the twenty‑three citations must be referred to Matthew; but other citations are plainly combinations of the text of Matthew and Luke, strikingly like the text of Tatian's Diatessaron. In the citations there is no trace of John's Gospel; but the eucharistic service i.9 conceived on the lines of John vi. and xvii., without, however, directly borrowing anything. The Pauline Epistles are not cited, yet traces of acquaintance with them appear. More important are certain resemblances to Jude and II Peter. There is no trace of acquaintance with the Pastoral Epistles.
The much‑disputed question, as to the relation of the " Teaching " to the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, is thus to be answered: it is in the highest degree probable that. Barnabas is prior to the " Teaching "; i. 1‑2, ii. 2‑7, iii. 7vi. 2 of the " Teaching " agree substantially, if not verbally, with Barnabas xviii.‑xx.; but the order of the phrases is different, and while that in Barnabas
is confused, that in the " Teaching " 2. Barnabas. is clear. In the description of the
" Two Ways," the " Teaching " offers further (a) in i. 2‑5 a series of evangelical sayings: (b) in i. 6 a fragment from an unknown other writing; (c) in iii. 1‑6 a section imitated from the Old Testament proverbial literature; (d) in ii. 23, 5, 6, iii. 8, iv. 2, 8, 14 a series of additions to the sections common to it and to Barnabas. Barnabas, on the other hand, offers in the chapters in question only a couple of phrases (xix. 2, 3, 8), an unintelligible sentence (xix.4), and some further words in xix. 10. Further, xvi. 1, 3‑8 of the "Teaching" are confessedly a compilation of evangelical passages and Zech. xiv. 5, together with a tradition concerning Antichrist. Verse 2, however, is not so derived, but has in Barnabas IV. x. 9 an almost verbally exact parallel. Now, were Barnabas later, he would have appropriated the only verse in this passage of the " Teaching" which is peculiar. Hence it is probable that, since all the other verses of xvi. are borrowed, this verse (xvi. 2) is also borrowed. Moreover (and this appears still more decisive of the priority of Barnabas), the author of Barnabas is convinced that the last times have already come (iv. 3, 9); the author of the " Teaching," on the other hand, does not so hold. The decision therefore must be that the " Teaching " as it now is given in the Con.

nidaohe	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	422
stantinopolitan manu~ript is secondary to Barnar bas, and is either dependent upon it or upon materials already used by Barnabas; and the possibility is excluded that Barnabas copied from the " Teaching " as it exists in the Constantinopolitan manuscript. [The priority of Barnabas is advocated also by Bryennios, Hilgenfeld, and Krawutzky in KL, whereas the priority of the Didache is strongly advocated by Zahn, Funk, Langen, Farrar, nearly all English and American writers on the subject. A third opinion is held by Lightfoot, Holtzmann, Massebiesu, Lipsius, Warfield, McGiffert, that both Barnabas and the writer of the Didache drew from a common source which is lost.]
The relation between the " Teaching " and Hermas is more uncertain. There are only two parallels, "Teaching," i. 5; cf. Mand., ii. 4‑6, and the very doubtful one "Teaching," v.; cf. Mand., viii. 4‑5. That the " Teaching " had Hermas as a source may not be safely affirmed in view of the variations in these passages in different recensionq; but the opposite is certainly excluded. [Schaff holds that the Didache is older than the
Shepherd of Hermas; for in its brief
3. Hermas parallel sections Hermas is likewise and an enlargement of the simpler stateJewish menu of the Didache ; Schaff, pp. 121
Writings. sqq.] Lately, American, English, and
French scholars have brought forward numerous parallels to i.‑v. from Philo, PseudoPhokylides, the Sibylline books, and from the Talmud and Midrash. If, from these chapters, i. 3‑6 be omitted, the remainder has almost nothing specifically Christian about it, and the little it has can be shown by the use of other original documents to be additions. Therefore it is an extremely probable conjecture that the " Two Ways " is a Jewish production, intended for proselytes, derived from the decalogue and an amplification of its commands, which along with the Old Testament has come over into the Christian Church.
VI. The Author's Standpoint: This much‑discussed point is not settled. The " Teaching " has been regarded as a Jewish anti‑Pauline Christian (Sabatier), as Jewish Christian, but not Ebionitie (Schaff ), as anti‑Pauline and Sadducean, heretical and anti‑Christian (Churton), as Ebionitic, semiEbionitic, or anti‑Ebionitic (cf. Krawutzky, KL, iii., 1869 sqq.), as Hellenistic‑Christian, as antiMontanistic and anti‑Gnostic (Bryennios), as Montanistic (Hilgenfeld and Bonet‑Maury), etc. To refute these different views is not necessary, but it is necessary to oppose the notion that the author of the " Teaching " was a Jewish Christian who belonged to a circle detached from Gentile Christians, and attached in some way to the Jews as a nation.
The facts are these: The author mains. The tains silence upon circumcision and all Author other Jewish rites; in the two places not an where he mentions them he calls the
Ebionite. Jews " hypocrites "; not a word is
said of observing the Mosaic law; in the long eschatological section (xvi.), derived from Matthew, the passages referring to Jerusalem, the Jewish people, and the Temple are wanting, nor is there any mention of a glorious kingdom in Pales‑
tine, although the author presupposes a visible
kingdom of Christ, as his belief in a double resur
rection proves (cf. G. v. Lechler, Apostolisches and
nachapostolisches Zeitalder, p. 592, Carlaruhe, 1885) ;
Matthew and Luke, or a recension of them, and not
the Gospel of the Hebrews, was used, perhaps also
the Pauline Epistles; Jesus is not called the Son,
but the God, of David; the book passed over into
the use of the Catholic Church. These considerations
exonerate the author from Ebionism. But some as
sert the Jewish‑Christian but not anti‑Pauline char
acter of the author. Schaff (pp. 125 sqq.) has col
lected arguments as follows: only the Twelve, but
not the Apostle Paul are named; but in this respect
the author does not. differ from many ordinary
Christian authors before the closing of the New
Testament Canon. The style and phraseology are
Hebraistic; but that is not remarkable in view of
the Jewish origin of Christianity and the use of the
Old Testament in the Septuagint. The author
calls the prophets " high priests," but this was the
rule among Gentile Christians. He demands the
first‑fruits for the prophets; but so do Paul and
the Gentile Christian Church of the earliest times,
especially after Justin's day. He warns against
fasting with the Jews on Monday and Thursday,
enjoins fasts on Wednesday and Friday, and names
Friday paraskeue, " preparation." But even if
the author had set the fasts upon the Jewish fast
days, this would have been no more a sign of Jew
ish Christianity than was the practise of the Quar
todecimans. The author's discussion of the week
in a religious sense explains the use of the Jewish
names for the days, and he is entirely silent re
specting the Sabbath. The injunction three times
daily to repeat the Lord's Prayer is plainly adopted
from Jewish custom. Besides what has been said
		above, it should be remarked that it
	2. Was He is not known what hours for prayer
	a Jewish were in the author's mind, and that,
	Christian? even if he had enjoined the Jewish
		hours, that would not have been spe
cifically Jewish‑Christian. The author conceives
of Christianity substantially as the highest moral
ity; he is a moralist in the better sense of the word,
like James and Matthew. Consequently he must
have been a Jewish Christian. To answer this ar
gument would take too much space. The author
does not attack the Jewish religion, as does Barna
bas; but as a rule he attacks nobody. He not only
lays stress upon the (Jewish‑Christian) prohibition
of meat offered to idols, but sets forth the observ
ance of the Jewish dietary laws as the summit of
Christian perfection. The prohibition of eating
meat offered to idols was universal in the congrega
tions in the empire from the end of the first cen
tury (cf. C. T. Keim, Avs dem. Urchrivtenthum,
pp. 88 sqq., Zurich, 1878); and, as for the second
point, no one ever made such a claim, for by
brosis, " food " (vi. 3), is most certainly meant,
not the Jewish dietary regulation, but an ascetic
restriction in the use of meat, as Schurer also
maintains. The view‑point of the author is that
of common Gentile Christianity. His standpoint
is very close to that of the author of the second
epistle of Clement; he is not a Jewish Christian,

423	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Didache
not a follower of Paul, but a universalist, knowing no distinction between peoples; in his prayers acknowledging God, the creator of all things and Father of all men, who provides them with food and drink; he acknowledges Jesus, the son of God, the God of David, the vine of David, and the Lord who spoke by the prophets, and he awaits his coming; he also acknowledges the Holy Ghost, who has prepared those whom God called. He believes in the Old Testament and in the Gospel; he acknowledges baptism and the Lord's Supper as important acts; one becomes a Christian by baptism and remains a Christian by partaking of the eucharistic celebration.
VII. Time and Place of Composition: It has been placed in every decade from 50 A.D. to 190 A.D., and even as late as the fourth century. Generally the three generations 70‑100, 100‑130, 130160 A.D. are the most favored. Internal evidence can not decide the time, because the " Teaching " is avowedly a compilation, and some of its sources are very old. External evidence proves that it must be before 165 A.D., for Clement of Alexandria knew it as " Scripture." A number of negative facts taken together show that it is earlier than 160 A.D.; it shows no traces of a New Testament Canon or of the authority of the Pauline Epistles; or of a regula fidei or of regular doctrinal instruction; or of a monarchical episcopate‑prophets were the chief teachers and were not yet
	x. Limits	superseded by bishops; or of an or
7o‑i6o A.D. dered church service, like that to
		which Justin testifies; or of a regular
administrator of baptism, while it gives the con
gregation authority to depose bishops and deacons;
or of symbolical ceremonies accompanying bap
tism; or of a yearly Easter festival; or of prohibi
tion of blood and things strangled; or of Monta
nism and the characterization of heretics. Other
marks seem to fit better into the time 80‑120 A.D.
than 120‑160 A.D., e.g., its treatment of apostles,
prophets, and teachers. But care must be taken
not to give definite dates to documents of primi
tive Christianity, for not all the steps are known
of the development of Christianity during the em
pire till Catholic Christianity in most of the prov
inces, and in no province is the development fully
known. Having set the limits for the " Teaching "
between 70 and 160 A.D., the question may be
asked whether there is anything to prove that it
must have been written after some Christian gen
erations had passed. With the greatest probabil
ity an affirmative answer may be given, as follows:
Apostles and prophets no longer occupy their
primitive unapproachable position, hence the
strongest conservative measures are enjoined; re
spect for the prophets is declining, hence the ex
orbitant demand on the church and the severest
menaces; mistrust of the "old prophets," who be
long to a past generation. These are not the Old
Testament but older Christian prophets; the pres
ent text shows in the " Two Ways " of i. certain
diminution of evangelical demands, and in the ap
pendix to the same, in vi., a contrast between a
higher and a lower Christian morality; the injunc
tions about first fruits, fixed prayers, and fasts,
which in a Gentile Christian land is the indications of a later time; the injunction that since bishops and deacons minister to the congregations " the ministry of the prophets and teachers," therefore despise them not, can not apply to the
z. Plot primitive state of things; the regu‑
Before lation of fasting before baptism, and
	rzo A.D.	permission to pour; the eschatological
		closing section has not the glow which
the prayers transmitted to the author have, and
lacks the description of the glorious kingdom of
Christ upon the earth. These observations are
strengthened by noticing the author's use of Mat
thew, and perhaps also Luke, in a comparatively
late form; and the relation of the "Teaching" to
Barnabas, which probably belongs to Hadrianie
time (before Bar Kokba). All these considerations
show that the writing can not with certainty be set
earlier than 120 A.D. or earlier than 100 A.D. With
any probability, but that the probable limits are
120 and 160 A.D., and within these limits the earlier
dates are in most cases freer from difficulty than
the later. Taken all in all, the " time of Hadrian "
has the most probability in its favor. The place
of composition was probably Egypt, as the exter
nal testimonies and the source seem to prove. The
arguments for Syria, derived from mention of the
bread " upon the hills " (ix. 4), and from the adop
tion of the " Teaching " with the " Apostolical
Constitutions," are not decisive; for the mention
occurs in a prayer most probably copied by the
author, and the Syrian forger had the library of
Eusebius at his command.
VIII. History of the Document: A book called " The Two Ways" was composed byJews in the first century or perhaps earlier forthe instruction of proselytes. It comprised what is found in the " Teaching," i. 1‑3, ii. 2‑v. 2, which passed over into the Christian Church, and was used as an address at baptism. The author of the Epistle of Barnabas incorporated this writing into his, without, however, knowing it as a " teaching of the Apostles." Another unknown Christian made the Jewish instruction a " teaching of the (twelve) apostles," and added vii.‑xvi. This edition is now lost. The present one, the Didache of the Constantinopolitan manuscript, contains, in order to give evangelical coloring to the Jewish original, chap. i. 3‑ii. 1, by which the .tone of the " Two Ways " was wholly changed. This passage being an interpolation, the original form of the Christian " Teaching " may be put considerably earlier than the present recension.
IX. The Witnesses: Before Clement of Alexandria. no direct use of the " Teaching " can be proved. On the other hand, Clement employs it in several places, and in one (Stromata, i. 20 ‑" Teaching," iii. 5) calls it " Scripture," counting it among the holy writings. Evidences of its use have been found in Origen (Hom. vi. in lib. Jud. ; De principiis, iii. 2, 7), who also called it "Holy Scripture," but the quotation may have been taken from the Epistle of Barnabas. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III. xxv.) is the first to mention the book byname, "the so‑called Teachings of the Apostles," and puts it among the antilegomena. Athanasius (Epistola festalis, xxxix., of the year 367) mentions the

a	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	424
	Teaching, so called, of the Apostles " among the
	Teaching, which are not canonical but useful for the
instruction of catechumens. Rufinus repeats this
statement of Athanasius (Comment. ire Symb. A post.,
xxxvi.‑xxxviii. ), but in place of "Teaching, so called,
of the Apostles," he puts "The Two Ways," or
" The Judgment of Peter," or "According to Peter,"
for the " Teaching of the Apostles." Jerome (De
vir. ill., i.) likewise mentions "Peter's Judgment"
among five apocryphal books ascribed to that
Apostle. The last mention of the " Teaching of
the Apostles," so far as present knowledge goes,
was made in the ninth century by Nicephorus, who
speaks of such a book as among the Apocrypha of
the New Testament, and as consisting of 200 lines.
The manuscript discovered by Bryennios numbers
203 lines.
%. Importance of the Work: From vii. to the end each section of the " Teaching " is a source of the first rank for the points it covers, baptism, fasts, prayers, the eucharist, apostles, prophets, teachers, Sunday, the episcopate and diaconate. But its greatest importance lies in the fact that it affords so much better an understanding of the organization of the earliest Christian churches, where the interest of early Christiagity lay, and how it became in literary matters the heir of
Judaism. 	(ADOLF HARNACg.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The literature on the Didaohe has become enormous. A list down to 1887 is given in ANF, Index vol., pp. 83‑86; down to 1888 in P. Schaff, The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, pp. 306‑320, 3d ed., New York, 1890; and by Bhumer, in Literarischer Handweiaer fllr das katholische Deutschland, xxvii (1888), 393‑398, 425430; and to 1900 by A. Ehrhard, Die altehristliche Litteratur and ihre Erforschunp, i. 37‑68, Freiburg, 1900. The editio princepe is by P. Bry6nnios, Constantinople, 1883; the beat edition, at least in Eng., is by Schaff, ut sup., giving Greek text Eng. tranel., introduction, and discussions. Other good editions are by A. Harnack, Leipeic, 1884; R. D. Hitchcock and F. Brown, New York, 1885; P. sabatier, Paris, 1885; H. D. M. Spence, London, 1885; F. X. Funk, Tiibingen, 1887; J. R. Harris, Baltimore, 1887; J. B. Lightfoot, in Apostolic Fathers, London, 1893; J. 6chlecht, Freiburg, 1900. Most of the foregoing contain translations in the tongue of the editor, besides notes, introduction, and discussions. Eng. tranal. exists also in ANF, viii. 377‑382, and in G. C. Allen, The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, London, 1903. Many of the most important discussions are in periodicals, especially those of 188487. Discussions of especial worth are: J. R. Harris, The Teaching of the Apostles and the Sibylline Books, Cambridge, 1885; A. Harnack, Die Apostellehre and die jRdischen beidsn Wepe, Leipsie, 1886; C. Taylor, The Teaching of the It Apostles with Illu8trations from the Talmud, Cambridge, 1886; B. B. Warfield, in Bibliotheca Sacra, 1886, pp. 100‑161; J. Heron, The Church of the Sub‑Apostolic Ape . . . in the Light of the Teaching of the 18 Apostles, London, 1888; G. Wohlenberg, Die Lehre der 1,E' Apostel in ihrem VerhuUniss sum neuteatamentlichen Schri/ttum, Erlangen, 1888; P. Batiffol, in Studia patristica, ii. 117‑160, Paris, 1890; G. Salmon, Introduction to . . N. T., pp. 551‑566, London, 1892; DCB, iv. 806‑815; C. H. Hole, The Didache, London, 1894; L. E. Iselin, in TU, xiii. 1, 1895; J. sohleeht, Die Lehre der 12 Apostel in der Liturgic, Freiburg, 1901; T. schermann, Eine Elfapostelmoral, Munich, 1903; Krilger, HiatorW, pp. 63‑67.
DIDASCALIA. See APOSTOLIC CON8TrrumONB AND CANONS.
DIDEROT, did"rb', DENIS: The most prominent of the Encyclopedists (q.v.); b. at Langres (150 m. s.e. of Paris) in Champagne Oct. 5, 1713, d. at Paris July 31, 1784. He was educated by
the Jesuits, and, refusing to enter one of the learned professions, was turned adrift by his father and came to Paris, where he lived from hand to mouth for a time. Gradually, however, he became recognized as one of the most powerful writers of the day. His first independent work was the Essai sur le m&ite et la vertu (1745). As one of the editors of the Dictionnaire de m6decine (6 vole., Paris, 1746), he gained valuable experience in encyclopedic system. His Penstes philmophiques (The Hague, 1746), in which he attacked both atheism and the received Christianity, was burned by order of the Parliament of Paris. In the circle of the leaders of the "Enlightenment" Diderot's name became known especially by his L ettre sur lee aveugles (London, 1749), which supported Locke's theory of knowledge. He attacked the conventional morality of the day, with the result (to which possibly an allusion to the mistress of a minister contributed) that he was imprisoned at Vincennes for three months. He was released by the influence of Voltaire's friend Mme. du Chhtelet, and thenceforth was in close relation with the leaders of revolutionary thought. He had made very little pecuniary profit out of the Encyclopddie, and Grimm appealed on his behalf to Catherine of Russia, who in 1765 bought his library, allowing him the use of the books as long as he lived, and assigning him a yearly salary which a little later she paid him for fifty years in advance. In 1773 she summoned him to St. Petersburg with Grimm to converse with him in person. On his return he lived until his death in a house provided by her, in comparative retirement but in unceasing labor on the undertakings of his party, writing (according to Grimm) two‑thirds of Raynal's famous Histoire philosophique, and contributing some of the most rhetorical pages to Helvetius's De l'esprit and Holbaeh's Systkme de la nature, SyWme social, and Morale universelle. His numerous writings include the most varied forms of literary effort, from inept licentious tales and comedies which pointed away from the stiff classical style of the French drama and strongly influenced Leasing, to the most daring ethical and metaphysical speculations. Like his famous contemporary Samuel Johnson, he is said to have been more effective as a talker than as a writer; and his mental qualifications were rather those of a stimulating force than of a reasoned philosopher. His own position gradually changed from theism to deism, then to materialism, and finally rested in a pantheistic sensualism (see DEISM, IL, § 2). In Saints‑Beuve's phrase, he was "‑the first great writer who belonged wholly and undividedly to modern democratic society," and his attacks on the political system of France were among the most potent causes of the Revolution.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: tEuvres completes, 20 vole., Paris, 1875‑77; tEuvrm dweeaee, 1884; A. Collignon, Diderot, sa vie, see muvres, sa correspondence, Paris, 1895; J. A. Naigeon, M6moires . . sur . . . Denis Diderot, ib. 1821; E. 8a1verte, Plops de Diderot, ib. 1847; E. Bersot, Ptudes sur Diderot, ib. 1855; L. Asseline, Diderot, ib. 1866; P. Duprat, Lee Encyclopbdiates, Brussels, 186; K. Rosenkranz, Diderot's Le1xn and Works, Leipeic, 1866; J. Morley, Diderot and as Encytclopmdiets, 2 vole., London, 1879; E. Scherer, Diderot, btude, Paris, 1880; F. Picavet, Les Ideo‑

425	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Mdaohe
		Didymns
	lopuee, ib. 1891; L. Dueros, Diderot, L'hmme et 1'deriroain,
	ib. 1894; J. Reinach, Diderot, ib. 1894; M. Tourneux,
Diderot et Catherine 11., ib. 1899; KL, iii. 1704‑13.
	DIDOft, df"ddh', HENRI: Dominican; b. at
Touvet (16 m. n.e. of Grenoble) Mar. 17, 1840; d.
at Toulouse Mar. 13, 1900.	In 1856 he entered
the Dominican Order, and in 1861 went to Rome
to complete his education. He was professor of
	theology in various Dominican monasteries, and
in 1866 was Lenten preacher in London. In
1868‑69 he was stationed at Nancy. He took
part in the conferences at Marseilles in 1871‑76,
but his views favoring divorce resulted in his con
finement for a year and a half in the convent of
Corbara, Corsica. From 1890 until his death he was
the director of the Collbge Albert‑le‑Grand in Arcueil.
He was famous for his pulpit eloquence. His
writings include L'Enseignement sup&ieur et lea
	universitescatholiques (Paris, 1876); La Science sans
Dieu (1878; Eng. transl. by R. Corder, London,
	1882); Indissolubilite et divorce (1880); Les Alle
mands (1884; Eng. trans]. by R. L. de Beaufort,
London, 1884); Vie de JEsus‑Chrid (2 vols.,
	1891; Eng. tranal., London, 1891); La Foi en la
divinitg de J6sus‑Christ (1894; Eng. transl., London,
	1894); Deux problhmes religieux : Conf&enees de
	Nancy, 1868‑69 (1896); . L'‑0ducation pr&ente
	(1898); and the posthumous Lettres h Mlle. Th. V.
(1900) and Lettres 4 un ami (1902).
	BmmooRAPHY: Roibbre, Un Maine moderne, Paris, 1900;
	A. de Coulanges, Le Pyre Didon, ib. 1900; P. Gaffre, Le
	Pyre Didon, ib. 1902; J. de Romano, HenriDidon, ib.1903:
	and St. Raynaud, Le Pyre Didon, sa vie et son euvre,
ib. 1904.
	DIDYMUS, THE BLIND, OF ALEXANDRIA:
	One of the last teachers and masters of the Alex
	andrian catechetical school (see ALEXANDRIA,
	SCHOOL OF) and one of the most learned men of
	his time; b. probably 313; d. probably 398 (Palla
	dius, Hist. Laus., iv.; Jerome, De vir. ill., cix.). He
	lost his sight when a child, but his excellent mem
	ory and great gifts enabled him to obtain much
	secular and religious learning (Rufinus, Hist. eccl.,
	ii. 7). For more than fifty years he labored in
' the catechetical school, and among his pupils were
	Jerome and Rufinus. Thoroughly orthodox on
	the trinitarian question, he had the misfortune of
	being suspected of Origenism. That he was con
	demned by the Fifth General Council (Second Con
	stantinople, 553) for heresy is indeed not proved
	(cf. Hefele, ii. 859 sqq.; Eng. transl., iv. 294 sqq.),
	but the sixth and seventh councils (Third Constanti
	nople and Second Nicaea, 680 and 787) rejected
	his supposed heresies. Of his dogmatic and exe
	getical writings the following are extant either
	wholly or in part, in the original or in translation:
	(1) " On the Trinity," 3 books composed in 379
	or later; (2) a " Book on the Holy Spirit," extant
	in Jerome's translation (printed among Jerome's
	works, MPL, xxiii. 101‑154), considered one of
	the best works of the ancient Church on the sub
	ject; (3) " Against the Manicheans," incomplete
	in the original, a refutation of Manicheism on
	logical and metaphysical grounds; (4) exegetical
	works, fragments of expositions of Genesis, Exo
	dus, Samuel, Kings, Psalms, John, Acts, II Corin
	thians, and an exposition of the Catholic epistles
extant in the translation of Epiphanius Scholasticus
(q.v.). The genuineness of this translation has
been questioned by E. Klostermann (TU, new
series, xiii. 2, Leipsic, 1905) on the basis of the
Greek fragments printed by J. A. Cramer in Ca
tente in epistolas catholicas (Oxford, 1840). Of the
lost writings the most noteworthy is the "Notes on
Origen's ` Principles."' Didymus was probably
also the author of the last two books of the work
against Eunomius ascribed to Basil the Great (cf.
F. X. Funk, Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen,
ii., Paderborn, 1899, 291‑329). Recently K.
Holl (ZKG, xxv., 1904, 380‑398) has claimed for
Didymus the treatise Adversus Arium et Sabellium,
ascribed to Gregory of Nyasa (in MPG, xlv. 1281
sqq.). 	G. KROGER.
BuamoaRAPHY: The works of Didymus are in MPG, xxxix. Consult: J. A. Mingarelli, De Didymi commentariis, Bologna, 1709, reprinted MPG, xxxix. 139‑218; H. E. F. Guericke, De wholes quo Aleaandrim florui4 i. 92‑97, ii. 83‑95, 332‑378, Halle, 1824‑25; G. C. F. Lueeke, Quosationes ac roindici(v Didymianos, GSttingen, 1829‑32; O. Bardenhewer, Patrologie, pp. 290‑293, Freiburg, 1894; T. Leipoldt, Didymus der Blinds von Alexandria, Leipsic, 1905; DCB, i. 827‑829.
DIDYMTS, GABRIEL : German Reformer; b. at Annaberg (in Saxony, 18 m. a. of Chemnitz) c. 1487; d. at Torgau (in Prussian Saxony, 70 m. s.a.w. of Berlin) May 1, 1558. His family name was Zwilling, translated Didymus. According to a doubtful tradition he studied first at Prague, but from the year 1502 pursued his studies at Wittenberg, where he joined the Auguatiniane. When in 1512 he matriculated in the University he had already joined the order and was an associate of Luther in the monastery. On gaining his bachelor's degree, Oct. 14, 1516, he was sent by Luther to Erfurt to continue his studies there (T. Kolde, Joh. v. Staupitz and die deutsche Augu8tinerkongregation, Gotha, 1879, p. 267; Luther's letter to Job. Long, Mar. 1, 1517, De Wette, Luthers Briefs, Berlin, 1825‑28, i. 52), but the following winter he returned to Wittenberg and took his master's degree Feb. 14, 1518. Nothing more is heard of him until he took the leadership among the innovators in the Augustinian monastery in the stormy days of 1521. He entered the pulpit, manifesting a spirit like Caristadt's; a great sensation was made by his sermon of Oct. 6, in which for hours he inveighed against the worship and sacrifice of the host and the private mass, demanded that the Eucharist be served in both kinds, and declared that he would never read another mass (OR, i. 460; ZKG, iv. 325 sqq.). The "little insignificant one‑eyed man " could hold his hearers, who saw in him another Luther; even Melanchthon was fascinated by him (TSK, 1885, 134). His appeal was successful, for the next Sunday the mass ceased to exist in the monastery‑and the exodus of the monks followed. About Christmas Didymus began to preach the Reformation at Wittenberg. He went to Eilenburg, where in layman's garb he preached against the old worship, celebrated the Lord's Supper in German, putting cup and bread into the hands of the communicants (ZKG, v., 1882, 327). On Friday, Jan. 10, 1522, he preaehed in Wittenberg against images (ZKG,

Dieckhoif	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Dietary Laws of the Hebrew		426
v. 331 sqq.), and dared even to denounce from the
pulpit Justus Jonas and Amsdorf. He was the
associate of Carlstadt, but was also the first to
submit to Luther's leadership on the latter's re
turn (Luther's letter to W. Link, Mar. 19, 1522,
De Wette, Luthers Briefs, ii. 156). Called to Al
tenburg on Luther's recommendation Apr. 17,
1522 (De Wette, Luthers Briefe, ii. 183 sqq.), he
was compelled to leave, after a few months' use
ful service, on account of the Eilenburg events,
when he returned to Dilben. In the spring o£
1523 he went to Torgau, where he thenceforth
labored, respected and defended by Luther (De
Wette, Luthers Briefe, iv. 581; v. 76, 492, 756).
In the mean time he had come into conflict with
the secular authorities, was deposed in 1549, but
continued to live privately in Torgau and remained
chaplain to the mother and wife of the Elector
Moritz until his death. 	(T. KoLDE.)
BIBLIOGRAPH7: J. G. Terns, Vereuch zur aaffi.cientsn Nachricht von des Gabriel Didymua . . . Leipsic, 1737; C. Knabe, Die Torgauer Vieitationaordnung won 16,29, Torgau, 1881; H. Barge, Andreas Bodenstein von Karletadt, 2 vols., Leipdc, 1905, ii. 545‑549 (reprints the complaint of the Augustinian monks in Wittenberg against his sermon of Oct. 6, 1521; cf. i. 313, and for other references passim. Barge calls him Zwilling).

DIECKHOFF, AUGUST WMHELM: German Lutheran theologian; b. at GSttingen Feb. 5, 1823; d. at Rostock Sept. 12, 1894. In 1847 he became lecturer in the theological faculty in GSttingen, in 1850 was inaugurated lecturer there; in 1854 became extraordinary professor of systematic and historical theology, in 1860 professor of historical theology in Rostock, where he remained until his death. In the years 1860‑
1. Life and 1864 he edited, with Kliefoth, the TheoCharacter. logische Zeitachrift. Beside his aca^ demical duties, in the performance of which his lectures on the history of evangelical doctrine during the Reformation left a lasting impression, he developed a great literary activity in the interest of a historic presentation of the genesis of the Lutheran doctrinal reform.
This began with his De Carolostadio Lutheranx de servo arbitrio doctrines contra Echium defensore (GBttingen, 1850). In his first extensive work, on Die Waldenser itn Mittelalter (Gottingen, 1857), he showed that the Evangelicalism of the Waldensian manuscript literature is a forgery of
z. Theolog‑ the seventeenth century and that in ical doctrine they stood on the ground of
	Writings.	medieval Catholicism, and that it
		was the Lutheran Reformation which
first broke radically with the false medieval doc
trinal development. Next appeared vol. i. of his
largest work, Die evangelische Abendmahlslehre im
Reformationszeitalter (Gbttingen, 1854), a work
which unfortunately he never completed; in this
he treated of the doctrine as stated by Luther
during the years 1517‑23, by Carlstadt, Zwingli,
CEcolampadius, and the Swabian Syngramma.
The work is of lasting value, for it treats with de
cisive clearness the evolution of Luther's doctrines,
setting forth both their merits and their defects.
That Dieckhoff did not continue this study is un
doubtedly due to the fact that his interest centered
in the beginnings of the Reformation. Then too he was drawn into theological controversies. Against Hofmann he postulated that (1) faith attains certainty only in union with Scripture, (2) the content of the system of theological thought is given in the Word of God. Later he again attacked Hofmann and his school. In these otherwise valuable contributions his polemics is at times misleading and his dogmatic position confused.
The ecclesiastical‑political questions of ‑ his time he studied with zealous attention. After the Vatican Council he published Schrift and Tradition
. (1870), a clear and convincing refutation of Catholic objections to the evangelical doctrine of Scripture as they appeared in the work of Von Ketteler, the bishop of Mainz, entitled Das allgemeine Konzil and seine Bedeutung fur unsere Zeit (Mainz, 1869). Then came questions nearer home‑echool supervision by the state, treated in his Staat and Kirche (Leipsic, 1872); civil marriage, which he attacked in Die kirchliche Trauung (Rostock, 1878) and in Civilehe and kirchliche Trauung (1880). In the last decade of his life he was drawn into the controversy raised in Germany by the ultra‑Lutheran Missouri‑Synod. In 1884, on account of a decision in favor of the Wisconsin‑Synod,
3. Ecclesi‑ he was attacked by the Missourians astical to whom he replied in Der missourir Writings. sche Pr4destinationismus and die Coneordienformel (1885) and Zur Lehre von der Bekehrung and die Prddestination (1886). These essays are of lasting importance since they give a clear view not only of Luther's predestinationism, but also of the teaching of the almost forgotten Lutheran theologian Laterman. On the other hand, his Inspiration and Irrthunzslosigkeit der heiligen Schrift (Leipsic, 1891), directed against the Missouri extreme, brought him judicial censure. While in all these works he labored in his especial field, tracing the doctrines back to Luther's teaching, he wrote also a number of essays preparatory to these subjects. Worthy of mention are Augustins and Luthers Lehre von der Gnade (in TZ, i.), Luthers Lehre von der kirchlichen Getvaalt (Berlin, 1865), and especially Der Ablasstreit (1866), wherein he showed how much Luther and the Reformation profited by the discussion about the sale of indulgences. Finally mention must be made of the work Justin, Augustin, Bernhard and Luther (Leipsic, 1882), developed from lectures in which he traced in masterly fashion the evolution of the Christian conception of the truth. He received a new inspiration from the rediscovery in 1876 of Luther's " Lectures on the Psalms." Here followed Luthers Stellung xur Kirche vor 1617 (Rostock, 1883) and Luthers Lehre in ihrer ersten Gestalt (1887), the ripest fruit of all his investigation, expounding Luther's conception of " Faith." (K. SCHMIDT.)
DIEKAMP, FRANZ: Roman Catholic; b. at Geldern (65 m. s.w. of Munster) Nov. 8, 1864. He studied at Munster, Eichatatt, and Munich from 1882 to 1887; became chaplain at Camp, 1888; lecturer in the theological seminary at Munster, 1889; student at Munich, 1896; privat‑docent for

427	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Dieckhoff
		Dietary Laws of the Hebrews
	patrology and the history of dogmatics at Munich,
	1898; associate professor, 1902, and full professor,
	1904. He has written Die Gotteslehre des heiligen
	Gregor von Nyssa (Munster, 1896); Hippolytos von
	Theben (1898); and Die origenistischen Streitig
	keiten im sechsten Jahrhundert u»d das Xnfte all
	gemeine Conch (1899), and has edited the Theo
	logisehe Revue since 1902.
		DIEPENBROCg, MELCHIOR VON: Cardinal;
	b. at Bocholt (44 Ill. w. of Munster) Jan. 6, 1798;
	d. at the castle of Johannesberg at Jauernig (52
	m. n.w. of Troppau) Jan. 20, 1853. In 1810 he
	was sent to the military academy of Bonn, but
	was soon expelled for insubordination. Per
	meated with the rising spirit of nationalism which
	inspired the Germany of the period, he became a
	lieutenant of militia and later entered a regiment
	of the line, serving in France and also in garrison
	duty. Resigning on the advice of his superiors,
	he returned to his home, and was there converted
	by Michael Sailer, who was then professor at Lands
	hut. He then studied at Landahut, and in 1819
	decided to enter the priesthood, and studied at
	Mainz, Munster, and Regensburg, where Sailer
	had been a canon since 1821. On Dec. 27, 1823,
	Diepenbrock was ordained priest, and then en
	tered on his duties as Sailer's secretary, devoting
	himself especially to the mysticism of the Middle
	Ages, the result being his Heinrich Susos Leben and
	Schriften (Regensburg, 1829) and the Geistlicher
	Bliithenstrauss (Sulzbach,	1829). When Sailer
	was consecrated bishop of Regensburg in 1829,
	Diepenbrock, after long hesitation, accepted a
	canonry, and under Bishop Valentine rose to be
	vicar‑general. He soon resigned, however, and in
	a brief period of retirement prepared a translation
	from Hendrik Conscience under the title of Vld
	misehes Stilleben (Regensburg, 1845). He was con
	secrated prince bishop of Breslau on July 27, 1845.
	Within a year he found himself obliged to excom
	municate all the " German Catholics " to check
	the disturbances which this movement caused in
	the diocese of Breslau, while in the revolution of
	1848 he urged obedience to the government. On
	the other hand, he firmly advocated the independ
	ence of the Church as regards the State, and pro
	tested against the oath to support the constitution
	which was required of the clergy who held official
	positions. Only the conciliatory attitude of the
	State prevented serious controversies. A papal
	brief of Oct. 24, 1849, appointed him vicar apos
	tolic for the Prussian Army. As prince bishop of
	Breslau Diepenbrock furthered the cause of mon
	asteries, and encouraged Redemptorist and Jesuit
	missions among the laity. He was created car
	dinal by Pius IX. in 1850, and in this capacity be
	came involved in a controversy with the Protestant
	general superintendent of Silesia, who complained
	of the missionary propaganda of the Roman Cath
	olics, only to receive a sharp rebuff from Diepen
	brock.	(HEINRICH SCHMIDT.)
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lives are by H. FSrster Regensburg, 1878;
		J. H. Reinkens, Leipsic, 1881; M. Rottaeher, Frankfort,
		1886; B. Boenisch, Oppeln, 1898; H. Finke, Zur Erin
		nerung an Kardinal Melchior von D4epenbrock, Monster,
		1898.
DIES IRIS. See THOMAS OF CELANO.
	DIESTEL, dis'tel, LUDWIG: Theologian and
church historian; b. at Kbnigaberg Sept. 28, 1825;
d. at nbingen May 15, 1879. He entered the Uni
versity of K6nigsberg in 1844 to prepare himself
for the clerical .calling, and in Oct., 1847, went to
Berlin; in 1848 he migrated to Bonn, where he be
came privat‑docent in 1851, and there, during a
residence of seven years, lived in intimate friend
ship with Ritachl. He was made extraordinary
professor in 1858, and in 1862 went to Greifswald,
where he held the chair of Old Testament exegesis.
In 1867 he became professor at Jena, and in 1872
at Tfbingen. After 1871 he was a memlier of the
Halle committee for the revision of the Luther
Bible. Diestel's work on the Old Testament was
that of the theologian rather than of the philolo
gist or textual critic. His fame rests chiefly on
his Geschiehte des Alten Testaments in der christ
lichen Kirche (Jena, 1869), a valuable storehouse
of information on Old Testament exegesis and
hermeneutics. The work may be characterized
as a history of the study of the Old Testament
in the Christian Church rather than as a his
tory of the Bible in itself. Of especial impor
tance is the division of the guiding principles in
the correct method of investigation of the Old
Testament into national, historical, and religious.
Diestel's only independent works, in addition to
the one already mentioned, were Der Segen Ja
kobs in Genesis XLIX historisch erltiutert (Bruns
wick, 1853); Ueber die Theokratie Israels (Greifs
wald, 1864); and a revision of the fourth edition
of August Knobel's commentary on Isaiah (Leip
sic, 1872). 	(E. KAUTZSCH.)

DIETARY LAWS OF THE HEBREWS.
Animals Allowed and Prohibited as Food (§ 1). Origin and Significance of the Distinction (§ 2). Contributory Factors (§ 3). The Prohibition of Blood (§ g). The Prohibition of Fat (§ 5). Two Additional Restrictions (§ 6). The Christian Usage and Attitude (§ 7).
AB with the symbolically elaborated religions of antiquity in general, the sacred laws of the Old Testament include prescriptions restricting the choice of meats and rules for preparing the same.
Many animals are described as unclean, neither to be sacrificed nor eaten by man, nor to be touched as carcasses; whereas, of those designated as clean for food, not all are allowed in sacriI. Animals fice (Lev. xi.; Deut. xiv. 3‑21). Ani‑
Allowed mals appear to be grouped, in this and Pro‑ connection, according to the primihibited as tive Hebrew arrangement, in four or Food. five classes; and in several classes the enumeration of particular species is precluded by the expedient of general marks of distinction. Among quadrupeds, for instance, those are accounted clean which, in the first place, " part the hoof," and, in the second place, chew the cud. There are thus mentioned as edible in Deut. xiv. 4‑5, the ox, sheep, goat, hart, gazel, roebuck, and certain species of antelope. On the other hand, those which lack one or both of these

Dietary Laws of the Hebrews THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
428
distinguishing marks are unclean; such as the camel, rock‑badger, hare, swine, together with " whatsoever goeth upon its paws " (Lev. xi. 27). Among aquatic animals, those are edible which have fins and scales; not those, however, which (like the eel) resemble the reptile family and exhibit no marked fish type at all. Among birds about nineteen to twenty‑one species are prohibited as food; for the most part, birds of prey, such as the eagle, vulture, raven, owl, etc., which feed on carrion and filthy substances; marsh birds and water‑fowls also, such as the stork, heron, pelican, and others, are prohibited; likewise the ostrich, or " desert bird." The bat is classed with birds; as the Arabs still class it. There is an additional prescription with reference to " winged creeping things " (insects), which are summarily prohibited with but one general exception (stated only in Lev.); namely, those are permitted as food " which have legs above their feet, to leap withal "; so that grasshoppers are thus allowed, together with three similar species (Lev. xi. 22). Among the " creeping things " which are unclean according to Lev. xi. 41, 42 special mention is made of the mole, mouse, lizard, and some similar but not certainly definable animals; together with the chameleon (Lev. xi. 29‑30). It is also observed of these, in Lev. xi. 32‑33, that they defile vessels, raiment, etc., as well as food, by contact when dead. Among " creeping things" which are an "abomination " mention is made (verse 42) of " whatsoever goeth upon the belly "; that is to say, snakes and worms. Mere touching of live " unclean " animals does not defile, but only to eat of them defiles; as is also true of touching or carrying their carcass; while, finally (on the ground adduced below), there is defilement in touching the dead body of clean creatures (see DEFILEMENT AND PURIFICATION, CEREMONIAL, L, 1, § 5), and in eating or carrying such creatures when fallen dead without being slaughtered (Lev. xi. 39). The consequences of transgressing these prescriptions and the necessary purifications are simple and not unduly oppressive. Whoever touches the carcass of unclean or clean beasts shall be unclean till evening; whoever carries such dead body, or even eats of it, and this of edible, or clean beasts as well, must furthermore wash his clothes (Lev. xi. 24‑25, 28, 31, 39‑40). With reference to polluted objects cf. Lev. xi. 32‑33.
The fact that the distinction between clean and unclean beasts extends as far back as the memories of the Hebrews is attested by the
a. Origin Jehovistic passages, wherein the disand Signifi‑ tinction is traced to the deluge cance of the (Gen. vii. 2, viii. 20). The distinction Distinction. was not first introduced by the Mosaic legislation, but was already at hand in popular usage; which, like all tribal customs, had religious authority. Moses simply imparted a more definite legal form to this usage, and brought it into relation with the worship of Yahweh. The dominating motive herein was not so much mere expediency, well adapted though these prescriptions were to exert a wholesome physical effect, as the feeling that a natural uncleanness pervaded the
prohibited animals, from which the members of Yahweh's consecrated people should be kept clean (cf. Lev. xi. 44‑45; Deut. xiv. 2‑3). The people of the covenant are to keep themselves clean bodily, out of regard to the God who dwells in their midst, unto whom everything unclean is abhorrent. In the matter of practical determination of what was clean or unclean the law adjusted itself to the sentiment already operative among the people. It took account first of all of the natural aversion among them toward certain kinds of food and of the disgust for certain animals. This factor is more primitive than the superstition attached to it. Totemism and taboo have been advanced as hypotheses to explain the origin of this distinction (W. Robertson Smith). But totemism would lead merely to prohibition of some particular animal or animals, but by no means explain the separation of the animal world into two classes, of which the greater is accounted unclean. Moreover, the dietary regulation of the Israelites is very different from ethnic taboo regulations, whereby certain foods, animals, and fruits, consecrated to some divinity, are forbidden either entirely or at stated times to specified persons or classes. With the Israelites the distinction is easy to understand, because objectively grounded, in the light of the common human desire for cleanliness (see DEFILEMENT AND PURIFICATION, CEREMONIAL, L, 5).
	Nor was	the popular intuition, prompted by
sound natural sentiment, unworthy to be adopted
		by the Mosaic religion, to be more
3. Contrib‑ definitely regulated and made servutory iceable to the same. What at first
	Factors.	glance appear to be surprising marks
		of distinction for the mammals are
to be explained as follows: those quadrupeds
which, being herbivorous, furnish the cleanest
and most savory meat (hence meat appropriate
for sacrifice as well, such as beef animals, sheep, etc.)
have also supplied, as customary slaughter animals,
the distinguishing marks for discrimination of doubt
ful animals (for example, game). So the real sig
nificance of the distinction is not to he sought in
the marks, but in the qualities, just mentioned,
which are associated therewith. Beasts " that go
on their paws," however, are carnivorous, being
chiefly beasts of prey and such as live on carrion,
for which reasons they are much more liable to be
characterized by offensiveness of every description
than the standard animals; and they must have
seemed especially unclean to the Israelites, to whom
it was extremely offensive to swallow carrion,
lacerated or strangled flesh, and the like. Neither
is the motive to be disregarded that what is edible
shall belong to some pronounced species of animal.
This becomes apparent in the distinguishing marks
of fishes; perhaps also in case of the bat, which,
furthermore, makes its haunt in filthy holes; and
in case of the ostrich, whose peculiar characteristics
are enhanced by its singular mode of life. But
Philo and other Jews of an allegorical bent, and
after them the Church Fathers, sought some im
mediate moral basis or symbolic significance in all
these prescriptions with an all too mystical refine
ment.

429	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Dietary Laws of the Hebrews
Essentially different in principle is the prohibition against consuming the blood and the fat of
(clean or edible) animals. The blood 4. The Pro‑ is not unclean in itself; on the conhibition of trary, it is the precious vital fluid, Blood. which is offered to God as the worthiest
portion of the animal creature. Life is from God and belongs to God. On account of its intimate relation to life, men shall not swallow the blood, but shall consecrate it to God. By this very property, too, blood is also the appropriate means of atonement, can intercede for men, can be offered to God in their place‑" For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls " (Lev. xvii. 11). For this reason care must be observed in the slaying that the blood may escape. Nothing lacerated or smothered is allowed to be eaten, because in that case the blood has not properly escaped. This practise of avoiding to partake of blood is very ancient (Gen. ix. 4). It is sharply accentuated in various repetitions and portions of the Law (Lev. iii. 17, vii. 26‑27, xvii. 10, xix. 26; Deut. xii. 16, 23‑24, xv. 23; cf. Ezek. xxxiii. 25; I Sam. xiv. 32‑33). Even the stranger who had settled in Canaan was forbidden to eat the blood (Lev. xvii. 10, 15), whereas in Deut. xiv. 21 the stranger is at least allowed the cattle " that dieth of itself." Whoever transgressed the commandment had to undergo the same course of expiation as in the case of the defilements noted above (Lev. xvii. 10, 15), or expect extermination by the hand of God (Lev. xvii. 16, vii. 27). The blood of sacrificial beasts was brought to the altar; in other cases it was simply poured on the ground or covered with " dust." The avoidance of partaking of blood has become so natural to the Jews that the practise continues. The proviso that the blood of animals must properly escape in the slaughtering led to a complicated ceremonial, under rabbinical Judaism, with reference to the slaughter (purporting to, follow the tradition mentioned in Deut. xii. 21). The slaying is to be despatched by a " Schachter " (Jewish butcher) who thoroughly understands the Talmudic regulations (cf. the Mishna tract .Hullin and the penal laws in connection with partaking of blood, Keritot, K, 5; also Maimonides, Yad ha‑gazakah, Hilkot Shehitah ; Sh ulhan 'Aruk, Yore De'ah ; and on Jewish butchering, 1. Hamburger, Realencyklopddie fur Bibel and Talmud, ii. 1099 sqq.; JE, xi. 253 sqq.).
Like the blood, the fat of sacrificial beasts is forbidden to be eaten (Lev. iii. 17, vii. 25). Not
the outer fat, which grows united g. The Pro‑ with the flesh, is meant, but that hibition deposited about the entrails, and
of Fat. especially about the kidneys, including
in case of sheep the " fat tail " (Lev. iii. 9‑10). But, far from being unclean, the fat is, in a certain sense, the "quintessence" of the body, and therefore the choicest portion, reserved by Yahweh for himself. Here, too, the standpoint is theocratic, not hygienic or sanitary. 111orcover, Deuteronomy says naught of this prohibition.
There are two additional precepts in respect to food: (1) Gen. xxxii. 32, which, to be sure, is not
a prescriptive rule, but states as a generally recog
nized usage	in Israel that the hip sinew (nervus
	ischiadicus) of slaughtered animals
6. Two Ad‑ was never eaten. (2) The express
ditional	command not. to " seethe a kid in its
Restric‑ mother's milk " is found in the Book tions. of the Covenant (Ex. xxiii. 19) and repeated Ex. xxxiv. 26 and Deut. xiv. 21. It is not necessary to assume that the intent here was to do away with some heathen sacrificial practise (Maimonides, Roskoff) or some other custom of superstitious intent (magical craft, Stade). It is more probable that this prohibition, like Lev. xxii. 23, Deut. xxii. 6‑7 (cf., too, the Sabbath rest for beasts), enjoins a certain sparing of nature even in the animal world. In later times this prohibition was so far amplified by the Tar gum and rabbinical writers that meat might not be cooked in milk or butter at all; and this led to a punctilious classification of kitchen utensils, and to similar pedantries in vogue among modern orthodox Jews. The original significance of the matter is more correctly recognized by the Samaritans, who even now procure meat and milk from different districts.
In the New Testament the primitive Christian congregation is found for the most part loyal to the traditional precepts of Moses. But the distinction between clean and unclean
7. The animals, like other purificatory pre‑
Christian	scriptions that hedged Israel in, had
Usage and to fall away if any closer touch was
	Attitude.	to ensue with the heathen world.
		The lesson was imparted to Peter
(Acts x. 9 sqq.). Such abolition of barrier pre
cepts, indeed, is intrinsically supported by the
revelation fulfilled through Christ, which, by
removing from the sinner his once burdening ban
of uncleanness, purifies and sanctifies the whole
creature. In this light the external distinction
of clean and unclean loses its proper warrant of
being. Especially to be noted is the canon of
Matt. xv. 11, 17‑20; Mark vii. 15, whereby dietary
laws are already repealed in principle. In the
primitive Christian Church the prohibition against
partaking of blood was longest and most strictly
maintained in force; and this, indeed, with ref
erence to Gentile Christians as well as Jewish (Acts
xv. 20, 29, xxi. 25), not as a distinctively Israelitic
prohibition, but one reaching back even to Noah.
In Tertullian's time the Church deemed itself still
generally bound by that restriction (Tertullian,
Apol., ix.; De monogamia, v.; De idolatrid, xxiv.;
Eusebius, Hist. eccl., v. 1). The Greek Church
adhered to the same constantly (Second Trullan
Council, canon lxvii.; Suieerus, Thesaurus eccle
siasticus, i. 113). In principle, however, this pro
hibition was done away with by the word of the
Lord, Matt. xv. 11, as well as through the evangelic
liberty proclaimed by the apostles, Paul especially
(I Tim. iv. 3‑4), as belonging to the " elements of
the world " (Gal. iv. 3), which could serve only by
way of preparatory instruction to the congregation
of the faithful, who are told " all things are yours,
and ye are Christ's."
C. VON ORELLI.

Dietemberger	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	430
Diggle
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. Wiener, Die jiidischen Speisepesstu,
	Breslau, 1895; J. D. Michaelis, Mosaisches Recht, iv. 125
	126, Biehl, 1777; H. Ewald, Die Alterthfimer des Volkes
	laraei, pp. 192‑212, GSttingen, 1866, Eng. tranel., pp.
	144‑165. Boston, 1876; w. M. Thomson, The Land and
	the Book, 3 vols., New York, 1881‑86; H. L. Strack,
	Dos Blut im Glauben and Aberplauben, Berlin, 1900; DB,
	ii. 27‑43; EB, ii. 1538 sqq.; JE, v. 431‑433; and the
	literature under DEFILEMENT AND PURIFICATION, CERE
	MONIAL.
	DIETENBERGER, JOHANNES : German Ro
man Catholic Bible translator; b. at Frankfort
on‑the‑Main c. 1475; d. at Mainz Sept. 4, 1537. He
entered in early life the Dominican order, and in
1510 became prior of the Frankfort monastery.
This office he held till 1524. In 1526 he became
prior in Coblenz. He was among the theologians
chosen to refute the Augsburg Confession in. 1530.
He was also one of the Dominican inquisitors, and
as such had a part in the Reuchlin investigation.
From 1533 till his death he was professor of the
ology at the University of Mainz. He is spoken
of by his contemporaries, both Roman Catholic and
Protestant, as one of the foremost men of his time,
but he has been so much forgotten that the de
tailq of his life are not known, and the way in which
the outline that is known has been stated is usu
ally erroneous. He was a prolific author. Most nu
merous are his ascetic and polemical writings, but
of greater permanent value are his translation of
the entire Bible, for which his scholarship in
Hebrew and Greek qualified him, but which was
fiercely attacked by the Protestants as nothing
more than a transcript of Luther's translation, and
particularly his catechism. which was one of the
earliest of the kind known. The Bible version
(Mainz, 1534) is of course from the Vulgate. It
passed through forty editions. His catechism
(Mainz, 1537) was also very popular and received
the indoxsement of numerous church bodies.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. wedewer, Johannes Dietenberger, Frei
	burg, 1888; C. Moufang, Die Mainzer Katechismen . . .
	bis sum Ends des 18. Jahrhunderts, Mains, 1878.
	DIETRICH, di'triH, OF APOLDA: Author of a
life of St. Elizabeth of Thuringia and another of St.
Dominic. He is undoubtedly identical with Die
trich of Thuringia, but of his life is known only
what may be gathered from the prologues to his
works‑that he was born probably about 1228 in
Apolda, and became a Dominican in the monastery
at Erfurt in 1247; he most likely died there after
1296. His two biographies are written not with
out skill, and display painstaking search after oral
and written sources. The Vita S. Elisabethae was
written 1289 and printed in Canisius, Lectiones
antiqua, ed. Basnage, iv (Amsterdam, 1725),
116‑152; it adds nothing to our knowledge of the
saint's life, and the same is true of his Vita S.
Dominici (latest ed. by A. Curd, Paris, 1887).
Begun at the request of Munione da Zamorra,
general of the order, Dietrich finished it under
Nicholas Bocassinus, general 1296‑98. He has
incorporated oral tradition from Sister C:ecilia in
Rome, and the German provincial Gerard, and has
used the older biographies of the saint by Jordanus,
Constantine, Humbert, Gerhard of Frachet, and
the acts of the canonization.
(G. GRUTZMACHER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Quctif and J. chard, Scriptores ordinia praxlicatarum, i. 413 eqq., 453 eqq., Paris, 1719; G. Boerner, in NA, xui (1888), pp. 472‑491 (pp. 491‑493 contain an edition of the Vita).

DIETRICH OF lYIEHEIM (1QIEM) : Roman Catholic Reformatory writer at the time of the great Western schism (see Scxlsm); b. in the diocese of Paderborn in Westphalia, probably at Nieheim (18 m. e.n.e. of Paderborn) between 1338 and 1348; d. at Maastricht Mar., 1418. A very industrious man, he labored for the removal of the schism and, like Pierre d'Ailly and Gerson in France, lifted up his voice in Germany in favor of a thorough reformation of the Church. At the time of the Council at Constants he was the greatest ecclesiastico‑political publicist using the German tongue. All his life he is designated as a cleric of the diocese of Paderborn. He was not of noble birth, was educated outside of his native land, and traveled through Italy. Having studied jurisprudence, he obtained a position in the curia. In 1370 he was an officer in the papal court at Avignon, and in 1377, as notdrilis sacri, palatii went with the curia to Rome. Under Urban VI. he obtained the important and lucrative offices of abbreviator and scriptor in the chancery. After the outbreak of the schism in 1378 he shared the vicissitudes of Urban VI., but he obtained rich livings, and under the next pope, Boniface IX. (1389‑1404), he was appointed to the episcopal see of Verden on the Aller, in his native Lower Saxony. He occupied the see from 1395 to 1399, when he had to resign. In 7403 he was again in Rome and interested in the newly founded German Hospital dell' Anima. He took no part in the Council at Pisa (1409), as certain business took him to Germany. But he remained in the service of the curia till the flight of John XXIII. from the Council at Constants in 1415 induced him to sever his connection with the pope. At the Council of Constants he played officially no important part, but exercised considerable influence by his writings. It may be taken for granted that he composed at Constants the passionate libel which its first editor entitled Invectivct in. diffugientem . . . Johannem xxiii. In this he holds before the pope a fearful list of sins committed, and destroys his moral character irretrievably In his official position Dietrich had the chance of observing the doings of the curia from 1377 to 1415, and, as he was well educated and strove to be honest, his records have almost the value of a source. There is at present no agreement concerning the genuineness of the writings attributed to him. The moat important may be: (1) Nemus unionis (first printed Basel, 1566, as bk. iv. of the following work), treating of the union of the church; (2) De schismate (Nuremberg, 1536), a history of the schism to 1410; (3) Historic do vita Johannis xxiii. (Frankfort, 1920), also a history of the Council of Constants and Dietrich's daybook to 1416; (4) Privilegia et jura imperid (Basel, 1 566), a history of the Holy Roman empire, after the fashion of Dante's political dreams. According to Erler, Dietrich did not write the works De necessitate reformationis ecclesiff, De moths u.niendi ac reformandi ecclesiam, and De difficultate

431	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Dietenberger
		Diggle
	reformationis in conedio universals, all of which
belong to the time of the'great Western schism.
	PAUL TsCHACKERT.
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: For a full list of editions of the works of
	Dietrich and of literature on him consult: Potthast, Wep
	tosiear, pp. 1051‑55 (indispensable as an aid to special
	study). The best review of his life and writings is G.
	Erler, Dietrich von Nieheim, Leipsie, 1887. Consult
	further: J. B. Schwab, Johannes Gerson, Wt1mburg, 1858;
	H. V. Sauerland, Doe Leben des Dietrich von Nieheim,
	GSttingen, 1875; P. Tsehaekert, Peter won Ailli, Gotha,
	1877; A. Fritz, Zur Quellenkritik der Schriften Dietrichs
	von Niem, Paderborn, 1886; O. Lorenz, Deutschlands
	Geschichtsquellen, ii. 152, 313‑323, 371‑374, 413‑414,
	Berlin, 1887; H. Finke, Add concilii Constantiansis, Vol. i.,
Mttneter, 1896; $L, iii. 1747‑49.
	DIETRICH, VEIT: German Reformer; b. in
	Nuremberg Dec. 8, 1506; d. there Mar. 25, 1549.
	Though only a shoemaker's son, he went in 151.2
	to the University of Wittenberg, where he soon
	gained the affection of Melanchthon. Later he
came in close touch with Luther, who advised him
to forsake medicine for theology;	he shared
	Luther's house and board, and became his aman
	uensis and secretary. As such he accompanied
	Luther to the debate at Marburg in 1529, in the
	following year he went with Luther to Coburg on
	the way to the Diet at Augsburg. In 1533 he ap
	pears as dean of the faculty of arts in Wittenberg.
	On Dec. 14, 1535, he became minister at St. Sebald's
	in Nuremberg, and shortly after married a lady of
	Nuremberg. He was Melanchthon's lifelong friend,
	and had his confidence, knew his thoughts, and
	shared his cares as no other did except Camerarius;
	while more anti‑Roman than Melanchthon, he was
	his disciple rather than Luther's. He edited and
	translated into German a number of Luther's and
	Melanchthon's minor writings; it is charged that
	he proceeded very arbitrarily in editing, sometimes
	suppressing Luther's views or changing them com
	pletely. Of his own works (which were very numer
	ous) the most popular was the Summaria fiber das
	Alte Testament (Wittenberg, 1541), an attempt
	to give briefly " what it is most necessary and useful
	that the young people and the common man should
know of each chapter."	In 1544, with Melaneh
	thon's help, he rendered a like service for the New
	Testament (reprinted by the Evangelical Lutheran
Synod of Missouri and Ohio, St. Louis, 1857).
	(T. KOLDE.)
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. T. Strobel, Nachricht von dem Leben and
	den Schri/ten Veit Dietricha, Nuremberg, 1772; J. Voigt,
	Brie/uwAM der beriAmtesten Gelehrten . . . der Re%r
	mation, pp. 171‑216, KSnigsberg, 1841; H. E. Jacobs,
	Martin Luther. New York, 1898; J. W. Richard, Philip
	Melanchthon, ib. 1898. Very numerous are the references
to Dietrich in J. KSetlin, Martin Luther, Berlin, 1903.
	DIEU, dyiT, LUDOVICUS (LODEWIJK) DE:
	Dutch Orientalist; b. at Flushing, Holland, Apr.
	7, 1590; d. at Leyden Nov. 13, 1642. He studied
	in Leyden, where, under J. Scaliger, Oriental studies
	had thriven. The Library of the "Athens of
	Holland " was rich in Oriental manuscripts, and
	Thomas Erpenius, who was with Daniel Colonius
	(van Ceulen) the teacher who most impressed
	him, saw to it that these treasures were well used.
	After completing his studies, in 1613 Dieu became
	,pastor at Middelburg, in 1615 he removed to Flush
	ing, and in 1617 took charge of the Low German
congregation at Leyden, and served also as regent of the Walloon College until his death. He refused a call to the newly founded University of Utrecht, and also many other offers. He was a plain, reliable, and clear‑eyed scholar, as a commentator he was highly esteemed, and was always active in the public weal. Because of the character of his studies and of his taste for linguistics he became an exegete, and employed in a new way, in the service of Biblical science, the translations from Oriental languages, especially those from the Syriac, the Arabic, and the Ethiopic, as well as his knowledge of Jewish literature. The study of Tremellius's Latin translation of the Syriac New Testament and the use of a translation into Hebrew of a part of the New Testament by Meroerus and Munster gave his zeal new impetus in the same direction. Further to equip himself he dived into the translations of Oriental literature furnished by his friend Heinsius, librarian in Leyden. The fruits of his labors he gathered partly in writings on linguistics, partly in notes on difficult Biblical passages. The exegetical works completed in this period are collected under the title Critica sacra sive animadversiones in loca quadam diiciliora Veteris et Novi Testamenti (Amsterdam, 1884), edited with good indexes.
	In still another field Dieu's scientific work bore
good fruit. Through a traveler to the Orient he
got possession of some missionary tracts put into
Persian by the Jesuit Jerome Xavier, and of a Life
of Jesus and a Life of Peter, which were intended
to bring to the " Mongols " the true word of God.
He acquired a knowledge of Persian in order to
examine the missionary methods of the Jesuits, and
expressed disgust at the way in which they palmed
off legends and falsehoods as truth. He proceeded
to edit their works, added a Latin translation and
valuable notes, and affixed a Persian grammar, that
any one might investigate and see that he, a priest
of science, fought with clean weapons. It is a
missionary's duty, he taught, to learn the language,
so as not to hinder the progress of the Gospel
among the heathen. 	(G. HEINRICI.)
BIBLIO CRAPHY: As an early source consult R. Simon, Histoire critique du V. T., pp. 440 eqq.; Amsterdam, 1678; idem, Histoire critique des . . commentateurs du N. T., pp. 787 eqq.; Rotterdam, 1693. Consult also Niodron, Mernoiree, xv. 85 sqq.; A. J. van der Aa, Biographisch Woordenbosk der Nederlanden, iv. 53, Haarlem, 1859.
DIGGLE, JOHN WILLIAM: Anglican bishop of Carlisle; b. at Pendleton (a suburb of Manchester) Mar. 2,1847. He studied at Merton College, Oxford (B.A., 1870), and was ordained priest in 1872. He was curate at Whalley Range, Lancashire (18711872), All Saints', Liverpool (1872‑74), St. John's, Walton, Liverpool (1874‑75), and vicar of'Mossley Hill, Liverpool (1875‑96). He was canon of Carlisle and archdeacon of Westmorland (1896‑1901), and examining chaplain to the bishop of Carlisle (1892‑1901). He was rector of St. Martin's, Birmingham, in 1901‑04, and archdeacon of Birmingham and rural dean in 1903‑05. Ile was rural dean of Childwall in 1882‑96, honorary canon of Liverpool in 1889‑96, president of the Liverpool Council of Education in 1891, select preacher to the University of Oxford in 1898, and examining

Dike
Diocletian	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	432
chaplain to the bishop of Worcester in 1902‑05. In 1905 he was consecrated bishop of Carlisle. He has edited Bishop James Fraser's University and Parochial Sermons (London, 1887) and Lancashire Life (1889); and has written Godliness and (Manliness (London, 1886); True Religion (1887): Sermons for Daily Life (1891); Religious Doubt (1895); and Short Studies in Holiness (1900).
DACE, SAMUEL WARREN: Congregationalist; b. at Thompson, Conn., Feb. 13, 1839. He studied at Williams College (B.A., 1863), Hartford Theological Seminary (1863‑65), and Andover Theological Seminary (B.D., 1866). lie was pastor at West Randolph, Vt. (1866‑77), and Royalton, Vt. (1879‑82), and since ‑1881 has been corresponding secretary of the National League for the Protection of the Family, which was founded in that year under the name of the Divorce Reform League, largely as the result of his writings. He has lectured in many higher institutions of learning, and originated the home department of the Sundayschool. He sympathizes with the use of scientific methods in theology and polity. He is the author of numerous articles on divorce, the family, and country towns.

DILLER (DILHERR), MICHAEL: Reformer of Speyer; b., probably in the diocese of Speyer, in the early part of the sixteenth century; d. at Heidelberg 1570. He matriculated at Wittenberg in 1523, and shortly after 1529 was prior of the Augustinian monastery at Speyer, and preached there frequently. Being a pupil of Wittenberg, he preached justification from a strictly evangelical point of view, although he avoided polemics. He soon gained the confidence of the citizens of Speyer, and in 1538 the municipal council, recognizing the necessity of providing for regular evangelical preaching to prevent the people, who neglected the Roman Catholic service, from " sinking into depravity," requested Diller to hold regular services in his church. In 1540 the bishop became aware of this course, and commanded him to cease immediately, although he was obliged to acquiesce in the refusal of Diller, who was protected by the council. In Jan., 1541, the emperor Charles V. visited Speyer and forbade the council to permit Diller to deliver his sermons, since he " preached of justification and good works after the new fashion." Diller, who had left the city before the arrival of Charles, pleaded his cause before the council and continued his activity after the emperor's departure. Thus far Diller had made no changes in the form of the service, but previous to Easter of 1543 he preached against the mass and demanded that the cup be given to the laity. The bishop in vain asked the council to interfere, and it would seem that Diller now actually administered the Holy Sacrament, in both kinds. During the emperor's attendance at the Diet of Speyer (Jan.‑June, 1544) Diller was absent from the city, but he resumed his activity with fresh ardor after the adjournment of the diet. The council, encouraged by the course of events at the diet, not only protected him, but also decided to give him an assistant.
The success of the emperor in the Schmalkald
War ended Diller's work and evangelical preaching in Speyer. Charles V. again visited the city, and Diller was obliged to leave. He went to Basel, and in: 1553 accepted a call to Neuburg as court preacher to the palgrave Ottheinrich. There, in 1554, he cooperated in the introduction of the church‑order. When Ottheinrich became elector of the Palatinate in 1556 Diller followed him to Heidelberg, and collaborated with Marbach and Stolo in the preparation of a church‑order, Lutheran in type, which was adopted Apr. 4, 1556. He also assisted in the Baden church‑order of 1556, took part in the same year in the ecclesiastical visitations in the Upper Palatinate and in the margravate of Baden, and was one of the most influential members of the council appointed to direct the Palatinate Church. The elector Frederick III., who succeeded Ottheinrich in 1559, likewise reposed full confidence in Diller. Throughout the doctrinal controversies of the period he labored for peace. Repelled by Hesshusen and his sympathizers, he sided more and more with the Reformed, especially at the Conference of Maulbronn in 1564, although henceforth he rarely appeared in public. He does not seem to have engaged in literary activity. Jurius NEY.

DILLMANN, (CHRISTIAN FRIEDRICH) AUGUST: German Lutheran theologian; b. at Illingen (17 m. n.w. of Stuttgart), Wttrttemberg, Apr. 25, 1823; d. in Berlin July 4, 1894. He studied in the seminary at Schbnthal, 183"0; at Ttibingen, 1840‑45; was assistant pastor at Sersheim, Wiirttemberg, 1845‑46; traveled and studied, especially Ethiopic, at Paris, London, and Oxford, 1846‑48; became repetent (i.e., tutor for three years) at Tiibingen, 1848; privatdocent for Old Testament exegesis in the theological faculty, 1852; professor extraordinary of theology, 1853; professor of Oriental languages in the philosophical faculty at Kiel, 18.54; professor of theology at Giessen, 1864; and at Berlin, 1869. He was distinguished for his cultivation of the neglected field of Ethiopic language and literature. As a critic he stood in opposition to the traditional treatment of the Old Testament, but was always guided by his perception of the historical principle. He received on this account the thanks of the late Dr. Delitzsch on the occasion of an address which was an answer to the latter's treatment of Old Testament theology, and replied in a spirit of warm cordiality and appreciation.
His publications embrace Catalogus codicum orientalium MSS. gun in Huseo Britannico asservantur. P. 111. Codices 1Ethiopicos amplectens (London, 1847); Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecee Bodleianae Ozoniensis. P. VII. Codices Xthiopici, digessit A. Dillmann (Oxford, 1848); Liber Henoch, tEthiopice (Leipsie, 1851); Das Buch Henoch iibersetzt u. erkllirt (1853); Daa ehristliche Adambuch des Morgenlandes, aus dam Aethiopischen iibersetzt (reprinted from Ewald's Jahrbiieher, 1853); Biblia Veteris Testamenti Ethiopica, Tomus 1. 0ctateuchus. Faso. 1, Genesin, Exodum, Leviticum (1853). Fase. 2, Numeros et Deuteronomium (1854). Faso. 3, Josua, Judicum
et Ruth (1855). Tomus 11. Faso. 1 et 2, Libri

433	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Diocletian
Regum (1861 and 1871), vol. v. containing the Apocrypha (1894, but the missing vols. iii. and iv. will not appear); Grammatik der athiopischen 8prache (1857, 2d ed., by C. Bezold, 1899; Eng. tranal., 1907); LiberJubil(eorum, Xthiopiee (1859); Lexicon lingum Xthiopicm (1865); Chrestamathia Xthiopica cum glossario (1866); Liber Jubilceorum (Kiel, 1859); for the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch he edited Hiob (1869, 1891); Genesis (1882, 1886, 1892, Eng. transl., 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1897); Exodus and Leviticus (1880); Numeri, Deuteronomium and Josua (1886); Jesaia (1890); and posthumously, Handbuch der aluestamendichen Theologie (Leipsic, 1895). He contributed also to Schenkel's Bibel or Lexikon, to Broekhaus' ConversationsLexikon, and was associate editor of the Jahrbiicher fur deutsche Theologie.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. Baudissin, August Dillmann, Leipsic, 1895; Zur Brinnerung an . . . Dillmann, Stuttgart, 1900.
DILTHEY, WILHELM: German philosopher; b. at Biebrich (3 m. s. of Wiesbaden) Nov. 10, 1833. He studied at Heidelberg and Berlin, was privatdocent in Berlin, and was appointed professor of philosophy at Basel in 1866. In 1868 he was called in the same capacity to Kiel, and in 1871 to Breslau. Since 1882 he has been professor of philosophy at Berlin. His writings include Leben Schleiermachers (Berlin, 1870); Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften (Leipaie, 1883); and Das Erlebnis and die Diehtung (1906).
DIMOERITES: According to Epiphanius (Hwr., Ixxvii.), a name given to the followers of Apollinaris of Laodicea (q.v.), because, according to them, Christ had assumed only two of the three elements of the perfect human form, the soma and the psyche alogos, whereas the divine Logos himself took in him the place of the nous, the
psyche logike. 	G. KRtYaER.
DINTER, GUSTAV FRIEDRICH: German educator and theologian; b. at Borne (16 m. s.s.e. of Leipaic) Feb. 29, 1760; d. in Konigaberg May 29, 1831. In 1773 he entered the Fiiratenschule at Grimma, in 1779 the University of Leipsic. After serving as tutor he entered the ministry in 1787 as substitute at Kitacher,where his pastoral work, especially his untiring zeal for the education of the youth, made him greatly beloved. His success in training teachers for the lower schools led to his appointment as director of the normal school at Dresden in 1797. Because of ill health he returned to the ministry in 1807 at Gornitz, where he founded a progymnasium, which became famous as a training‑school for the practical pursuits of life. He became member of the conaistory and board of education in Kdnigsberg, 1816; professor of theology, 1817. His Sehullehrerbibel (9 vols., Neuatadt, 1826‑30) made a sensation. Starting with Semler's distinction between theology and religion, he sought in the Bible only that which, in his view, immediately belongs to religion; in this sphere, but noon science, the Bible should be the authority " To religion belong worthy conceptions of C=od, of Jesus and his work, of the sacredness of the moral law, of the worth and destiny of man, of the IIL‑28
love of God even to the erring, of forgiveness of
sins, of the help God renders us to be good," etc.
Dinter repudiated strongly the charge that this is
rationalism, and considered himself orthodox. In
his method he was akin to Bahrdt, trying to rein
terpret the language of the Bible in the spirit of
his time, and believing that herein he followed
Paul and Luther. His autobiography (Neustadt,
1829) gives the best key to his theology; it shows
a vigorous, plain, jovial, practical, and sympathetic
character. A complete edition of his writings
was edited by J. C. B. Wilhelm (43 vols., Neustadt,
1840‑51). 	(SANDER.)

DIOCLETIAN (Caius Valerius Diocletianus): Roman emperor 284‑305; b. near Salons (3 m. n.n.e. of Spalato), Dalmatia, c. 225; d, there Dec. 3, 316. He was probably a slave by birth, but entered the army and rose to high rank, becoming consul and commander of the body‑guards. After the death of Numesian he was proclaimed emperor by the legions near Chalcedon on Nov. 17, 284, and the assassination of Casinus in the following year left him sole emperor. He soon appointed his junior comrade Maximian Caesar, and later made him coregent, assigning him the Western half of the empire. A second division of the empire took place Mar. 1, 793, when two Caesars were created, Caius Galerius Valeriua Maximianus, who married Valeria, Diocletian's daughter, and Marcus Flavius Valeriua Constantius. The reins of government remained in t71e hands of Diocletian, who was a born ruler, firmly convinced of the divinity of the imperial dignity. He possessed an interest in higher culture and was filled with a strong passion for building, though his refinement was but superficial and was frequently overborne by the savagery of his Illyrian blood.
	In the latter part of the third century the Church
was flourishing in consequence of its long peace,
and many Christians were found in aristocratic
society, in influential public positions, in the army,
and even in the imperial household. Diocletian's
		wife, Prisca, and his daughter Valerie
The Dio‑ were at least catechumens. Shortly
cletian Per‑ after his accession, however, Dioclesecution. tian left no doubt as to his attitude toward Christianity by an antiManichean decree issued in Egypt and usually assigned to 287, forbidding all religious innovation under heavy penalty. The purging of the army by weeding out these who refused to sacrifice was the first measure directly planned to render the troops reliable. An ill‑timed religious zeal offended the emperor and helped the anti‑Christian party, headed by Galerius, who urged him on, despite his hesitation in fear of consequences. In the winter of 302‑303 tedious conferences were held at Nicomedia, but it was only after the Mileaisn Apollo had been consulted that Diocletian yielded, though he insisted that no blood be shed. Galeriua, however, overcame all his politic considerations and finally molded his religious policy. On Feb. 23, 303, the first edict was issued at Nicomedia. Christian freedmen were to be removed from public offices and were to lose their civic rights, while slaves were

Diocletian
Diodoras	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	434
deprived of the possibility of emancipation. The churches were to be demolished, the Scriptures were to be surrendered and burned, and religious meetings were prohibited. On the same day the destruction of the basilica of Nicomedia was begun and the Scriptures were publicly burned. Before the movement became general, however, a Nicomedian official scornfully tore the edict down, and the palace was twice set on fire, the incendiary, according to the Christians, being Galerius, who hoped thus to impel the emperor to more drastic measures. Rebellions broke out in Armenia and Syria, and were naturally laid to the charge of the Christians. That the latter resolved upon active resistance and rebellion lacks justification, although it is not impossible that individuals, either secretly or openly, aided the usurpers in the East. The effect, however, could not but be unfavorable upon Diocletian's mind. A second edict was issued, similar to that of Decius, decreeing the imprisonment of all the clergy. Diocletian's original injunction forbidding the effusion of blood was soon forgotten in the general tumult. The multitude of prisoners caused no little trouble, and a new decree enacted that the sacrifice required by the second edict should be exacted by all means. In 304 another edict universalized the decree concerning sacrifice and abolished the distinction between clergy and laity, aiming primarily to detach the latter, who were far inferior to the clergy in zeal for the Church. Patient persuasion was also employed, and steadfast refusal led to punishment, torture, and execution. In many cases the decree was only superficially enforced. The leading spirit in all these events was Galerius; Maximian was a minor figure; and Constantius, already in sympathy with the Christians, was as conservative as possible, contenting himself with the demolition of buildings.
On May 1, 305, Diocletian abdicated and forced Maximian to do the same. Their places were filled by the Augusti, Galerius and Constantius, the new Ceesars being Maximinus Daza, a nephew of Galerius, who received Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, and Severus, an uneducated officer of low
birth, who received Italy, Africa, and The End Pannonia. The West remained peaceof the Per‑ ful, but in the East the persecution
secution. was rendered still more severe by the
measures of Maximinus. Constantius died July 25, 306, and the army proclaimed his son Constantine Augustus. The ultimate outcome of rebellions and wars was the victory of Constantine at the Milvian Bridge, Oct. 28, 312, and soon afterward the so‑called religious decree of Milan brought peace to the Church in the West (see CONBTANTINE Tae GREAT). Meanwhile the situation had changed in the East; circumstances compelled Galerius to cease from persecuting, and toward the end of Apr., 311, he and his coregent issued an edict in which they admitted the inefficiency of their efforts to restore religious uniformity. This was the first decree which officially recognized the Christian religion in the Roman empire, although the vagueness of the clause, " yet so as that they offend not against good order," left a loophole for the State, In the autumn, however, when scarcely six months
had elapsed, Maximinus, now being the oldest Augustus, renewed the persecution. Christians were inhumanly mutilated and executed. The customary funeral services in the cemeteries were forbidden, possibly on the pretext that they were a cloak for immorality; religious meetings and the building of churches were prohibited; and delegates of the cities petitioned for the exclusion of the Christians. The defeat and death of Maxentius, the insignificant but ambitious son of Maximian, who had overthrown Severus, suddenly changed the situation, and the victorious Constantine advised Maximinus to cease oppressing the Christians. The result was a circular letter addressed by Maximinus in the latter part of 312, prohibiting the use of violence against Christians. On Apr. 30, 313, Maximinus was defeated in Thrace by Licinianus Licinius and forced to retire to Nicomedia. There, where the persecutions had been begun, an edict of toleration was issued on June 13, proclaiming the principle of religious liberty with special regard to the Christians. Every invidious distinction which still existed was abolished, and all property, including the confiscated placks of assembly, was to be restored at once to the Church as a legal person. Licinius assisted in rebuilding churches, while Maximinus retired beyond the Taurus and issued a new edict emphasizing his later measures. Soon afterward he died, imploring the help of Christ in his agony and despair. All memorials of him were destroyed by the victor, and his wife and children, together with the wife and daughter of Diocletian and other relatives and adherents of the fallen dynasty, were murdered with shameful barbarity. Thus ended the ten years of the Diocletian persecution.
In his retirement Diocletian witnessed all these events, but every effort to induce him to leave Salona for public life was in vain. After a long and painful illness he died, perhaps by his own hand, and was buried in the splendid mausoleum of his palace. The bitter hostility of Christian writers toward him is readily intelligible. He was the cause of the longest and bloodiest
Its persecution which the Church exResults. perienced, and its continuation by his successors was regarded as his legacy. In a rapid series of edicts of increasing severity this persecution oppressed the congregations and resulted in a refinement of cruelty which surpassed all that had gone before. The effect of the first decree, which interfered so deeply with civic life, was tremendous. The reaction, both contemporary and subsequent, against apostasy produced Donatism in Africa and Meletianism in Egypt, besides causing schisms of more or less importance in many other placP,s. Flight was not considered apostasy by the Church. and it frequently afforded a means of safety, though there were many who endured torture, imprisonment, reproach, and death. The enthusiasm for martyrdom induced some to anticipate their trial by a self‑chosen death, and women and virgins preferred suicide to dishonor. Selfaccusation and violent denunciation of heathenism also took place, while life itself was considered less valuable than the safety of the Scriptures. The

435	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Diocletian
		Diodorua
	clergy of all ranks fell by scores, though the Roman
	bishop Marcellinus made an offering of incense.
	The rich growth of maxtyrological literature in
prose and poetry and the cult of martyrs, which
soon became both wide‑spread and important,
were but expressions of the feeling with which
	Christendom looked back upon its " soldiers of the
faith."	VICTOR SCHULTZE.
BIBLIoaBAPHY: Sources most productive are Rusebiu®,
	Hist. eccl., books viii. ix.; Lactantius, De mortibus per.
	aecutorum. The best monograph is A. J. Mason, The
	Persecution of Diocletian, Cambridge, 1876. Consult: T,
	Bernhardt, Diokletian in eeinem Verhdltniss eu den Chris
	ten, Bonn, 1862; O. Hunsiger, Zur Repierung and Chris
tenverfolgnp .	. 308‑813, Leipsic, 1888; B. Aubd, His
	toire des peraieutions do l'Eglise, 2 vols., Paris, 1875‑78;
	G. Uhlhom, Der Hampf des Christenthums mit dem Hei
	dentum, Stuttgart, 1889, Eng. tranel., New York, 1880;
	V. Schultze,, Geachichte des Unterganps des priecAisch
	r6mi8chen Heidsntume, 2 vole., Jens, 1887‑92; P. Allard.
	La Perstcution de DiocUtien d Is hiomphe de 1'6plise, 2
	vole., Paris, 1890; idem, Lee Dern*res Peraicutions du
8. siecle, ib. 1897; E. Le Blant, Lea PersIeutsws . .
	aux premiers si?cles, Paris, 1893; O. Seeek, Geschiehte des
	Unterpanps der antiken Welt, vol. i., Berlin, 1897; G. Bois
	eier, La Fin du papanisme, 2 vols., ib. 1901; L. Pullan,
	Church of the Fathers, chap. avi., New York, 1905; Nean
	der, Christian Church, i. 147‑155 et passim, ii. passim;
	Schaff, Christian Church, ii. 84‑74; Gibbon, Decline and
Fall, chaps. xiii~xvi.; DCB, i. 833‑836.
	DIODATI, di"o‑dd'ti, GIOVANNI: Genevan Re
	former; b. at Lucca June 6, 1576; d. at Geneva
	Oct. 3, 1649. His family was compelled by religious
	persecution to flee from Italy. He was a rigid
	Calvinist, and while still a young man was appointed
	to teach Hebrew in the Academy of Geneva (1597),
	and later became professor of dogmatics. As one
	of the Genevan deputies to the Synod of Dort in
	1618, he took part in the compilation of the canons
	of that body. He translated the Bible into Italian
	(Geneva, 1607), his version meeting with a success
	comparable with that of Luther's German render
	ing. He also prepared a revision of the French
	translation which had been made by the pastors
	and professors of Geneva in 1588, enriching his
	work by valuable notes and elucidations (Eng.
	transl., Pious Annotations upon the Holy Bible,
	London, 1643). He translated into French Sarpi's
	Historia del concilio tridentino (1621) and Sir Edwin
	Sandys's Relation of the State of Religion (1626).
	Diodati was a remarkable preacher and one of the
	most distinguished defenders of the Reformed
	Church, while the ambition of his life was the con
	version of his native land, and especially the repub
lic of Venice, to his own creed.
	EUGANn CHolsy.
	BrBr.r066APHr: E. de Budd, Vie de Jean Diodati, Geneva,
	1869; G. D. J. Schotel, Jean Diodati, The Hague, 1844;
	P. Plan, Lettres trouvdw, pages historiquee sur un 6pieode
	de la vie de Jean Diodat4 ib. 1864; Maria Bette, Life of
Giovanni Diodati, Genovese Theologian, London, 1905.
	DIO"DO'RUS: Presbyter in Antioch, after 378
	bishop of Tarsus; d. before 394. He was a native
	of Antioch, one of the most prominent theologians
	of the school of Antioch (q.v.), sad on the dog
	matic side its founder. After a general education
	at Athens he equipped himself as a theologian and
	orator by studying the writings of, and by personal
intercourse with Eusebius of Emesa.	His aim was
	twofold: to attain the fulness of ascetic perfection,
and to be a champion of the Church's faith. 	He
strove with all his energy to fulfil the monastic ideal, and the emperor Julian pointed to his wasted body as a proof of the displeasure of the gods. The state of the Church in Antioch called
Life and forth all his zeal as a presbyter. Not
Literary	only had Julian, who made his winter
	Activity.	quarters there after his return from
		the Persian campaign, restored the
temple of Apollo and used all his influence to win
the population back to paganism, but most of the
heretical sects were strong there. It was the center
of Arianism, and the Meletian schism had rent the
Church in two. Diodorus was the leading defender
of the Nicene faith. Naturally, therefore, his
writings, of which the later Syrian Church still
knew over sixty, were mainly controversial. They
were directed against all the principal enemies of
the Church, pagan, Jewish, and heretic. Of the
philosophers he especially combated Plato, Aris
totle, and Porphyry; among heretics the Man
icheans, Eunomiana, and Apollinarians, Sabel
hus, Marcellus, and Photinus. He employed, too,
a very practical churchly activity against both
pagans and Arians; and his success, while it raised
up bitter enemies for him, made his name honored
throughout the Eastern Church. Even as a lay
man, under Constantius, when the Arian Leontius
occupied the episcopal chair of Antioch, with his
friend Flavian, Diodorus had assembled the faithful
by night for worship. When the gentle Meletius
became bishop in 360 Diodorus supported him
vigorously and watched over the welfare of the
flock when the bishop was obliged by Arian enmity
to flee, and went from house to house strengthening
the devotion of the oppressed faithful. In 372 he
was forced to join the banished Meletius in Armenia.
Here he made friends with Basil the Great, and the
orthodoxy of Cappadocia and of Antioch joined
hands to insure the triumph of the Nicene faith.
Six years later he was consecrated bishop of Tarsus
by Meletius (378). In this capacity he took part
in the Council of Constantinople (381), and is said
to have brought about the choice of Nectarius as
patriarch. The council gave him metropolitan
jurisdiction over Cilicia. An imperial edict of 381
names him among the bishops who were to de
cide the question of Nicene orthodoxy and conse
quently of membership in the Catholic Church.
By a curious turn of fate, he who had been honored as a pillar of the true faith by his contemporaries fell under suspicion of heresy not forty years after his death, as a result of the Nestorian controversy. In his anxiety to vindicate the significance of the human element in the person of Christ and in the Scriptures, threatened by an overstrained idealism, in controversy with Apollinaris Diodorus had put forth a theory of the relation of the two natures in Christ Theological which seemed to dissolve the one
	Opinions.	divine‑human Person into two. Ac
		cording to the fragments still pre
served of the works called in question (" Against
the Synusiasts " and " On the Holy Spirit"), he
apparently distinguished between the Logos and
the Son of David, one the Son of God by nature,
the other by grace. Mary's son was not the Logos,

Diodorue
Dionysiua of Alexandria
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
but the man begotten of the Holy Spirit. Since the Logos is essentially perfect, what is read in Scripture (Luke ii. 52) of a development in the Savior can only relate to his humanity. The mystery of the Incarnation consists in the assumption of a perfect man by the Logos, and the relation of the two natures is that of the indwelling of the Logos in the man Jesus as in a temple. In consequence of this connection, the son of David may be called the Son of God, but only in a derived sense; adoration is due to the humanity of Christ, but only so long as the distinction of nature is borne in mind. The spirit of God dwelt also in the prophets, but only temporarily and in a smaller measure; in Christ he dwelt permanently and without measure. This ethic‑dynamic view, based on the teaching of Paul of Samosata and Lucian, did not, of course, content Greek piety and orthodoxy. When partizan zeal drove out Nestorianism as heresy the blow could not but react on the Christology of the older Antiochian theologians. Thus Cyril of Alexandria in several treatises demanded the condemnation of Diodorus and Theodore of Mopsuestia; but the whole Syrian Church rose up to vindicate its revered teacher, and an imperial edict put an end to the dangerous business.
	It was not till 499 that Bishop Flavian of Antioch,
hard pressed by the Monophysites, ventured to
pronounce an anathema on the writings of Diodorus
and Theodore. No such condemnation, however,
is	found in the acts of the fifth general council
(Second Constantinople, 553). But the suspicion
of heresy clung to Diodorus, and most of his works
perished. The Nestorians alone kept alive the
memory of the man and the theologian as long as
their own existence lasted. He must have been
of considerable force in exegesis, following out the
grammatico‑historical principles of his school in
a commentary covering nearly the whole Bible,
which was marked by philological learning, inde
pendence of dogmatic prejudice, careful distinction
of the Old and New Testament stages of revelation,
clearness, and sobriety. Only a few fragments are
scattered through the catenm; most of what re
mains is in MPG, xxxiii., but needs sifting.
Diodorus's mind was not creative, but one that
combined extensive learning with strongly marked
dialectic individuality. Even his opponents re
spected his zeal for the truth, and his life was with
out reproach. He has a special historical impor
tance from the fact that he trained for the Church
more than one of its prominent teachers. In his
school were matured the two great Greek Fathers
Theodore of Mopsuestia, in whom the theology of
Antioch reached its completest form, and John
Chrysostom. 	(A. HARNACg.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are Jerome, De roir. ill., chap. cxix.; Chrysostom, Laus Diodori; Socrates, Hiet. ecd., vi. 3;
Sozomen, Hist. ecd., viii. 2 (the two last‑named in NPNF,
2d series, vol. ii.); and Theodoret, Hist. eccl., iv. 22‑24
(in NPNF, vol. iii.). Consult: KL, iii. 1765‑68; DCB,
i. 836‑840.
DIOGNETUS, EPISTLE TO: An early Christian work, formerly preserved in a manuscript in the Strasburg Library, where it was included in a collection of the writings of Justin Martyr, with the heading
"His [Epistle] to Diognetus." The manuscript perished in the siege of Strasburg in 1870. A late copy of it still exists at Leyden, from which Stephanus published it in 1592, and Sylburg in 1593. According to Otto, the manuscript belonged to the thirteenth or fourteenth century, and had a good original, though the copy was somewhat carelessly made. What seems to be a considerable hiatus is observed in the seventh chapter, and the present conclusion is probably not the original one.
The letter is addressed to one Diognetus, in answer to his question how Christianity may be distinguished from paganism and Judaism, why it came so late into the world, and whence its disciples draw their courage and contempt of the world. In answer to the first question, the author considers paganism as mere crude idolatry, admitting that the Jews have the advantage of a pure knowledge of God, though their material sacrifices and trivial ceremonial law are as foolish as the heathen system. In the second part he describes the Christian worship and ethics, and in the third explains the late arrival of this revelation by God's will, to let the world see how helpless mere human powers were to win the heavenly crown. When the measure of their sins was full he revealed himself by the Incarnation of his son, who, though sinless, paid the penalty of sin, so that men, now justified, might trust in the fatherly goodness of God. Hence springs the love which raises Christians so far above worldly rewards or penalties, and the fraternal devotion which makes their life on earth a foretaste of heaven.
There is no mention of the letter in any ancient writer, though here and there, as in Tertullian's Apologeticus, some scholars have thought they saw allusions to passages of it. No one seems to have known of it until the edition of Stephanus, nor does the epistle contain any indications from which a satisfactory conjecture as to its date or authorship can be made. Its attribution to Justin was originally accepted, but Semisch has demonstrated that it can not be his. The language and literary style are too correct; the attitude of the letter toward both Judaism and paganism is not at all Justin's; and in its cosmology there is no trace of his favorite thought of the operation of the " spermatic logos " in the non‑Christian world.
There is less certainty, however, about the date of composition. While Semisch, Bunsen, and others adhered to Justin's period, attempts were made to throw it still farther back, with Ewald into the reign of Hadrian, or with Hefele into that of Trajan, or even into the first century. Hilgenfeld and Keim assign it to the second, and Zahn puts it between 250 and 310. A new stage of the investigation opened with the discovery of the " Apology " of Aristides, to which the letter stands in a secondary or derived relation, though not close enough for Aristides to have been the author, as Kriiger thought. This relation helps to clear the ground for a decision as to the date, placing it between that of the "Apology " (from 138 to 161, probably 147) and that of Constantine. Secberg is probably right when he supposes some time to have elapsed between the two works; and, on the other hand, the author of the Epistle does not seem to

437	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Diodorus
		Diony®ius of Alexandria
	have been through a general persecution. About
	the beginning of the third century, then, will be a
safe date.	The importance of the Epistle has been
much overestimated in the past.	Its rhetorical
	force and smoothness have possibly helped to evoke
	this enthusiasm, which, however, has in large
	measure disappeared; and it contributes scarcely
	anything to our knowledge of the history of dogma.
	(G. UHLHORNt.)
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: Good editions are by C. Otto, Leipsic, 1852;
	O. von Gebhardt and A. Harnack, Patrum apostoli
	corum opera I. ii. 154‑164, Leipsic, 1878; B. L. Gild
	ersleeve, in Apology of Justin Martyr, pp. 83‑94, New
	York, 1877; F. X. Funk, in Opera patrum apostoli
	corum, i. 310‑333, Tubingen, 1881. Eng. transl. may be
	found in B. Cooper, Free Church of Ancient Christendom,
	London, 1852, and in ANF, i. 25‑30. A list of literature
	is given in ANF, Index vol., pp. 5‑7. Consult: C. G.
	Semisch, Justin Martyr, i. 172 aqq., Breslau, 1840, Eng.
	transl., i. 84‑193, Edinburgh, 1832; C. K. J. Bunsen,
	Hippolytus, i. 138 sqq, Leipsic, 1852, Eng. tranal., Lon
	don, 1852; G. H. H. Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel,
	vii. 250 aqq., G6ttingen, 1868; F. Overbeek, Ueber den
	Pseudo‑juatinianischen Brief an Dioynet, Basel, 1872;
	A. Hilgenfeld, ZWT, xvi (1873), 270‑286; T. Keim, in
	Protestantiache Kirchenzeitunp, 1873, pp. 285‑289, 309
	314; T. Zahn, GGA, 1873, pp. 106‑116; H. Kibn, Der Ur
	sprung des Briefs an Diopnet, Freiburg, 1882; J. A. Rob
	inson, in TS, i. 1 (1891), 95‑97; Kriiger, History, pp. 135
	137; idem, in ZWT, xxxvii (1894), 206‑223; KL, iii.
1774‑78; DCB, ii. 162‑167.
DIONYSIUS, dai"o‑nish'i‑us : Pope	259‑268.
	During the pontificate of Stephen (254‑257) he
	took part in the controversy about heretical bap
	tism, with his fellow presbyter Philemon address
ing a letter to Dionysius of Alexandria.	Elected
	bishop on July 22, 259, the edict of toleration of
	Gallienus soon enabled him to bring the Roman
Church into order.	He had a share in dogmatic
	development through his further dealings with his
	namesake of Alexandria, who had already been in
	communication with Sixtus II. concerning Sabel
	lianism, and had been led by his zeal against this
	heresy to use expressions which seemed to reduce
Christ to the position of a creature.	Some Egyptian
	clergy brought the matter before Dionysius of
	Rome, who dealt with it in a synod and gave out a
	dogmatic pronouncement, of which a large section
	is preserved by Athanasius (" On the Council of
Nicaea," xxvi.).	It was no doubt addressed to
	Egyptian or Libyan bishops, and attacked the
	Sabellian teaching on one side, while on the other
it rebuked anti‑Sabellian extremes.	At the same
	time he wrote to his namesake asking him to clear
	himself of the charges made against him, which
	resulted in the well‑known "Retractations" of
	Dionysius of Alexandria (q.v.). Dionysius of Rome
	also wrote a letter of condolence to the Church of
	Cwsarea in Cappadocia when it was attacked by
	the Goths about 264, and sent representatives to
ransom captive Christians.	His name appears with
	that of Maximus of Alexandria, the successor of
	Dionysius, at the head of the bishops to whom the
	last council held in Antioch against Paul of Samo
	sata addressed its synodical epistle (Eusebius,
Hist. eccl., VII. xxx.).	(A. HAUCK.)
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: Liber pontilCCalis, ed. Duchesne, i. 157,
	Paris, 1886, ed. Mommsen, in MGH, Gest. Pont. Rom.,
	i (1898), 36; R. A. Lipsius, Chronolopie der rlmischen
	Bischofe, Kiel, 1869; J. Langen, Geschichte der r6mischen
Kirche, pp. 353, Bonn, 1881; Bower, Popes, i 35‑37; Milman, Latin Christianity, i. 91; Neander, Christian Church, i. 606‑$10, ii. 404; Schaff, Christian Church, ii. 570‑571.
DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA (called the Great)
Bishop of Alexandria; d. 264. A pupil of Origen,
though but little younger than his teacher, he
succeeded Heraclas in 231 or 232 as head of the
catechetical school of Alexandria, and became
bishop in 247 or 248. The Decian persecution
soon fell upon him (250). Attempting to escape,
he was arrested, but was unexpectedly set at
liberty. He next appears writing to Novatian in
the hope of restraining him, and his inclination
toward mildness in discipline comes out in other
letters. He took a similar conciliatory position in
the controversy on heretic baptism; his own prin
ciples placed him on the Roman side, but he re
spected the views of his opponents and was un
willing to break off communion with them. In the
persecution under Valerian (257) he was banished,
first to Kephron in Libya and then to Holluthion in
the Mareotis district, and returned to Alexandria
only after the edict of Gallienus (260), to suffer
further trials from revolt, plague, and famine, of
which he has left a vivid picture (in Eusebius,
Hist. eccl., vii. 22). In the spirit of the Alexan
drian school, he assisted in the overthrow of Mil
lenarianism. In the Trinitarian controversy he
endeavored to uphold the Origenistic position as
far as possible, but was carried beyond it by the
course of the controversy and his own logic. His
letters against Sabellianism contained expressions
which were thought to decide in a contrary direction,
and gave rise to accusations brought against him
before Dionysius of Rome, to whom he justified
himself in four books, partly explaining away or
retracting the expressions complained of, and
partly taking refuge in vague language. Before
his death he took a decided stand against Paul of
Samosata by letter, since his age and infirmity pre
vented him from attending the synod at Antioch.
He was the most important of the disciples of
Origen, and a worthy representative of the older
Alexandrian school, though not enough of an inde
pendent thinker to understand and guide the doc
trinal tendencies of his time. His importance in
exegesis, after the manner of Origen, is shown by
his short critical comparison of the Gospel and
Revelation of John, undertaken with the purpose of
demonstrating a diversity of authorship, and con
sidered by some modern writers a still unsurpassed
treatment of the question. The most important
remains of his literary activity are his letters, which
include at least six on the treatment of the Lapsed
(q. v.), at least eight on the schism of Novatian, at least
eight on heretic baptism, at least four on Sabellian
ism, a long series of annual Easter letters, and a
number to individuals. Only fragments of certaln
letters are preserved, although Dionysius was the
chief source used by Eusebius for the middle of the
third century. 	(A. HARNACg.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Fragments of Dionysiua are collected in M. J. Routh, Reliquice Sacroe, iii. 219‑250, iv. 393‑437, Oxford, 1846, and in MPG, x. Also, Letters and Remains of Dionysius of Alexandria, ed. C. L. Feltoe, Cambridge,
1904. Eng, tranal. is in ANF, vi. 81‑120.Literature is

Dionysine the Areopsete	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	438
given in ANP, Bibliography, pp. 88‑88. Sours are: Jerome, De vir. ill., chap. lma.; Athanasius, De sentenhis Dionysii; Eusebiue, Riot. ecd., vi. 40 aqq. (cf. especially NPNP, 2d series, i. 281, note). Consult: F. Dittrieh. Dionysius der Grosse, Freiburg, 1867; T. Fbrster, De dodrina et aententiis Dionyeii, Berlin, 1865; Krtlger, History, pp. 205‑215; Harnack, Lilteratur, i. 409‑427, 11. ii. 57‑66 et passim; Neander, Christian Church, vols. f.‑ii. passim; Schaff, Christian Church, ii. 800‑803; DCB, i. 850‑852; RL, iii. 1780‑89.

DIOIMIUS THE AREOPAGITE.
Writings Ascribed to Dionysius (1 1). Proofs of .Late Origin (¢ 2). Doctrine of the Soul (¢ 3). Doctrine of First Person of Trinity (§ 4). Doctrine of the Universe (1 5). Doctrine of the Son (§ 6). Doctrine of the Church (¢ 7).
Dionysiua the Areopagite was converted to Christianity by the sermon of Paul at Athens (Acts xvii. 34). According to Fusebius (Hilt. etxl., iii. 4, iv. 23) and the Apostolic Constitutions (vii. 46), he was the first bishop of Athens; a later tradition affirms that he suffered martyrdom there. His importance in church history depends upon the ascription to him of a series of remarkable writings in Greek, probably belonging to the fifth or sixth century, entitled " On the Heavenly r. Writings Hierarchy," " On the Ecclesiastical Ascribed to Hierarchy," " On the Names of God," Dionysius. and " On Mystical Theology," and ten letters, all evidently belonging to the same author. At the conference held in Constantinople (533), at the instance of Justinian, between the orthodox and the Severians, the latter quoted, among other ecclesiastical authorities, Dionysius the Areopagite against the Council of Chalcedon; and when the orthodox objected that Athanasius and Cyril certainly would have used such an authority against Nestorius, if he had existed and been known to them, the Severians asserted that Cyril had actually quoted the works of Dionysius in his books against Diodorus of Tarsus and 'Theodore of Mopsueatia, as might be seen from the copies of those books in the libraries of Alexandria. This is the first certain citation of the works supposed to be written by Dionysius, but after that time they are frequently mentioned. Severus himself, Monophysite patriarch of Antioch 512‑518, often quotes them, as does Ephraem, orthodox patriarch of Antioch 527‑545. Commentaries upon them were written by John of Scythopolis about 530, Sergius of Resaina (d. 536) translated them into Syriac, and Leontiua of Byzantium cited Dionysius. In the Western Church Gregory the Great is the first who refers to these writings (Hom., xxxiv.); but when the Byzantine emperor Michael the Stammerer sent a copy of them to Louis the Pious in 827 they soon became better known; and after the invention of Abbot Hilduin, combining Dionysius the Areopagite and St. Denis, the patron saint of the Franks, in one person (see DENIS, SAINT), they became quite celebrated. Johannes Scotus Erigena translated them into Latin at the instance of Charles the Bald, and was himself deeply influenced by them. In the Western Church, among the achoolmen, the Areopaeite became a guide to mysticism
and mystical theology. Hugo of St. Victor, Albertus Magnus, Dionysius the Carthusian, and others drew their inspiration from him. Corderius has shown how much, for instance, Thomas Aquinas owes to the Areopagite. The Platonists of the Italian Renaissance also appreciated him highly, as did other humanists, like John Colet.
The development, however, of literary criticism (under Laurentius Valla, Erasmus, and others) inevitably destroyed, first, the invention of Hilduin (the identification of Dionysius and St. Denis), and, second, the assumption of authorship in apostolic times. The internal evidences of a later date, besides the total absence of mention or quotation till the conference of Constantinople (533), were conclusive. The most decisive inter2. Proofs of nal evidences are: the difference beLate tween the pompous and inflated style
	Origin.	of the writings and the simplicity of
		the apostolic age; the use of theological
terms which were not formed until the fourth cen
tury; references to an elaborately developed church
ritual and church government; allusions to later
persons and events, as, for instance, to the martyr
dole of Ignatius and to " Clement the Philoso
pher " (Clement of Alexandria); and appeals to
" ancient traditions." The defense of Roman
Catholic theologians and the attempted vindication
of the authorship of Dionysius the Areopagite were
demolished by Dailld and Le Nourry.
The question then arose, By whom and at what time were these works written? A number of hypotheses were proffered, differing as widely as that of Baumgarten‑Crusius, placing the author at Alexandria in the third century, and that of Westcott, placing him at Edessa at the beginning of the sixth century. The general outcome of critical inquiry is that the philosophical, and more especially the mystical, ideas expounded in these books presuppose the later development of Neoplatonism which was due to Proclus; and, as Proclus died 485, the date of the books seems to coincide nearly with the date of their first notice.
Dionysius distinguishes between a cataphatic (affirmative or positive) theology, in which truth is presented under the garb of a symbol of history, or of the traditionary teaching of the Church, and an apophatic (negative) theology, which dispenses with such media, in which also the initiated rises by contemplation or in the ecstatic 3. Doctrine state to an immediate view of things of the Soul. divine. He distinguishes a direct movement of the soul, when its knowledge is conditioned by the various things outside of it; a spiral movement, when it aspires to penetrate divine knowledge by discursive thinking; and a circular movement, when it guides its united power to the Deity (" Names of God," iv. 9). Under the influence of deity it surrenders itsown thinking and arrives at a condition of Ecstasy (q.v.) and the mystic view of God. There is here a strong resemblance to the teachings of Philo and the Neoplatonista.
Dionysius believes in the dogma of the Trinity, but his chief interest centers in the Father. The Father is for him the sole source of transcendent divinity; Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the off‑

439	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Dionyeius the Areopagite
spring, bloom, and transcendent light (" Names of God," ii. 5, 7). The being of God per se, his real essence, can not be expressed, since it transcends all qualities. The Deity includes every perfection; it
is the cause and essence of all being,
4. Doctrine and yet it is above all being; it is
of First without quality, yet transcends the
Person of highest conception of goodness; with‑
Trinity. out a name, yet including every name.
The highest principle is neither sensuous nor spiritual, has or is neither representation nor understanding nor reason, is neither One, deity, nor goodness, and yet is neither without essence nor without life, understanding or reason, since the negations also have to be denied. Just as apophatic theology, proceeding from the broad variety of things, by negation ascends to the highest cause and to mystic unity with the unspeakable, so cataphatic theology proceeds from above and descends to the variety of creatures. Accordingly God becomes sun, star, fire, water, and all being; as the all‑comprehensive cause he is all in all because the cause has anticipated everything in itself. He is all in all, and yet not anything in any one thing. But not everything may be affirmed or denied of him in an equal degree. He is life and goodness in a more pregnant sense than light or star, and such affections as intoxication (Ps. lxxviii. 65, LXX.) or fits of anger are to be denied of him in a higher degree than the statements that he can be expressed or cognized.
But all being has proceeded from the nature of God. All emanation of being has its original exemplar in the development of the divine first cause into the hypostases of the Trinity; all fatherhood and sonship of godlike spirits and even of human beings proceeds from the original fatherhood and original sonahip. The participation of all things
in being is at the same time a partici‑
g. Doctrine pation in the good and the beautiful of the which is one with true being; the
Universe. transcendent good and beautiful is the
cause of all goodness and beauty and of all participation in the good and the beautiful (" Names of God," iv. 1 sqq.); but between cause and effect there is not the relation of entire equality. Here Dionysius shares Proclus's view concerning evil according to which all existing things have no real being, but are only privation, want, diminution of the good, since all being as such is good. If therefore the universe appears on the one hand as the product of the good, it is on the other hand also the product of the differentiating negation which penetrates the unity of the absolute. But this negation does not exist for God because in him all differences are done away with. God knows evil as good, and before him the causes of evil are powers working for the good (" Names of God," iv. 20). Correspondingly, the universe is placed under the view‑point of existence in God as first cause; and also, as being finite and separate, under the viewpoint of striving toward God as the basis and aim of all creatures (" Names of God," i. 5, cf. " Heavenly Hierarchy," iv. 1). These two points of view find their expression especially in the doctrine concerning the hierarchy of being. Dionysius assumes
descending derivation of the chain of beings, and a mediation for the ascension of all creatures toward unity with God. The highest spiritual beings, the angels, are in the antechamber, so to speak, of the transcendent Trinity, and have from it and in it their existence and likeness to God (" Names of God," v. 8). They are good and communicate their goodness to those below them (iv. 1). The hierarchy of angels contains three divisions: (1) seraphim, cherubim, thrones; (2) dominions, powers, forces; (3) principalities, archangels, angels.
The system of the heavenly hierarchy is followed by that of the earthly or rather ecclesiastical hierarchy. Here Dionysius has interwoven with his doctrine concerning the hierarchies the idea of redemption as a historical fact. God is salvation and redemption in so far as he not only guards the existing things from falling into nothingness, but also in so far as he redeems that which has departed from the right and suffered a diminution of goodness by an abuse of freedom of the will (ib. iv. 18). Dionysius looks upon the institutions of the Church as mysteries, " Jesus " is the cause of everything; he is the transcendent cause of the superheavenly beings (" Heavenly Hierarchy," iv. 4); in regard to his activity in the world, he is the transcendent One, the Logos, the principle of all hierarchy and theurgy. But the influence of Jesus upon the lower spheres is not like that of the angels. He
6. Doctrine became man; he subsisted among us
of the Son. perfect and without change (" Names of God," ii. 3). By stepping into earthly reality, the transcendent was not abolished or subjected to any change. The nature of Jesus became really and truly human, and he participated in all human conditions; but in physical conditions he was superphysical and under the conditions of being he was above being by possessing all human qualities, yet in a transcendent manner. Thus Dionysius depicts him as walking upon the sea because he was not subject to the laws of gravity. It is evident from the above that the incarnation of Jesus was not reduced to a mere semblance; but the divine in Christ assumes such a human reality that the human is elevated above itself and deified.
The Gospel is the announcement that God according to his goodness has descended to us and makes us like himself by uniting us with himself. Men had departed from true life and surrendered to evilminded demons. According to secret (oral) tradition, Christ has broken the power of the demons over us, not by an act of might, but by a forensic negotiation with the devil, the head of the demons. But every effect of salvation is conditioned for each one by submitting to the sanctions of ecclesiastical hierarchy which, like the heavenly hierarchy, proceeds fromthedivine Noes as the principle of all hierarchy and divine efficacy, whose aim is love to God and to the divine, knowl‑
7. Doctrine edge of being, vision, union, and
of the deification. While the sanctions of Church. material spirits secure pure and immediate knowledge of God, man needs symbolic veilings. The hierarchy of Old Testament law educated by means of obscure pictures

Dionysfus the Areops,gite Dionysius Eaiguus
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
and riddles for the spiritual service of God, and found its fulfilment in ecclesiastical hierarchy which stands midway between the heavenly and the legal and is based chiefly upon Scripture and tradition. The apostles were bound to communicate the super sensuous in sensuous pictures because man needs sensuous mediation. In every hierarchic transaction there are to be distinguished (1) the holy consecrations, (2) officiants, (3) candidates for consecration. The consecrating acts are (a) baptism, the symbol of regeneration which consists in cleansing and illumination; (b) communion, the symbol of the fact that Jesus unites us in his original divine unity, for illumination leads to union; (c) unction as completing communion. The estate of the officiants consists of three grades: (a) hierarch (i.e., bishop), (b) hiereus (priest‑presbyter), (c) liturgist (i.e., deacon); the last performs the purifying acts of the hierarchy, the second the illuminating acts, and the first the completing acts. In the order of the consecrated there are distinguished (a) the lowest who under the supervision of the liturgist are first to be purified; (b) those that are illuminated, Christian laymen, guided by the priests; (c) the therapeutai, i.e., monks who by the hierarchy are guided to perfection and lead a life solely devoted to the One.
Dionysius was of decisive importance in the change of the Anatolian Church into a cult of mysteries in that he created its systematic basis. It was he who first expressed coherently those thoughts which afterward shaped the Christianity of that Church, the characteristic, features of which were desire for learning and especially participation in the mysteries. (N. BONWETSCH.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The editio princeps was issued in Florence, 1516; the whole works, with the Scholia of Maximus and Pachymerus are in MPG, iii. iv. The " Mystical Theology," best edition by B. Corderius, with notes, Antwerp, 1634, reissued with enlarged notes, 2 vols., Venice, 17551756. The edition by John Colet of" The Heavenly Hierarchy " and " The Eccl. Hierarchy " with Colet's treatises was reissued and translated by J. H. Lupton, London, 1869; the Works were translated by J. Parker, ib. 1897. The fabulous Acta sancti Dionyaii Areopagitoe, with commentary, are in ASB, Oct., iv. 696‑797.
Consult: J. G. V. Engelhardt, De origine acriptorum Areopapita, Erlangen, 1823; idem, De origine scriptorum Dionysii, ib. 1823; E. von Muralt, Beitrtige zur alten Litteratur, Dionysius Areopagita, 8t. Petersburg, 1844; F. Hipler, Dionysiua der Areopagiter, Regensburg, 1861 (an epoch‑making work); J. Niemeyer, Dionysius Areopagita, Halle, 1869; J. Fowler, The Works of Dionysius especially in Reference to Christian Art, London, 1872; J. Draseke, in ZWT, 1882, pp. 300 sqq.; C. M. Schneider, Areopagitica, Regensburg, 1884 (defends authenticity); A. L. Frothingham, Stephen berSudaili. The Syrian Mystic and the Book of Hierotheos, Leyden, 1886; R. Foss, Ueber den Abt Hilduin von St. Denys unit Dionysius Areopagita, Berlin, 1886; H. Koch, in TQ, 1895, pp. 353 sqq.; N. Nilles, in ZKT, 1896; Neander, Christian Church, vols. ii. iv. passim; Harnack, Dogma, vols. i., iii.‑vi. passim, see Index; DCB, i. 841‑848 (a noteworthy article); KL, iii. 1789‑96.

DIONYYSIUS THE CARTHUSIAN (Dionysius van Leeuwen or Leuwis): Monk, ascetic, and theologian; b. at Rickel (40 m. e. of Brussels), Limburg, Belgium, 1402 or 1403; d. at ROermonde (45 m. n.w. of Cologne), Limburg, Holland, Mar. 21, 1471. Before he was twenty‑one he obtained the dignity of magister at Cologne, and entered the Carthusian
440
monastery of Roermonde. Complying with the strictest rules of his order or rather surpassing them, he continued his studies with indefatigable zeal and was‑highly honored by his contemporaries. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, when traveling through Germany as legate took him in 1451 as his companion (cf. F. A. Scharpff, Der Kardinal and Bischof 1Vicolaus von Cusa, p. 176, Mainz, 1843; J. M. Diix, Der deutsche Cardinal Nicolaus von Cusa, ii. 28, Regensburg, 1848). In 1459 Dionysius succeeded in bringing about a reconciliation between Duke Arnold of Gelderland and his rebellious son Adolphus. With great difficulties he founded the Carthusian monastery at Herzogenbusch between 1466 and 1469. The last years of his life he spent at Roermonde.
Dionysius is one of the most serious representatives of the Reformation of religious and ecclesiastical conditions in the fifteenth century. Heart and soul a monk, he practised asceticism and found his highest enjoyment in the ecstatic state. He was also one of the most learned theologians of his time, had an accurate knowledge of ecclesiastical affairs, and was an author of much versatility and productiveness. The list of his works (Opera, i., l.‑lxx.) shows 187 titles, and the complete edition, it is estimated, will fill thirty volumes without the supplements. But he had no creative mind. His scientific labors are mostly rich collections of what others said before him with criticisms. His style is clear and simple. Of least importance are his voluminous exegetical works, which comprise the entire Scriptures. Of greater importance is his commentary on Peter Lombard, though here too the collection and criticism of different opinions is the main object. Without being a Thomist, Dionysius often gives preference to Thomas Aquinas, but he often differs from him where he follows Aristotle in favor of Neoplatonic‑Dionysian conception, and shows in general an inclination toward mysticism. An independent exhibition of Christian doctrine is contained in the two books De lumine Christians theorim. Other dogmatic and apologetic writings are mentioned by Zockler, 648 sqq. Ethics Dionysius treated not only in a Summa de virtutibus et vitiis, but also in a series of writings on the different states. What is here treated separately he collects with special reference to its application in preaching, in the two books De regulis vitro christianorum. The many orations which are extant from him show that he was also actively engaged in preaching. Some of his writings are especially given to the devotion to Mary, in which he is as enthusiastic as Thomas a Kempis and others f his contemporaries. His mysticism produced anectensive commentary on Dionysius Areopagita and Johannes Climacus, besides some independent works, as In flammatorium divini amoris, De meditatione, and others. Not a few of his writings are devoted to ecclesiastic reformatory efforts, as (besides the lost De deformatione et reformatione ecclesim) De reformations claustralium; De auctoritate generalium conciliorum; De doctrina scholarium, etc. His reformatory ideas are on the whole the same as those of Gerson, whom he highly esteems. He is far removed from

441	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Dionysius the Areopagite
		Dionysius Exiguus
tile thought that anything should be changed in the doctrine or general cultus and regulations of the Church, but for outwardly conspicuous defects, like frivolity, religious indifference, immorality in general, neglect of duty, ignorance and worldliness, especially of the priests, he has not only an open eye, but also a just appreciation. From the cooperation of the pope and an ecumenical council he expects the remedy. He assumes that the council in its proper duties, vii., of deciding controversial points of doctrine, of proceeding against a heretical pope or against one who gives too much offense, certainly stands above the latter; on the other hand, he yields to the pope a regular right of supervision over the Church as a whole, and says that in the things " wherein the papal rule and office is supreme the pope stands above a council and above all the Church " (De auct. gen. conch., i. 27). Considering the ecclesiastical position of Dionysius and the character of his writings, it is easy to understand how in the sixteenth century they were appreciated as very timely and promotive of a conservative reform in opposition to the Reformation. On this account most of them were published at that time at Cologne by Loer and Blomevenna, and were often reprinted. A complete edition of his works was commenced at Montreuil in 1896 under the title, Doctoris ecstatici Dionysii Cartusiani opera omnia in unum digesta ad idem editionum Coloniensium curs et labore monachorum S. Ordinis Cartusiensis, 30 vols., 1896‑1905, of which all but vols. xxv.‑xxvi. have appeared. S. M. DEUTSCH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The chief source is the biography by Dietrich von Loer, Cologne, 1530, reprinted with notes in ASB, March, ii. 245‑255. Modern lives are by: Welters, Roermonde, 1882; D. A. Mougel, Montreuil, 1896. Consult also: W. Moll, Johannes Brugmann, i. 70‑81, Amsterdam, 1854; K. Werner, Die Scholaetik des ,pateren Mittelalters, IV. i. 134‑137, 206‑262, Vienna, 1887; O. Z&ckler, in TSK, Iviii. (1881), 648 sqq.; KL, iii. 1801‑07.
DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH: Greek bishop. He was a contemporary of Soter of Rome (165‑173 or 167‑175), and was the author of epistles to various congregations. Among these letters Eusebius (Hist. eccl., iv. 23) mentions the following: (1) to the LacedIEmonlanS, with exhortations to peace and unity; (2) to the Athenians, urging them to hold fast to the faith and to live according to the Gospel; (3) to the Nicomedians, with polemics against the 11larcionite heresy; (4) to the congregation at Gortyna and the other Cretan churches, with a eulogy of piety and steadfastness; (5) to the congregation of Amastris and the other churches in Pontus; (6) to the Cnossians with admonitions against extreme asceticism; (7) to the Romans, with thanks for gifts and an admonition; (8) to Chrysophora. Four fragments of the epistle to the Romans have been preserved by Eusebius (ii. 21, iv. 23), and their contents bear eloquent testimony to the authority of the Roman Church. The admonition mentioned in (7) is identified by Harnack with the second epistle of Clement.
G. It,RCGER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The fragments of Dionysius's works are collected in M. J. Routh, Reliquia Sacra=, i. 175‑201, Oxford, 1846, and translated in ANF, viii. 765 sqq. For his life consult: Eusebius. Hist. eccl., iv. 22 sqq. (in NPNF, 2d series, i. 200 sqq., note 1); B. F. Westcott, Hist. o/
Canon of N. T., pp. 185‑190, London, 1855; [W. R. Cassels], Supernatural Religion, i. 218, 295, ii. 163‑171, London, 1874‑75; Neander, Christian Church, iii. 467, iv. 382; Harnaek, Geschichte, i. 235‑236, II. i. 313; Kriiger, History, pp. 156‑157; DCB, i. 849‑850; KL, iii. 1798‑1800.
DIONYSIUS EXIGUUS (°` Dionysius the Little"): One of the most conspicuous men of the Latin Church in the sixth century; d. in Rome before 544. He was a Scythian by birth, came to Rome toward the end of the fifth century and became a monk there. Later authors call him an abbot. From the description given by his friend Cassiodorus (Institutiones, i. 23) he must have been a master in all monastic virtues, as his self‑chosen surname indicates. He had also the polish of a man of the world, took great interest in learning, and was a famous teacher. He was in conflict with the popes of his time and was received into the peace of the Church only after his death. Probably he had associations with the " Scythian monks " who in 519 or 520 brought to Rome the so‑called theopaschitic formula (see THEOPASCHITES). His chief importance rests on the fact that by translations he acquainted the West with Greek learning. Both his Greek birth and his position in Rome fitted him for that service. His works are: (1) A collection of canons in two recensions, containing the fifty apostolic canons, the canons of Nicwa, Ancyra, Neo‑Cwsarea, Gangra, Antioch, Laodicea, and Constantinople, the twenty‑seven canons of Chalcedon (xxviii.‑xx‑x. are wanting), the twenty‑one canons of Sardica, and the decisions of Carthage of 419. The two recensions differ by different positions of the canons of Chalcedon and a more complete version of the acts of Carthage in the second redaction. Cassiodorus testifies to the use of the collection in the Church of Rome. The first recension was edited by C. H. Turner in Ecclesitr, occidentalis monumenta, i. (Oxford, 1899) ; the second is in MPL, lxvii. (see CANON law, II., 3, § 3). (2) A collection of decretals containing an epistle of Siricius, twenty‑one epistles of Innocent I., one by Zozimus, four belonging to the time of Boniface I., three by Celestine I., seven by Leo I., one by Gelasius, and one by Anastasius I. This collection also was soon made use of by the popes, and is first referred to in 534. (3) The "Easter Table," a continuation of the ninety‑five‑year Easter‑table of Cyril of Alexandria, which ended with 531. Dionysius took up the work in 525, repeated the last nineteen‑year cycle of Cyril and added five others from 532. Hereby he introduced into the Latin Church the Alexandrian Easter computation, which had been customary in the East since the Council of Nicaea, while the West had till then followed the cycle of Victor, and thus he promoted not a little the unity of the Church. He won popularity by numbering the years not from the era of Diocletian, the impious persecutor of the Christians, but " from the Incarnation of the Lord." He placed the birth of Christ on Dec. 25, 754 a.u.c., and Afar. 25 of the same year he took as the day of the Incarnation (see ERA). His Eastercyclewassoon adopted by Rome, gradually also in other parts of Italy. Toward the end of the sixth century it was used in Gaul, and by the eighth century had come into

Dioscurns	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	449
Disciples of Christ
general use in the British Church. Dionysius also
translated letters and writings of Proterius of
Alexandria, Proclus of Constantinople, Gregory of
Nyssa, Marcellus of Emesa, Cyril of Alexandria,
the Vita of Pachomius, and perhaps other works to
which he was attracted by learned or ascetic inter
ests. His works are in MPL, Ixvii. H. ACHELIB.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: L. Ideler, Handbush der . . Chronolopfia,
Vol. ii.. Berlin, 1828; F. Mamsen, GsaAichk der Quslten
and der Litteratur lee kanoniseAen &whte, i. 130 eqq., 422
eqq., Gras, 1870; F. Rtihl, Chronolopie, pp. 129 sqq.,
Berlin, 1897; DCB, i. 853‑864 (noteworthy).
DIOSCURUS: Antipope 530. See BomFAcH II.
DIOSCURUS OF ALEXANDRIA. See EuTYcHIANISM.
DI PIETRO, df pt‑6'tro, ANGELO: Cardinal; b. at Vivaro (near Tivoli), Italy, May 26, 1828. He studied at Rome, became vicar‑general of the diocese of Tivoli, and was consecrated titular bishop of Nyasa in 1866 and appointed bishop coadjutor of Ostia and Velletri. In 1877 he was made titular archbishop of Nazianzum and appointed apostolic delegate to the Argentine Republic. He was then internuncio at Rio de Janeiro (1879‑82) and nuncio at Munich (1882‑87) and Madrid (18871893). He was created cardinal priest of Santi Alessio a Bonifacio in 1893, and shortly afterward was appointed prefect of the Congregation of the Council, while in 1902 he became prefect of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, and prodatarius five months later.
DIPPEL, JOHANN KONRAD (Democritus Christianus): German Pietist and alchemist; b. at Frankenstein (5 m. a. of Darmstadt) Aug. 10, 1673; d. at the castle of Wittgenstein (24 m. n.w. of Marburg) Apr. 25, 1734. At the age of sixteen he entered the University of Giessen and there rapidly gained note as an acute and fervid champion of orthodoxy against the rising influence of the Pietists, actuated in his course, however, more by the honor which the orthodox then enjoyed than by conviction. In after‑days he ascribed to all adherents of the orthodox system the same insincerity of which he had been guilty. In 1693 he took his master's degree and for a time lived as a tutor in the Odenwald, continuing his polemic against the Pietists and hoping for a professorship at Giessen. Meeting with the coldest treatment from the authorities there, however, he went to Wittenberg, where his fortunes proved no better. At Strasburg his views made it impossible for him to establish any connection with the university, but he passed some time there lecturing on astrology and palmistry, preaching frequently in a spirit that showed the growing influence of Pietism, and leading a life which ultimately sent him back to his native place, a fugitive from his creditors. Now openly professing the tenets of Pietism, though with mercenary motives, he preached repeatedly before the court at Darmstadt, and in 1697 published at Giessen his satirical Orthodoxia orthodoxorum. At this time, however, occurred his sincere conversion to Pietism through the instrumentality of Gottfried Arnold (q.v.), whom he met at Giessen, and it is a testimonial to his final sincerity that he did not hesitate to sacrifice his chances for
a professorship at the university by the publication of the work just mentioned.
	With characteristic energy he devoted himself to
the service of his new faith and, taking the de
struction of orthodoxy as his mission, entered upon
a fierce polemic that speedily made him famous.
In 1698 appeared his Papismua Protestantium va
pulan8 and this was followed in the course of the
next two years by no less than fourteen controver
sial writings in which, with skilful variation, he
expounded the same theme of morals versus dog
ma, Christianity versus ecclesiasticism, and ortho
praxy versus orthodoxy. Embracing Arnold's
views of church history, Dippel carried them to an
extreme, and his pamphlets were naturally more
popular than Arnold's heavy tomes. His views
subjected him to persecution from the clergy and
even from the mob. by whom his life was threat
ened. In 1702 the Consistory forbade him to pub
lish any writings of a theological nature. After
1704 he lived in Berlin, devoted to researches in
alchemy and deluded at one time by the conviction
that he had solved the problem of transmutation.
The discovery of Prussian blue was the accidental
result of his studies. He was driven from Berlin
through the machinations of J. F. Mayer, an in
veterate enemy of the Pietists, and fled to KSst
ritz, which the princes of the line of Reuss had
made a refuge for adherents of the new movement.
Thence he went to Holland, lived for some time
near Amsterdam, and after 1711 practised medi
cine at Leyden, bringing into therapeutic use the
oil known by his name. His theological interests,
however, were not neglected. He wrote the Fatum
fatuum (Amsterdam, 1710) in defense of the free
dom of the will against the teachings of the Car
tesians, and in 1714 published at Amaterdwn the
Alea belli Muaelmannici. In the same year he re
moved to Altona, in Sleswiek‑Holstein, where he
lived until 1717 in honored peace. By an impru
dent incursion into politics he aroused the hatred
of high officials at court, and in 1719 was con
demned to perpetual imprisonment. The full rigor
of the sentence was not carried out, though for
seven years he lived in semiconfinement on the
island of Bornholm engaged in the practise of medi
cine. Released in 1726, he went to Sweden,
plunged into politics, and was utilized by the nobles
as an effective instrument against the hierarchy.
He finally became physician to King Frederick 1.
In this position he did not neglect to promulgate
his religious views, which, represented in final
form in his Vera demonstratio evangelica (Frank
fort, 1729) and making rapid progress in the coun
try, aroused the clergy and brought about his
Banishment. Returning to Germany, he took up
his residence at Liebenberg, near Goslar, and con
tinued his studies in alchemy. Though he ab
stained entirely from theological controversy, the
clergy compelled him to flee, and he found refuge
with the count of Wittgenstein‑Berleburg. His last
years were largely taken up by a violent contro
versy with Zinzendorf over the nature of the Atone
ment. 	(F. Boasx.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The one book is W. Bender. Johann Kon‑
rad Dippel, Bonn, 1882.

443
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
DIPTYCHS. See LIBER VITA.

DISCIPLES OF CHRIST.
Origin (§ I).		Doctrinal Teaching (§ 2).
	Statistics (§ 3).
The Disciples of Christ, or Christians, are a body of believers which dates as a distinct organization from the early part of the nineteenth century. In different parts of the United States teachers arose simultaneously among the religious denominations who pleaded for the Bible alone without human addition in the form of creeds or formulas of faith, and for the union of Christians of every name upon the basis of the apostles' teaching. James O'Kelly (q.v.) and others in Virginia and North Carolina, Barton W. Stone (q.v.) and his coadjutors in Kentucky, Walter Scott in Ohio, the Campbells in West Virginia (see CAMPBELL, ALEXANDER)‑mmisters of different denominations, unknown to each other, lifted up their voices against divisions in the
body of Christ. In Aug., 1809, Thomas
I. Origin. Campbell, a Presbyterian minister in
Washington County, Pa., formed " The Christian Association of Washington," and in September of the same year issued a remarkable Declaration and Address, deploring the tendencies of party spirit among Christians and the enforcement of human interpretations of God's Word in place of the pure doctrine of Christ. Commencing with the admitted truth that the Gospel was designed to reconcile and unite men to God and to each other, the address proceeded to consider the sad divisions that existed, and their baleful effects in the angry contentions, enmities, excommunications, and persecutions which they engendered; it set forth the object of the association "to come firmly and fairly to original ground and take up things just as the apostles left them," that, " disentangled from the accruing embarrassments of intervening ages," they might " stand upon the same ground on which the Church stood at the beginning."
The principles of this address were cordially indorsed by Alexander Campbell, and in the following year (1810) he began publicly to urge them. The first organization was formed May 4, 1811, at Brush Run, Pa., with twenty‑nine members; in 1813 this church united with the Redstone, and ten years after with the Mahoning Baptist Association. In 1823 Mr. Campbell began publishing the Christian Baptist, and his teachings began to attract universal attention. Opposition was aroused and his views were denounced as heterodox, but large numbers accepted them. Many new churches were organized under his labors and those of Walter Scott, and the Baptists began to declare non‑fellowship with those who pleaded for the Bible alone, thus forcing these brethren to organize themselves into separate communities. This was in 1827, and from this time may be dated the rise of the people known as Disciples of Christ. In 1831 the followers of Barton W. Stone in Kentucky, and of Alexander Campbell in Virginia and Pennsylvania, united (see CHRISTIANS, 2); for the next thirty‑five years Mr. Campbell is the foremost figure in the movement.
Diosourus
Disoiples of ChAst
In substantial agreement with all evangelical Christians, Disciples of Christ accept the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; the all‑sufficiency of the Bible as a revelation of God's will and a rule of faith and life; the revelation of God in threefold personality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as set forth by the apostles; the divine glory of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, his incarnation, doctrine, miracles, death as a sin‑offering, resurrection, ascension, and coronation; the personality of the Holy Spirit, and his divine mission to convince the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment to come, and to comfort and sanctify the people of God; the aliena‑
tion of man from his maker, and the s. Doctrinal necessity of faith, repentance, and
Teaching. obedience in order to salvation; the
obligation of the divine ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper; the duty of observing the Lord's Day in memory of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus; the necessity of holiness on the part of believers; the divine appointment of the Church of Christ, composed of all who by faith and obedience confess his name, with its ministries and services for the edification of the body of Christ and the conversion of the world; the fulness and freeness of the salvation that is in Christ to all who will accept it on the New Testament conditions; the final judgment, with the reward of the righteous and punishment of the wicked.
The Disciples of Christ, however, have their distinctive position: (1) In their plea for restoration. Others have sought to reform the Church. The Campbells and their coworkers aimed to restore in faith, spirit, and practise the Christianity of Christ and his apostles as found in the pages of the New Testament. The need was not to recast any existing creed, or reform any existing religious body, but to go back of all creeds and councils, all sects and schools since the days of the apostles, and to take up the work as left by inspired men. To believe and to do none other things than those enjoined by our Lord and his apostles they felt must be infallibly safe, and for this to‑day the Disciples continue to stand‑the word of Christ and the body of Christ as in the beginning. (2) In the rejection of human creeds. They claim to stand strictly upon the original Protestant principle‑the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, the religion of Protestants. They affirm that the Sacred Scriptures as given by God answer all purposes as a rule of faith and practise and a law for the government of the Church; and that human creeds and confessions spring out of controversy and tend to division and strife. (3) In their emphasis upon the divine Sonahip of Jesus. In place of all human confessions they would exalt that of Peter: " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." " What think you of Christ 7" is the great question. " Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the Living God," is the great answer. " On this rock I will build my Church " is the great oracle. (4) In their division of the Word. They believe that of old, " Holy men of God apake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit," yet do not regard the

Disciples of Christ	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Diseases and the Healing Art
444
Old and New Testaments as of equally binding authority upon Christians. " God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." A clear distinction is made between the Law and the Gospel, the old covenant and the new, and the New Testament, it is claimed, is as perfect a constitution for the worship, government, and discipline of the New Testament Church as the Old was for the Old Testament Church. (5) In the plea for New Testament names for the Church and followers of Christ. As the Bride of Christ, the Church should wear the name of the Bridegroom. Party names perpetuate party strife. " For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?" Disciples do not deny that others are Christians, or that other churches are churches of Christ. They do not claim to be the Church of Christ or even a Church of Christ. They simply desire to be Christians only, and their churches to be only churches of Christ. Hence they repudiate the name " Campbellites." (6) As to the work of the Holy Spirit in conversion. Accepting the divine personality of the Holy Spirit and holding that in every case regeneration is begun, carried on, and perfected through his gracious agency, the Disciples claim the Divine Word is his instrument, the sinner is in no sense passive, regeneration is not a miracle, the Gospel is God's power unto salvation to every one that believeth, and men must hear, believe, repent, and obey the Gospel to be saved. (7) As to Christian baptism. Recognizing Christ alone as King, his Word only as authoritative and binding upon the conscience, and finding, as they would return to the order instituted by our Lord and his apostles, baptism commanded in order to the remission of sins and administered by a burial with Christ, they take it up as one of the items of the original divine system against all human systems. Baptismal regeneration they have never taught. They simply insist upon the purpose of baptism as set forth in the divine testimonies: Mark xvi. 16; Acts ii. 38; Acts xxii. 16. They would give the inspired answers to the question, "Men and brethren, what shall we do ? " They would demand no other prerequisite to baptism than the confession of the whole heart in the personal living Christ. They would teach the believing penitent to seek through obedience the divine assurance of forgiveness; and in Scriptural surrender to the authority of Christ, and not in sensation, or vision, or special revelations, to find evidence of acceptance with God. (8) As to the Lord's Supper. The Disciples hold first to the weekly observance of this holy ordinance in all their assemblies. Of the Church in Troas we read: " On the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them," and following this apostolic model, Disciples teach that the Lord's Supper should be celebrated by the Lord's people on every Lord's Day; and, secondly, they emphasize and
exalt this institution, not as a sacrament, but as a memorial feast‑an act of worship in which all Christians may unite, and from which they have no right to exclude any sincere follower of our common Lord. (9) As to the Lord's Day. With the Disciples this is not the Sabbath, but a New Testament institution, consecrated by apostolic example, and to be observed in joyous and loving remembrance of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. (10) As to the Church. The Disciples believe that the institution built by Christ, set forth by the apostles on Pentecost under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit, established upon the foundation of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the Chief Corner‑stone‑the Church of Christis a divine institution; that sects as branches of the Church are unscriptural and unapostolic; and that the sect name and sect spirit and sect life should in every case give place to the unity of the spirit and the union and cooperation that distinguished the Church of the New Testament.
The Disciples rank sixth among the religious bodies of America, and in the decade 1890‑1900 increased eighty‑four per cent. They have 11,000 churches and one and a quarter millions communicants. In Christian Endeavor Societies they rank third. They have a Home Missionary Society working in thirty‑seven States, and their Foreign
Missionary Society sustains 466 work3. Statistics. era, 40 colleges and schools, and 18
hospitals in twelve different foreign lands. Their Christian Woman's Board of Missions does a large work in both home and foreign fields, and they have both a National Education Society and a National Benevolent Association. They publish fifty‑five journals and support thirtyfour colleges and seminaries of high grade, among which are Bethany College, Bethany, W. Va., founded by Alexander Campbell in 1840, and Hiram College, Hiram, O.
F. D. POWER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The sources first in importance are the writings of A. Campbell, partly collected in his Works, 6 vols., Cincinnati, n.d., to be supplemented by the Debate with N. L. Rice, ib. 1844, his Popular Lectures and Addresses, Philadelphia, 1863, and The Christian Baptist, a newspaper nearly the whole of which was written by Campbell. Valuable also is R. Richardson, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, Cincinnati, 1888. Consult further: J. A. Williams, Life of John Smith, Cincinnati, 1870; W. Baxter, Life of Walter Scott, ib. 1874; J. S. Lamar, Life of 1. Errett, 2 vols., ib. 1894; B. B. Tyler, American Church Hist. Series, vol. xii., New York, 1S94; F. D. Power, Sketches of our Pioneers, St. Louis, 1899. On the doctrines of the Disciples consult: B. Franklin, The Gospel Preacher, Cincinnati, 1868; 1. Errett, Walks about Jerusalem, ib. 1872; J. H. Garrison, Old Faith Restated, St. Louis, 1891; S. Lamar, First Principles and Going on to Perfection, Cincinnati, 1891; F. D. Power, Bible Doctrine for Young Disciples, St. Louis, 1899.
DISCRETION, YEAR OF: In ecclesiastical usage, the age at which a change of confession may be made. In countries which legislate on the subject (as the German states) it varies from fourteen to twenty‑one.

445
	I.	General Conditions in Palestine.
II.		Religious Ideas of Disease.
III. Healing and Healers.
IV. Separate Diseases.
		Diseases of the Skin (§ 1).
		The Malady of Job (§ 2).
I. General Conditions in Palestine: The general hygienic conditions of the environment of the Israelites were good, and they appear to have been a healthy people (Ex. i. 10 sqq., 18 sqq.). Palestine is a country conducive to health, since the characteristics of the climate give to the human body a high degree of elasticity and firmness. The principal climatic disease is fever; the low‑lying land, the mountain valleys, and the marshes are dreaded on account of the prevalence of malaria (tertian typhus). Inflammation of the eyes prevails as in Egypt, owing to the heat, which causes hyperemia of the brain, the nightly dews, and the sand‑storms (cf. Lev. xix. 14; Deut. xxvii. 18; Matt. ix. 27, xii. 22, etc.). All these diseases, however, seem to have been kept within reasonable bounds.
II. Religious Ideas of Disease: The whole ancient Orient shared in the belief that disease was sent by the Deity. Among the ancient Babylonians disease signified that an evil spirit possessed the sick man and held him in its power. These evil spirits were numerous, different classes causing diseases of the head, fevers, the plague, etc. Healing was almost exclusively by means of exorcisms; it was necessary to gain the protection of some powerful divinity that by his help the evil spirits might be driven out. In Israel also this belief persisted, and Josephus asserts that in his time people employed various superstitious remedies (Ant., VIII. ii. 5). The prevalence of this custom in more ancient times is proved by the many animadversions in the Old Testament ,against sorcery, which was used either for protection against disease or for its cure (see DRESS AND ORNAMENT, HEBREW, § 7, for ornaments used as amulets). Yahwism also shares this view of the supernatural origin of disease, but it always puts Yahweh in the place of the many gods and evil spirits. The angel of Yahweh smites the people with the plague (II Sam. xxiv. 16; II Kings xix. 35); leprosy (q.v.) is a "smiting" (zara'ath) from God. Indeed, the Israelites, explaining disease in this manner, made it unnecessary to look for natural causes. Still the conviction persisted that in certain maladies, such as mental derangement, opilepsy, and hysteria, evil spirits possessed the patient and tortured him. Even in the modern East no fundamental distinction is made between insanity and inspiration (I Kings xxii. 19 sqq.; II Kings iii. 15 sqq. ). Saul was tormented by one of Yahweh's evil spirits (I Sam. xvi. 14), and the inspired prophets behaved like madmen (I Sam. xix. 18 sqq., xxi. 13 sqq.; II Kings ix. 11; cf. also the demoniacs of the New Testament and see DEMONIAC).
III. Healing and Healers: In spite of the views concerning the origin and nature of disease just noticed, the art of healing was practised at an early period. The Code of Hammurabi (see HAMMURABI AND His CODE) contains rules applying
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Disciples of Christ
	Diseases and the Healing Art
DISEASES AND THE HEALING ART, HEBREW.
Pestilence (§ 3).
The Bubonic Plague (§ 4).
Symptoms and Characteristics of the Plague (§ 5).
Diseases of the Sexual Organs ($ 5).
Diseases of the Nervous System (§ 7).
Special Cases (§ 8).
Epilepsy (§ 9).
Mental Diseases ($ 10).
Diseases of the Abdomen, Bones, and Eyes (§ 11).
Fevers and Sunstroke (§ 12).
to the physician. In ancient Egypt also the art of healing had attained a high standard; there were specialists for diseases of the eye, of the teeth, etc. (Herodotus, ii. 84; cf. A. Erman, Aegypten and segyptisches Leben., Tiibingen, 1887, pp. 477 sqq., Eng. tranal., London, 1894). Ex. xxi. 19 implies that there were physicians in Israel. As the sanctuaries were the centers of all knowledge, the priest was at the same time the physician. This is easily understood from the supposed origin of disease (ut sup.), according to which only the priests could effect a cure. In agreement with this the law (Lev. xiii.) gives a prescription that where leprosy was suspected the priest was to determine the character of the disease, a fact which implies that he was believed to be possessed of medical knowledge. How early there were professional healers outside of the priesthood is not known. In process of time, naturally, recourse to physicians became more general. Jeremiah (viii. 22) complains that the hurts of the nation could not be healed by a physician as could the wounds of men, and the Chronicler blames Asa for trusting too much in his physicians (II Chron. xvi. 12). Sirach praises in high terms the art of healing (Ecclus. xxxviii. 1 aqq.), and several recipes are preserved from this later period (cf. J. Lightfoot, Harae hebraic~e et Talmudiece on . . . Mark v. 26, Cambridge, 1663), while the baths of Tiberias and Callirhoe were used (Josephua, Ant., XVII. vi. 5; War, I. xxxiii. 5). According to the Talmud (Shekalim v. 1‑2) a physician was attached to the temple to treat abdominal diseases, because the priests, who went barefooted and were required to use frequent cold ablutions, were especially subject to such troubles, while Sanhedrin 17° recommends that there be a physician and a surgeon in every community. In the interest of science it was allowable to becume unclean by touching a corpse. Several Talmudic teachers bore the title of doctor.
IV. Separate Diseases: Definite directions for ascertaining the character of diseases are given only in such cases as were considered ceremonially unclean. In all other cases it is almost impossible to determine the disease from the popular nomenclature because of the lack of complete and specific statement of the symptoms. Therefore only an unsystematic list of the diseases mentioned in the Old Testament can be given.
The name leprosy (q.v.), zara'ath, includes not only leprosy proper (Lepra Arabum), but also other maladies with like symptoms (Lev. xiii. 1 sqq.; cf.
xiv. 56). Four forma of disease are z. Diseases enumerated which in their incipient of the Skin. Stages might be taken for leprosy:
seth, sapPahath, bahereth, nethek (Lev. xiii. 2 sqq.). For the diagnosis only certain negative signs are mentioned. If the hair on the akin at the places affected does not become white, if the affected parts of the skin do not appear de‑

Diseases and the Healing Art THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
446
pressed, and if the affected area does not spread, then the disease is not unclean (verses 6, 39). In the laws for the priests three other skin‑dieeasee are mentioned, garabh, yallepheth, and here., which render the victims ineligible for the priesthood. The Biblical description of this malady is insufficient for identification, Of all these names only seth can be explained as " rising," and implies a swelling of the skin in contradistinction to a depression of the affected skin, the characteristic sign of leprosy. Sappahath seems (Ira. iii. 17) to attack especially the head. Bahereth is with some probability connected with bahar (" to shine") and is supposed to refer to light spots and bald places on the dark skin (cf. Lev. xiii. 4). This suggests vitHigo, a skin‑disease in which the pigment disappears from parts of the epidermis. These eruptions may appear over the whole body without any previous injury to the akin (Lev. xiii. 2), or where there has been a boil (verse 18) or a burn (verse 24). Nethely is sometimes regarded as a mild disease (Lev. xiii. 31‑34), and at others considered to be the same as the wa'ath of the head and beard (Lev. xiii. 30). Garabh (LXX. psora agria, Vulg., scabies) and yallepheth (LXX. tliehf, Vulg., impetigo) seem to indicate an incurable disease, as they exclude the patients from the priesthood (Lev. xxi. 20). They are generally considered to be the itch or herpes. .Ores (LXX. knaph8, Vulg., prurigo) was also regarded an incurable disease, as were the plague and Egyptian boils (Dent. xxviii. 27).
In connection with these skin‑diseases Job's malady may be mentioned. This is generally considered to have been real leprosy. Some think of lepra Arabum or elephantiasis Grocorum, others of elephantiasis Arabum, or pachydermia, a disease
of the lymphatic. and blood‑vessels, z. The especially of the lower extremities.
Malady of If, however, the account of Job's sufJob. ferings. might lead to the belief that
he was afflicted with 4everal distinct maladies, it must not be forgotten that the recital is not the clinical history of a disease, but a poet's description. However, the people of Israel were threatened with this very malady, the same name being employed (shehin ra', Job ii. 7) as for one of the most severe pesiilencses (Dent. xxviii. 27, 35), and this passage may have been present to the mind of the poet when describing Job's sufferings. For the various symptoms of Job's malady as given by the author of the book cf. Job ii. 7, vii. 3‑5, xvi. 8, 13, 16, xvii. 7, xix. 17‑20, xxx. 17, 27, 30.
Pestilence (debher) is regarded in the East as the most destructive of all diseases (Lev. xxvi. 25; Deut. xxviii. 21; 11 Sam. xxiv. 13, 15; 1 Kings viii. 37; Jer. xiv. 12; Hoe. xiii. 14). The name in
itself signifies simply " destruction "; 3. Pesti‑ the same may be said of the name lence. *fse¢ebh (Dent. xxxii. 24; Ps. xci. 6; Hos.
xiii.14). A still more common designation is maweth, " death " (Job xxvii. 15; Jer. xv. 2; Thanatos in LXX. of Deut. xxviii. 21; Rev. vi. 8, xviii. 8; cf. the medieval expression, the Black Death). The names correspond with the definition of the plague given by Galen: " If many people in a place are attacked by the same malady,
then it is an epidemic; if, however, many people die of that malady, it is the plague" ('`Commentary on Book iii. of Hippocrates's Epidemics ").
The foremost place must be given to the bubonic plague, which was known in the Orient from the earliest times (cf. Pliny, Hist. naturalis, iii. 4;
Cyprian, De mortalitate). The de4. The tails given in the Old Testament ac‑
Bubonic	cord with the symptoms of this dis‑
Plague.	ease. In the description of the
malady of the Philistines, 'ophalim, " boils," are mentioned as characteristic (I Sam. v. 6‑12), hence five golden images of boils were given as votive offerings (I Sam. vi. 4‑5). Among the severe peatilences with which the people of Israel are threatened (Dent. xxviii. 27) the bubonic plague is mentioned. The pestilence which befell the Israelites as a result of David's census is not particularly described, but was evidently the plague. The conception of the angel of Yahweh who smites the people (II Sam. xxiv. 16) is repeated in the account of the destruction wrought in the camp of Sennacherib (II Kings xix. 35; Ira. xxxvii. 36). The recital of Herodotus has long been regarded as of similar origin with the Old Testament account. He narrates that a multitude of field‑mice gnawed the quivers, ahieldstraps, and bowstrings of the Assyrians, and the disarmed warriors were forced to seek safety in flight. That mice are symbols of the plague is proved by the fact that the Philistines offered, besides the five golden images of boils, five golden mice, as symbols of the plague (I Sam. vi. 4).
The bubonic plague has its name from the usual location of the boils which characterize it, appearing generally in the neighborhood of the groin,
rarely in the armpits, at the nape of 5. Symp‑ the neck, or behind the ear, and ta‑
toms and king the form of round swellings, someCharacter‑ times as large as a hen's egg. Death istics of the often occurs very quickly, even be‑
Plague.	fore these external signs of the disease
have developed. The bacillus of the plague has been discovered only very recently. Pliny (Hilt. naturalis, iii. 4) connects its appearance with the inundation of the Nile, when this and heavy rains are followed quickly by hot weather. In severe epidemics as much as ninety per cent of the cases result fatally; with the course of the epidemic, however, the percentage of mortality decreases. So far no effectual remedy has been found; the best precautionary measures against the disease are the ordinary regulations of sanitation, by means of which the spread of the plague has been greatly restricted even in Egypt, where it is endemic. Such precautionary measures were unknown to the Israelites; the cremation of the bodies of those who died of the plague (Amos vi. 10) has nothing to do with regulations of this kind. The " murrain " which swept away the beasts has no connection with the bubonic plague (Ex. ix. 3; cf. Ps. lxxviii. 50; Ezek. xiv. 21), which is a disease of men; animals seem to be immune, with the exception of rats, which play an important part in the spread of the plague. Hezekiah's illness is also considered by many to have

447
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Diseases and the Heeling Art
been the plague (II Kings xx. 7; Isa. xxxviii. 21, ahehin), being brought into causal connection with the above mentioned Assyrian plague. But any chronological connection is rendered impossible by the fact that Hezekiah's illness took place at the time of Merodach‑baladan's embassy.
As diseases of the sexual organs caused ceremonial uncleanness, the law offers more abundant details regarding them (Lev. xv.; cf. Num. v. 2; II
Sam. iii. 29). The prescriptions con6. Diseases cern the issues of men and women and
of the Sex‑ the menstruation of women. A par
ual Organs. ticularly severe case of the latter
which Jesus cured is mentioned in the synoptics (Matt. ix. 20; Mark v. 25; Luke via. 43). Syphilis has been identified by some among the maladies described in Lev. xv., and also in the illness of Abimelech (Gen. xx. 17; cf. F. Buret, Syphilis in Ancient and Prehistoric Times, London, 1892). It can not, however, be proved that the Hebrews knew this disease. The description of the malady of Herod the Great, in Josephus (Ant., XVII. vi. 5; War, 1. xxxiii. 5), suggests syphilis, but in this case there may have been cancerous or other sores.
Lameness is often mentioned in the Old Testament. The word pisse4 is always used in reference to the legs (cf. 11 Sam. iv. 4; Job xxix. 15; Prov.
xxvi. 7; Isa. xxxv. 6); only in I Kings 7. Diseases xiii. 4 sqq. is the term applied to the
of the arm. Next to the blind, the lame
Nervous are considered the most miserable of
System. beings (II Sam. v. 6; lea. xxxiii. 23;
Jer. xxxi. 8). The lame were ineligible for the priesthood (Lev. xxi. 18). The New Testament alludes often to palsy and lameness (paralytikoi, paralysis, choloi). Among those whose affliction was considered humanly incurable and who came to Jesus and the apostles in search of a cure the palsied occupied a foremost place (Matt. iv. 24; Mark ii. 3; Luke v. 18; John v. 5 sqq. ; Acts viii. 7). Their cure was one of the signs of the Messianic kingdom (Luke vii. 22). A case of hip‑disease is mentioned Luke xiii. 11. Naturally nothing is said of the cause of paralysis; it is incidentally mentioned that Mephibosheth's lameness resulted from a fall when he was five years old (II Sam. iv. 4 sqq.). The Greek paralytikos includes every disease in which the patient loses freedom of movement in any part of his body by reason of relaxation or contraction of the muscles. This may result from gout or apoplexy or from spinal disease. Still, in Acts viii. 7, the choloi are differentiated from the parolytikoi. Atrophy of the limb affected frequently accompanied this paralysis (cf. I Kings xiii. 4; Zech. xi. 17; the cheir kasra, " withered hand," of Matt. xii. 10; Luke vi. 8 and the " withered " of John v. 3).
Recently the illness of Antiochus (II Mace. ix. 5, 9) has been explained as spinal paralysis. After
he had suffered from abdominal dish. Special ease (verses 5 sqq.) accompanied by
Cas6s.	excruciating pains, he fell from his
chariot and sustained a fracture of the spine. In consequence paralysis set in, inflammation developed in the paralyzed parts, and
worms were produced from the dead flesh; but this account contains unreliable material. A case of apoplexy, a disease not rare in the East, is sug. gested in the account of Nabal's death, ascribed to a sudden fright while in a state of intoxication. But it is useless to seek by special researches to fix the medical status of such a " stroke of God " as that of Nabal, that of Uzzah (II Sam. vi. 7), or that of Ananias and Sapphire (Acts v.). In the stroke which befell Alkimos some have supposed a case of tetanus, and the same holds good of " sick of the palsy, grievously tormented " of Matt. viii. 6 (cf. Luke vii. 2).
Epilepsy, while not mentioned in the Old Testament, is often alluded to in the New. The Greek designation seleniazomenoi (literally "moonstruck"; A. V., "lunatic"; R. V., "epileptic"; Matt. iv. 24, xvii. 15; cf. Mark i. 23 sqq., ix. 17‑18; Luke ix.
38 sqq.) owes its origin to the idea g. Epilepsy. that the disease was due to the moon.
In the New Testament period this illness was attributed to demoniac possession (Mark ix. 18), though Matthew usually distinguishes between the possessed and the lunatics (iv. 24, see DEMONIAC). The symptoms described in Mark ix. 17; Luke‑ ix. 38 sqq. are those which characterize epileptic fits; violent spasms shake the patient, he falls to the ground, froths at the mouth, gnashes his teeth, howls, he often casts himself into the water or into the fire, and generally he becomes emaciated. The great number of cases of demoniac possession described in the New Testament are explained by modern medical science as caused by autosuggestion, the sufferers being under the delusion that they were the prey of evil spirits.
At no time was a fundamental distinction made in the East between inspired prophets and men suffering from mental derangement. Insanity was
rarer in the Orient than in modern
lo. Mental civilization; nevertheless, it is quite
Diseases. often mentioned, and the actions and
appearance of the insane were well known (Deut. xxviii. 28‑34; cf. I Sam. xxi. 14; II Kings ix. 20; Prov. xxvi. 18; Zech. xii. 4). Two cases are described very minutely, that of Saul and that of Nebuchadrezzax. Saul's malady suggests melancholia (I Sam. xvi. 14 sqq., xviii. 10 sqq., xix. 9 sqq.) alternating with madness. But the very meager information given in the Old Testament does not reveal in Saul's case the symptoms which modern psychiatry requires in determining a case of melancholia, even putting aside all the legendary features of the recital. To the hallucination of Nebuchadrezzar (Dan. iv. 29 sqq.) that he was an animal many parallels exist in the so‑called lycanthropy. But there is no real proof that Nebuchadrezzar ever led a life like a beast's; these details are mere adornment of the account (but see DANIEL, BOOK oh, VI.). Medical men of sober judgment diagnose Nebuchadrezzar's malady e‑8 a form of megalomania accompanied by visions, de. lusions of the senses, and a morbid fear of persecution, this phase of excitement being followed by a phase of extreme depression, physical as well as mental. But the Biblical historian knows nothing

Diseases and the Healing Art	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	448
Dittrich
of this, and, as the event is not historical, to seek
for the true medical definition of this malady is
superfluous.
	The only case of disease of the abdominal or
gans mentioned is that of Joram (II Chron. xxi.
15, 18 sqq. ). His malady is explained by the med
			ical authorities as diarrhea, or as a
i i. Diseases rupture of the intestines with its vari
	of the Ab‑ ous complications. The account in
		domen,	the Old Testament is much too gen
	Bones, and eralized as to details for the formation
		Eyes.	of any positive opinion in the case.
			Caries (Heb. rakabh) is often men
tioned, but only as a symbol of destruction (Prow.
xii. 4; Hos. v. 12; Hab. iii. 16). Rickets is, ac
cording to present medical science, the chief pre
disposing cause of spinal curvature and is assumed
in every case of hunchback, except such as result
from spinal disease caused by a tuberculous con
dition. Gout may have been the disease of some
of the paralytics of the New Testament. The ill
ness of Asa (I Kings xv. 23; II Chron. xvi. 12) is
also explained as gout, and great age and the dura
tion of his illness make this seem probable; the
details, however, are so indefinite that nothing
more than a conjecture may be hazarded. The
commonness of blindness in the East has already
been noticed. The causes are the lack of cleanli
ness, the prevailing dust, the intense brightness of
the sunlight, the flies and other insects, and the
failure to treat properly the eyes when disease has
once developed. The law takes the blind under
its special protection (Lev. xix. 14; Deut. xxvii.
18), although they were excluded from the priest
hood (Lev. xxi. 18). There is frequent mention
of miraculous infliction and removal of blindness
(Gen. xix. 11; 11 Kings vi. 18‑19; Zech. xii. 4,
etc.). Cure by medical treatment was regarded
as impossible; and as the healing of Tobit (Tob.
ii. 10, xi. 2 sqq.) is given as a miracle, it is
unnecessary to discuss the curative properties
of gall.
A great number of Hebrew words designate a
disease by the " burning " which accompanies it
(k~ahath, Lev. xxvi. 16; dalleketh, Deut. xxviii.
22; harhur, Deut. xxviii. 22; resheph, Deut. xxxii.
24). It can not be determined whether these names
			refer to as many different kinds of
	ia. Fevers fevers; in any case, climatic fevers are
	and Sun‑ included among them. It is as dif
		atroke.	ficult to determine the character of
			the " great fever " of Peter's mother
in‑law (Luke iv. 38) and the fever of the noble
man's son, John iv. 46. According to Josephus
(Ant., XIII. xv. 5), Alexander Jannxus suffered for
three years from intermittent fever. The " con
sumption " mentioned in connection with fevers
(shahepheth, Lev. xxvi, 16; Deut. xxviii. 22) sig
nifies great debility and emaciation. Sunstroke
(makkath shemesh) is often mentioned (1I Kings
iv. 19; Ps. cxxi. 6; Jonah iv. 8; Judith viii. 3), and
is even to‑day much dreaded in the plains of the
Jordan.. It is difficult to discriminate in individ
ual cases between genuine sunstroke and heat
prostration caused by the overheating of the body.
1. BENZINGER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The literature of the subject is given in W. Ebstein (see below); A. Pauly, Bibliographie des sciences mgdicales, Paris, 1874; and J. Pagel, Hiatorischmedizinische Bibliographic, Berlin, 1898. Consult: J. R. Bennett, The Diseases of the Bible, London, 1887; T. Shapter, Medics sacra; or a Short Exposition of the More Important Diseases Mentioned in the Sacred Writings, ib. 1834; J. P. Trusen, Daratellunp der biblischen Krankheiten, Posen, 1843; J. B. Friedreich, Zur Bibel: naturhistori8che, anthropolopiaehe and mediziniache Fragments, 2 vols., Nuremberg, 1848; G. BSttger, Die Arzneikunst bea den alten Hebrdern, Dresden, 1853; J. D. Tholozan, Une 6pidtmie de peste en Mesopotamie en 1867, Paris, 1869; idem, Hist, de la pests bubonique en Mesopotamie, ib. 1874; idem, Hiat. de la pests bubonique au Caucase, en Armenie et en Anatolie, ib. 1876; idem, La Peste en Turquie, ib. 1880; L. Kotelmann, Die Geburtahilfe bei den alten Hebrtiern, Marburg, 1876; Oppler, in Deutechea Archiv for die Geachichte der Medizin, 1881, pp. 62 sqq.; H. Ploss, Dae Weib in der Natur‑ and Vblkerkunde, Leipsie, 1885; C. C. Bombaugh, The Plagues and Pestilencea of the Old Testament, in Johns Hopkins Hospital Bulletin, iv (1893), 64 sqq.; J. Preuss, in Virchow's Archiv, cxxxviii (1894), 261 sqq.; idem, in Wiener mediziniache Wochenschrifl, 1898, pp. 570 eqq.; U. Passigli, Un' antics pagina d'igiene alimentare, Florence, 1897; idem, L'Allattamento; aaggio di pediatria biblica, Bologna, 1898; idem, La Proatituzione a Is paicopatie sesauali preaeo gii Ebrei all' epoca biblica, Milan, 1898; idem, Le Cognizioni ostetrico‑ginecologiche degli antichi Ebrei, Bologna, 1898; W. Ebstein, Die Medizin im A. T., Stuttgart, 1901; idem, Die Medizin im N. T. and im Talmud, ib. 1903; DB, iii. 321‑333; EB, i. 595‑597, 1104‑06, iii. 2833‑34, 3005‑09, 36753677. Interesting side‑lights are cast by Mary Hamilton, Incubation or as Cure of Disease in Pagan Temples and Christian Churches, London, 1906.

DISIBOD, SAINT: Founder of the monastery of Disibodenberg, in the diocese of Mainz, in Bavaria, near the border of Rhenish Prussia (10 m. s.w. of Kreuznach). All that is certainly known concerning him is that he was an Irishman; he died most probably in 674. His " life " by the Abbess Hildegarde of Bingen (d. 1179) is too rhapsodical and fantastic to be considered a historical document. It states that when he was a young man at home " great scandals " prevailed in Ireland; some rejected Christianity, others adopted heresies or Judaism; some relapsed into paganism, others desired to live " like beasts, rather than men." For many years Disibod struggled against these evils; at last, tiring of the thankless toil, he left home, and, after long wanderings, with a few companions settled on the hill by the Glan in Alemannia; when he had learned the language he preached to the people, and he lived there for thirty years in high esteem. The monastery was abandoned and the church in ruins when Willigis became archbishop of Mainz in 975. He renewed the foundation as a canonry, and Archbishop Ruthard brought back the monks in 1108. In 1259 the monastery passed under the control of the Cistercians. In 1559 it was finally abandoned. Extensive ruins still mark the site.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: ASB, July, ii. 581‑599, and MPL, cxcvii. Consult: Lanigan, Eccl. Hiat., iii. 113‑115; Falk, in Der Katholik, Ix (1880), i. 541‑547. For the monastery consult: F. X. Remling, Geschichte der Abteien and Kliister in Itheinbayern, i. 14‑51, Neustadt, 1836; Rettberg, KD, i. 587‑589.
DISPENSATION: In the practise of the Roman Catholic Church the suspension in a particular case of a rule of the canon law, or the exemption from the consequences usually following the transgression

RELIGIOUS ENCYCWPT' DIA bit~a and the Healing AX.
449
of an established rule. As early as the fifth century the bishops of Rome assumed the right of deviating from the decrees formulated by the ecumenical councils where such departures involved a mere abandonment of detail without injury to the essence of canonical prescription, or were found necessary for the preservation of the spirit of the law. Similar powers were exercised by the provincial synods and bishops; but from the middle of the eleventh century the reference of applications for exemption (q.v.) to the bishop of Rome became general, and once the supreme legislative power of the pope had been established the highest power of dispensation was deduced therefrom. In theory the exercise of this function was justified only by the welfare or necessities of the Church, but in practise the papal discretion became absolute. After the fourteenth century the practise became a source of papal revenue; for though theoretically the grant of exemption was not purchasable, yet the charges connected with the administration of this department fell upon the applicant and were made heavy for the express purpose of discourar ging frequent recourse to this mode of evading the law. The Council of Trent confirmed the pope in possession of his absolute power, unlimited even by the decrees of a general council, and sanctioned the exercise of the dispensatory power by others than the pope, but only in eases of extreme necessity or where the aim is some benefit for the Church admitting of no delay.
Upon the principle that the power of dispensation follows from that of legislation, the pope alone may grant exemption from a universal law or a law of limited application emanating from the pope or a general council. Dispensations in foro &vterno are issued through the office of the Dataria, and those in foro interno by the Panitentiaraa; the former requiring in every case the papal decision, the latter only in certain exceptional cases. The formal modes of granting dispensation are in forma commiaaaria, whereby a mandate is addressed to the territo. rial bishop authorizing him after due investigation to act in the name of the pope; or in forma gratima, wherein the act of concession is addressed directly to the petitioner, a favor extended, however, only in such exceptional cases as that of Ovwigs or bishops. The acceptance of the grant of dispensation by the petitioner is not necessary to render it efficacious.
The independent exercise of the power by the bishops is restricted to cases specified in the Corpua juris and established by the Council of Trent, outside of which the papal authorization is neces‑
Such authorization (facultatm; see FACUI, alas) is conferred for a regular number of years and within a prescribed sphere of action. The doctrine that bishops may make use of the power of dispensation in emergencies where communication with Rome is impossible or hazardous finds its sanction in a constructive papal authorization. Bishops and provincial and diocesan synods Possess the independent power of dispensation in the matter of rules and regulations of local validity; here too, however, the papal authority may intervene.
111.‑29	(P. HlrlecRlvat.)
BIHwOOEArwl: M. A. 8tiegler, in Archio f
Hirc*vwht, Mains, 1897‑98; H. Brandhuber von Etsohfeld, Ueber Dispanwgon and Diepmuationrr‑hR Vienna. 1888; E. Friedberg, Do& peltende Vsrfo"unot der evanpetiwhen Landeskirehen. Leipsio, 1888. Consult also J. H. Blunt, Di4io~ of Doctrinal and Historical The. o1m, pp. Wb‑"20, London. 1870.
DISSELHOFF, JULIUS AUGUST GOTTFRIED
Successor of Fliedner at the head of the Kaiserswerth home for deaconesses (see FLaRDNBR, THaoDoR; and DascoNnss,111., 2, a, § 1 2‑3); b. in $oest, Westphalia, Oct. 24, 1827; d. near Simmern (26 m. s.w. of Coblenz) July 14, 1896. He entered the University of Halls in 1846. In the national student movement of 1848 he represented the royalistic old Prussian side, and was Halle's delegate to the parliament at Eisenach. In 1850 he became Fliedner's assistant in Kaieerswerth; in 1853 pastor at $ehermbeck, near Wesel, where he established a basket factory for the unemployed in his own parsonage, and showed great talent as an organizer. On the call of Fliedner, in 1855 he returned to Kaiserswerth, thenceforth his field of labor. His careful study Gegenw&Eige Lage der Kretinen, BI6flsinnigen and Idioten (Bonn, 1857) led to the founding of several asylums for the insane. In 1859 appeared his collections of sermons (Geschichte des K6nigs Sauis. David, Ruth, Paulus) and his epic poem Kdnig Alfred; in 1860, New Weisen‑the last two works under the pseudonym Julius von Boast. He traveled much in the interest of Haiserswerth, visiting the Orient five times, and founded the orphanage " Zoar " in Beirut in 1861. During the wars of 1864, 1866, and 1870‑71 he led the gaieerswerth deaconesses in the‑ field and grganized their work. After nedner'a death (1885) he became the head of the ratter's institutions. With the publication of his Wegweiser su J. (f, Hamann in 1871 he bade farewell to his favorite literary studies and devoted himself henceforth for thirty years to his allotted work. When he entered the field he found 115 stations and 327 sisters; he left double the number of stations and 953 sisters.
(DIODAT Dlesalaolr.)
BIHLtOOt1PH7: The %aiaerstserAer %alendm'for IM oontaiae a brief sketch of his life. Consult: J. Djeseihoff, Pastor Julius Disssthof, , sum lieddehdam Kaiserswerth, 1896.
D1TTRICH, FRANZ: Roman Catholic; b. at Thegsten (near Heileberg, 41 m. s.e. of BOnigsberg) Jan. 28, 1839. He studied at Braunsberg, Rome, and Munich, and was ordained to the priesthood in 1863. In 1866 he became privat‑docent at Brauneberg, where he was appointed associate professor of theology. In 1873 he was promoted full professor, and since 1903 has also been provost of the cathedral of Ermland. He is a member of the Prussian house of deputies. He was editor of
the Mittheilungen des ermltgndiachen Kunatroeria (Braunsberg, 1870‑75), and has written Dionysius der Grosse von Alexandrian (Freiburg, 1867); Ob. aerpationea quesdam de ordine naturali et morali (Brauneberg, 1869); Rageaten and Briefs des Cardinal‑ Gasparo Condarini (1881); Gaaparo Contarini, eine Monographic (1885), Abrias einer Lehre der Untersiehung and des Untarrielata (1890);
NrbmwAk Giovanni moronea pom deutsdwn

Divination	TEE NEW SCHAFF‑IERZOG	450
Konigshofe (Paderborn, 1892); and GeschieW des Katholizismus in Alllxeuase» von 161°5 bit sum Auagange des achtwhnten Jahrhuriderts (2 vols., Braunsberg, 1901‑03).

DIVINATION.
I. In Ethnic Religion. 	It. In the Bible.
Animistic Bade (¢ 1).	III. Under Christianity.
Names and Methods (4 2).
Divination is the supposed art of discovering the will of the gods, of forecasting the future from indications ascribed to them, or of deciding from phenomena supposedly supernatural the correct course of action to be followed. Three principles lie at the root of divination: (1) belief that Deity is willing to reveal to his worshipers both his own will and directions for a correct method of procedure for their advantage; (2) persistent longing to read the future; (3) belief that natural events have a significance for man akin to the principles of magic (see MAGIC; and ComPARATTvn RNmmoN, VI., 1, § 5). The art is confined to no one stage of civilisation. It exists in primitive and tribal religion, is always a part of the official cults of developed faiths, and persists as a superstition under Christianity, even receiving churchly sanction.
L In Ethnic Religion: In the stage when man imagined that volition and power resided in things now held to be only material he worshiped them as superhuman, not only in power, but also in knowledge. As a characteristic of early re‑
:. Animis‑ ligion is to expect from the objects of tic Basis. its worship a quid pro quo in the direction of man's wants (cf. Gen. xxviii. X22), the belief obtained that, from objects conceived to possess wisdom greater than man's, knowledge of the future could be gained if the right methods were pursued. Human perceptions were early sufficiently keen and human reasoning was sufficiently logical to look for indications of the future or for directions as to conduct in methods suited to the observed character of the object consulted. Hence men fancied they heard answers to queries or indications of divine will in the leaves of a sacred tree, in the waters of a sacred stream, in the surf on the shore, etc. Individuals claimed superior ability in reading these omens, and diviners developed as a class. Inventive genius came into play, and methods of consulting superhuman powers were devised. Observed sequences were read as cause and effect, and a repetition of the first or its artificial production was believed to insure repetition of the other. Thus a pseudo‑science or fictitious art developed with its established canons. Along with other consequences of animistic belief there was unfolded the idea of exchange of souls, the doctrine of possession or obsession of human bodies by spirits to impart information (cf. the phrase " familiar spirits "), the ability of the dead (enlarged in knowledge by passing the gates of death) to share this knowledge with the living, and also the power of the human spirit to wander from the body in search of wisdom. Moreover, persons in abnormal states of mind (see EcsTAsx), or with minds diseased (" demoniacs "; see DEMONIAC) or defective (idiots), or with unu‑
sual physical characteristics (as albinos), were
considered channels of divine communication and
were employed in divinatory art. ‑ Where obser
vation had shown that a certain environment pro
duced abnormal states of mind, that environment
was sought, or a person inhabited a particular
place to act as the medium between the oracle god
and the inquirers, and the utterances were accepted
as inspired. Such utterances proceeded from the
Cumman and Delphic oracles, at the shrines of
which mephitic gases produced ecstatic effects.
This condition, expressed by the Greek mania,
" prophetic frenzy," developed the technical term
manlike or mantike techn8. The dream was also
believed to be of superhuman sending and to have
significance as an index of divine will. Hence
dreams were induced by the drinking of decoctions
brewed by the knowing, or by sleeping on a spot
haunted by divinity or in a temple. The art of
reading dreams grew, and persistently survived in
advanced stages. Instruments for use in divination
were taken from sacred objects and employed in all
the ways which the ingenuity of man could devise.
	How various were the methods employed is only
suggested by the following (incomplete) list of
names applied to some of the methods. Hydro
mancy is divination by water (e.g., the roar of the
waves, the flow of an intermittent spring, or the
movement of water poured into a cup, the latter
		also called culicomancy); xylomancy,
	a. Names rhabdomancy, and belomancy used
	and sacred trees or parts of them, or ar
	Methods. rows made from them (compare the
		modern "dowsing" with a forked
twig of hazel); empyromancy employed fire; geo
mancy used soil from a sacred spot or supposed
motions of the earth; asteromency employed the
motions of stars and planets or meteors; capno
mancy drew its conclusions from the appearance
or motions of clouds (cf. I Kings xviii. 44); clero
mancy or sortilegium was the casting of lots by
stones, dice, or other objects; ornithomancy used the
flight or voices of birds; ichthyomancy observed
the movements of fishes; oneiromancy interpreted
dreams; necromancy professed to use the dead or
ancestral images; logomancy depended upon the
chance utterance of a word (cf. I Sam. xiv. 8‑10);
axinomaney employed an ax; coecmomancy used the
oscillations of a suspended sieve, and dactylomancy
employed a ring in the same manner; cheiromancy
has survived in almost its old form of reading
the lines on the hand; soapulomancy or omo
platoscopy read the fissures caused on the shoulder
blade of a sacrificial animal by exposing it to fire;
haruspication used many methods, including the
inspection of the liver or entrails of slain victims
(hepatomancy or hepatoscopy and splanehnomancy).
Among the Romans arose the Vergilianx aorta,
in which the Xneid was opened and a passage
selected by chance was interpreted with refer
ence to the point at issue. Later the Bible took
the place of the Xneid for this purpose (biblio
mancy). Especially noteworthy is the Ordeal (q.v.)
to decide innocence or guilt. Such methods have
been employed among all peoples, the articles de
pending upon the environment; e.g., the Tongans

451	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Divination
and Samoans use coconuts as the sieve and ring are used elsewhere. The employment of the lot is universal, and many nations have deities who preside over the cast.
In all the foregoing two characteristics appear: (1) Divination is in general under the patronage of religion. On the other hand, among many peoples there exists a distinction between legitimate and forbidden. Thus necromancy, or commerce with the dead, is often forbidden. (2) All methods are regarded by science as marked by a total inconsequence of data and results. Thus the lack of connection between the aspect of the planet Mars simply from its color and peace and war is sufficiently obvious, and is asserted to exist between all the methods of divination and the supposed results.
IL In the Bible: The Pentateuch legislates in all the codes against divination as practised among the surrounding peoples. The earliest code permits no sorceress in Israel (Ex. xxii. 18); the Deuteronomist (xviii. 10‑11) forbids the people to suffer among them diviners, enchanters, necromancers, charmers, wizards, and those who have familiar spirits; the Levitical Code (Lev. xix. 31) forbids approach to those who have familiar spirits and to wizards. An indication earlier than the codes of prohibition of these means is found in I Sam. xxviii. 3. Yet the assumption in early Old Testament books is not that these means were not successful, but that they were not permissible to Israel (e.g., the magicians of Egypt wrought duplicates of some of the signs and plagues, Ex. vii. 11, 22, viii. 7, 18, etc.). That diviners wrought actively in the surrounding nations is assumed (e.g., ut sup. and in I Sam. vi. 2, Ezek. xxi. 21, etc.), just as it is assumed in the Balaam passages and II Kings i. 2‑3 that prophecy and the utterance of oracles existed outside Israel. The means legitimated in the Old Testament are: the dream, coming to Hebrew and to heathen alike, to Joseph and to Pharaoh and his servants (Gen. xx. 3, 6, xxviii. 12 sqq., xxxi. 24, etc.; Judges vii. 13 aqq.; I Kings iii. 5 sqq.; Job xxxiii. 14‑16; Dan. vii. sqq., and frequently); the lot (Josh. xv. sqq.; I Sam. xiv. 41; see Loxs, HEBREW U13E or); Urim and Thummim (q.v.); the ephod (q.v.; I Sam. xxx. 7); and the living voice of the prophets. I Sam. xiv. 8 gives a case of logomancy. But there are indications that, as late as the time of the Judges, at least sacred trees were employed as oracles (Judges iv. 5, a very clear case in the light of ethnic usage; cf. verse 10). The dream is emphasized in the Old Testament, and the Pentateuchal narrator E has great fondness for it; the interpretation of the dream was a divine gift among the Hebrews as among many other nations (Gen. xli. 16, 38; Dan. ii. 28, 47, iv. 18). That in prophetic time, in Israel there was either persistence of old methods or else adoption of them from the surrounding peoples is indicated by Hos. iv. 12, where rhabdomaney or xylomancy is referred to, and probably by several passages in Ezekiel. In the New Testament indications are given by the dream (Matt. i. 20, ii. 12 sqq., xxvii. 19; Acts x. 9‑16, xi. 4‑10) and the sacred lot (Acts i. 23‑26).
III. Under Chnsttanity: Divination entered the Christian Church from two sources: (i) with the membership which, recruited from paganism, brought with it practises customary under heathenism; (2) forms of decision sanctioned by the Scriptures tended to continue so far as they were available, together with those which non‑canonical Judaism had practised. In particular, use of divination for the detection of criminals was especially persistent and continued till modern times. A strong tendency toward the continued use of divination is proved by the fact that church synods found it necessary to legislate against it. Thus canon lxii. of the Synod of Elvira (305‑306) requires that augurs who have become Christians renounce their calling before being admitted to membership in the Church; the Synod of Ancyra (314) condemns the manteuomenai, "those who employ the mantic art," to five years' penance; the Fourth Synod of Carthage (398) excommunicates those who practise divination. The legislation of the period grows increasingly severe up to and including the Theodosian Code (ix. tit. 16, leg. 4). The Synod of Vannes denounces the use of the lot. But, as is frequently the case, the theory and the practise of the Church were at variance. To the common mind the fact that things were sacred (such as the wafer of the Eucharist, the emblem of the cross, and the Scriptures) seems to have justified their use in this manner, and this tendency spread upward from the common people to the clergy. The employment of the lot as based upon both Old Testament and New Testament usage and the application by Jews of the method of the Vergilirsnce sorter to the Old Testament were carried over into the Christian Church as early as the fifth century. In parts of the West the lot entered into Christian codes (Ripuarian Code, xxxi. 5) and was sanctioned by early Irish synods (ExcerPtionea, ascribed to Egbert of York, ed. Thorpe, ii. 108). In France a dispute among the bishops of Poitiers, Arras, and Autun over the possession of the relics of St. Liguaire was decided at the altar by the lot in favor of Poitiers. The use of the Bible as in the Vergiliano sortes to divine by was condemned by Augustine, though he regarded it as a less evil than consulting demons (Epist., iv., ad Januarium, xxxvii., NPNF, 1st ser., i. 315). The synods in Gaul in the fifth century found it necessary to threaten the clergy with penalties for resort to divination; yet Gregory of Tours (Hist. rag. Franc., iv. 16) relates that in the presence of a concourse of bishops and priests at a celebration of the mass at Dijon the Gospels and Epistles were solemnly consulted regarding the fortunes of a son of IAthalr I. Especially did the Ordeal (q.v.) as an appeal to God to indicate the guilty receive the practical sanction of the Church by the presence and often the participation of Church dignitaries and officials. The use of the Bible and the key (another form of bibliomancy) was particularly persistent. A key was loosely fastened to the Bible at Pa. 1. 18, the Bible made to revolve, while names of suspects were mentioned, and he at whose name the book fell was regarded as guilty. The latest case known of use of this method occurred at a

Divorce	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	409
trial in 1867 in London. The weighing of a person against the Bible to determine his guilt or innocence is known to have occurred as late as 1759 at Aylesbury, England. GEo. W. GmmoRE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Classical works are Cicero, De divinatione:
	Lucian, De astrodopia; Cornelius Agrippa. Ds occulda phi
	Iosophia. For the ethnic side consult: E. B. Tylor, Prim
	itive Culture, i. 78‑81, 117‑133, ii. 156, Bern, 1874; F.
	B. Jevons, Introduction to Hint. of Rdipion, London, 1896;
	J. G. Eraser, Golden Bough, ii. 356, iii. 342, London, 1900;
	Mary Hamilton, Incubation, London, 1908. Foe the
	Biblical side consult: C. A. Briggs, Messianic Prophecy.
	45 4‑8, New York, 1902; H. Schultz, Old Testament The
	ology, ii. 322, London, 1892; 8. R. Driver, Commentary
	on Deuteronomy (on Dent. xviii. 10), New York, 1895;
	Smith, Red. of Sem., pp. 194, 248, 407, 427. For divina
	tion under Christianity consult: H. C. Lea, Superstition
	and Force, pp. 93‑370, Philadelphia. 1878; S. Baring
	Gould, Curious Myths of the Middle Ages, pp. 55 sqq..
	London, 1884; H. C. Bolton, The Counting‑out Rhymes
	o/ Children, London, 1888. A quite full list of the
	" ‑lay's " from Bolton is given in The Neil International
	Bacydopcedia, " Superstition," xvi. 347. New York, 1904.
DIVORCE.
1. History of Divorce Law and Custom. Among Existing Backward Peoples (f 1). Earlier Christian Doctrine ($ 2). The Canon Law. Theory and Practise (¢ 3). Protestant Doctrine. The Rise of Civil Divorce (¢ 4). Civil Divorce and New England Puritanism (1 5).
II. European Divorce Legislation. III. Divorce Legislation in the United States. Statutory Grounds of Divorce (1 1). Remarriage After Divorce (¢ 2). Residence and Notices (¢ 3). American Statistics (¢ 4). American Legislative Reform, 1887‑1907 (5 5). IV. Nature of the Divorce Problem.
I. History of Divorce Law and Custom: Recent research has disclosed among rude peoples elaborate systems of unwritten law covering, often in an orderly way, most of the divisions commonly associated with " civilized " jurisprudence. This is especially true of divorce. Among barbarous, even savage, races appears a careful attention to detail, a stability, and a respect for equity in the social rules relating to the dissolution of marriage, which Western prejudice is hardly prepared to find; while other races commonly looked upon as civilized, but hitherto relatively non‑progressive, such as the Chinese, are quite capable of teaching us valuable lessons in this regard.
As to the right or freedom of divorce, five classes of peoples may be differentiated: (1) The marriage bond is lax and readily dissolved at
:. Among the pleasure of either the man or the Existing woman. Such is the case among a Backward large number of American, African, Peoples. Asiatic, and Oceanic tribes; e.g., among the Makassars and Buginese, the Alfurese of Minehasa, and the Point Barrow Eskimo. (2) At the other extreme are peoples with whom wedlock is absolutely indissoluble; for the sacramental nature of marriage is affirmed, not exclusively in Christian lands, but among races standing on a very low plane of culture; e.g., with certain Papuana of New Guinea, the Veddahs of Ceylon, and the Niassers of Batu death alone is sufficient to dissolve the nuptial tie. (3) Sometimes the only method is mutual agreement except in case of life‑assault, as among the Karo‑Karo of Sumatra; or the husband may put away the wife
for serious misconduct, as in West Victoria, but then only when she has no children and the tribal chiefs give their consent. (4) Very commonly the man alone has absolute right of divorce, putting away the woman when he likes, without assigning any reason, or on the most frivolous grounds. Theoretically this is true of some parts of China; but practically with the more advanced Chinese, as among the ancient Aztecs, the wife, under the influence of Confucius, enjoys the privilege of separation in several important contingencies; while under the existing law of Islam she has a quite limited right of divorce through purchase or by judicial decree. (b) Finally, among many rude races the woman has great liberty of divorce, leaving the man at pleasure or on the slightest pretext. The lot of the married woman among barbarous or even savage tribes is not always so dark as it is frequently painted (of. the usages of the American Indians and others). In general, divorce among backward peoples, even where great liberty is allowed, is far less frequent than is popularly believed. Their conservatism is remarkable. Very commonly custom frowns upon divorce after children are born. The usages regarding the legal effects of divorce are particularly enlightening. One is almost as often surprised by the reasonableness and .stability of early institutions as he is shocked at their harshness or injustice. In the disposal of the children or the division of the property after the marriage is dissolved principles of natural equity and justice are frequently observed which constitute a rebuke to the laws sanctioned by some modern Christian societies. It appears to be practically a universal rule among uncivilized races that the repudiated wife or the woman who legally puts away her husband shall return to her own family or clan, whose duty it is to receive her.
According to the spirit of the earliest Christian teaching, divorce, properly so called, is strongly condemned, though by a strict inter‑
s. Earlier pretation of its letter it may not be
Christian	wholly forbidden. Between the first
	Doctrine.	assertion of the new doctrine and the
		final triumph of the canonical theory
of absolute indissolubility of the marriage bond
intervenes a struggle of twelve hundred years.
The various utterances of the New Testament
relating to the subject are disjointed and confusing
in their details (for Hebrew and Jewish customs
See FAMILY AND MARRIAGE RELATioNs, HEBREW,
1 7). Many vital questions are either completely
ignored or else left in such obscurity as to open the
way for wide divergence of doctrine and the bitter
controversies of the Reformation period. For four
centuries the Bible passages were debated by the
Fathers and the councils. Nearly all were agreed
that divorce is forbidden except for the one cause
mentioned by Matthew (v. 32); but not all con
ceded the equal right of the sexes in this regard.
There was a like want of harmony touching the
lawfulness of remarriage after divorce. Finally
Augustine's interpretation prevailed‑that adul
tery is the only Scriptural ground of separation;
but even this does not dissolve the nuptial tie.
Moreover, he reproaches those who, following the

468	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Divoroe
letter of Matthew's text, for this offense would allow the man, but not the woman, the right of repudiation, with violating the great principles of Christian teaching by disregarding the equality of the wedded pair.
These views were adopted by the Eleventh Synod of Carthage in 407 (canon viii.; Hefele, Conciliengesohichte, ii. 101), which thus anticipated the final settlement of the canon law.
3. The Before that settlement, however, cenCanon Law. turies of compromise intervened.
Theory From Constantine to Justinian the and divorce legislation of the Christian
	Practise.	emperors was practically untouched
		by the essential doctrines of the
Church; while in dealing with the newly converted
Teutonic peoples the rigid Augustinian rules were
relaxed in diverse ways. In England and in Gaul,
am proved in the most convincing way by the peni
tentials, full divorce with remarriage was allowed
on various grounds. Authority had to yield per
force to social expediency. Not until 1184, in the
fourth book of Peter Lombard's ° Sentences," is
found the first clear recognition of the " seven
sacraments," including that of marriage. The
theory of the sacramental nature of wedlock had
two consequences which involved the whole medie
val problem of separation and divorce. First
was the dogma of the indissolubility of the marriage
bond, and, second, the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Church in matrimonal causes. Accordingly, in
theory, divorce proper is entirely eliminated from
the mature law of the Western Church. Inconsist
ently, however, in the canons the word " divorce "
is used in two senses, neither of which harmonizes
with its ancient and right meaning as a complete
dissolution of the bond of true wedlock. First
the term divortium a mensa d thoro means a sep
aration of husband and wife which does not touch
the marriage tie. Secondly, the term divortium a
vinculo mmtrtmonii is commonly employed to des
ignate, not the dissolution of a valid union, but
the judicial declaration of nullity of a spurious
marriage which on account of some impediment is
void, or at least voidable, from the beginning.
There was another inconsistency far more important
in its consequences. In effect absolute divorce
was tolerated by the canon law, as that law existed
on the eve of the Reformation. Theological
subtlety had devised two exceptions to the rule
that a genuine marriage can not be dissolved.
First is the cosua apoatoli or priroilegium Paulinum,
by which the Christian convert, if abandoned by
his infidel spouse, is permitted to contract a new
marriage. By the second exception, the Church
violated the theory, sanctioned mince Peter Lom
bard, that a contract de prceaenti, or in words of the
present tense, constitutes a valid marriage whether
followed by actual wedded life or not; for the
mature doctrine of the canon law, still obeyed by
the Roman Church, allows the unconsummate
marriage de prcesenti to be dissolved through papal
dispensation or ipso facto by taking holy orders.
Thus, accepting the Church's own definition of marriage, divorce a vinculo did not quite disappear from the canon law; and in effect there was a far
more prolific source of full divorce. In reality, when rationally considered, the decree of nullity was a divorce proper. By this means a wide liberty of divorce existed in the Middle Ages, although it existed mainly for those who were able to pay the ecclesiastical lawyers and courts for finding a way through the tortuous maze of forbidden degrees and other impediments. Abundant opportunity for this was afforded in a characteristic way by theological refinement. By persistently sustaining the validity, though not the legality, of clandestine precontracts de prmenticontracts formed without witnesses, parental consent, official celebrant, or record‑the Church invited social anarchy. In a divorce procedure masquerading under the guise of an action to nullify spurious marriages lurked the germs of perjury and fraud. Before the Reformation the voidance of alleged false wedlock on the ground of precontract or forbidden degrees of affinity, spiritual relationship, consanguinity, or some other canonical pretext had become an intolerable scandal in Christendom.
By the leaders of the Reformation the mother Church was accused of fostering vice by professing a doctrine too severe; and at the same
.t. Prot‑ time she was bitterly reproached with estant a scandalous abuse of her jurisdiction
Doctrine.	through which in effect the forbidden
The Rise degrees had become an open door to
of Civil divorce for the use of the rich and
	Divorce.	powerful. With the rejection of the
		sacramental theory of marriage it
was inevitable that a more liberal interpretation
of the Scriptural precepts should be accepted;
while ultimately the rise of civil divorce was as
sured. A great impulse was then given to the
development of social control through the State.
The Protestant doctrine of divorce, like the Prot
estant conception of the form and nature of wed
lock, was shaped mainly by the thought of Martin
Luther. In his dictum, " marriage is a worldly
thing," lay the germs of future civil marriage and
of its counterpart, civil divorce. Liberty of divorce
is the fruit of the Reformation; and from the start
it has been especially favored by the more extreme
sects. While Luther and some other Reformers
sanctioned temporary separations, there was a
strong tendency at first entirely to reject perpetual
divorce a menea et thoro as being a " modern inven
tion " unknown to the primitive Church; but even
tually this was allowed. On the other hand, two
causes of full divorce‑adultery and malicious
desertion‑were admitted by Luther and his
immediate followers. Rather than further mul
tiply the number of permissible grounds of abso
lute dissolution of wedlock, an effort was made by
hard logic to broaden the definition of desertion
so as to give to it ,a wide range without seeming to
transgress the letter of the Scriptural authority.
In this way, for instance, savUia, or cruelty, was
included; as also was " refusal of conjugal duty,"
thus eventually giving rise to the doctrine of
" quasidesertion." More extreme theologians, like
Lambert of Avignon and Martin Butzer, Mil
ton's teacher, went almost as far as the modern

Divoroe	THE NEW BCHAFF‑HERZOG 	454
statute‑maker in multiplying the permissible grounds of divorce. Yet even the most radical thinkers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to a large extent still appealed to authority rather than to reason and experience in their attempts to solve a great social problem. Only gradually, after three centuries of struggle, has civil divorce, on rational grounds sanctioned and regulated by the State, been almost universally established throughout the civilized world. In England‑more conservative than Protestant Germany‑no immediate change in the canon law of divorce was effected by the Reformation; for the liberal provisions of the commission of Edward VI. failed of adoption. Except by parliament, full divorce was not granted. Until 1857 the sole relief obtainable in the courts was the ecclesiastical decree of separation from bed and board; and this was allowed only for two causes, adultery and cruelty.
Among the Independents and Puritans advanced Protestantism bore its legitimate fruit. By these sects in the new world civil marriage,
g. Civil and therefore civil divorce, were inzti‑
Divorce tuted. The American type of liberal and flew divorce legislation had its birth in the
	England	New England colonies. Before the
Puritanism. Revolution in the five Southern prov
		inces not a single instance of either
full or partial divorce has been discovered. Courts
with competent jurisdiction were not created;
and there were no statutes on the subject. The
only relief from bad marriages was through informal
or parol separation; and, contrary to the English
practise, separate alimony without divorce was
sometimes granted, even by the county courts.
The case is somewhat different for the middle
colonies. A few marriages were dissolved by the
legislature in Pennsylvania. Civil divorce through
arbitration or judicial decree existed in New Nether
lands under the Dutch r6gime. For some years after
the English took possession there is evidence of the
survival of arbitration in cases of separation, and
of marital reconciliation managed and recorded by
the courts. With the exception of this practise,
judicial divorce a vinculo ceased in New York with
the English conquest, and it was not revived until
the act of 1787. Subsequent to the meeting of the
first assembly in 1683 there is no clear evidence of
legislative divorce. On the other hand, Cadwal
lader Colden declares that previous to 1689 the
" governors of New York took on them the power
of granting divorces" ; and this seems to be an
entirely unique instance of executive decree.
A farmore liberal policyprevailed in the Northern colonies. In most respects throughout New England from the outset the broad modern doctrines of the Reformatio legum of the commission of Edward VI., though even now not wholly accepted in the mother country, were put in force by Puritan and Separatist alike. The most advanced ideals of Protestantism were realized. The American conception of divorce as belonging not to the criminal, but exclusively to the civil, jurisdiction had its birth in the seventeenth century. For more than 100 years in the New England colonies
the canonical decree of separation from bed and board‑which the early Reformers were inclined to reject‑was practically, though not wholly, abandoned; while, on the other hand, a dissolution of the bond of matrimony, with right of remarriage, was freely granted for adultery, desertion, and even on other grounds. For Massachusetts the records are but partially preserved. Between 1639 and 1692 forty actions for divorce or annulment have been discovered; while between 1739 and 1776 at least 107 such suits were tried by the courts. The complete record, doubtless, would disclose many more. From 1650 onward Rhode Island authorized divorce a vinculo. This colony was much afflicted by the evil of legislative divorce. During nearly the entire provincial period the assembly, side by side with the courts, acted on divorce petitions. The divorce legislation of Connecticut gained surprisingly early maturity. In the middle of the seventeenth century no society in the world, with the possible exception of Holland, possessed a system so modern in character. Separation from bed and board was rejected. Reasonable grounds for absolute divorce were sanctioned. Husband and wife were treated with even justice; and, although legislative divorce was permitted and liable to abuse, the greater part of the litigation seems always to have been entrusted to the regular courts.
II. European Divorce Legislation: During the seventeenth century, almost simultaneously in Holland and America, the foundation of modern divorce law was laid. In its original form the law of 1792, instituting civil divorce in France, practically sanctioned free dissolution of wedlock at the pleasure of the parties. The natural result was a vast number of decrees. Accordingly, in 1803 the Code Nnpolkon substituted a more conservative provision, allowing absolute divorce for five causes. The law of 1803 was abrogated in 1816, and civil divorce was restored only in 1884; but the liberal policy of France, as expressed in the Code Napoleon, undoubtedly has had a powerful influence on the extension of civil marriage and divorce throughout Europe. The act of 1884 sanctions absolute divorce, on the petition of either spouse, for adultery, cruelty, and condemnation to infamous penalty, if at the same time the penalty be corporal; while separation from bed and board is still permitted.
	Previous to 1900 the laws of divorce in German
lands were complex, obscure, and well‑nigh past
finding out. The conditions were probably as un
satisfactory as they are in the United States. By
the imperial code of 1900 absolute divorce is sanc
tioned for five causes: (1) adultery; (2) attempt
on the life of either spouse by the other; (3) mali
cious desertion; (4) "when either spouse has been
guilty of grave violation of the obligations based
on the marriage or of so deeply disturbing the
marital relation through dishonorable or immoral
behavior that the continuance of the marriage can
not be expected from the other; " and (5) insanity
(Geisteekrdnkheit) of three years' standing. It
may reasonably be doubted whether any " ° omnibus
clause " in the laws of American States gives wider

465	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Divorce
discretion to the court than does the fourth of these grounds. The law, however, appears to be conservatively administered; for the number of divorces is rapidly decreasing. In 1899 9,563 decrees were granted; while in 1901, under the new code, the number had sunk to 8,037.
By the present law of England three forms of separation are recognized; and jurisdiction is vested wholly in the civil courts. Full divorce may be granted for the adultery of either spouse; but the woman is treated with grave injustice. For while the husband may secure an absolute divorce on account of the simple adultery of the wife, the wife is unable to free herself from an unfaithful husband unless his infidelity has been coupled with such cruelty as " would have entitled her to a divorce a mensa et thoro "; or " with desertion, without reasonable cause, for two years and upward"; or with certain other aggravating offenses. Since 1860 the decree nisi has been in force, with the right of the king's proctor to intervene. Secondly, the law allows a decree for " judicial separation " with the same force and the same consequences as the former ecclesiastical sentence a mensa et thoro, which was abolished in 1857. In the third place, the existing law provides for what is commonly called " magisterial separation," through which, by the issue of " protection," " maintenance," and " separation " orders, the court is able to secure to a deserted wife the enjoyment of her own property, with a just share in the delinquent partner's goods; and to protect the woman against a brutal husband's violence. In England, as in European countries generally, few divorces are granted as compared with the United States; but the divorce rate is rising. The number mounted from 127 in 1860 to 390 in 1887. In France, for each 1,000 marriages celebrated, fourteen divorces were decreed in 1885 and twenty‑four in 1891, the population showing a very small increase. A similar movement is shown by the statistics for Holland and Sweden, and even for Roman Catholic states like Belgium and Bavaria.
IlI. Divorce Legislation in the United States: Under the Federal Constitution the States within their respective borders have exclusive control of matrimonial and divorce legislation. Congress has conferred the same power upon the organized Territories; but it legislates directly for the District of Columbia and Alaska. Therefore at present (1907), including Porto Rico and Hawaii, there are in force fifty‑two distinct divorce codes whose provisions are often conflicting, although in many of their vital features they are slowly approaching a common type. Jurisdiction belongs to the civil courts. Formerly the granting of divorces by the legislatures was a wide‑spread evil. In nearly all the States, directly or indirectly, it is now prohibited by constitutional enactment; and since 1886 Congress has put a stop to it in the Territories.
Except between 1872 and 1878, divorce has never been provided for by statute in South Carolina. In the other fifty‑one States‑using " States " to include the districts, Territories, and insular poseeasions‑full divorce is permitted, while in twenty‑
three States separation from bed and board is likewise allowed. Moreover, in seven jurisdio‑
tione the courts are authorized to r. Stat‑ decree separate maintenance, which is
	utory	virtually the same as separation from
Grounds bed and board. The number of legal
	of Divorce.	causes of divorce a vinculo varies
		from one (adultery) in New York,
District of Columbia, and (practically) in North
Carolina (1905), to fourteen in New Hampshire.
Several of these grounds reveal the tendency to
abandon authority and to treat divorce purely as a
social problem. Thus forty‑two States have admit
ted drunkenness (intoxication, intemperance) as a
proper cause for dissolving the marriage tie. Fail
ure to provide for wife or family is recognized by
twenty‑one codes. Vagrancy of the husband is a
cause in Missouri and Wyoming. By the Astute
of Rhode Island a marriage may be dissolved when
either spouse is guilty of " habitual, excessive, and
intemperate use of opium, morphine, or chloral" ;
and a similar law exists in Maine, Massachusetts,
Mississippi, and Porto Rico.
In eighteen States no restraint is placed on the immediate remarriage of either party with another.
Elsewhere restrictions are put upon a. Re‑ one or both of the persons either as a
marriage penalty or to allow time for proceed‑
	After	ings in error or on appeal. Thus, in
Divorce. case of adultery, marriage with the
accomplice during the life of the former
spouse is forbidden in Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee; while such a union is absolutely prohibited in Delaware. In South Dakota and New York the defendant guilty of adultery may not marry any person during the life of the aggrieved; although in New York, on certain conditions, the court may remove the restraint. By the criminal code of Florida, the guilty defendant may not rewed. Under the act of 1901, in the District of Columbia the defendant is absolutely prohibited from remarriage, unless with the former spouse. In several States the placing of a temporary or perpetual restriction on further wedlock is left to the court's discretion. Such is the case in Michigan, Mississippi, Virginia, and Alabama; while in Georgia the question is left to the jury, subject to the court's revision. Three of the New England States discriminate against the defendant. Since 1878, in Vermont, the libelee may not marry any person other than the libelant for three years, unless the latter dies. Since 1883 the statute of Maine for bide the party obtaining the decree to rewed in two years without the court's permission; while during that period the adverse party is absolutely restrained; nor at any later time may he remarry without the court's consent. In Massachusetts since 1881 the offending person, without petition to the court, may remarry only after two years. Moreover, Massachusetts, following the English precedent, has adopted the decree nisi ; and in principle her example has already been' followed by Maine (1883), Oklahoma (1893), Rhode Island (1902), New York (1902), and California (1903). Nine commonwealths of the West, foregoing any attempt to impose a penalty, are content to fix a

THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	468
period within which neither person may marry again; and usually, if proceedings in error or on appeal be instituted, the restraint is extended to final judgment, or to thirty days beyond it, as in Kansas and Oklahoma. This term of delay varies from three months in North Dakota to one year in Colorado and Wisconsin. On the other hand, two Western States are more stringent, discriminating against the guilty person. Thus Illinois (1905) requires such a person to wait two years, and Montana (1905) three years; while in those commonwealths one year and two years respectively are the period for the aggrieved. An anomalous condition of the law should be noted. Owing to the want of precision and uniformity in the legislation of the States the restraints placed on the marriage of divorced persons are practically futile. In 1829 the supreme court of Massachusetts (in Putnam v. Putnam, 8 Pick., 433‑435) decided that if a man, " being a resident in this State, for the sake of evading the law goes into a neighboring State where such a marriage is valid, and ie there married and immediately returns and continues to ride here, the marriage is valid here, and after his death his widow is entitled to dower in his estate." This precedent was followed by New York in 1881 (Van Voorhis v. Brintnall, 86 N. Y., 18), Washington in 1900 (Willey v. Willey, 22 Wash., 115‑121), and California in 1903 (Estate of Wood, 137 Cal., 129). The prevailing doctrine of the courts appears to be that a marriage good where it is contracted is good everywhere; but there are opposing decisions.
Bad laws relating to ridence and notice are the chief source of clandestine divorce in the
United States. Notice to the defendant 3. Res‑ through publication in the newspapers,
idence still quite generally permitted, is espe‑
and	cially capable of abuse; but in recent
Notices. years a number of States have enacted
rigorous statutes governing notice when personal service can not be had. The provisions regarding ridence are conflicting, lax, and wanting in precision. They invite migration for divorce. At present the term of previous residence for the plaintiff, or at least for one of the parties, varies from six months to five years; but the prevailing period is one year, at least twenty‑eight commonwealths, under various conditions, having that requirement. Massachusetts, in particular, has a very stringent and carefully drawn statute which in principle may serve as a model for other States.
The government report, compiled under the direction of Hon. Carroll D. Wright and pub‑
lished in 1889, contains fairly com4: Amer‑ plete statistics, drawn from a careful
ican	analysis of the manuscript court
Statistics. records in all the States and Terri‑
tories for the twenty years, 1867‑86, inclusive. In the entire country during this time 328,716 petitions for full or partial divorce were granted. From 9,937 decry in 1867 the number rose to 11,586 in 1871, 14,800 in 1876, 20,762 in 1881, and X5,535 in 1886; thus, comparing the last year with the first, showing an increase of 157 per cent, while the population grew but sixty per cent during the same two decades.
Again‑to express the result in terms of the divorce rate‑in 1867, it is estimated, there were 173 divorces to 100,000 married couples, while in 1886 the number had risen to 250. As a matter of fact, in the last‑named year the average divorce rate in the United States was higher than for any other country collecting statistics, except Japan. Of the whole number of divorces during the period 112,540 were granted to the husband, and 216,176 to the wife. Among the principal causes, at each stage of the wedded life, only for adultery were more decrees granted on the husband's petition than on that of the wife. But the relative number granted on the wife's petition varies greatly; from 39.3 per cent in North Carolina to 77.9 in Nevada. These figures are one indication of the relative significance of the divorce problem to women.
Important generalisations may be drawn from the available divorce statistics. In the United States, as in Europe, the divorce rate is higher in the city than in the country. Willcox (A Study of Vital Statistics, in the Political Science Quarterly, viii., 1893, pp. 76, 77) has demonstrated that the average divorce rate for the whole country, like the marriage rate everywhere, sinks in hard times and rises on the rtoration of business. The report of 1889 shows that the evil of migration for easy divorce, due to the lack of uniformity of State laws, is greatly exaggerated by popular opinion. It seems probable that not more than two or three per cent of all divorces are secured by persons migrating to other jurisdictions for the purpose. As early as 1889, the Rev. Samuel W. Dike, of Auburndale, Mass., secretary of the National League for the Protection of the Family, to whom especially is due the inception of the great government report, declared that " the establishment of uniform laws is not the central point " of the divorce problem. Moreover, since 1900 the action of the Federal and certain State courts is significant. In a number of cases arising in various States they have declared null and void decrees secured in jurisdictions where the plaintiffs were not bona fide ridents, even when they had dwelt in such jurisdictions for the statutory term prescribed as a condition for obtaining a divorce. Thus both the statutes and the courts are distinctly discouraging the " divorce colony." In certain places, however, the evil of migration for divorce has been very pronounced. Previous to the reform legislation of 1899, probably the most flourishing divorce colonies in the world were those at Fargo and Mandan, N. D. In 1899, in Morton County, containing Mandan, there was one divorce to 1.11 marriages (ei. J. L. Coulter, Marriage and Divorce in North Dakota, in the American Journal o/ Sociology, xii., Nov., 1906, p. 412).
It appears, likewise, that to some extent the evil of lax administration of divorce laws is exaggerated by popular opinion. The report shows that in seventy counties scattered over twelve States about thirty per cent of all petitions for divorce were rejected. But here also there are extreme or exceptional cases. In North Dakota, between 1900 and 1903, 87.4 per cent of all actions were success‑

457	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Divorce
ful. There is a prevailing notion that a large number of persons who seek divorce do so in order at once to contract new marriages. Unfortunately there are no collected statistics adequate to settle this question. Such foreign statistics as am available show that restriction upon the remarriage of divorced persona would not in a large degree affect the divorce rate. They indicate that within the first two or three years after dissolution of marriage divorced men are not much more inclined to remarry than are widowers, while during the same period a greater number of divorced women than widows renew the nuptial ties. Whether the number of divorces is greatly influenced by legislation in a question which has given rise to decided differences of opinion. In 1883 Bertillon took the position that statutes extending the causes of divorce or relaxing the procedure in divorce suits have little influence " upon the increase in the number of decrees." For the United states, at any rate, this view can not be entirely sustained. The divorce movement is indeed mainly dependent upon 806W forces which lie far beyond the reach of the legislator. Yet it seems almost certain that there is a margin, very important though narrow, within which he may wisely exert a restraining influence. He can create a legal environment favorable to reform. Good divorce laws‑Laws which are clear, certain, and simple, laws which can not be evaded, which are not a " dead letter," laws which express the best results of social experience‑‑constitute such an environment, and they may even greatly lower the divorce rate, as conclusively proved by the experience of North Dakota. They may check hasty impulse and force individuals to take time for reflection. They may also by securing publicity prevent manifold injustice in the granting of decrees.
In Europe the divorce rate is rising, while the marriage rate is falling. The same is doubtless true of the United States. It is by
5. Amer‑ no means creditable to the American lean people that with eleven exceptions‑
Legida‑ the six New England commonwealth,,
live Re‑ Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, California form, (1905), and Iowa (1908)‑the States
1887‑:M. are making no effective provision for the collection or publication of divorce statistics. At present there is no means of determining the average rate for the whole country; but every practical reformer and student of social ethics will rejoice that Congress has already provided for a second report on marriage and divorce, covering the period since 1888. The report, doubtless, will show substantial progress. Indeed, there is much hasty and misdirected criticism of American divorce laws that ignores the remedial legislation of the last twenty years., Within this period the foundation of what some time may become a common and effective divorce code for the whole Union has slowly been laid. Mere and more in their essential features the divorce laws of the States are duplicating one another, and they are becoming better. Little by little, as a detailed examination of the whole body of enactments reveals, more stringent PT0vielOnl for notice to the defendant have
been made, longer terms of previous residence for the parties required, and more satisfactory conditions of remarriage after the decree prescribed; while the more dangerous " omnibus clauses " in the list of statutory grounds have been repealed. At least eight States now severely punish the soliciting of divorce business. Moreover, saner opinions regarding the true nature and the real sources of the divorce evil are beginning to prevail.
N. Nature of the Divorce Problem: The divorce movement, an almost universal incident of modern civdieation, signifies underlying social evils vast and perilous. To the student of history it is perfectly clear that this is but a part of the mighty movement for social liberation which has been gaining in volume and strength ever since the Reformation. According to the sixteenth‑eentury Reformer, divorce is the " medicine " for the disease of marriage. It is so to‑day in a sense more real than Adam Smith or Heinrich Bullinger (q.v.) ever dreamed of. Certain it is that a detailed study of American legislation produces the conviction that, faulty as are our divorce laws, our marriage laws are far worse; while our apathy, our carelessness and levity touching the safeguards of the matrimonial institution are well‑nigh incredible.
	Nowhere in the field of social ethics, perhaps, is
there more confusion of thought than in dealing
with the divorce question. Some people look upon
divorce as an evil in itself; others regard it as a
" remedy " for, or a " symptom " of, social disease.
To the Roman Catholic and to those who believe
with him divorce is a sin, the sanction of " suo
cessive polygamy," of " polygamy on the instal
ment plan." At the other extreme are those who,
like Milton and Humboldt, would allow marriage
to be dissolved freely by mutual consent, or even
at the desire of either spouse. According to the
prevailing opinion, however, as expressed in mod
ern legislation, divorce should be allowed, with
more or less freedom, only under careful state
regulation. Yet divorce is sanctioned by the State
as an individual right; and there may be occasions
when the exercise of that right becomes a social
duty. The right, of course, is capable of abuse.
Loose divorce laws may even invite crime. Never
theless, it is fallacious to represent the institution of
divorce as in itself a menace to social morality.
It ~'is, t, and not a cause; a remedy, and not

This is the principle upon which rests the whole modern theory of social control. In the Western world the extension of the sphere of secular legislation practically to the whole province‑‑the whole outward or legal province‑‑of marriage and divorce is a fact of transcendent interest. In this regard the Reformation marks the beginning of a social revolution. Luther's dictum that " marriage is a worldly thing " contained within it the germ of more history than its author ever imagined. The real trend ad evolution has not at all times been clearly seen or frankly admitted; but from the days of Luther, however concealed in theological garb or forced under theological sanctions, however opposed by reactionary dogma, public opinion has more and more decidedly recognized the right of

DDivovorh eta	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	458
the temporal lawmaker in this field. As a result, in the United States, not less clearly than elsewhere in countries of Western civilization, marriage, divorce, and all the institutions of the family are emerging as purely social institutions, to be dealt with according to human needs. Definitively the State seems to have gained control of matrimonial administration. Yet it must be conceded that the influence of legislation in curing social disease is very restricted. Apparently if there is to be salvation, it must come through the vitalizing, regenerative power of a more efficient moral, physical, and social training of the young. The fundamental causes of divorce lie far beyond the reach of the statute‑maker. They are rooted deeply in the imperfections of human nature and the social system, particularly in false sentiments regarding marriage and the family. Beyond question, the chief cause of divorce is bad marriage laws and bad marriages. The conviction is deepening that for the wise reformer, who would elevate and protect the family, the center of the problem is marriage and not divorce.
The remedial influence of good statutes may be relatively small, still the legislator has a very important task to perform. In particular it seems worth while to strive for more uniform laws in the States. Ideally a common code embracing the entire body of matrimonial laws is desirable, if it may be gained without too great a sacrifice of local control; for it would conduce in many ways to social order. The earlier movement to secure a Federal statute under an amendment to the national constitution has been abandoned by practical reformers. Instead, it has been thought best to strive for the adoption of a model statute by the separate States. Such a statute, relating mainly to procedure, with a view to checking clandestine divorce, was adopted in 1899‑1900 by the Conference of State Commissions on Uniform Legislation. But a more comprehensive effort than that was started by the " National Congress on Uniform Divorce Laws." At its Washington session, Feb. 19‑22, 1906, after an enlightening discussion, this body, composed of delegates from forty States, adopted a series of seventeen resolutions upon which is based " an act regulating annulment of marriage and divorce rr agreed upon by the Congress at its Philadelphia session in November of the same year. The act contains careful provisions fop residence and notice. The decree nisi is provided for. Both partial divorce and absolute divorce are sanctioned. Divorce a vinculo is permitted, on the suit of the aggrieved spouse, for (1) adultery; (2) bigamy; (3) conviction and sentence for crime, " followed by a continuous imprisonment for at least two years or, in the case of indeterminate sentence, for at least one year rr; (4) extreme cruelty; (5) wilful desertion for two years; (6) habitual drunkenness for two years. Divorce from bed and board is authorized for the same six causes and also for " hopeless insanity of the husband." Draft‑acts providing respectively for the " return of statistics relating to divorce proceedings rr and for the " return of marriage statistics rr were also submitted by the Congress. In its first resolution the Con‑
gress declares that " no federal divorce law is feasible." Idvrpover, it is significant of its right understanding of the problem that the body urges a like effort to secure a uniform marriage law. See MARRIAGE.

BIBr.rOanAPHP: For the history of divorce among backward peoples consult: A. H. Post, A frikanische Jurisprudenz, Oldenburg, 1887; idem, Enhvieklungsgeaehichte des Familienreehte ib. 1890; T. Araki, Japaniaehea EhewAliessungsrecht, Gbttingen, 1893; E. Westermarek, Hist. of Human'Marriage, London 1894; P. G. von Mb11endarff, Das chinesische Familienrecht, Shanghai, 1895; E. Alabaster, Notes and Commentaries on Chinese Criminal Law, London, 1899; G. E. Howard Hist. of Matrimonial Inetitutione, vol. i., chap. v., Chicago, 1904 (where the authorities are cited in full).
On divorce under the canon law consult: H. Geffeken, Ehescheidung vor Gratian, Leipsic, 1894; A. Esmein, Le Mariape en droit canonique, 2 vols., Paris, 1891; J. Freisen, Geschichte des canonischen Eherechts, Paderborn, 1893• Howard, ut sup, vol. ii., chap xi. (where the authorities are cited). Compare H. Benecke, Die sErafrechtlithe Lehre vom Ehebnuch, Marburg, 1884; the standard Catholic treatises of A. Cigoi, Die Unaut6sbarkeil der ehrastlichen Ehe, Paderborn, 1895: and especially J. Peronne, De matrimonio, Paris, 1861. For England consult: F. Pollock and F. W. Maitland, History of English Law, vol. ii., Cambridge, 1895.
For the Reformation period consult: A. L. Richter,
Bettrage zur Geschichte des Ehescheidungsrechta in der evanpelischen Kirche, Berlin, 1858; and Richter's edition of the Kirchenordnungen des sechasehnten Jahrhunderts, 2 vols., Weimar, 1848 (the legislation of the evangelical churches on marriage and divorce). These ordinances are analyzed by O. Goeschen, Doctrine de matrimonio, Halle, 1848; and by H. C. Dietrich, Evangelischea Ehsscheidunpsrecht, 1892. Luther's utterances are compiled by H. L. von Strampff, Dr. Martin Luther: Ueber die Bhe, Berlin, 1857.
For England, very convenient handbooks are: W. Ernst, Treatise on Marriage and Divorce, London, 1880; N. Geary, Law of Marrqape and Family Relations ib. 1892. The modern French law is treated by E. Kelly, The French Law of Marriage, Marriage Contracts, and Divorce, ib. 1895.
	For the United States and for divorce problems in gen
eral consult: C. D. Wright, Report on Marriage and Di
vorce in the United States, 1887‑8B, Washington, 1889,
reprinted, 1897; idem, in The Christian Register, 1xx
(1891), 655‑ftb8; S. W. Dike, Reports of the National Divorce
Reform League, and Reports of the National League /or the
Protection of the Family, 1886‑1906; idem, in Political
Science Quarterly, iv (1889), 206‑214; idem, in Century
Magazine, xxxix (1890), 385‑395: idem, in Publications
of the American Statistical Association, i (1889), 208‑214;
idem, in Andover Review Dec., 1893• idem, in Congress
of Arts and Science, vii. 707‑720; T. D. Woolsey, Divorce
and Divorce Legisation, New York, 1881; J. Bertillon
Ptude demographique, Paris 1883; idem in Journal of
the Statistical Society, xlvii (1884), 519‑526; A. P. Lloyd,
Law of Divorce, Baltimore, 1887; D. Convers Marriage
and Divorce in he United tates, Philadelphia, 1889; W.
L. Snyder, Geography of Marriage. New York, 1889 F.
Adler, in The Ethical Recordii (1889), 200‑209, iii (1890),
1‑7; J. P. Bishop, New C;; mentaries on Marriage, Di
vorce and Separation, 2 vols., Chicago, 1s91; E. Danes,
in New Englander and Yale Review, 1891 pp. 395‑402;
C. H. Pearson National Life and Character, chap. v.,
New York, 1894, answered by J. H. Muirhead, in inter
national Journal of Ethics, vii (1896), 33‑35; H. C. Whit
ney, Marriage and Divorce, Boston, 1894• J. C. Riehberg,
in Publications of the Micigan Political Science Associa
tion, i., no. 4, 1895; W. F. Willcox, in Political Science
Quarterly, viii (1893), 69‑96; idem, The Divorce Prob
lem, New York 1897; J. Bryce, Studies in Hist. and
Jurisprudence, London 1901; H. Hirsh, Tabulated Dr
gest of Divorce Laws, New York, 1901• W. B. Bailey,
Modern Social Conditions, ib. 190; and especially Pro
ceedings of the National Congress on Uniform Divorce
Laws Harrisburg, 1906 and the pamphlet containing the
model statutes since published by the Congress.
In this article, through the generous permission of the

459
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
publishers, some passages have been freely taken by the author from the following writings: Marriage and Divorce, in the Encyclopedia Americana, x.; Social Control and the Function of the Family, in Congress of Arts and Science, vii. 897‑708; The Problem of Uniform Divorce Law in the United States, in The American Lawyer, xiv (1906). 15‑17; Divorce, in Bliss's Encyclopedia of Social Reform (new ed., 1908); and History of Matrimonial Institutions (3 vole., Chicago, 1904), where a systematic bibliography for every phase of the subject may be found. GmmoHOn ELLIoTT HOwABD.
	DIX, MORGAN: Protestant Episcopalian; b.
in New York City Nov. 1, 1827; d. there Apr. 29,
1908. He was graduated at Columbia College in
1848, and the General Theological Seminary in
1852. He was ordered deacon in 1852, ordained
priest in 1853, was assistant rector of St. Mark's,
Philadelphia (1853‑55), was a curate of Trinity
Church, New York City, until 1859, when he be
came assistant rector and rector in 1862. He
was president of the Standing Committee of the
Diocese of New York, a trustee of many institu
tions, and a member of numerous important
committees. He wrote Manual of the Chris
tian Life (New York, 1857); Commentary on Ro
mans (1864); Commentary on Galatians and Co
lossians (1866); Lectures on the Pantheistic Idea of
an Impersonal‑Substance Deity as Contrasted with
the Christian Faith Concerning Almighty God (1865);
Book of Hours (1865); Lectures on Two Estates
Wedded in the Lord, Single for the Kingdom of
Heaven's Sake (1872); Historical Lectures on the
First Prayer Book of King Edward VI. (1881);
Lectures on the Calling of a Christian Woman (1883);
Memoir o f John A. Dix (2 vols., 1883); The Gospel
and Philosophy (1886); The Seven Deadly Sins
(Lenten sermons; 1888); Lectures on the Authority
of the Church (1891); Three Guardians of Super
natural Religion (Paddock lectures; 1891); The
Sacramental System Considered as the Extension o f
the Incarnation (Paddock lectures; 1893); Harriet
Starr Cannon, First Mother Superior o f the Sisterhood
of St. Mary (1896); Good Friday Addresses (1898);
and History o f the Parish o f Trinity Church (4 vole.,
1898‑1906).
DIXON, AMZI CLARENCE: Baptist; b. at Shelby, N. C., July 6, 1854. He studied at Wake Forest College, Wake Forest, N. C. (B.A., 1874), and held pastorates at Warsaw, N. C. (1875‑76), Chapel Hill, N. C. (1878‑81), Asheville, N. C. (18811884), Immanuel Baptist Church, Baltimore, Md. (1884‑91), Hanson Place Baptist Church, Brooklyn (1891‑1901), Ruggles Street Baptist Church, Boston (1901‑07), and Moody Church, Chicago (since 1907). In theology he is orthodox. He has written The True and the False (Baltimore, Md., 1890); Milk and Meat (sermons, New York, 1893); Lights and Shadows of American Life (Chicago, 1898); Present Day Life and Religion (Cleveland, 0., 1905); Evangelism Old and New (New York, 1905); and The Young Convert's Problems and their Solution (1906).
DIXON, RICHARD WATSON: Church of England; b. at Islington, London, May 5, 1833; d. at Warkworth (26 m. n. of Newcastle), Northumberlandahire, Jan. 23, 1901. He studied at Pembroke College, Oxford (B.A., 1857), and was ordered
Divorce
Dobechneta
deacon in 1858 and ordained priest in the following
year. After being curate at St. Mary‑the‑Less,
Lambeth (1858‑61), and of St. Mary's, Newington
Butts (1861‑63), he was second master of Carlisle
High School (1863‑68) and minor canon and honor
ary librarian of Carlisle Cathedral (1868‑75). He
became vicar of Hayton‑cum‑Talkin, Cumberland
ahire, in 1875, and of Warkworth in 1883. In 1874
he became an honorary canon of Carlisle and from
1879 to 1883 was rural dean of Brampton, while
from 1885 until his death he was rural dean of
Alnwick and after 1891 was also examining chap
lain to the bishop of Newcastle. While at Oxford
he was associated with William Morris and Edward
Burns‑Jones in editing The Oxford and Cam
bridge Magazine, advocating the Preraff aelite move
ment, and also wrote besides several volumes of
verse: Second Peak Prize Essay on the Maintenance
o f the Church o f England as an Established Church
(1873); Life of James Dixon, Wesleyan Minister
(1874; a biography of his father); his moat im
portant work, however, was his History of the
Church of England from the Abolition of the Roman
Jurisdiction (6 vole., 1877‑1902). This work takes
high rank by reason of its learning, research, and
attractive style. It extends from 1530 to 1570.
The last two volumes were posthumous and edited
by Henry Gee, who has prefaced them by a bio
graphical sketch. In the last year of his life he
was made by his university a doctor o€ divinity,
and by his college an honorary fellow.
BfHLIOaRAPBY: Besides the sketch by Gee, ut sup., consult DNB, supplement, ii. 139‑140.
	DOANE, WILLIAM CROSWELL: Protestant
Episcopal bishop of Albany; b. at Boston, Mass.,
Mar. 2, 1832. He studied at Burlington College,
Burlington, N. J. (B.A., 1850), where he was a
professor 1850‑63. He was ordained to the priest
hood in 1856, and was rector of St. Mary's, Burling
ton (1859‑63), St. John's, Hartford, Conn. (1863
1867), and St. Peter's, Albany, N. Y. (1867‑69). In
1869 be was consecrated first bishop of Albany.
He has been instrumental in building the Cathe
dral of All Saints, Albany, and established in the
same city St. Agues' School for Girls, the Child's
Hospital, and St. Margaret's House for Babies,
the St. Christina Home (for training servants) at
Saratoga, and the Orphan House of the Holy Savior
at Cooperstown, founding the Sisterhood of the
Holy Child Jesus to take charge of these institutions.
In theology he is a conservative High‑churchman.
He has written a life of his father, Bishop G. W.
Doane of New Jersey (5 vole., New York, 1860);
Mosaics, Being Comments on the Collects, Epistles,
dud Gospels o f the Christian Year (1882); Sun
shine and Play‑Time (poems; 1893); The Mani
festations of the Risen Jesus (Oxford, 1898); and
Rhymes from Time to Time (Albany, 1901).

DOBSCHUETZ, debr'shiitz', ERNST (ADOLF ALFRED OSKAR ADALBERT) VON: German Protestant; b. at Halls Oct. 9, 1870. He studied at Leipsic, Halls, and Berlin (Ph.D., 1893), and in 1893 became privat‑docent for New Testament theology at Jena, where he was appointed asso‑
ciate professor in 1899. Since 1904 he has been

trine	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	460
professor of the same subject at Strasburg. He
has written Studien zur Textkritik der Vulgata
(Leipsie, 1894); Die urchristlichen Gemeinden
(1902; Eng. transl. by G. Bremner, London, 1904);
Ostern and P fingaten, eine kritiacha Studio zu 1 Hor.
xv. (Leipsie, 1903); Problems des apostolischen
Zeitalters (1904); and Das apostolische Zeitalter
(Halls, 1905).
DOCETISM, do‑d'tizm: A heresy which appears in the moat varied fords and aspects, but may be generally defined as the theory which would merge the truth and reality of Christ's human nature in a mere fantom. The Docet4e, as a distinct sect, are mentioned by Clement of Alexandria (Strom., iii. 13; vii. 17), who names as the founder Julius Cassianue (see ENCBATITEB); by Sempion of Antioch (Eusobius, Hist. eccl., vi. 12); and by Hippolytus (Philosoplwumena, viii. 8‑11; of. x. 16). The latter has preserved a detailed record of these sectaries, which on the whole may be trustworthy, but can not be considered entirely reliable. Their fundamental idea is that current in the Gnostic systems. The aim is to describe the divine process of development, the history of the spirit of God, who, himself forever the same, suffered himself to be limited by a material existence in order to withdraw himself from it as fruit. From the first arcu, which appears here under the image of the seed of the fig, out of which develops the world‑tree, emanate at first three, finally thirty eons. They form the intelligible nature (he nol4E physis), pure light, comprising in itself the primitive forms (tae apZirous ideas) of all living. Its light shines into the chaos, and becomes the cause of everything created because it impresew the everlasting ideas upon that which has been formed. To separate darkness from light, the third of the primeval eons created the firmament, the sterebma (Gen. i. 5). It separated itself as living fire, and became the great archon, the god of fire, who spoke out of the bush, the lord over the ideas who had confined them in the bodies and made them wander as souls when they grew cold therein. To redeem these and to end their wandering, the " only begotten son," produced by the thirty eons, came upon this earth. He took upon himself the extremest darkness, the flesh, and was born of Mary. In the water of the Jordan this Jesus received the seal of the body born of the virgin, so that, after putting off the body created by the archon and being nailed to the cross, his soul may not be found naked, but be enabled to put on the coma anti tf sarkoa ekeings (of. John iii. 5, 6), imprinted in the water of baptism. The human souls, all somehow related to Jesus, exert themselves for him in different ways. So the different sects can know their own Jesus only in part; the Docetse alone know the whole Jesus.
G. Knt)Gm
B1HL1OOaAPHT: G. Salmon, in Hmnathsna, xi (1885), 389_ 402; idem, in DCB, i. 885‑870 (valuable); E. W. M511er, Geschichte der Koemolopie pp 323‑335. Halle, 1880; A. Hilgenteld, Retserpeadaiehts des Urrhrisumtuau. pp 548550, Leipeio, 1884; H. 8taehelin, in TU vi. 3, 1881; L. Pullsn, The Church o/ the Fathers, pp. 48, 51, New York, 1905; Harn"k, Dogma, i. 2W‑?b9, ii. 278 eqq., 370, iii. 18, iv. 138 eqq. et passim. Consult also the literature under Hirr0LZTm.
DOCTOR: The Latin word for "teacher," employed in various ways in academic and ecclesiastical usage. The Doctors of the Church (Dodores eccleaia) are certain of the Church Fathers (q.v.) who bear the title by " express declaration of the Church " (i.e., conferred by the pope or by a general council) because of their " orthodox teaching, holiness of life, and eminent erudition." As early as 1298 the following had thus been pronounced Doctors of the Church: of the Greek Fathers, Athanaaius, Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzen, Chryeostom, and Cyril of Alexandria; of the Latins, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Gregory the Great. Since 1298 the names have been added of Hilary of Poitiers, Petrus Chrysologus, Leo the Great, Isidore of Seville, Peter Damian, Anselm of Canterbury, Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventum, Francis of Use, and Alfonso de' Liguori.
The title " doctor " with a descriptive adjective or equivalent expression was also popularly given to many scholars or churchmen of the Middle Ages, including some who filled no professorial positions. Some of the commoner of these titles with the name of the bearer are am follows: Doctor admiraWia, Roger Bacon; doctor anpelicus, cofmunu, or bite, Thomas Aquinas; doctor beat" et fundahssimus, Raidius de Column&; doctor christianissimus, Joan Gerson; dodor cAriatianus, Nicholas of Cuss; doctor dodorum, Anselm of Leon; doctor smnpelicus, John Wyclif; doctor illutninatur, Raymond Lolly; doctor illuminotua et suUimis, Johannes Tauler; doctor inroinciUUt et sinpularia, William of 0oaam; doctor irrahapabWs, Alexander of Hales; doctor marianus, Anselm of Canterbury and Dune Scotus; doctor mellitus Bernard of Cla,irvaux; doctor planue et utilia, Nicholas of Lyra; doctor resolutissimua, William Durand; doctor acholasticus Abelard, Peter Lombard, and others; dolor seraphicus, Bonaventura; doctor subtilis, Dune Scotus; doctor univenalis, Albertus Magnus. For more complete list af. the %L, iii. 1867‑49.
DOCTRIAAIRB3, dee"tA"nArz. See CH=TiAN Docrame, SoclHTr err.

DOCTRDIE, HISTORY OF.
Early Attempts at Doctrine History (I %). Four Groups of Histories. The Mfinacher Group (1! 2). The Hegelian Group (§ 3). Engelhardt and Gieseler (§ 4). The Confessional Lutheran Group (¢ 5). Nitssch and Harnack (§ 8). The Idea and Task of Doctrine History (1 7). Method and scope (f 8).
The history of Christian doctrines as a department of theological study was inaugurated by S. G. Lange of Jena in his Au8fdhrliche Geschichte der Dogmen (Leipsic, 1796), which came down to Irenmus. This was followed by W. Miinscher's Handbuch der ehristlichen Dogmengeschichte (4 vols., Marburg, 1797‑1809), extending to Gregory the Great, and J. C. W. Augusti's Lehrbueh der christlichen Dogmengeschichte (Leipsic, 1805). Of course, much had been written previously regarding the history of particular dogmas and controversies. The present article deals with the rise and development of the history of doctrines and the lessons taught by a century of work in this department respecting its idea, task, method, and scope.
As early as the time of Irenmus (by way of opposition to Gnostic innovations) stress was laid upon the continuity of the doctrinal teachings of the elders from the apostolic age. Athanasius constantly appealed to the Fathers in support of his

481	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
positions in	conflict with Arius and others. Vin
cent of Lerins (d. 450) declared that " the an
	cient consensus of opinion of the holy
i. Early fathers ought to be most diligently Attempts at sought out and followed " (Commoni‑
Doctrine	torium, i. 28). Naturally non‑catholic
	History.	parties also sought and found support
		for their views in earlier Christian
literature. Abelard (d. 1142), in his Sic et non,
by arraying authority against authority on all im
portant doctrines demonstrated the necessity of
freely applying the mind to the solution of theo
logical problems. The harmonizing of patristic
authorities was one of the tasks of scholasticism.
The Renaissance brought with it disparagement of
authority and recognition of the possibility of prog
ress in the apprehension of truth. The Refor
mation interrupted for the Evangelicals the conti
nuity of doctrinal tradition. The adoption of the
Scriptures as the sole authority gave free course to
investigation in the history of doctrine. Melaach
thon could say in his Loci (1521): " Immediately
after the founding of the Church, Christian doctrine
was ruined by the Platonic philosophy." Yet
Luther and Melanchthon alike, alarmed by the
undesirable consequences of too rigorous an in
sistence on Scripture authority by Anabaptists,
felt it necessary to defend the doctrinal definitions
of the first four general councils as authoritative
interpretations of .Scripture and necessary infer
ences therefrom. The Magdeburg Centuriators
(1559‑74) assumed that from the fifth century
(in part from the second) there was a progressive
obscuration of evangelical truth, not seriously hin
dered by isolated " witnesses " who appeared from
time to time. The stimulus given by the Refor
mation to historical research and the vast amount
of material thus brought to light made possible
such works as that of the Jesuit Petavius, De &o
logicis dogmatibus (Paris, 1644‑50), and the In
struetionea kistorico‑theologicce de dodrina Chris
tiana (Amsterdam, 1645) by the Scotch theologian
John Forbes of Corse. Early Lutheran theologians
did little more in the history of doctrine than to
gather rich patristic materials for polemical pur
poses on the various loci of their dogmatic systems.
Examples of this kind of work are Gerhard's Loci
(Jens, 1610‑25) and Quenstedt's Theologia Didac
tico‑polemica (Wittenberg, 16851. It was not until
Pietism and the Enlightenment (q.v.) had shattered
faith in the absolute correctness of Lutheran. ortho
doxy that " heretical " systems began to be studied
on their merits and that doctrine history could
become a distinct department of study. Gottfried
Arnold's Kirch‑ and Ketzer‑Historfie (let ed., 1699
1700; most complete ed., 3 vols., Schaffhausen,
1740‑42) brought to light and treated sympa
thetically a vast amount of authentic material
regarding dissenting parties from the first century
to his own time. His disposition to give to " here
tics " their due was to some extent shared by Mos
heim and C. W. F. Walch. Walch, Ernesti, Semler,
and Planck have been regarded, along with Lange
and Mianscher, as the fathers of doctrine history.
Leaving out of consideration Roman Catholic works, which (with the exception of those of Bach
and Schwane) are based upon the dogmatic assumption of the identity of dogma during all the centuries, four groups of works from MUnscher to F. Nitzsch (Grundriss der christlidhen DognungeschicMe, vol. i., Berlin, 1870) and Harnack (Lehrbuch der Dogmengeachichte, 3 vols., Freiburg, 1886‑90; Eng. transl., 7 vole., Boston, 1895‑1900) may be advantageously distinguished. Works
s. Four of the Milnscher type which conceive Groups of of the history of doctrines as the Histories. history of the multiform changes which The Xttn‑ Christianity (as doctrine or dogma)
	scher	has undergone up to the present
	Group.	time constitute the first group. Mlln
		scher, though learned and accurate,
failed completely to understand the reasons and
significance of changes and had no proper ap
preciation of times and persons. The same may be
said of Lentz and Bertholdt. This method may
be designated the rationalistic‑pragmatic. The
supernaturalistic modification of this method
(MUnter, Augusti) avoided the offensive extrava
gances of pragmatism and recognized as legitimate
for their time a mass of opinions no longer accept
able, but made little advance in method. Under
the influence of the romanticism and religious
earnestness of the awakening (Schleiermacher) the
vision for the abiding and common in all the diver
sified forms of doctrine was sharpened (Neander
and his school). Deep appreciation of all Christian
character as the embodiment of the new life intro
duced by Christ is what gives coherence to Nean
der's work. This is true in a measurq of Hagenbach,
and in a larger measure of Baumgarten‑Crudus,
whom Hase called the " historian of the religious
spirit." These historians agree in distinguishing
between "general " and "special" history of
doctrines, in discarding the distinction between
" dogmas " (authoritatively formulated doctrines)
and opinions on doctrine set forth by any one
whomsoever in any way whatever (their aim hav
ing been in many cases to discredit dogma by
demonstrating its instability), and in ignoring
Roman Catholic doctrinal development since 1517.
Niedner's work is peculiar in its combination of the
history of philosophy and that of theology, and in
its discrimination between the doctrines of the
schools and those of the Churches, yet it undeniably
belongs to this group.
The second group, introduced by Baur's mono. graph on the doctrine of the Atonement (1838),
j is characterized by the dominance of the Hegelian philosophy. Baur, like his predeces‑
3. The sore, was concerned about the whole
Hegelian mass of changes in doctrinal teaching
	Group.	that have occurred from the apostolic
		time to the present. He saw in the
manifold changes the logical development accord
ing to inner laws of a substantially unchanged
whole. Every doctrine is to him a development
of the Christian idea, inevitable in its time.
The history of dogmas has to do as well with
the multiplicity of dogmas as with the unity
of the dogma. He followed his predecessors in
distinguishing between a general and a special
history of doctrines, and in taking little account of

]Doctrine
Dodasim	THE, NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	482
the development of Roman Catholic dogma since 1517. Marheineke applied the Hegelian method in producing an orthodox counterpart to Baur's work, abandoned the distinction between general and special history of doctrines, limited the scope of dogma to public definitions, identified the substantial contents of the Christian religion with the teachings of Christ and the apostles, and limited doctrine history to the time between the apostolic age and the completion of the formation of the ecclesiastical symbols. To the Hegelian school likewise belonged Meier and Noack.
To a third group, in which doctrine history is conceived as a historic‑genetic representation
of the coming into existence of the ;. Engel‑ doctrinal ideas of the various Christian
hardt	Churches, belong Engelhardt's Dog‑
and Gie‑ mengeschichte (1839) and Gieseler's
seler.	lectures. Both were free from Hege‑
lian influence. Engelhardt had much in common with the group next treated, Gieseler with the Mimacher type. Engelhardt's peculiarity appears in his comparative treatment of the Lutheran, Roman Catholic, and Reformed dogmas, and his brief survey of the doctrinal movements in the various Churches since the definition of doctrines in the great symbols. Gieseler's definition of dogma is noteworthy: " Christian dogma is not doctrinal opinion, not the pronouncement of any teacher, but doctrinal statute. The dogmas of a church are those doctrinal propositions which it declares to be the most essential contents of Christianity." While he held that a complete doctrine history embraces the development of dogmas in all Christian Churches, he paid little attention to the development of doctrines in the Greek Church after its separation from the Roman, or in the Roman Catholic Church after the Protestant revolt.
The last group of the older writers on the history of doctrines is the confessional Lutheran, whose
aim was to show the complete doc5. The trinal agreement of the Book of Con‑
Confes‑	cord with divine revelation. Engel‑
sional	hardt and Marheineke prepared the
Lutheran way for this type of doctrine history.
Group.	Kliefoth, deeply immersed in Hege‑
lianism, marked out its program. Hahnis embodied this idea in his Kirchenglaube. Schmid's brief treatise (1860) was of the same character. The most important work of this group is that of Thomasius (1874‑76). The second edition of Thomasius by Bonwetach and Seeberg belongs rather to the preceding group.
Side by side with these four groups stands the uncompleted work of Nitzach, who, though he had a narrow conception of dogma, yet aimed to make intelligible the present position of Christian the‑
ology, including the influence of 6. ftitzsch Schleiermacher. The one‑sidedness of and the Hegelian construction of history
Harnack. is eliminated by sound historical
realism, and the separation of general and special dogmatics is abandoned. Nitzsch's work is the mature resultant of the older development df doctrine history. But Harnack's famous text‑book begins a new section of the history of the
discipline. While building on the foundations laid by Nitzsch, Thomasius, and Ritschl, he has created an epoch in the study of the history of doctrines by materially increasing knowledge of the subject, by his living grasp of the objects of investigation, and by his brilliant and highly interesting literary presentation. His abandonment of any schematic arrangement of the materials and his sole regard to genetic connections, his appreciation of the " tenacity " of dogma and the inner logic of its development, and his effort to understand individual dogmas as parts of the conception of Christianity as a whole may be regarded as contributions of abiding value. The more recent text‑books of the writer [F. Loofa) and of R. Seeberg (2d ed., vol. i., 1907, vols. ii.‑iii. in preparation), though. dependent on Hamack's, are not without distinctive features.*
The question as to the light thrown on the idea, task, method, and scope of doctrine history by a century of study can only be answered 7. The Idea personally and briefly. The writer
and Task regards Harnack's conception of docof Doctrine trine history as only individually justi‑
	History.	fied. Dogma is for Harnack not a
		generic idea, but the particular doc
trinal ideas that have formed themselves on the
basis of the ancient world. Ancient dogma, with its
objectivity formally independent of the faith of the
individual, is of a wholly different kind from any
modem evangelical system, while Roman Catholic
dogma still bears this purely objective character.
It is therefore instructive to discover the rise of
ancient dogma and to trace its further development
until it is dissolved in heterogeneous new formations
or has found a homogeneous continuation to the
present. As there is no dogma on the idea of dogma,
Hamack can not be fairly reproached for publishing
his doctrine history of the ancient Church under
the title Dogmengeschichte. Another question is
whether the interest that theology has in doctrine
history inheres in this special idea of dogma or in
the generic idea. Is the term dogma to be used to
designate the entire body of doctrines commonly
held by a church, or is it to be limited to state
ments of doctrine made in earlier times by eccle
siastical authority, to which adherence is obli
gatory? Stange, without sufficient ground, charges
Harnaek, Kaftan, and Loofs with innovation in
using the term in the generic sense; for most of
the older writers (Hollatz, Marheineke, Gieseler,
Rothe, Biedermann, Nitzsch, etc.) allow the legiti
macy of this usage. Seeberg and Heinrici agree
with Loofs in defining the history of dogmas as
the history of the rise, development, and eventual
change of church conceptions of doctrine in Christi
anity as a whole or in its various denominations.
On the method of this discipline two views have recently been set forth, that of Bernouilli and others, who insist that doctrine history can attain to the

* The editor of this article may be allowed to express the highest admiration of Loofs's Ief#adm as a masterpiece of
condensed wisdom on the subject. But the 4th ed. (19o6) has 1,002 pages. It contains an amount of pertinent quotation from the sources greater than is to be found in many
larger works.	A. H. N.

468	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Doctrine
highest results only by dealing with the matter from the religio‑historical point of view, and that of Stange (following Baur), who thinks 8. Method that it should be treated purely as a and Scope. history of ideas, praise and blame being completely eliminated, and every phase of doctrine being regarded as part of a process. As a matter of fact, every historian has some sort of standpoint, and pure objectivity is out of the question. Still, it is no disqualification in the historian of dogmas to be imbued with Evangelical principles and to be a master of dogmatics. The better he understands current dogmas the better should he be able to understand the process by which they have been reached. As regards the starting‑point and the closing‑point of the history of dogmas, the question at issue is whether it should begin with the teachings of Christ and the apostles and end with the present, or begin with the earliest ecclesiastical formulations and end with the latest. Against making the teachings of Christ and the apostles the starting‑point is the fact that New Testament theology is in itself so large and complicated a subject. and contains so many elements of controversy as to require separate treatment. The historian of dogmas must base himself uilbn the most assured results of New Testament criticism, exegesis, and theology, rather than attempt to make New Testament theology a part of his field. Certainly, the history of dogmas does not end with the Formula of Concord, the Westminster Confession, or any other symbol; but is it possible to discern surely between modern dogmatics and dogmas 7 Therefore the history of dogmas may stop with the latest ecclesiastical formulations of dogmas.
The relation of the history of doctrines to other theological disciplines, especially to symbolics and church history, can not be adequately treated here. The former can be more advantageously treated in the article SYMBOLICs. The history of dogmas is undoubtedly a part of church history, and the question is how far the former should be eliminated from lectures and text‑books on church history and reserved for separate treatment. (F. Loohs.)

BrsmoasArHy: On the conception of history of doctrine consult: K. Daub, in Zedtachrift far speculative Thoologie, i. 1 (1836), 1‑60, i. 2, pp. 63‑132, ii. 1 (1&37), 88‑161; T. F. D. Kliefoth, Einleitung in die Dopmenpeschichte, Parehim, 1839; C. F. Kling, in TBK, xiii (1840), 1051‑1152, xiv (1841), 749852, xvi (1843), 217‑259; J. E. Kuhn, in TQ, 1850, pp. 249253; F. Niedner, in ZHT, xxi (1851), 579678; F. C. Baur, Die Epochen der kirehlichen Geschichtswhreibung, Tubingen, 1853; G. Frommel, Introduction h l'hiat. des dogmea, D81e, 1895; G. Krilger, Was heisst and su welrhem Ends studiert man Dogmengesehichtet Freiburg, 1895; C. A. Bernouilli, Die wiasenschaftliche and die kirchliche Methods in der Theologie. ib. 1897; C. Stange, Das Dogma and seine Beurteilung in der neueren Dogmengeschichte, Berlin, 1898.
The works on the history of doctrine earlier than the nineteenth century are given in Hauck‑Herzog, RE, iv. 752. Later works, in addition to those indicated in the body of the article, are as follows: L. Berthold, Handbueh der Dogmengeschichte, 2 vols., Erlangen, 1822‑23; F. O. Baumgarten‑Crusius, Kompendium der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1840‑46; C. G. H. Lents, Geachichte der chrisUichen Dogmen in pragmatiacher Entwiekelung, 2 vols., Helmstedt, 1834‑35; J. C. W. Augusti, Lehrbuch der chriaaichen Dogmengeschichte. Leipsic, 1835; H. Klee, Ldrbuch do Dogmengeschichta,
2 vola., Mains, 1837‑38; D. F. Strauss, Die driadiche Glaubewlehre in ihrer geechicUichen Entwickelung, 2 vole., Tubingen, 1840‑41; P. Marheineke, Chriatliche Dogmengeechicdte, Berlin, 1849; J. M. A. Ginoulhias, Hilt. du dogma catholique, 3 vols., Paris, 1852‑62; L. Noack, Die chrietliche Dogmengeschichte nach ihrem organischen Ent• wicklungagange, Erlangen. 1853; J. C. L. Gieseler, Dogmengeschiehte, Bonn, 1855; A. Neander, Chriaaiehe Dogmenge8chiehte, Berlin, 1857; E. Haag, Hiet. des dogmas chr6tiew, 2 vols., Paris, 1862; J. Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, 4 vols., Mifaater, 1862‑90; K. Beck, Christliche Dogmengesehichte, Tdbingen, 1864; K. F. A. Kahnis, Der Kirehenplaube historisch‑genetisch dargestellt, Leipsie, 1864; J. Zobl, Dogmengeschichts der katholischen Kirche, Innsbruck, 1865; F. C. Baur, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Tdbingen, 1867; J. Bath, Dogmengeachichf& des Mittelalters, 2 vols., Vienna, 1873‑75; T. C. Crifyn, Popular Introduction to the Mist. of Christian Doctrine, Edinburgh, 1883; A. V. G. Allen, The Continuity of Christian Thought, Boston, 1884; W. G. T. Shedd, Hid. of Christian Doctrine, New York, 1884; H. C. Sheldon, Mist. o/ Christian Doctrine, ib. 1886; G. Thomasius, Die chrietlirhe Dopmengeschichte, 2 vols., Erlangen, 1886‑89; H. Schmid, Lehrbuch der DogmengeachicAte, NBrdlingen, 1887; K. R. Hagenbaeh, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Leipsie, 1888, Eng. transl. of 4th ed., 2 vols., New York, 1861‑62; C. H. Tuthill, Origin and Development of Christian Dogma, London, 1888; F. Bonifae, Hilt. des dogmas de 1'6gliae chrltienne, 2 vole., Paris, 1889; A. Haanaek, Grundriss der Dogmengeschichte, 2 parts, Freiburg, 1889‑91, Eng. transl., Outlines of a History of Dogma, London, 1893; R Seeberg, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, 2 vols., Erlangen, 1895‑98, 2d ad., 1907 sqq.; idem, Grundriss der Dogmengeschichte, Leipsic, 1905; G. P. Fisher, Mist. of Christian Doctrine, New York, 1896; J. Orr, Progress of Dogma. London, 1901; J. Turmel, Hilt, do la th6olopie positive. Paris, 1904.
	DODAftIM: According to Gen. x.4, one of the
four sons of Javan (q.v.). The question of identi
fication is complicated by the question of the correct
reading in this passage and in the parallel (I Chron.
i.	7). In Genesis the Hebrew manuscripts, the
Targums, Vulgate, and Peshito read Dodanim ;
the Samaritan, Septuagint, and Lucian read Ro
danim (Rodioi), thus agreeing with most of the
Hebrew manuscripts of I Chron. i. 7 (where, how
ever, Lucian and Ben Asher read Dodanim). Com
pare the R. V. with the A. V. F. Brown (Hebrew
and English Lexicon, p.187, New York, 1906) reads
Rodanim. To explain the two forms which the
manuscripts thus attest, the conjecture has been
made that the author of Gen. x. obtained his in
formation concerning Greek peoples from Pheni
cian travelers, that he possibly wrote Dardanim
(cf. Gk. Dardanoi, " Trojans "), and that the " r "
was subsequently misread as " w " (o), the word
thus appearing as Dodanim. Later writers (this
theory proceeds), composing after the name Dar
danoi had disappeared from use, would naturally
use " Rhodians," which was the form the (late)
Chronicler employed as attested by the manu
scripts. If, however, Rodanim be the correct read
ing in Genesis, this explanation is unnecessary.
Against this reading are the early authorities as
cited above; in favor of it are the later date of
Gen. x. and the far greater probability of mention
of Rhodians than of Dardanians in that period.
If Dodanim be the original reading, it is impossible
to say what part of the Greek people the author
had in mind. The reading Rodanim gives a simple
and direct solution, referring to the inhabitants
of Rhodes. 	GFo. W. GILMORE.
BiHLIOGRAPBT: B. Stade, De populo Javan parergon, Giesstn, 1880; and the Bible dictionaries on the word.

THE NEW BCHAFF‑HERZOG	484
Doedes
	DODDRIDGE, PHILIP: English non‑conformist;
b. in London June 28, 1702; d. at Lisbon Oct. 26,
1751. As early as 1716 he began to think of adopt
ing the ministry as a profession, but declined an
offer of a university education and subsequent
provision in the Established Church, preferring the
freedom of nonconformity. His theological educa
tion was directed by Samuel Clarke (q.v.) and the
Independent John Jennings. He became minister
at Kibworth, Leicestershire, in 1723, without ordi
nation or profession of faith; two years later he
removed to the neighboring town of Market Har
borough a0d entered into a joint pastorate with
David Some; and he refused several offers which
seemed likely to limit the theological liberty to
which he clung so ardently. In some sense taking
up the work of the deceased Jennings, he became the
first head of a new academy at Market Harborough,
and, on accepting a call to a pastorate at North
ampton six months later, removed his school
thither, being ordained by eight ministers in the
following March. In the same year appeared his
first publication, Free Thoughts on the Most Prob
able Means of Reviving the Dissenting Interest.
This expressed his ideal of unity in essentials and
freedom in non‑essentials, with a view to bringing
all non‑conformists together on a common ground.
He was an inspiring, if not a very systematic
teacher, and was busy in many good works, inclu
ding a scheme which has been described as the first
non‑conformist project of foreign missions (1741).
His multifarious works were collected in ten volumes
(Leeds, 1802‑05). The best‑known of them with the
exception of his hymns are The Rise and Progress
of Religion in the Soul (London, 1745) and The
Family Expositor, or a Paraphrase and Version of
the Nets Testament, with Notes (6 vols., 1739‑56).
His hymns (370 in number) were published by his
friend Job Orton at Salop, 1755, and were re
edited, with a collation of Doddridge's manuscripts,
by his great‑grandson, J. D. Humphreys (Scrip
tural Hymns, London, 1839). Among the beat
known are " Awake, my soul, stretch every nerve,"
" Grace, 'tis a charming sound," and " O happy
day, that fixed my choice."
BtauoosArai: The Works (ut sup.) contain the memoirs.
	by Job Orton, expanded greatly in Biopraphia Brifnnica,
ed.. Hippie, 1793. The beet source is the Correspond
ence and Diary o/ Philip Daddridge, ed. J. Doddridge
Humphreys (his great‑grandson), 5 vole., London, 1829
1831. The beet life is by C. Stanford, London, 1881. Con
sult the lives by J. Stoughton, London, 1851; J. R. Boyd,
New York, 1880; D. A. Hareha, Albany, 1885; and the
notices in DNB, xv. 158‑154; S. W. Duffield, E~liah
Hymns, pp. 384‑388, New York, 1888; and Julian.
Hymnology. pp. 305‑308.
DODS, MARCUS: United Free Church of Scotland; b. at Belford (44 m. n.w. of Newcastle), Northumberland, England, Apr. 11, 1834; d. at Edinburgh, Apr., 1909. He studied at Edinburgh (M.A., 1854) and New College, Edinburgh (18541858), and was ordained to the ministry in 1864. He was pastor of Renfield Free Church, Glasgow, until 1889, when he was appointed professor of NewTestament theology in New College, Edinburgh, of which he was principal after 1907. He wrote The Prayer that Teaches to Pray (Edinburgh, 1863); The Epistles to the Seven Churches (London, 1865); Israel's
Iron Age (1874); Mohammed, Buddha, arid Christ (1877); Handbook on Haggai, Zecharia, and Malachi (Edinburgh, 1879); Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph (London, 1880); Handbook on Genesis (Edinburgh, 1882); Commentary on Thessalonians (1882); The Parables of Our Lord (2 vols., London, 1884‑85); The First Epistle to the Corinthians (1889); Introduction to the Neto Testament (1889); Erasmus, and Other Essays (1891); Why be a Christian? (1896); How to become like Christ (1897); The Gospel according to St. John (in The Expositor's Greek Testament ; 1897); Genesis, John, and 1 Corinthians, in The Expositor's Bible (1888‑91); Forerunners of Dante (Edinburgh, 1903); and The Bible, its Origin and Nature (Brass lectures; 1905). He also translated the " Apology" of Justin Martyr and the three books of Theophilus of Antioch to Autolycus, in Clark's Ante‑Nicene Christian Library (Edinburgh, 1865), and edited the English version of J. P. I.ange's Life of Christ (6 vols., 1864), and the writings of St. Augustine (15 vols., 1872‑76).
DODWELL, HENRY: English theologian; b. at Dublin Oct., 1641; d. at Shottesbrooke, Maidenhead (26 m. w. of London), June 7,1711. He was a fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, but was obliged to resign because he was not prepared to take orders (1666), and settled in London (1674). He wrote in defelSe of the Anglican Church, and made such a reputation that he was appointed Camden professor of history at Oxford in 1688, but lost the position in 1691, by refusing to take the oath of allegiance to William and Mary. He defended the nonjuring bishops, declaring those " schismatics " who submitted, and himself left the Anglican communion, but in 1710, on the extinction of the nonjuring line of bishops, returned to it. His works were numerous, particularly in the various departments of classical literature, and attest great industry and learning, but little judgment. He is remembered for his assertion, in his Diaaertationea in Irenceum (Oxford, 1689), that the New Testament demonisca were epileptics, and for his Epistolary Discourse concerning the Soul's Immortality (London, 1706), in which he connected immortality with Baptism.
Brnwoaswrer: The Life by F. Brokeeby, London, 1715; J. Darting, Cyclopmdia biblioprophica, pp. 938‑939. Lon‑
don, 1854; S. A. AIVbone. Critical Dictionary of Bag.
L4teratur; Philadelphia, 1891; DNB, xv. 179‑181.
DOEDERLEIft, d0'der‑loin: The family‑name of several German theologians.
1. job&= Alexander Doderlein: B. at Weissenburg (27 m. a.e. of Anapach) Feb. 11, 1675; d. there Oct. 23, 1745. His most important work was Antiquitates gentilismi Nordgatrienaia (Nuremberg, 1734).
2. Christian Albert Doderlein: B. at Seyringen (40 m. s.w. of Nuremberg) Dec. 11, 1714; d. at Biitaow (18 m. s.w. of Rostock) Nov. 4, 1789. He was professor of theology at Rostock and Biitsow, and published De Thaletis et Pythagoro: theologica ratione (GSttingen, 1750); VermischteAbhandlungen aus alien Theilen tier Gelehrsamkeit (Halls, 1755); Von dem rechten Gebrauch and Misbrauch tier menschlichen Vernunft in g6tilichen Dingen (Bat$ow, 1760); Commentatio de Ebionori8 a numero hostium divinitatis Christi eximendis (1769); Ueber Toleranz

485	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
unad Gewissensfreikeil (Wismar, 1778); Theologiache Abhandlungen fiber den ganzen Umfmeg den Religions (4 vols., 1777‑89); Ueberseugender Bemis von den wahren Gottheit des Sohnes Gotten (1789).
S. Johann Chriatoph Doderlein: B. at Windsheim (30 m. n.w. of Nuremberg) Jan. 20, 1745; d. at Jena Dec. 2, 1792. He studied at the University of Altorf, and at the age of twenty‑two became deacon in Windsheim. Gaining recognition by his Curse criticcv et exegetical (Altorf, 1770), he received in 1772 a professorship at Altorf, and ten years later was called to Jena. His chief exegetical works were his Esaias (Altorf, 1775) and his translation of Proverbs (1778). His most important book was his Inurtitutio theologica Christians; (1780), which marks a transition to the modern critical method, since, as he himself said, he took into consideration new interpretations and the results of individual systems of thought with special regard to the requirements of the time, though he did not feel justified in going beyond the Bible or in inventing new doctrines. He likewise urged caution in the choice of arguments, and emphaAzed the need of quality rather than of quantity in their selection. The same principles were advocated in the Theologische Bibliothek, which he edited at Leipsie from 1780 until his death. (K. R. Heowmscst.)

DOFDES, d&‑4'dbs, JACOBUS ISAAS: Dutch theologian; b. at Langerak, a village in the province of South Holland, Nov. 20, 1817; d. at Utrecht Dee. 17, 1897. In the year 1830 he entered the Latin school at Amsterdam, and in 1834 the University of Utrecht, where he founded the lifelong friendship with his fellow student J. J. van Ooster zee. On June 16,1841, he attained the doctorate, and his this, Dissertatio Thealogica de Jeau in Vita= reditu (Utrecht, 1841), appeared also in Dutch under the title De Opstandiug van omen Heer Jesus Christus, in hare zekerheid en belangrljkheid voorgesteld (Utrecht, 1844). In 1841 he passed his ministerial examination, and while waiting for a charge he wrote the prise essay Verhandeling over de Tekstkritiek des Nieuwen Verbonda (Haarlem, 1844). In 1843 he was installed pastor at Hall, in the province of Gelderland, and soon after became an editor of the Jaarboeken voor wetenaehappelifke Theologie, 10 vols., 1845‑54. A study of the subject of baptism and the Lord's Supper led to the writing of De leer van den Doop en het Avondmaol op nieuw onderzochl. I. stuk, Hot Avondmaal (Utrecht, 1847). About this time came his encounter with C. W. Opaoomer, professor of philosophy at Utrecht, who had taken the field against van Oosterzee in behalf of the "infidel philosophy," contending that " scientific infidelity" must make war upon the "miraculous history of Christ and the dogmas founded upon it." That miracles are impossible is assumed as the starting‑point for all investigation. Against such an assumption Doedes contended in Hot recht des Christendorns tegenumer de wijabegeerte gehanulhaafd (Utrecht, 1847), a work the sober, historic tone of which gained the admiration even of his opponent, who spoke highly of his " clear, intelligent, and true language."
III.‑30
This apology was partly the cause of his call as pastor to Rotterdam in 1847, where he labored for twelve years with such seal and success that he is still gratefully remembered. In con. nection with his pastorate he issued catecheticai manuals on the doctrine of salvation and Biblical history which have gone through many law editions and have been translated into the Malayan and the Javanese. Though much occupied in Rotterdam with pastoral work, he yet found time for the sciences, as the Jaarboeken vaor metensch. Theologie bears ample witness. Prof. van Hengel in Leyden attacked in 1847 his doctrine of the Eucharist, to whom Doedes replied in his Apharistten over de lecr des Avondmaala (JWT, 1848, vf. 1). His Exegetische Studian over 1 Pet. iii. 18‑iv. 8 (JWT, 1848, vi. 2), a contribution to the Petrine conception of the Lord's death, resurrection, and preaching to the imprisoned spirita, is still worth reading. In 1853, in collaboration with N. Beets and Chantepie de la Saussaye, he edited the periodical Ernst en Vrede. In the period 18491855 he published at Utrecht his Evanl'ubode in seven volumes. Besides this he put forth several collections of sermons. As a true Protestant he was drawn into the so‑called " April disturbance " of 1852; the tone of Pius IX. in his allocution of March 7, 1853, led him to write De Allocutie roan Paus Pius IX. ten aankondiging van hot herstel den Bisschoppelijke hierarchic in de Nederlnmden, mel eene hidorische toelichting (Utrecht, 1853).
In 1859 he was called to the chair of theology at Utrecht. His inaugural address, Oratio de eritica atudiose a iheologds exercenda (Utrecht, 1859), was bitterly attacked and ridiculed by A. Pierson and the poet P. A. de G4nestet, to whom Doedes only sparingly replied one and two years after in the opening addresses Modem of Apostoliach Christendom f (Utrecht, 1860) and De zoogenaamde Moderns Thealogie eenigszins toegdieht (Utrecht, 1861). He characterised the liberty of teaching in the Church as an ecclesiastical absurdity which would lead only to the enslaving of the Church. Against his colleague C. W. Opaoomer he defended the position that choice must be made between a consistent naturalistic philosophy and the Gospel, and that choice of the first leads to an irreconcilable warfare with the latter (Oud en Niew i De kus den Ckraadijk‑m~ Theologie, Utteeht~ 1865). The beat commentary to his work as a professor is found in the presence of his pupils in chairs of New Testament exegesis‑van Manen in Leyden, Baljon in Utrecht, van Rhijn in Groningen, and Brandt in Amsterdam. He wrote a number of handbooks for academic use: Hermeneutiek voor de Schriften den N. Verbonds (Utrecht, 1866; trans. lated into English from the 2d ed. by G. W. Stegmann, Jr., Edinburgh, 1867); Indeiding tot de Leer van God (Utrecht, 1870; 2d ed., 1880); De Leer vain God (Utrecht, 1871); Encyelopedie den Christelijke Theologie (Utrecht, 1876; 2d ed.,1883). His standard work, written with much sagacity and fairness, is De Nederl. Geloofabelydenis en de Heidelbergaehe Katechismus, all belydenisaehrilten den Ned. Hero. Kerk inn de 19° Eeuw, getoetat en beoordeeld (2vols., Utrecht, 1880‑81). This work brought him into

conflict with Dr. A. Buyper. Of surpassing interest are the recollections of a rich and favored long life which he gives in his 184.1‑1893 Biogra tsche Herinneringen (Utrecht, 1894).
(S. D. vAN VEEN.)
Bnuaoaasamr: Besides the autobiography, ut sup., valuable material may be found in A. W. Bronsfeld, Ben Aeolopiedh %laverblad, Rotterdam, 1897: J. M. l3. Ballon, in Stmman voor Waarheid en Vrede, Feb., 1898.
DO'EG: An Edomitic servant of Saul, who witnessed David's interview with Ahimelech (I Sam. xxi. 7), and later betrayed the priest (I Sam. xxii. 9‑10). The infuriated king sent for the accused and his fellow priests and ordered their slaughter. AB Saul's body‑guard hesitated, Doeg, at the king's order, murdered the eighty‑five priests (Septuagint, "305 "; Josephus, Ant., VI. xii. 6, " 385 "). Saul (or Doeg) then annihilated the priestly city Nob, Abiathar alone escaping to David (I Sam. xxii. 11‑23). That Doeg, though an Edomite, is found among Saul's servants has numerous analogies in history (II Sam. xi. 3, xxiii. 37; I Chron. xi. 46, xxvii. 30‑31). According to I Sam. xxi. 7, Doeg was at Nob, " detained before Yahweh "; of the surmises aiming to explain his detention‑for the keeping of a vow, for concealment (contradicted by xxii. 22), as a recent proselyte, or for levitical uncleanness‑Hitzig's (Begriff der Kritik, Heidelberg, 1831, 82) is best, viz., that Doeg had been quarantined for suspected leprosy (of. Lev. xiii. 1 sqq.). In I Sam. xxi. 7 Doeg is called "the chiefest of Saul's herdsmen "; as this expression in the Hebrew is very strange, and the Septuagint seems to follow a different text (also in xxii. 9), Graetz's proposal may be right‑to read " runners " (haragim) for " herdsmen " (haro'im ; of. Wellhausen, Text der Bucher Sdmuelis, G6ttingen, 1871, 125). Psalm Iii. refers to the betrayal of Doeg, according to the superscription; but it is not certain that the superscriptions rest on old tradition; they are now generally regarded as an accommodation to the text of Samuel. (E. XAtJTZBCH.)

DOELLIIYGER, JOHANN JOSEF IG1fAZ VON. Youth and Education (¢ 1). Early Labors as a Professor (4 2). Activities as.Catholic Apologist (1 8). ‑Beginnings of Break with Rome (§ 4). Position upon the Temporal Power 0 5). Widening of Breach with Rome (II e). The Vatican Council. His Excommunication (1 7). Relations with Old Catholics (§ 8). Gradual Retirement (§ 9). Final View of Reformation (¢ 10).
	Johann Josef Ignaz von Dollinger, church histo
rian and leader of the Old Catholic movement, was
born at Bamberg Feb. 28, 1799; d. at Munich Jan.
10, 1890. He entered the University of Wiirzburg
in 1816 and devoted himself to the study of his
tory, philology, and the natural sciences, chiefly
botany, mineralogy., and entomology; the last
		named ‑science he followed in exhaust
	s. Youth ive fashion for quite thirty years.
	and In 1817 he chose the priesthood as a
	Education. profession, influenced by the converts
		Eckhart, W erner, Schlegel, Stolberg,
and Winkelman‑ In the summer of 1818 he con
tinued his studies under the theological faculty of
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
W(irzburg. Out of deference to his father's wishes he took up the study of law at. Wiirzburg in 1819, but he resumed his theological studies at Bamberg in the autumn of 1820 and continued there until Easter, 1822. On Mar. 22, 1822, he was ordained priest. His ideal of life at this time was not a professorship, but a rural pastorate with sufficient income for the formation of a library and with opportunity for study. Accordingly, in November he went as chaplain, to Marktscheinfeld in Mittelfranken.
In Nov., 1823, he was chosen professor of church history and ecclesiastical law in the lyceum of
Aschaffenburg. Here originated his a. Early first work, Die Eucharistie in den drei
Labors ersten Jahrhunderten (Mainz, 1826),
as a still considered a model treatise. On professor. account of it he was honored with a
doctorate of theology by the faculty at Landshut. In the autumn of 1826 he was called to a professorship of church history and ecclesiastical law at the newly opened University of Munich. Here he became intimate with Franz von Baader, and in 1827 made also the acquaintance of G6rres. Both Baader and Gorres believing that a publication for the promotion of Roman Catholic interests was a necessity, Diillinger was drawn into journalistic activity. A little later, he devoted himself again to his church history, portions, of which appeared from 1833 to 1838 (Eng. transl., A History of the Church, 4 vois., London, 1840‑42). In 1836 he visited England. His relations with that country, for which he had the greatest sympathy, never ceased. Year after year he had a colony of young English students under his own roof. In 1837 he became chief librarian of the University, and in 1838, as newly installed member of the Academy of Sciences, he delivered the opening address on Muhammed's Religion (published at Regensburg, 1838). About this time be began to gather material for a history of the heresies of the Middle Ages, for which he made journeys to Holland, Belgium, and France.
When in 1838 King Ludwig I. ordered all soldiers to kneel before the host the Protestants sought exemption for themselves on conscientious grounds. The king, however, stood firm, maintaining that the bending of the knee was merely a military act.
DSllinger published articles on the 3. Activities question, at first anonymously, which
	as	called forth sharp replies from the
Catholic Protestants and were not altogether so‑
Apologist. ceptable to the Roman Catholics (see
KNEELING CONTROVERSY 1N BAVARIA). His work on the Reformation (Die Reformation, ihre. innere Entwicklung and ihre Wirkungen, 3 vols., Regensburg, 1846‑48) received little attention in the stormy years of 1847‑48. In 1853 he published at Regensburg Hippolytus and Kallistua (Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1876). Dollinger was considered in these years an Ultramontane, but he himself expressed himself publicly against such a characterization. And, indeed, he was right, if one understands by Ultramontanism the Jesuitical system. That system he never learned.

487	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
In 1843 Harle®s gave expression to his views on the controversy concerning the immaculate conception of the virgin, and D611inger
;. Begin‑ ‑ answered that the Church permits a nings of difference of opinion regarding a subBreak ordinate question concerning which
with Rome. there is no tradition and nothing is revealed. His hearers, in 1847, presented him with an address on his birthday, and in acknowledging his thanks he spoke upon the significance of a German Catholic, or national church, and pointed out as its special mission the conservation of theological learning. As they conceived it, the principal mission of himself and his friends was, not only to maintain freedom of faith and conscience, but also the independence of Church and State, with a similar basis for all religious societies. The opposition to him, which began in 1849, because of his national church tendencies never waned. The archbishop of Munich, Count Reisach, a Jesuit scholar, denounced him, and, on the whole, he was regarded at Rome with the greatest mistrust.
Meantime D611inger had projected a comprehensive church history, and in connection therewith had collected material for a history of
g. Position the popes. In 1857 there appeared
	upon the at Regensburg as part thereof Heir
	Temporal denthum and Judenthum, Vorhalle cur
	Power.	Geschichte des Christenthuma (Eng.
		transl., The Gentile and the Jew in the
Courts o f the Temple o f Christ, 2 vols., London, 1862
reprint), and in 1860 Christenthum and Kirche in
der Zeit der Grundlegung (Eng. transl., The First
Age of Christianity and the Church, 2 vols., 1866).
Besides this he busied himself with a history of the
heresies of the Middle Ages, and upon many jour
neys to Italy drew from wide sources. In 1857 he
finally made his often planned journey to Rome.
The attempts of the Italians for a United Italy ap
peared to him to have miscarried. Even Napoleon
III. seemed to be weakening. Without an eccle
siastical state the control of the Church was be
lieved impossible; and the Jesuits insisted upon
the necessity of such a state as a part of the Catho
lic faith. At Easter of 1861 certain ladies of the
nobility requested him to say something regarding
the situation. In response he gave his Odeon lec
tures, in which he considered the possibility of the
fall of the Papal State. The nuncio left the hall in
the middle of the discourse, and the Roman Catho
lic world was thrown into great excitement. Na
poleon had the substance of the lectures trans
mitted to him by telegraph. D611inger published
the lectures with an explanatory introduction in
Kirche and Kirchen, Papstthum and Kirehenataat
(Munich, 1861, Eng. tranal., The Church and the
Churches, or the Papacy and the Temporal Power,
London, 1862), and even Pius IX. was appeased by
the flattering picture of himself which it contained.
Meanwhile a severe conflict broke out between
the Jesuits and the German theologians. No un
acholastic theologian or philosopher was accepted
as trustworthy, no theological faculty as Catholic,
which was not held by the Jesuits.
Many German theologians considered that a
conference of scholars was necessary, and D611inger was induced to issue the call. It cost, however, end‑
less trouble to bring it about. But 6. Widen‑ on Sept. 28, 1863, D611inger opened
ing of the conference with his celebrated
Breach address, Die Vergangenheit and Gegen‑
with Rome. wart der katholischen Theologie. This
was the signal for a stormy outbreak on the part of the Jesuits against Dd1linger, and, indeed, it was clearly evident that a reconciliation between them and the German theology was now impossible. The breach widened rapidly and a most vigorous fight on paper took place, in which the Jesuits' organ at Rome participated. In the syllabus of 1864 the lectures of D611inger were put under the ban. No less objectionable was his Papatfabeln des Mittelalters (Munich, 1863; Eng. transL, Fables respecting the Popes in the Middle Ages, London, 1871; New York, 1872), in which he criticized the Donation of Constantine and elaborated on the heresy of Pope Honorius I. This was regarded as directed immediately against papal infallibility. In Aug., 1866, D611inger's friend Bishop Weis of Speyer wrote to Rome that there had lately appeared in Munich a school of theologians who strove to lower the authority and rule of the apostolic chair, and especially to oppose the doctrine of the infallibility of the pope. Archbishop Manning in London on Feb. 25, 1866, wrote to Rome that D611inger was writing against the prerogatives of the holy chair. Archbishop Scherr of Munich considered it to be the best solution of all the difficulties, if D611inger should die of the attack of pneumonia from which he was then suffering.
Nothing definite concerning the purpose of the approaching Vatican Council (q.v.) was known
until the Civiltd Cattolica in Feb,, 7. The 1869, raised the curtain through the
Vatican correspondence of Cardinal Antonelli.
Council, Thereupon D611inger again took up
his Excom‑ his pen and published in the Augsburg munication. Allgemeine Zeitung a series of articles,
collected in August into a book, Der Papst and das Konzil, under the pseudonym of Janus (Eng. tranal., The Pope and the Council, London, 1869). He opposed pope and council, and the work displayed such knowledge of papal history that it was immediately suspected that the author could be none other than D6llinger. At the same time he issued the so‑called Hohenlohen Theses, and followed shortly with his anonymous Ertodgungen fur die Bisehofe des Konzila fiber die Frage der Unfehlbarkeit, at once translated into French and sent to the bishops. Both writings, however, gave the sources insufficiently, and therefore were quite useless for ignorant or poorly instructed bishops. Cardinal Schwarzenberg urged upon D611inger that, at least as a private individual, he should attend the Council; but he preferred to remain in Munich, where he published regularly in the Augemeine Zeitung Briefe vom Konzil, based upon material furnished him from Rome, each of which fell as a bomb in Rome. Einige Worts caber die unfemarkeitsaddresse and Die neue Geschuftaordnung im Konzil were articles which still more militated against

poemnaw
him in Rome, so that already he was called a heretic. Bishop Ketteler of Mainz, and other bishops of the minority, in an open letter addressed to him begged of him to keep silent. He complied and on July 18, 1870, the personal infallibility of the pope and his universal episcopacy were declared an article of faith. Dbllinger declined to give up what he had hitherto taught, and on Apr. 18, 1871, Archbishop Scherr, himself an opponent in the Council of infallibility, caused his excommunication to be declared from the Chancel. Dollinger soknowledged the fact of excommunication, but pronounced it unrighteous and therefore futile. He considered himself and his associates as still Roman Catholics. He opposed the organization of a separate church, but soon threw in his lot with the Old Catholics (q.v.).
It now became clear to DSllinger that the Roman Church could not possibly be the Catholic one as
conceived by Christ and described by 8. Relations St. Paul. The very highest aim of
with Old Christlike development was to unite
Catholics. the now divided Christian commu‑
	nions. These thoughts had been long
harbored by Dbllinger, and he had already given
public expression to them. With some of his Old
Catholic friends he now elaborated them in seven
lectures upon the Wiedervereinigung der chriad'i
chen Kirehe (published in English, Lectures on
the Reunion o f the Churches, London, 1872; Ger
man, Munich, 1888). He attended the second Old
Catholic congress at Cologne in the autumn of
1872, where union conferences were arranged to
be held in 1874 and 1875, at Bonn, under Dbllinger's
direction. Meantime he waited to see what atti
tude the church authorities would take. But he
soon found, as he says, " indolence and political
considerations do not permit the church author
ities to do anything." However, he comforted
himself with the thought that he had at least
raised anew the idea of a union of all Christian
communions. He took part in all difficult and
weighty questions of the sessions of the Munich
Old Catholics Committee.
His position at the head of the university, where, at the celebration of its 400th anniversary (1872), he was a shining figure, together with his duties in
connection with the Academy of Sci9. Gradual ences made unusual demands upon Retirement. him, so that, gradually, his age began
to make itself felt. In 1873 he was appointed president of the academy. He delivered his academical lectures, speaking even two months before his death, at the age of ninety, with his accustomed intellectual and physical vigor concerning the downfall of the, tempotal power. But finally he began to retire from activities. With the help of Professor Reusch he published (Bonn, 1887) an edition of Bellarmine'a autobiography, which he had long had in hand, and his Jesuitica under the title, GescAichte der Moralatreitigkeiten in der r6miach‑katholiaehen Kirche sea dem seehasehnten Jahrhundert mil Beitrdgen zur Geschichte and Charakteriatik lea Jesuitenordena (2 vols., Ngrdlingen, 1889); shortly before his death appeared Bei‑
THE NEW BCHAFF‑HERZOG
488
trage zur Sel*ngewAEchte den Mitteldteta (2 vols., Munich, 1890). His Akademiache Vortrage were published in 3 vols., Nardlingen, 1888‑91 (Erg. trawl., Studies in European History : being Academical Addresses, London, 1890; Addresses on Historical and Literary Subjects, 1894; and his Kleinere Schriften were edited by Professor Reusch, Stuttgart, 1890).
At last Drillinger understood better how to appreciate Luther, " that titan of the spiritual world."
When, in 1851, he wrote his sketch of ro. Final Luther he had read only a few of his View of writings. Later he studied them all, Reforms‑ and then he modified greatly his fortion. mer judgments. The events of 1870 enabled him to take a still deeper view. In an aeademical lecture (1882) on the Reformation he makes this confession: " I must admit that, for a greater portion of my life, what occurred in Germany from 1517 to 1552 was an impenetrable riddle, and, moreover, a subject of sorrow and pain. I saw only the fact of the separation, the two halves of the nation, divided as by the sharp blows of a sword, standing inimical to each other. Since I have examined more closely the history of Rome and of Germany in the Middle Ages, and since the experiences of these later years have so illumined the subjects of my research, I now believe that I understand what was so enigmatical and I adore the ways of Providence, in whose almighty hand the German nation became an instrument‑a vessel in the house of God, and not one unto dis‑
honor."
(J. Fiutanarcs.)
Btsrtooauret: Lives are by J. Friedrich, 3 vole.. Munich, 1899‑1901; E. Melsor. DsnziL 1889: Louise von KobeV, Munich, 1891; idem, Eng. trsnel., Daltinpar'a Conversations, London, 1892; E. Michael, Innsbruck, 1894. Consult also the literature oiled under OLD CsTaoxiGa and VwTtcwx Comrcu..

DOERHOLT, BERNHARD: Roman Catholic; b. at Bockum Jan. 23, 1851. He studied at Innsbruck (1871‑72), Munster (1872‑78), and Rome (1876‑79), and in 1892 became privat‑docent for dogmatic, theology at Milneter. Since 1899 he has been associate professor of the same subject, and has written Lehra won der (3enugtuung Christi (Paderborn, 1891); Enttoieklung lea Dogmas and der Fortachri# in der Tleologia (Monster, 1892): and Daa Taufagmbolum der alter Ruche each Uraprung and Enttoicklung lPaderborn, 1898).

DO(iGETT, LAURENCE LOCKE: Congregationalist; b. at Manchester, Is., Dec. 22, 1864. He studied at Oberlin College (B.A., 1888), Oberlin Theological Seminary (B.D., 1890), and the universities of Berlin (1893‑94) and Leipsic (189b). He entered Y. M. C. A. work, and was assistant State secretary for Ohio 1890‑93 and State secretary 1895‑98. Since 1896 he has been president of the International Young Men's Christian, Association Training School at Springfield, Mass. He has written History of the Young Men's Christian Association (vol. i., New York, 1898); History of the Boston Young Men's Christian Association (Boston, 1891); and Life of Robert R. McBurrtey (Cleveland, O., 1902).

489	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
1. Meaning and Scope.
Meaning and Use of " Dogma " (4 1).
A Dogma an Established Truth ($ 2)•
Basis of the Certainty of Dogmas
(1 3)•
Dogmatics, Definition and Content <4 4).
The Individual Element in Dogmatics (¢ 5).
Dogmas Essential to Christianity
(4 ®).
Sources and Norms of Dogma (¢ 7).
Fundamental Questions (1 8).
Relation of Scripture to the Inner Life (§ 9).
Conclusions (§ 10).
DOGMA, DOGMATICS.
Relation to Philosophy (f 11).
II. History of Protestant Dogmatics.
1. In Germany.
The Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries (4 1).
Influence of Pietism (¢ 2).
Influence of Leibnitz, Wolff, and Kant (¢ 3).
Schleiermacher and his Contemporaries (1 4).
Biblical Tendency of Beck and H. Schmidt (J 5).
Ritechl ($ 8).
Conservative School of Modern Dogmaticiane (4 7).
The More Radical School of Modern Doemsticisns 0 8).
Troeltech (1 9).
	1. Meaning and Scope: The explanation of the
word " dogma " goes back to an old usage of good
Greek, in which dokei moi and dedoktai mean not only
" it seems to me " or " it pleases me," but also " I
have definitely determined something so that it is
for me an established fact." Hence dogma has the
significance of a firm, and especially a public reso
lution, decretum. Thus the words are found in the
		Septuagint and in the New Testament
	1. Mean‑ to designate firm enactments in the
	Ing and sphere of practical conduct; govern
	Use of mental decrees (Esther iii. 9; Dan. ii.
	"Dogma." 13, vi. 8‑10; Luke ii. 1); apostolic
		regulations (Acts xvi. 4); and the
Mosaic ordinances (Col. ii. 14; Eph. ii. 15). Hence
also the use of the word by philosophers, especially
the‑ Stoics, to denote established declarations of
truth and doctrinal formulation which by virtue of
their firm validity serve in turn se the basis and
norm both for further concrete scientific investiga
tions and conclusions and for concrete precepts
pertaining to practical conduct. Accordingly the
term may be applied both to such sentences as
contain ethical principles and to such as refer to
objective existences, to God and the world. The
name " dogma " was then transferred to propo
sitions in which the basal truths of ethics and
religion are established and which are derived from
a divine revelation. Josephus designates the con
tent of the sacred books of Judaism as " dogmas of
God " (Apion, i. 8). Ignatius likewise (Ad Magnes,
xiii.) speaks of " the dogmas of the Lord and of the
apostles," the context referring especially to ethical
norms and commandments. According to Origen
(De principiis, iv. 156), Christ is " the interpreter
of the saving dogmas of Christianity." These very
propositions then came to be called, with reference
to the validity which they have for the Church,
eccleaiastica dogmata. (On this use of the word
among the ancients cf. especially W. Schmidt,
Christliche Dogmatik, i., Prolegomena, Bonn, 1895.)
	According to this usage and in the light of
recent discussions as to the meaning of the
		word " dogma " and therefore also of
	&n $" dogmatics " (cf. the doctrinal works
	cashed of Hahn, K. J. Nitzsch, Schenkel,
		A. Schweizer, Biedermann, Kahnis,
		and Nitzseh's Dogmengeachiehte), it
should be definitely borne in mind that, in the lan
guage of the ancient Christians, as in that of the
2. The Reformed Churches.
Zwingli and Calvin (¢ 1).
Calvin's Successors (§ 2).
The Netherlands (E 3).
Switzerland (¢ 4).
8. England.
To the Revival of the Eighteenth Century (1 1).
The Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries ($ 2).
4. Scotland
5. America.
The Early Calvinistic Theology (4 1).
Universalism, Unitarianism, and Later Types (¢ 2).
Presbyterians and Baptists. Late Works (¢ 3).
philosophers, " dogma " never denotes a view or doctrine which is to be regarded as a mere opinion, but always one that is to be regarded as established‑at least for those who support it. The same is true (e.g., in Origen) of the heretical dogmas, just in so far as they are held as firm convictions. When, therefore, an ecclesiastical writer speaks with precision of dogmas, he means, even without the express addition of ealmiaatiea, those statements of doctrine which for the body of Christians to which he belongs are established as unimpeachable truths.
The term "dogma" itself gives no information either as to the reason why the truths expressed in the dogma have such certainty and stability or as to
the authority upon which their validity
8. Ball" is supposed to rest.	That church
°f the do 	rest up°n the authority of
Oertainty of	divine revelation is hinted at in the
	. designation " dogmas of God " or " of
Christ "; and all the deliveranees of the Church have this implication. Then, just because the Church truly and correctly derived its dogmas from the revelation contained in the.Scripturee, it leaned for support upon the authority that belonged to its very self, but it did not call the propositions dogmas on the ground that it established them by its own authority, but only because of the firm validity which they must have as " dogmas of God." It is a mistake to define dogma in general as a judgment resting essentially " upon personal authority " (Kahnie), nor does it belong to the conception of dogma that it should have an " authority binding in the sphere of civil law " (Sehenkel). Too much significance has also been given by some recent theologians (including Lobstein, who is opposed by W. Schmidt) to a sentence of Basil (De apirftu aaacto, xxvii.) according to which " the dogma is observed in silence, but the kerygmata are proclaimed to all the world." [For a discussion of the meaning of the term " dogma " and an example of the Ritachlian view of the basis of its authority see P. Lobatein, Einleituung in die evangeliache Dogmatik (Freiburg, 1897; Eng. transl., Chicago, 1903).]
Starting therefore from the sense which the word " dogma " acquired in ecclesiastical and theological usage, dogmatics may be defined as the scientific exhibition of the established religious truth which the Christian community acknowledges

THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
and confesses to have been derived from divine revelation. Its content, accordingly, embraces all
Christian truth so far as it exists in 4• D09‑ the Church in the form of doctrine; or ', the whole doctrine of the life in God, Des‑ as it is mediated by Christ‑of the re‑
nanoa lation in general in which we and all Qontent.
the world about us stand to God; of the relation which subsists between him and us by virtue of sin; of redemption and real communion with God effected by Christ, and of the nature of this God who determines us for his fellowship; of the person and efficacy of the Redeemer, Christ, and of the future acts of God which are to bring about the perfection of that life for humanity and the world. To this content, however, belong also the basal declarations concerning the aims and tasks which are set for us by virtue of the vocation given by God, concerning the ethical attitude of soul that God demands of us and that fits those living in God‑in general, the truths concerning the ethical and the ethically good. To this discipline, therefore, belongs, as a subject for scientific treatment, that whole domain which the catechism treats in a non‑scientific fashion. It is, however, usual in present terminology to make a fundamental distinction between dogmatics and ethics; the former pertains to God and the relation in which he places himself toward us, to the redemptive facts and the ordo salutis appointed by him, and to the future completion promised by him; whereas ethics pertains to one's own personal relation, that is to say, the relation of one's will to God and his requirements of us. The name theologica dogmatica, or " dogmatics," arose only after this division of the sciences had begun‑after the middle of the seventeenth and especially after the first half of the eighteenth century‑in harmony with the more definite sense that then prevailed of the distinction between the science of dogmas and that of ethics or morals. Schleiermacher gave his influence in behalf of the term Glaubenslehre. [The term Glaubenslehre, however, implies that the basis of authority has been changed from an objective to a subjective source, i.e., the Christian consciousness, the characteristic of which is faith.]
But the conception and task of dogmatics must be still more precisely fixed in an essential particular in accordance with the prevailing usage of the term. If it is the task of the dogmatist to set forth that which according to the conviction of a religious body constitutes religious truth and is recognized as such by it, it might still be possible to leave out
of account the dogmatist's personal 6. Ths faith or conception of truth. But the
I'd'‑	Christian Church demands that its
vidnsl dogmatists shall give only such repre
EleDent
is	sentations of its faith as can serve for
	Dog‑	the further proclamation of Christian
		truth. Such a task, however, can be
performed only by one who agrees with the faith of
the congregation and shares its religious life.
" Christian dogmatics," therefore, commonly means
specifically such a treatment as purports to set
forth what is religious truth not only for a Church,
	but also for the writer. Accordingly, it can not
	properly be subsumed under "historical theology"
	(as is the case in Schleiermacher, although in
	Der Christliche Glaube he aimed not only at
	" a historical, but at the same time at an apolo
	getic " treatment). But taking the term in the
	stricter sense, the question may still be raised,
	whether the dogmatist, while standing with con
	viction for the doctrinal views of his Church, may
	not and should not at the same time labor for a
	development and purification of the church doc
	trine. The answer will depend upon the double
	question, how far a Christian Church can find itself
	justified in the opinion that it has already com
	pletely appropriated and developed the truth, and
	how far its individual members are bound to ascer
	tain and express the truth of religion independently;
	or, as Roman Catholicism requires, to submit to the
	authority of the Church. Thus it is possible for a
	dogmatist, besides reproducing the doctrines of his
	Church's symbols, to exhibit that which actually
	constitutes at a given time the content of the
	Church's faith. [For. an able and satisfactory dis
	cussion of this subject, setting forth the Christian
	Church as the " subject " of dogmatics, but not the
	faith of the Church as the " object " of dogmatics,
	see A. Kuyper, Encyclopwdia of Sacred Theology
	(Eng. transl., by J. H. de Vries, London, 1898).]
	Again, the question may be asked at the outset,
	whether dogmatics in the sense of declarations of
		doctrinal truths belongs to Christi
		anityat all; and, in particular, whether
	mss Es‑ they can, and moat be still maintained.
		t°~ If the answer be negative, dogmatics
~, tianity. continues to have justification only as
		a historic science; that is, no longer
	as an exhibition of the actual faith of the Church,
	but only as the exhibition of that which Christian
	Churches once upon a time established and think
	they must to a large extent still maintain. The
	question has become a pressing one only in recent
	years. It is indisputable that the words of Jesus
	and his apostles aimed to present with special em
	phasis objective truths concerning God, the Re
	deemer, the way of salvation, etc.; to have them
	apprehended by the religious subjects by reason of
	the influence upon the inner life; and upon the
	basis of this apprehension to build up a Church and
	plant new life. What a summary of such truth is
	to be found even in the simple testimony that Jesus
	is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that in
	his name there is salvation and life. The Roman
	Catholic and old Protestant orthodoxy had no
	doubt about the right and obligation to formulate
	what it recognized as the content of divine revela
	tion into declarations and confessions of faith and
	doctrinal propositions, and claimed for them uncon
	ditional validity. The old rationalism demanded
	the right of freely criticizing at all times the doc
	trinal deliverancea the Church had sanctioned, and
	challenged also the supernatural character of the
	Biblical revelation. But it, too, admitted that the
	perception and recognition of objective truths be
	longs to the very essence of religion, and of Chris
	tianity in particular; that at least certain basal
	truths concerning God, man, and the world moat,

471	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Dogma
precisely on rational grounds, be continually taught in the Church.
If, however, religion be considered as essentially s matter of feeling chleiermacher), it is not enough to say that certain conceptions as to the source of the feeling, as to the feeling subject, and the factors producing the feeling must be combined, and that the religious life of a community always and necessarily produces a certain uniformity in such conceptions. For one might simply ignore the question whether those conceptions have objective truth or reality back of them. But the case is different, not only when religion and Christianity are made to consist essentially in perceptions and knowledge ‑which even the old orthodoxy did not assert‑but also when true religious experience, no matter how essential feeling may be, realizes itself, after all, only in a definite inner practical attitude. It is a question of being able to come to the enjoyment of communion with God and life in him, of losing this ability through sin, and of having it restored in a definite attitude on our part to actual deeds and ordinances of God. For the fellowship of the religious life, moreover, not only mutual incitement and harmony of subjective feelings are necessary, but common devotion to God and the Redeemer, and mutual encouragement and help in that whole relation; and this is possible only when there is agreement as to those basal truths, and when the leaders of the common worship and edification have fixed confessional formulas of doctrine. To renounce such fundamental dogmas would be to sign the Church's death warrant, to seal the ruin of Protestantism.
But the most important question is that concerning the sources out of which, and the norms
according to which dogmas are to be 7. Sonroes formed. It is precisely by those and norms that the dogmatist must test
Norms the dogmatic material lying before of Dogma. him in the Church, unless, indeed, he simply confines himself to the historical task of setting forth a given stage of doctrinal development. Even the Roman Catholic dogmatists have never confined themselves merely to the ecclesiastical formulations of doctrine, but have always had recourse to the testimony of Scripture and tradition. We are here dealing with that basal question of dogmatics, about which there are now the most serious disputes within the Protestant theology. Roman Catholic dogmatists, going back to Scripture and tradition, must none the less bind themselves to the Fathers and tradition, and give the actually existing Church, as she is represented in the totality of her bishops (indeed, according to the Vatican, decree, in the one infallible pope), the infallible decision as to what is really the content and sense of Scripture and tradition. Evangelical Protestant dogmatists find nowhere a tenable ground for the authority of such ecclesiasticism. Against this they place the authority of the Scriptures, which are deemed sufficiently perspicuous for believers. Luther, to be sure, had exercised a free criticism as to the constituent parts of the traditional documents of revelation; but the old orthodoxy lacked a clear consciousness as to the
principles of dogmatic procedure. ‑Moreover, the old dogmatists distinguished between articuli purl, which are to be derived exclusively from special revelation, and articuli mixti, which as to content, indeed, must likewise be taken from the Scriptures, but which may find confirmation in the universal religious consciousness supported by general revelation. The Bible is therefore not merely the highest and only norm by which all doctrinal statements must be tested, but the revelation it contains is, in an absolute sense, the very principle of theological knowledge. None the less, in spite of the Reformation, tradition in the form of a scholastic philosophizing continued to exert a far‑reaching influence. Rationalism and supranaturalism, accordingly, subjected the dogma to a new testing and purifying. At the same time the doctrine of inspiration is so transformed that an unconditional infallibility can no longer be claimed in behalf of all statements contained in Scripture.
But even under the most radical criticism Scripture retains a certain unique normative authority. The views differ greatly, however, on the question as to what gives Scripture its peculiar documentary value and how far this value extends. It is by no
means enough to say that we here 8. Funds‑ find the Christian truth in its original
mental form and that we must accept it thus. puss‑ For the question is whether this first tions. form was not the lowest stage in a process of development, or whether Schleiermaaher's dictum (cf. his Daratellung des theologischen Studiums, Berlin, 1830, p. 83) is here valid, that the earliest conditions of a historical development, before there has been any chance of collision with adverse forces, most purely represent its peculiar spiritual essence. Another question must be raised as to the date of the New Testament books; namely, whether they belong to the origin of Christianity or are themselves the product of a development that extended, as Baur claimed, to the end of the second century. Furthermore, does the power of the Scriptures differ only in degree or also in kind from that of other writings? Finally, there is the main question, whether in any event the sum and substance of the truth recorded in the Bible, namely, Jesus the Son of God, is so represented in these books as the perfect revelation of God and as the Redeemer that we can recognize him as such and that we must acknowledge him as such in obedience to the demands of our inmost nature when once it is brought under the power of this representation.
We thus come to the relation of Scripture to the inner life. It is only through a personal experience
of the influence of the Christ here por ‑ trayed that the right conception of tion of the aim and core of that revelation is
a°r'1't' obtained. The right conviction as to to the
	inner	the higher character of those writings
	Life.	can be obtained only when their very
		content in this manner attests itself
to the heart, when their spirit with its peculiar
originality, sublimity, power, freshness, and sim
plicity makes itself known in experience, and when
at the same time this their spiritual peculiarity is
understood in the light of the external and internal

DMnsa	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	47$
historical connection in which they stand to the original revelation of Christ and the life that has proceeded from him. In order, therefore, to establish, the content of the faith, the dogmatist must also deal with those processes of the inner life by which faith is produced in the first instance; just as moral philosophy or ethical theology must deal with such subjective considerations without being able by external authorities or historical proof or logical deduction to establish the matter for those who deny knowledge and experience of the corresponding subjective processes. Much, too, will depend upon the answer to the question, whether the value of Scripture differs only in degree from that of other products of the genuinely Christian spirit, and whether the effect of the Spirit upon the Biblical writers pertains only to the sphere of morals and religion, and thus leaves room for the influences, defects, and progressive character of general human culture. Upon all such topics dogmatists differ greatly. Frank, e.g.,.in his System der christlichen Gewissheit (2 vols., Erlangen, 1870‑73), seeks to deduce from the inner experience of the regenerate man itself all the principal elements of Christian truth revealed in the Bible and recognized in the Church confession; whereas Cremer and Beck derive the truth only from the revelation of Scripture approving itself to the conscience.
Thus then the dogmatist must objectively reproduce the ecclesiastical confession and forms of doctrine as they appear above all in the official
symbols; he must establish any de10. Don‑ party therefrom which he may °1°' choose to make, and at the same time
sions. show with what right he can as a dogmatist still regard himself as belonging to his particular body. At the same time he is bound to try to advance Christian truth by working at the original sources with the highest degree of independence. The very spirit of loyalty will make it his duty to purify the Church and her doctrine. The scientific character of dogmatics, moreover, necessitates a sharply methodical mode of thought, an analysis into its constituent elements, and the establishment of every individual element of doctrine in its relations to the whole. Reason itself will here have to admit, however, that in the attempt to ascend from the finite limitations in which man moves there are no perfectly adequate categories for God and his relation to man. Instead of trying to overcome this fact, it is far more expedient freely to use anthropomorphisms in dogmatics.
But while doctrinal theology as such draws from the divine revelation, the scientific dogmatist will
also deal with the independent philil. Rela‑ osophic attempts that have been made tion to know God in his relations to us,
to Phi‑ whether by way of cosmological or
Phi‑
losophy. moral philosophizing or by the pesses of thought itself (Hegel). But that which thus proceeds from a conscience and a self‑consciousness that is not yet specifically Christian can be truly and correctly interpreted only by the Christian revelation and experience; and so far the old orthodox dogmatists and also Kaftan rightly
affirm that reason in dogmatics has only vsua formalis. At the same time the actual influence of philosophy and particular philosophies even upon dogmatists who deny the fact is perfectly clear; e.g., in Schleiermacher maybe seen the mighty influence of Schelling's philosophy of identity and of Spinoza's attempts to express the thoughts of the pious consciousness concerning God..
II. History of Protestant Dogmatics,‑l. in Ger. many: The Evangelical Protestant Reformation was bound by virtue of its original spirit to lead to all these problems and questions. But only gradually, through the strife of opposing tendencies did the real task of Evangelical Christian dogmatics reveal itself. The new doctrine of the
Reformation pertained in the first 1. The stance to the very heart of dog‑
Fifteenth matics and ethics, to the essence of and the salvation that has appeared in
63zteenth Centuries. Christ, and in particular to the mode
of appropriating it. The dogmas of the Trinity and the person of Christ were accepted without criticism in the traditional form (Melanchthon's Loci, 1521). The next generations gave the new Christian dogmatics more and more of a scholastic character: e.g., Chemnitz, in his Loci, published in 1591; Hutter; Compendium locorum theologicorum, 1610; Calovius, Systema locorum theologicorum,165r77; and Quenstedt, Theologia didaotiro‑polemica, 1885; Johann Gerhard, in his Loci of 1610‑21, the most valuable production of the Lutheran orthodoxy, revealed a far more energetic religious spirit, and Hollatz, the last important representative of the old Lutheran orthodoxy, in his Examen theologicum acroamoticum, 1707, showed Pietistic influences. In the Reformed Church the development of dogmatics proceeds essentially from Calvin's InatituNo Christiance religionis (1536; final edition 1559). The development here, too, leads to a period which may be characterized as scholastic, but the process is not shut up within itself as was Lutheranism. Arminianism is a departure. Cocceius takes the content of faith from Scripture. See below, 2.
The deep and powerful practical religious movement of Pietism reacted against those learned theologies whibh asserted the divine authority of Scripture indeed, but treated its content in the way of
barren and dead forms of conception. 2' Infi°‑ To stimulate and establish a living °n°e and true faith, Spener and his followers
Pietism. lminted to the inner assurance of the
Biblical truth through the Holy Spirit for every one who would open his heart to its influence. But there was here no endeavor to make this truth, its validity for faith, and its relation to knowledge of the world the object of a strictly scientific treatment. Dogmatists influenced by Pietism, such as Breithaupt (Inatitulionea theologiw dogmaticcs, 1723), Anton, Freylinghausen, and Rombach, sought, by going back to Scripture, to simplify the ecclesiastical doctrines in the direction of a practical religious tendency. And more strictly scientific theologians, like Buddeus (Institutionea theologies dogmatists, 1723) and Pfaff (Inatitutionea aeologia dogmatic‑ et moralis, 1723),

473	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
who made more of the historical development, show the new warmth and simplicity. The Biblical tendency fostered by Pietism won a peculiar power and independence in WUrttemberg, exemplified in Bengel (d. 1752), M. F. Roos (Die chriWichs, Glaubenalehre, 1774; new ed. by J. T. Beck, 1845), and Beck himself, the most important and influential of these dogmatists.
The next great turn in the history of Protestant dogmatics came from a quarter opposed to Pietism;
the philosophy of Leibnitz end Wolff, S. Inau‑ and later of Kant. Wolff's first and
Once of most influential disciple among the
W~ dogmatists was S. J. Baumgarten, sent. who went out from Pietism (d. 1757;
his Evahgelische alawbenalehre was published by Semler in 1759‑80). Wolff's influence was at first apparent only in the method of rational demonstration, then in the preference given to those truths which can be apprehended by the natural reason, and in the alighting and weakening of the other dogmas. Then Semler employed an important Biblical and historical criticism against the ecclesiastical dogmas. Still using the Bible as a recognised higher source of truth, rationalism gave a new turn to the difficult propositions. Then, when the Wolflian and at the same time the English and French philosophy and the "Enlightenment" (q.v.) threatened to issue in downright rationalism with no strictly ethical spirit, Kant, asserting the absolute character of the categorical imperative and its assurance as to the existence of God, gave this rationalism a most powerful ethical impulse. None the less, the rationalists themselves learned little from Kant and continued to put all trust in their God‑given reason. But also the supranaturalism gave a wrong treatment of Christian truth and of religious truth in general. It hoped by dialectic processes to establish not only the existence of God, but also a higher source of the Sacred Scriptures, and thence the reality of the miracles there recorded (which, however, are admitted to be incomprehensible), and also the truthfulness of the Biblical statements (likewise transcending reason) concerning God, the essence of Christ, the Trinity, etc.; at the same time, in opposition to the former orthodoxy, it sought as much as possible to confine itself in its dogmatics to the actual statements of Scripture. The most serious lack in the case of this rationalism and this supranaturalism is that‑in F. Nitssch's phrase (Lehrbuch der evarigelisehen Dogmatik, Freiburg, 1889, p. 31)‑of a "sense of immediacy "; that is, of a knowledge of the significance of immediate percaption and experience for faith and its certitude. Here belong, on the one hand, the systematic works of TBliner (1775); DBderlin (1780); then, revealing Kantian influences, Tieftrunk (1791); H. P. K. Henke (1793); Eckermann (1800); Wegseheider (1817; 8th ed., 1844); and Ammon (1803; 4th ed.,1830); on the other hand, Reinhard (1801), Storr (after 1793; a representative of the Wfirttemberg Biblicism), Knapp (1826), A. Rahn (1827), and Steudel (1835).
A powerful awakening of the sense for the immediate, which became the most important factor
for a new period in the history of dogmatics, was introduced by the transition from the eighteenth to the nineteenth century with the great political agitations which deeply reacted upon thought and feeling. Schleiermacher, proceeding 4• 8011101‑ from Moravianiem and well schooled ermsoher in philosophy, sought, in opposition and his_ to the intellectualism of the rationalistie and the su ranaturalietio movements, to make the pious self‑consciousness of the Church the basis of the system of doctrine. Like the original Pietism, his movement opposed a learned orthodoxy and at the same time strengthened the confessional church spirit. In the philosophy of that day, though Kent was willing to give validity to the content of religious faith only in the postulates of the practical reason, Jacobi at least taught a direct knowledge, according to the feelings, of the supereensuous and the divine through a believing reason just as the objects of sense perception are recognized by the senses. From Jacobi Fries adopted the view that reason as the faculty of ideas grasps these by way of feeling or presentiment. De Wette (Ueber Ra, ligion and Theologie, 1817) followed him. Nevertheless, at that time the Schelling‑Hegel philosophy of the speculative reason gained the amendency, and it was in the forms of this thinking that Daub and Marheineke thought they could state the true content of the Christian faith (Daub, Theologunaena, 1806; Einleitung in das Stadium der Dogmotik, 1810; Marheineke, Gmndlehren der christlichm Dogmatik, 1819 and 1827; System der chriatlichen Dogmatik, after his death, 1847). Among the learned theologians Sebleiermaeher was most influential in remolding dogmatics by reason of his determination to make the system express the pious feelings or the pious self‑consciousness (Der chriatliehe Glaube, 1821; Reden.lZer die Religion, 1799). He also influenced dogmatists who in opposition to him made it the task of dogmatics to represent the divine realities attested by the feelings as objectively true, and to ground them in reason; and he cooperated with those who had a different understanding from his of the inner processes of the soul and who found in these the workings of God and of the divine revelation in Christ and in the Biblical testimonies.
In more recent dogmatics must be noted first of all a simple Biblical tendency now more effective in scientific theology than before. A chief representative is the above‑named Beck, who is unique not only in that with
of Beck Perfect tnist in the self‑evidencing
	and H.	character of Scripture he sought to
	fit.	take the content of faith purely from
		this source, but also in that he would,
on principle, have nothing to do with the views of
Schleiermacher, church orthodoxy, philosophy, or
Biblical criticism. This new ecclesiastical and con
fessional interest is to be seen also in H. Schmidt's
Dogmatfk der evangeliech4utbarisehen Kirche (1843),
which had the merit of once more systematically
presenting the actual content and the veritable
treasures of the old and forgotten orthodoxy.
While Rothe, Lange, Martensen, Dornee, and

THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	474
others continued in the steps of Daub and Marheineke, the Hegelian left threatened in Strauss (Christliche Glaubenslehre, 1840) to dissolve the Christian views, but the Hegelians Biedermann and Pfieiderer opposed him. Kant influenced anew
Lipsius and, above all, A. Ritachl. 6. xitaahl. Kaftan, a follower of Ritachl (of. his
Wesen der christlichen Religion, 1881),
was also attracted by the positivism of Comte. Ritachl has been since Schleiermacher the most effective factor in the development of dogmatics. His basal characteristic is his emphasis upon the ethical, upon the will, as against the metaphysical. At the same time Christianity as the only true religion is expressly derived from revelation, from the objective manifestation of God and his will in the person of Christ. All " mysticism " is abhorred. It can not be known in what inner relation of life and essence Christ stood to God, though by virtue of his work as revealer he may also be called " God." The conception of the kingdom of God reminds of Kant, as also the peculiar dogmatic juxtaposition of the kingdom of God and redemption as two foci of an ellipse. Ritachl never built his dogmatic ideas into ‑ a complete and homogeneous system. Among his pupils the chief progress was made in the direction of a decided recognition of the immediacy of the Christian experience; especially in Herrmann who, though in a lesser measure than Kaftan, makes room for mysticism. The school has developed opposing parties (cf. G. Ecke's Die theologische Schule A. Ritsehls, Berlin, 1897).
With reference to their attitude to the Biblicoecclesiastical body of doctrines modern dogmatists may be divided into two classes, the more conservative and the more radically critical, though the line of division can not be sharply drawn. Promi‑
nent among the former ‑are K. F. 7. con‑ Nitzseh (System der christlichen Lehre, servative 1829, which also embraces ethics);
School Jesus Miiller (though he published no of
Xodern dogmatics); H. Voigt (Fundamental‑
dogmatik, 1874); Rothe, more apectioians. ulative, though not basing the con‑
victions of faith upon speculation (Zur Dogmatik, 1863, which makes the science a historical critical discipline); J. P. Lange (Christliche Dogmatik, 1849‑52, more suggestive and fantastic than strictly philosophic); Martensen (Christliche Dogmatik, 1850, mystical, more attractive than acute); I. A. Dorner (System der christlichen Glaubenslehre, 1879, 1886, among other peculiarities a basing of the certitude of faith upon an inner immediate perception); Runze (Grundriss der evangeliaehen Glaubens‑ and Sittenlehre, 1883); and H. Plitt (Evangelische Dogmatik nach Schrift and Erfahrung, 1863). In connection with the Biblieist Beck already mentioned stand his fellow countrymen Reiff (Christliche Glaubenslehre ale Grundlage der christlichen Weltansehauung, 18731876) and W. Gess (Christi Person and Werk,18701887). In North Germany this tendency is best seen in Cremer (Dogmatische Prinzipienlehre, in Mckler's Handbuch der theologiachen Wissenschaften, iii., N6rdlingen, 1885) and Mckler, whose academic labors, however, pertain more to history than dog‑
maties (System der Glaubenslehre, in the same volume, a scientific reproduction of the doctrine of the Lutheran Church). Here, too, belong M. Kaehler (Wimenschaft der christlichen lehre, 1883, 1893, a concise systematic treatment of the Christian doctrines as the content of the self‑evidencing Biblical revelation), W. Schmidt (Christliche Dogmatik,1895r98), and F. A. B. Nitzseh (Lehrbuch der evangelischen Dogmatik, 1892, 1896; critical yet conservative). Of all these only Lange belonged to the Reformed Church. To this same confession belonged Ebrard (Christliche Dogmatik, 1852), who, however, took an independent attitude toward confessional differences. This is even more the case with Bohl (Dogmatik auf reformiert kirchlicher Grundlage, 1887). Specifically Lutheran and specifically polemic against the Reformed theology and against the Union are Philippi (Kirchliche Glaubemlehre,1854 aqq.), Vilmar, Thomasius (Christi Person and Werk, Darstellung der euangelischr lutherischen Dogmatik, 1852 aqq.), Luthardt (Kompendium, 1865), Kahnis (Die lutherische Dogmatik historiseh‑genetisch dargestellt, 1861‑68; 1874), F. H. R. Frank (System der christlichen Gewissheit, 1872; System der christlichen Wahrheit, 1878‑81, 1885). At the same time Thomasius and the rest of this group have no hesitation in departing from the Lutheran orthodoxy; Gess, e.g., in respect to kenosis, Kahnis in trinitarian subordinationism and in an approximately Reformed view of the Lord's Supper; and least of all does A. von Oetlingen in his Prinzipienlehre (1897) reproduce Lutheranism in the sense of the old orthodoxy.
In the other more critical group‑though its members are not to be charged offhand with the guilt of a " negative criticism "‑
	e. The	stands the Reformed theologian A.
	More	Schweizer (Christliche Glaubenalehre
	Bhoooal School f naeh protestantischen Grundsazen,
	Xdo 1863‑72, 1877, to be distinguished
	Dogma. from his Glaubenslehre der evangelisch
	ticieaas. reformierten Kirche, 1844‑47). Schen
		kel in his Christliche Dogmatik vem
Standpunkte des Gevrissens aus dargestellt (1859)
does not clearly show the difference between his
" conscience " and Schleiermacher's pious " self
eonaciousness." His Grundlehren des Christen
tums (1877) is more rationalistic. Close to De
Wette stands Hase, more eminent in historical
theology than in dogmatics (Evangelische Dog
matik, 1826, 1870). Against Strauss and in be
half of Hegelianism labored Biedermann (Dog
matik, 1869) and Pfleiderer (Grundriss, 1880, 18861,
although the former abandoned Hegel's attempt
to deduce the content of truth from thought itself.
Lipsius (Lehrbuch der evangelischen protestantischen
Dogmatik, 1876, 1893) rejects the Hegelian claim
of a dialectic knowledge of the absolute, and also
the validity of the church doctrines; but as against
Ritschl's protest against metaphysics he regards
some declarations about God and supramundane
realities as possible and necessary, and goes back
to self‑consciousness and the immediacy of the
mystic elements in religion and faith. At first
sight, indeed, the content of the faith of the Church
thus seems seriously threatened; but he shows an

476	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Dog‑
unmistakable endeavor to establish the self‑evi
dencing truth of the inner experience, and to guard
against a false distinction between the person of
Christ and the " principle " of theological knowl
edge. Ritschl greatly influenced Hermann Schultz
(Grundriss der evangelischen Dogmatik, 1890) and
Kaftan (Dogmatik, 1897, and Zur Dogmatik, 1904),
who more than Ritschl seeks to accept the full
content of the faith that is based upon the his
torical revelation of God. He also gives a pro
portionate treatment to factors which Ritschl put
into the background; he discusses the relation of
Christ's essence to God as a " fact of nature," and
puts a due estimate upon the inner working of God
in the believer. The Ritschlian left has as yet
produced no important works of a truly dogmatic
content and character. 	(J. K6sTLINt.)
	Ernst Troeltsch, professor of systematic theol
ogy at Heidelberg, has as yet published no com
prehensive work on dogmatics, but by his mono
graphs (Die Absolutheit des Christentums and die
Religionsgeschiehte, Tiibingen, 1902; Das Histori
sche in Kant's Religdonsphilosophie, Berlin, 1904;
Politische Ethik and Christentum, G6ttingen, 1904;
etc.) has attracted attention and provoked criti
		cism. He maintains the absoluteness
9. Troelteoh. of Christianity as resting on divine
		revelation, yet insists that, having
been drawn by modern historical science into the
stream of religious evolution, its relativity and
limitation must be recognized. As sustaining his
torical relations Christianity is a relative phenom
enon; for one who has had personal experience of
communion with God in Christ it is the absolute
religion. But the study of comparative religion
leads to recognition of the fact that the devotees
of other religions may have a similar experience
and an equal right to consider their religions ab
solute. (Cf. critique of Troeltach's Absolutheit by
Hermann, in TLZ, 1902, 364 aqq., and summary
of Troeltsch's views by G. B. Foster, in his Finality
of the Christian Religion, Chicago, 1906, pp. 42‑46.)
2. The Reformed Churches: Reformed dogma owes its content and form to Calvin. Zwingli's dogmatic views were most systematically presented in his Uslegen and Grund of his sixty‑seven articles (1523). In his exposition of art. vi. he seeks
to prove from Scripture that God's 1. g~n‑ promises of salvation in Christ were and made to the whole human race, the
Calvin. only condition being personal accept‑
ance. Calvin's fundamental dogma was that of the absoluteness of the divine predestination, involving the certainty of the salvation of the elect and the inevitableness of the eternal destruction of the non‑elect. The first edition of the " Institutes " (1536) was really an apology for Protestantism and by no means a systematic treatise on theology. In the final edition of 1559 it was expanded and divided into four booksKnowledge of God the Creator, Knowledge of God the Redeemer, the Law, the External Means for Salvation. The Scriptures alone are regarded as absolutely authoritative. Calvin's doctrine became dogma in various confessions of faith, catechisms, and the like.
Calvin's predestination dogma was assailed with vigor by Bolsec, Pighius, Castellio, and others. Socinianism may be regarded as in part a reaction against Calvinism. Several of Calvin's followers
(Beta, Gomarus, Piscator, Chamier, 8. Calvin's and others) went far beyond Calvin Suc. in making God directly and absolutely
cessors. the author of sin (supralapsarianism). Their views gained considerable acceptance and, with Socinianism and other influences, called forth Arminianism by way of reaction. The position of Arminius was clearly expressed in the remonstrance of 1610 and in the works of Episcopius, Uitenbogaert, and, later and more moderately, by Limborch. The Synod of Dort (1618‑19) reaffirmed in strong language the dogmatic teachings of Calvin, while carefully avoiding supralapsarianism. Piscator reacted to Arminianism. The Scotch theologian John Cameron (d. 1625) originated in the Saumur school (1618 onward) a mode of theological thought involving important modifications of the Calvinistic system. He maintained that, notwithstanding the fall and hereditary sin, there remains in man, after his understanding has been enlightened by divine revelation, enough of good to enable him to lay hold upon salvation. Among the most noted of Cameron's disciples were Joshua Placeus (d. 1665), Molse Amyraut (d. 1664), and Louis Cappel (d. 1658). Opposed to the Saumur school was that of Sudan, where Daniel Chamier (d. 1621) and his disciples maintained polemically a rigorous Calvinism.
In the Netherlands, Gisbertus Voetius (q.v.; d. 1676) upheld Calvinism after the Synod of Dort (Selects disputationes theologicee, 5 vols., Utrecht,
1648). Johannes Cocceius (q.v.; d. 8. The 1669) became important for dogmatics
Nether‑ through his application of the historical
leads. method to it and the resultant scheme of divine covenants (the federal theology). F. A. Lampe (d. 1729), professor in Utrecht, brought the influence of German Pietism powerfully to bear upon Dutch theological thought. As a means of settling controversies that had arisen, it was arranged that in each university the professor of systematic theology should be a Voetian, that of exegetical theology a Cocceian, and that of practical theology a Lampean. This placing of three types of Reformed theological thought on a basis of equality, together with the wide influence exerted by such learned Arminian (Remonstrant) teachers as Peter Limborch (d. 1712) and Johannes Clericus (d. 1736), meant a complete breakdown of rigorous Calvinism as the authoritative form of Christianity in the Protestant Netherlands. It enjoyed a revival in the nineteenth century under the leadership of Isaak da Costa (d. 1860), Abraham Capadose (d. 1874), G. Groen van Prinsterer (d. 1876), and others, and has been extended and perpetuated by A. Kuyper, G. J. Vos, and others. A Platonizing, mystical type of Reformed theology, influenced by Schleiermacher, led by P. W. van Heusde (d. 1839) and including J. F. van Oordt, Hofstede de Groot, and others, had its center at Groningen (see GRONINGEN SCHOOL). J. J. Van Oosterzee (d. 1882) represents a position interme‑

Dotma	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	478
diate between the rationalistic mysticism of the Groningen school and the somewhat rigorous Calvinism of Kuyper and the separatists. Extreme rationalism of the German type had become so far dominant in Holland by 1876 that the theological faculties of the universities were transformed into faculties of .religions, the aim being to place Christianity upon the same basis as other religions and to encourage freedom in dealing with religious problems. Among the eminent leaders of liberalism in the Dutch Reformed Church may be mentioned A. Kuenen (d. 1891), C. P. Tiele, and P. D. Chantepie de la Saussaye, who have worked chiefly in the fields of Biblical criticism, comparative religion, and the philosophy of religion.
In Switzerland, Besa's influence withstood for some time the inroads of more liberal types of thought. The Helvetic Consensus, embodying un‑
compromising Calvinism, was adopted 4. swit. (1675) by the Swiss churches as a
serland. protest and defense against the Sau‑
mur and Cocceian types of thought. The Consensus proved too rigorous for the time and was abandoned by Zurich (1685), Geneva (1708), and Bern (1722). Francois Turretin, one of its authors, had to contend with his own more liberal colleagues, Jean Mestresat and Louis Tronchin, in Geneva. He was fighting a losing battle, but he succeeded in putting the Calvinistic. theology as interpreted and applied by the Synod of Dort, with elaborate refutation of earlier and later more liberal forma of thought and sharp antagonising of Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism, in a thoroughly and minutely wrought out scholastic form, worthy of the great dialecticiansof the Middle Ages. His Institutio theologia elencticie (Geneva, 1679‑85) is still the most complete exposition of fully developed Calvinism and has exerted a wide‑spread influence on later Reformed dogmatics. His son, J. A. Turretin (d. 1737), led in the abolition of the Helvetic Consensus and, under the influence of Cameron and the Saumur school and of English latitudinarianism, labored for a union of the Reformed and Lutheran Churches. He insisted that only fundamentals should be made terms of communion, and that only doctrines necessary to salvation should be regarded as fundamental. Like‑minded and similarly influenced by English and German thought was Benedict Pictet (d. 1724). Calvinism vanished from Geneva, which soon became a center of French rationalism (Voltaire, Rousseau, and others). A temporary revival of Calvinism (from 1817 onward; see HALDANE) found its chief representative in Alexandre Vinet, but his writings were practical rather than dogmatic. Pietism made its influence felt in Basel during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Zurich, where De Wette labored (1822 onward), was swayed by German rationalism.
8. lagland: The Thirty‑nine Articles of the Church of England represent moderate Calvinism, or, perhaps more correctly, the type of thought developed by Melanchthon. English Puritans maintained a rigorous type of Calvinism, some even of the conforming Puritans being hyperrmlvinistic (supralapearian) in their teachings.
In the reaction against Puritanism Romanising theologians like Archbishop Laud (d. 1644)
and Richard Montagu (d. 1641) 1. To the developed a type of doctrine closely Revival of approximating the Semi‑Pelagianism the Zisht‑ (Semi‑Augustinianism) of the Council esath Can of Trent, commonly designated Ar‑
mimanism. Both Arminianism and Socinianism greatly influenced English thought during the revolutionary period (1641‑60). John Milton (De dodrina Christiana, ed. and transl. by C. R. Sumner, Cambridge, 1825) taught Arian Christology and Arminian anthropology. John Hales (d. 1656) had been converted to Arminianism at the Synod of Dort. William Chillingworth (d. 1644) became imbued with Pelagianism through consorting with the Jesuists. At Cambridge there grew up during the Cromwellian period the socalled Cambridge Platoniets (q.v.), whose mysticism was based on the Jewish cabala and Neoplatonic writings. Their Christology was essentially Sabellian. The latitudinarianiem of the time of William and Mary (John Tillotson, d. 1694; Gilbert Burnet, d. 1715) was due in part to Arminian and Socinian influence and in part to the syncretism that prevailed so widely on the Continent among Lutherans and Reformed alike, or, more correctly, to the changed philosophical conceptions and modes of thought of which all alike were expressions. By way of reaction against dominant latitudinariamam High‑church dissidents (nonjurors) developed an ssoetical, mystical type of thought and life, and a Romanising dogmatics and apologetics, resembling Jansenism without its rigorous Augustinianism (Charles Leslie's Short and Easy Method with the Deists, London, 1698; William Law's Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life, London, 1724). Deism (q.v.) may be regarded as a revival and adaptation of Stoicism, which identified God with the nature of things and sought a purely natural basis for religion and morality. Against Deists and Arminians High‑churchmen like Joseph Butler (d. 1752), Daniel Waterland (d. 1740), and William Warburton (d. 1779) ably defended revealed religion and the supernatural in Judaism and Christianity.
The evangelical revival brought about fresh combinations of dogmatic thought. John Wesley with a substratum of High‑church Semi‑Pelagianism
became imbued with the old evangela. The ical Semi‑Augustinianiem, or Armip‑
Eisht. ice. George Whitefield preached
eeath
	and Nine‑ a thoroughgoing type of Calvinism.
		teenth Moderate Calvinism, with little at
	aentnries. tempt at philosophical representation,
		became the theology of the Low
church or evangelical party in the Church of Eng
land. The Philosophy of Kant and Hegel was
brought to bear upon English theological thought
by S. T. Coleridge, father of the Broad‑church
movement. English Broad‑churchmen have fol
lowed closely in the footsteps of German radical
thought; but few have devoted their attention to
dogmatics proper. Their favorite field is Biblical
and historical criticism. An intensely Romani
sing mode of thought and life, with deep aversion

477	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
to Protestantism and to Calvinism in particular and a strong tendency toward Semi‑Pelagianiem and Jesuitical methods of thought and of work, appeared, by way of reaction against aggressive liberalism and evangelieaiiem, in the Oxford or Tractarian movement (see TRecrARC"Csm). The Theological Institutes of Richard Watson (6 parts, London, 1823‑29) has been much used by Methodists in both England and America. It presents evangelical Arminianiam in a popular and effective way. W. B. Pope's Compendium of Theology (3 vols., London, 1875) is a more scholarly exposition of Christian doctrine from the Methodist point of view. The more recent works of J. S. Banks (The Development of Doctrine from the Early Middle Agee to the Reformation, London, 1901) and J. A. Beet (Manual of Theology, London, 1906) show the influence of liberal thought. John Gill (A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, London, 1769) was the first Baptist to attempt a comprehensive exposition of Christian doctrines‑‑with the possible exception of the General Baptist Thomas Grantham, whose Christianiamus primitivus (London, 1688) partook of the nature of a dogmatic work. Gill taught a rigorous (supralapsarian) Calvinism, which was assailed by Andrew Fuller (d. 1815) in several works. Fuller was influenced by Jonathan Edwards, and his type of thought became well‑nigh normative for Baptists in both England and America.
	4. Scotland: The early Scottish symbols pre
pared by John Knox and his associates were
strictly Calvinistic, as were the writings of all in
fluential Scottish Presbyterians for more than a
century after the beginning of the Reformation
(Henderson, Rutherford, Gillespie, and others).
After the Revolution (1688) " Moderatism " and
" Evangelicalism " were arrayed against each other.
The Moderates were affected by Socinian modes of
thought and had much in common with English
latitudinarians. They produced no great theo
logical works and were for the moat part wanting
in initiative. Thomas Erskine, of Linlathen, a
layman (d. 1870), rebelled against Calvinistic dog
ma as immoral and inculcating unworthy concep
tions of God, and taught an evangelical mysticism
with great earnestness and zeal (Internal Evidence,
Edinburgh, 1820; Unconditional Freeness of the
Gospel, 1828; The Brazen Serpent, 1831; Spiritual
Order, 1871). Erskine was no doubt influenced
by Coleridge, and in turn greatly influenced J.
McLeod Campbell, who in 1831 was deposed from
the ministry for teaching general redemption and
related doctrines (The Nature of the Atonement, and
its Relation to the Remission o f Sins and Eternal
Life, Cambridge, 1856). The distinctive feature
of his view is that not the bearing of penalty, but
adequate repentance is requisite to divine forgive
ness, and that Christ on behalf of humanity ade
quately repented of sin. Thomas Chalmers, the
greatest Scottish religious leader since Knox, de
voted more attention to practical problems than
to matters of doctrine. His Institutes of Theology
(Edinburgh, 1849) represents moderate Calvin
ism vitalized by a profound sense of the obliga
tion of world‑wide evangelization and social reform.
Thomas Carlyle did much to popularize German advanced thought in Scotland. The higher criticism has secured general recognition. Names that may be mentioned of the past and the present generation are A. B. Davidson, A. B. Bruce, Robert Flint, James Denney, Robert Rainy, George Adam Smith, H. R. Macintosh, W. P. Patterson, T. M. Lindsay, James Lindsay, W. R. Smith, Marcus Dodo, and S. D. F. Sahnond.
	6. Amerios: Early New England theology was
strictly Calvinistic. A Socinianized Arminianism
had become widely prevalent by 1733, to the des
truction of evangelistic zeal (cf. J. White, New
England's Lamentations . . . the Decay o f the
Power o f Godliness; the‑ Danger o f Arminian
Principles, etc., Boston, 1734, and Jonathan Ed
wards, Thoughts on the Revival in New England,
1. The 1742). Jonathan Edwards (d. 1758)
fly was the first American theologian to Oalvtni,tio make important contributions to dog‑
Theology.	matics ,and may be regarded as the
most important theologian that America has produced. He presented Calvinistic doctrine in all its rigor in opposition to the current Arminianism. His application of Looks's philosophy, which hitherto had seemed to minister to deism, to the refutation of the Arminian doctrine of free will (An Essay on the Freedom of the Will, Boston, 1754) awakened great interest in Europe as well as in America. Joseph Bellamy (d. 1790) in the spirit of Edwards defended Calvinism against antinomianism and Arminianism (True Religion Delineated, Boston, 1750). Samuel Hopkins (d. 1803) propagated a harsher form of Edwardsian Calvinism (A System of Doctrines Contained in Divine Revelation, Boston, 1793). Nathana,el Emmons (d. 1840) presented the doctrine of divine sovereignty in still harsher form than Hopkins. See NNw ENGLAND TSEOLUGY.
Universalism was taught in New England by John Murray (from 1770) on the basis of the then generally accepted thesis that Christ died for all.
The Socinianizpd Arminianism which !3. Usi‑ called forth the modified Calvinism
versalism, of Edwards and his disciples was car‑ ried by opposition to the Great Awa‑
,
	and Later	kening (see Rrrorvew or RELIGVroN) to
		Unitarianism (Chauncy, Ware, Buck
		minster, Charming, and others). , Na
thaniel W. Taylor (d. 1858) sought to eliminate
from the theology of Edwards and Hopkins the
features which were especially objectionable to
Unitarians. His theology had much in common
with original Arminianism and more perhaps with
Amyraldism. C. G. Finney (d. 1875) taught the
sinner's plenary ability to repent, made regenera
tion an act of the will rather than a special work
of the Holy Spirit, and insisted upon the perfecti
bility of regenerate human nature in the present
life. Horace Bushnell (d. 1876) popularized in
America the views of Schleiermacher and Coleridge
and presented in a fresh form the moral influence
theory of the atonement.
The influence of New England theology on Amer~ ican Presbyterianism, resulting in the formation of the ° New School " party and in disruption, ap.

Do~ic
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
478
pears in H. B. Smith (d. 1877). Next to Ed
wards he was probably the profoundest theologian
		that America has produced. He com
	a. Presby‑ bined the theology of Edwards and
	terians and Taylor with that of Schleiermacher,
	Baptists. Tholuck, and Neander, and was as
	WorksLate much interested in church history as
.
in dogmatics. What is known as the Princeton School, whose most eminent represqntatives have been Charles Hodge (d. 1878), A. A. Hodge (d. 1886), and B. B. Warfield, as the "Old School " party, has consistently defended historical Calvinism of the Synod of Dort and the Westminster type against all competing types of thought. Union Theological Seminary of New York City is the most prominent representative of the more liberal Presbyterianism. The following works are by Baptists: J. L. Dagg, A Manual of Theology (Charleston, 1857; thoroughly Calvinistic); A. Hovey, Manual of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics (Boston, 1877; Philadelphia, 1880; moderately Calvinistic, influenced by New England theology and to some extent by German thought); A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Rochester, 1886; new and enlarged edition, 1907; characterized by Neoplatonic modes of thought derived from Lutheran sources; no longer maintains the inerrancy of Scripture, accepts the evolution philosophy, and seeks a via media on the will between Calvinism and Arminianism); J. P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology (Louisville, 1887; presents the Princeton theology); W. N. Clarke, An Outline of Christian Theology (Boston, 1894; liberal, expressing as a Baptist the type of teaching of Schleiermacher, Coleridge, and the " New Thec!ogy''). C. A. Beckwith, Realities of Christian Theology (Boston, 1906), and William Adams Brown, An Outline of Christian Theology (New
York, 1906), represent liberal and modern views by
a Congregationalist and Presbyterian respectively.
See FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY.
A. H. NEwwAN.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The important works are nearly all mentioned in the body of the article, while the literature of another branch of the subject is represented in DoCrRINE, HISTORY Off', q.v. For methods and contents consult: C. Lagrange, Le Chriatianiame et la methods exp&imentale, Lausanne, 1883; H. B. Smith, Introduction to Christian Theology, New York. 1883; J. Drummond, Introduction to the Study of Theology, London, 1884; R. Kilbel, Ueber due Weaen and die Aufgabe einer bibeiglriubigen Theologie, Stuttgart, 1889; W. L. P. Cox, The Scientific Study of Theology, London, 1893; H. Wendt, Die Aufgabe der
ayatematischen Theologie, GBttingen, 1894; A. Cave, Introduction to Theology and Its Literature, pp. 493 eqq., Edinburgh, 1896; G. Wobbermin. Die Grundproblems der ayatematiachen Theologie, Berlin, 1899; idem, Theologis and Metaphysik, ib. 1901; F. Buisson and C. Wagner, Libre penaee et protmtantisme liberal, Paris, 1903; L. Emery, Introduction d 1'etude de la theologie protestante, pp 162‑184, Lausanne, 1904.
To he added to works in the text are: W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3 vols., New York, 1888‑94; J. Miley, Systematic Theology, 2 vols., ib. 1892‑94; E. V. Gerhart, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ib. 1893; J. Orr, Christian View of God and the World, Edinburgh, 1893; L. F Stearns, Present Day Theology, New York, 1893; W. DeW. Hyde, Outlines of Social Theology, ib 1895; J. Caird, Fundamental Ideas of Christianity, Glasgow, 1899; A. Bouvier, Dogmatique chrelienne, 2 vols.. Paris, 1903; H, C. Sheldon, System of Christian Doctrine, New York, 1903; H. L. Martensen, Den christelige Dopmatik, Copenhagen, 1904; H. E Jacobs. A Summary of Christian Faith,
NewYork,1905; 0. A. Curtis, The Christian Faith . . . in a System of Christian Doctrine, ib. 1905; A. Dorner, Die Entstshung der chriatlichen Glaubenakhren, Munich, 1906; P. Geiermann, A Manual of Theology for the Laity, New York, 1906 (Roman Catholic); J. A. Moeller, Symbolism: or, Exposition of the Doctrinal Differences between Catholic, and Protestants as evidenced by their Writings, London, 1906; J. Wilhelm and T. A. Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, vol. i., ib. 1906; M. Valentine, Christian Theology, 2 vols., Philadelphia, 1907; G. L. Young, Fundamental Christology, Boston, 1907; M. S. Terry, Biblical Dogmatics, New York, 1907.
	DOGS: Dogs are only exceptionally domestic
animals in Palestine, but are useful as scavengers
(Ex. xxii. 31). For this reason they are protected
and valued, although regarded as unclean. They
are extremely noisy, particularly at night (Ex. xi.
7; Judith xi. 19), but do not bite unless molested
(Prov. x‑evi. 17). Rabies is rare. The street‑dog
has always been a type of everything low (Prow.
xxvi. 11), and is placed in the same category
with swine (Isa. lxvi. 3; Matt. vii. 6; 11 Pet. ii. 22;
cf. Horace, Epist., I. ii. 26; II. ii. 75). It is a mark
of humility to call oneself a dog in the presence of
a superior (I Sam. xxiv. 14; 11 Sam. ix. 8; 11
Kings viii. 13‑in the first two passages read tame',
" unclean," instead of meth, " dead "), and the
greatest insult to call another a dog (I Sam. xvii.
43; II Sam. xvi. 9). A supreme misfortune was
to be devoured by dogs in the field after death
(I Kings xiv. 11, xvi. 4; and often). On account
of his wantonness the name of "dog " became a
designation for men addicted to unnatural vices
and for the male k, edheahim (Deut. xxiii. 18; the
Gk. kunaidos, cf. kynes, " dogs," Rev. xxii. 15).
With the Jews of later times " dogs " was a favor
ite name for the heathen (Niddah 77a; Baba Kam
ma 49a; Matt. xv. 26; Mark vii. 27). The un
cleanness of the dog among the Hebrews, in its
ritual aspect, is connected with the fact that by
other Semitic peoples he was regarded as a Sacred
or at least a sacrificial animal (cf. Smith, Rel. of
Sem., 291 eqq.). The Hebrews made a limited use
of the dog, e.g., as a sheep‑dog (Job xxx. 1; Isa.
lvi. 10); whether in hunting is doubtful (Prow. xxx.
31; cf. the commentaries). Dogs are mentioned as
companions only in later times (Tobit v. 16, xi. 4;
Matt. xv. 26‑27). 	1. BENZINGER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: S. Bochart, Hierosoimn, i. 769 sqq., Leipeic, 1793; DB, i. 615‑616; EB, i. 1124‑26; JE, iv. 630632; V. Zapletal, Der Totemismua and die Religion laraeta, p. 38, Freiburg, 1901.
DOLCINO, del‑chf'no: A leader of the Apostolic Brethren; b. in the diocese of Novara in the thirteenth century; burned at the stake at Vercelli June 1, 1307. He joined the Apostolic Brethren (q.v.) in 1291 [and in 1300, after the execution of Segarelli, became their head. His denunciations of the Church brought him into frequent conflict with the Inquisition, but he invariably escaped condemnation. He sought refuge in Dalmatia, and remained there until 1304, when he emerged from concealment, and] at the head of a large army waged a guerrilla warfare for several years against the troops which opposed him in the districts of Novara and Vercelli. After mans vicissitudes, he was finally defeated by the bishop of Vercelli on Mar. 23, 1307, and was ext eutea with his " spiritual sister," Margareta.
saa.f'

479	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Dolcino sent three letters from Dahnatia to his followers and to all Christians, of two of which long extracts are preserved. The first was written in Aug., 1300, shortly after the death of Segarelli. It opens with declaration of the spiritual and apostolic character of Dolcino's community, and asserts that he, as its head, had received revelations from God. He then recounts the persecutions which had driven him to take refuge in flight, and describes four stages of the development of the lives of the saints on earth, each good in the beginning, and each degenerate at the close and therefore superseded by a new and better r6gime. These epochs were the period from the patriarchs of the Old Testament to Christ; when marriage was necessary to replenish the earth; from Christ to Pope Silvester and the emperor Constantine, when celibacy was better than wedlock and poverty preferable to wealth; from Silvester and Constantine to the time of Dolcino, when papal power and wealth had been requisite rather than apostolic poverty, although love for God and for one's fellow man had so far cooled that even the rules of Benedict and the still more rigid regulations of Francis and Dominic had proved unavailing to check the increasing degeneracy; from Dolcino to the end of the world, when the apostolic ordinances of life were to be renewed, and all things were to be in common. Dolcino then declares that he and his followers should be considered liars if the events which he foretold did not take place within three years. King Frederick of Sicily would be elected emperor, would set up new kings, and sweep Pope Boniface and all his creatures from the face of the earth, while peace would rule among all Christians. A new pope would be sent by God and would rule over the Apostolic Brethren, and all priests and monks who had divinely escaped the sword would now join them. Like the apostles of the early Church, they would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and would spread throughout the world, while the emperor Frederick, the pope, and the new kings would remain until a time known to Dolcino, when Antichrist would appear and rule.
Three years elapsed without the fulfilment of the prophecies, and in Dec., 1303, two months after the death of Boniface VIII., Dolcino issued the second letter, in which he practically repeated his assertions. Within three years, according to Isa. xvi. 14, the wicked would be rooted out, the pope and his cardinals would be destroyed in the following year (1304), and in the next all priests, monks, and nuns who persisted in their iniquity would disappear, after which, under the rule of Frederick and the pope chosen of God, the Apostolic Brethren would be free from all oppression, would be joined by all who were truly spiritual, would receive the Holy Ghost, and regenerate the Church. See APOSTOLIC BRETHREN.
(Huoo SACHSSE.)
BIDLIOVRAPHY: Muratori, Scriptorea, ix. 425 sqq., 25 vols., Milan, 1723‑51; F. C. Schlosser, Abalard urd Dulcin, Goths, 1807; J. Krone, Frh Dolcino and die Patarener, Leipsic, 1844; L. Mariotti, Frh Dolcino and His Times, London, 1853; G.S.A.S., Frh Dolcino, Milan, 1889.
DOLE, CHARLES FLETCHER: Unitarian; b. at Brewer, Me., May 17, 1845. He was graduated
at Harvard in 1868, and Andover Theological Seminary in 1872. After being professor of Greek at the University of Vermont 1873‑74, he was pastor of Plymouth Church, Portland, Me., 1874‑76, and since 1876 has been minister of the First Congregational (Unitarian) Society at Jamaica Plain, Boston. In theology he designates himself a " minister of the religion that is behind and beneath all the names." He has written The Citizen and the Neighbor (Boston, 1884); Early Hebrew Stories (1886); Jesus and the Men About Him (1888); The American Citizen (1891); The Golden Rule in Business (New York, 1895); A Catechism of Liberal Faith (Boston, 1895); The Coming People (New York, 1897); Luxury and Sacrifice (1898); The Young Citizen (Boston, 1899); The Theology of Civilization (New York, 1899); The Problem of Duty (1900); The Religion of a Gentleman (1900); Noble Womanhood (Boston, 1900); The Smoke and the Flame (1901); From Agnosticism to Theism (1903); and The Spirit of Democracy (New York, 1906).

DOMICELLUS: A canon who had not a seat and a voice in chapter, but enjoyed certain incomes. See CANON; and CHAPTER.

DOMINIC, SAINT, AND THE DOMINICAN ORDER.
St. Dominic (¢ 1).	Achievements and Contro
His New Order (§ 2). 		versies (§ 5).
Its Constitution (§ 3P.	Present Condition (§ 6).
Its Development (¢ 4). 	The Sisters (§ 7).
	Dominic was born at Calaroga, a village of Old
Castile in the diocese of Oama, 1170; d. at Bologna
Aug. 6, 1221. That his father belonged to the
noble family of Guzman, as many Dominican wri
ters assert, can not be proved. At seven he was
sent to his uncle, archpriest of Gumiel d'Izan, to
be educated, and at fourteen went to study phi
losophy and theology at Palencia, where celebrated
teachers were already lecturing, though the uni
		versity was not founded until 1209.
	r. St. He soon distinguished himself by his
	Dominic. progress in study and by his devotion
		and charity, selling his books to help
the poor. Between 1194 and 1199 he became a
canon and later subprior in the cathedral chapter
of Osma, which had been reformed under the Au
gustinian rule. In 1203 he was taken by his bishop,
Diego de Azevedo, as companion on a journey,
probably to the court of Guy of Lusignan in South
ern France, on the commission of Alfonso VIII.,
to ask for a wife for his son Ferdinand. The em
bassy went again to receive the princess and con
duct her to Spain; but she died before their arrival.
Diego took Dominic with him to Rome, where the
latter requested Innocent III. to relieve him of his
bishopric that he might go as a missionary to the
Saracens. The pope refused; and on a third jour
ney through southern France Diego and Dominic
met at Montpellier (1204) the Cistercian abbots,
Arnold of Citeaux, Peter of Castelnau, and Raoul,
who had been entrusted by Innocent with the mis
sion to the Albigenses. Diego urged that the
heretics should be converted by the preaching of
poor apostolic men, who should renounce all pomp
and luxury. This method, so different from the

Dominic	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOO	480
one in vogue, was approved by the legates. Diego and Dominic, and others, went out two by two, barefoot, without retinue, to preach and dispute in the nobles' castles, in the effort to win back the Cathari and Albigenses to the Church. But heresy was too wide‑spread and deep‑rooted in the south of France for much impression to be made by these few laborers in the Montpellier district alone. To have a base for the work, Diego founded a convent of nuns at Prouille, in the diocese of Toulouse, into which in 1206 eleven high‑born ladies were received, nine of them converts.
After Diego had returned to his diocese, where he died in 1207, Dominic carried on the work with zeal and energy. He introduced the rule of Augustine and strict observances into the convent of Prouille. In 1208 Peter of Caste1nau was murdered, and Innocent III. proclaimed a crusade against the Albigenses (see NEw MANICHEANs, II.). Dominic apparently took no part in this, but continued his work in the old spirit, supported by the higher clergy. He declined several bishoprics offered to him, to remain true to his mission, feeling called to devote his whole life to showing that the Church had a heart still for the poor misled folk who were alienated from its fold. In 1215 Bishop Fulco of Toulouse assigned one‑sixth of the diocesan tithes to the support of his work, and took Dominic to Rome to the Lateran Council, there to seek confirmation from the pope for the foundation of a new order. The council had just ruled against the multiplication of orders, and Innocent, while taking the convent of Prouille under his protection, advised Dominic to choose some established rule for his associates. After his return they talked the matter over and chose the Augustinian rule with the institutions of the Premonstratensians; the new brotherhood would thus be a society not of monks, but of canons regular, with the special purpose of defending the faith and combating heresy by preaching (whence the official name, ordo pradicatorum, " order of preachers "). Dominic recognized the necessity of learning for this end, and sent his six companions, who had no technical training, to the theological school at Toulouse.
He was in Rome from Sept., 1216, to Easter, 1217, and obtained from Honorius III. the confirmation of his new order. According to the bulls, it was not originally a mendicant order, but adhered to the older conception of the vow of poverty, as forbidding only the possession z. His New of property by the individual, not by
	Order.	the community. Nor was it at first dis
		tinguished from the old canons regular
by assuming a universal character; it was several
years before papal briefs instructed archbishops,
bishops, and other prelates to allow the brothers
to preach in their dioceses, assume the cure of
souls, and bear confessions. At the feast of the
Assumption, 1217, Dominic sent out his associates
in all directions. He fixed his eyes especially on
the three centers of intellectual life, Paris, Rome,
and Bologna. Matthew of Paris with seven broth
ers went to the first‑named, where they occupied
the monastery of Saint Jacques in 1218 (hence the
popular French name for the order, Jacobins). Dominic went to Rome with some of his younger disciples, and sent two brothers thence to Bologna in 1218. Two more were left behind at Prouille and two at Toulouse; four went to Spain, where they had little success‑it was not until the founder himself visited Spain (1218) that two houses, one for men at Seville and one. for women at Madrid, came into existence. On a visit to Paris in 1219 he found thirty brothers; five years later the number was 120. Toward the end of that year he was again in Rome, where the pope gave him the difficult commission of assembling in a convent all the scattered nuns who were living uncloistered in Rome. Supported by Cardinal Hugo of Ostia, the later Gregory IX., he succeeded in his task, and founded the convent of San Sisto for them, while he and his brothers occupied the monastery of Santa Sabina near the pope's palace. This proximity led to his noticing the careless lives of the papal retainers, who spent their time in drinking and dicing; he got them together and gave them regular spiritual conferences. From this fact grew the story that the pope appointed him mdgiader sacri yalatii‑an office the existence of which is first demonstrable under Gregory IX., though later it was regularly conferred on a Dominican; it acquired great importance in the time of Leo X., when its holder was made the official censor of books.
The first general chapter of the order was held at Bologna in 1220, when it became a mendicant order by the decision to renounce all property and fixed incomes. Although its founder died solemnly cursing those who should bring temporal possessions into his order, the vow of poverty was never pushed to its extreme limit among them, and they thus escaped the dissensions which rent the Franciscan order over this question. No objection was ever raised against the possession of churches. and convents, though the oldest constitutions (1228) prescribe that these shall be small and plain. A laxer conception of poverty was not long in making its way; though the later constitutions still formally ruled out possessiones et raditus, the prohibition was not observed, and Martin V. abrogated it in 1425 for certain houses, and Sixtus IV. in 1475 and 1477 for the whole order.
After a journey through northern Italy, Dominic returned to Bologna, where he won for the order Master Conrad, the first provincial of Germany (see CONRAD OF MARBURG). His last sojourn in Rome was in the winter of 1220‑21. The second general chapter met in Bologna May, 1221, and decided that future meetings should take place yearly, alternately in Bologna and Paris, a provision which fell into disuse. At this chapter, if not before, the constitution was completed.
It distinguishes the order sharply 3. Its Con‑ from the older ones. It is organized stitution. from the top, where stands a master‑
general, of far more power than the abbots‑general of earlier organizations. In conformity with the universal character of its mission, the vow of stabilitas loci. is omitted, and that of obedience is made immediately to the general. He

481	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Domwo
is chosen for life by the general chapter, and selects his own socii, or counselors. Each province is governed by a prior‑provincial chosen for four years by the provincial chapter, which also names four definitors to assist him, as representatives of the whole body. Each house chooses its own head, called prior. The decisions of the general chapter have the force of law when they have been passed at two successive chapters. After the chapter of 1221 Dominic undertook one more journey through northern Italy, got as far as Venice, and returned to Bologna to die on Aug. 6, 1221. At this time the order numbered sixty houses, divided into eight provinces‑Toulouse, Provence, France, Rome, Lombardy, Spain, England, and Germany. Dominic was buried in the church of St. Nicholas at Bologna, in the presence of Cardinal Hugo of Ostia, who afterward, as Pope Gregory IX., canonized him (1234). His tomb was afterward beautified by Niccol8 Pisano and Michelangelo.
It is difficult to arrive at a satisfactory characterization of the man. He has left no written works, and his biographies, while very full on his miracles, make no attempt to reproduce the distinctive features of his personality. He was undoubtedly a noble character. Sincere piety and equally sincere belief in the truth of the Church's teaching and claims, gentle sympathy for all, heretics as well as orthodox, strictness in self‑discipline, and wonderful energy are traits which stand out clearly in his life.
After Dominic's death his order spread with remarkable rapidity. At the general chapter of 1228 four new provinces arose‑Greece, Poland, Denmark, and Palestine. The four earliest successors of the founder were skilful organizers who knew how to develop and adapt to new con‑
4. Its De‑ ditions the principles given to them. velopment. Jordanus, a Saxon (1222‑37), codified the constitutions for the first time in 1228; he traveled widely through all the provinces of the order, and met his death by shipwreck after a visit to Palestine. The third general was the distinguished canonist Raymond of Peflaforte, of a noble Spanish family; he resigned his office in 1240, after revising and completing the constitutions. The fourth was a North German, John of Wildeshausen (1241‑52), and the fifth a Frenchman, Humbert of Romans (1254‑84), who rendered great services to the educational system of the order. The purpose of its very existence being the combating of heresy and strengthening of faith by means of preaching, study was insisted on as a primary requisite. The Dominican order was the first which required study as an essential means to the‑attainment of its special end, and regulated it minutely by rule. This, of course, was confined to the priests, who found it possible to devote themselves wholly to their ministry since the lay brothers relieved them of household tasks. Eight years were spent in this study after the completion of the novitiate; its system followed that of the University of Paris. After 1248 each province had its own stvdiunx qenerale, or university. Theology had naturally the first place, but the liberal arts IIL‑31
soon began to be taught; Raymond of Peflaforte paid special attention to the teaching of Greek, and erected schools in the Spanish and North African houses for the study of Hebrew and Arabic. Theology was first taught from the " Sentences " of Peter Lombard, but by the end of the thirteenth century the Summa of Thomas Aquinas was taking their place, and the general chapter of 1315, by requiring his works to be found in every monastery, marked his final triumph.
The rapid growth of the order was due not alone to its qualities, but also to the protection of powerful friends among the kings and nobles, and to the lavish privileges which the popes conferred upon both them and the Franciscans. The Dominicans had the advantage, however, in being preferred, if not exclusively chosen, as inquisitors hwretics; pravitatis. When Gregory IX. began, in 1232, to replace the episcopal inquisition by officials appointed directly by the pope, he usually chose the Preaching Friars, on account of their theological learning. When the secular arm was placed at the disposition of the Church, Frederick II. offered his protection in 1239 to the Dominicans as inquisitors, and in 1255, at the request of Louis IX., Alexander IV. named the Dominican provincial and the Franciscan guardian as inquisitors‑general for France. (See INQUIsrTIOm)
	The growth and privileges of the order aroused
enmity in more than one quarter. From the end
of the thirteenth century many of the cities in
which the mendicants, unlike the older orders,
built their houses, began to show hostility. Some
of the older orders, especially the Cistercians and
Carthueians, displayed a spirit that was anything
but brotherly toward them, and the higher secular
		clergy resented their intrusion into
5. Achieve‑ the organized cure of souls, so that ments and Innocent IV. was obliged in 1254 to Contro‑ limit their privileges, allowing them
	versies.	to preach and hear confessions only
		with the assent of the parish priest.
The universities were at first unfriendly, and tried
to bar out the Preaching Friars. The famous con
test in Paris was terminated in favor of the Domin
icans in 1259, and it was not long before they occu
pied the theological chairs in Bologna, Padua,
Vienna, Cologne, Prague, Oxford, and Salamanca.
The greatest of the scholastics, Thomas Aquinas,
and his many‑sided teacher, Albertus Magnus, are
but two out of many distinguished theologians
produced by the order in the later Middle Ages.
It did not confine itself to the cultivation of learn
ing, but did much for the religious training of the
common people. One of the most popular preach
ers of a little later day was the Spanish Dominican
Vincent Ferrer (q.v.). They were active in the
missionary field, appearing at the court of Kubla
Khanin 1272, and accomplishing much in the still
heathen parts of Europe; the conversion of the Lith
uanians, completed in 1386, was their work. Their
services to art were very considerable. Two of
them designed the church of Santa Maria Novella
in Florence,, the purest and most beautiful exam
ple of Tuscan Gothic. Here, at San Marco, and at
Santa Caterina in Pisa painting was cultivated

Dominic
Dominis
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
with great success in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries; the last flowering, under mystical illumination, 'of the school of Giotto was seen in the work of Giovanni da Fiesole, better known as Fra Angelico (d 1455).
The mendicant orders had at first stood together against the monks, the secular clergy, and the universities; but before the end of the thirteenth century jealousy brought discord. The partizans of Thomas Aquinas on one side and Duns Scotus on the other made the controversy between Thomists and Scotists traditional (see IMMACULATE CoNcErTION). The Dominicans themselves were divided in the great Western Schism (see Sealant), and only reunited by Martin V. in 1418. Worldliness made its inroads, and theological subtlety was pushed to absurd extremes The conflict of the humanist Reuchlin with the Cologne inquisitor Jakob von Hoogstraten and the Epistolm obscurorum virorum (q v.) show how the order had declined from its early zeal for learning by the beginning of the sixteenth century. The Counterreformation owed its results not to the Preaching Friars, but to the new order of the Jesuits, whom the Dominicans steadily opposed on several questions of internal policy and belief. In the great controversy about grace (1588‑1611) they stood for a moderate Augustinianism against the Semi‑Pelagianism of the Jesuit Molina. In the moral controversy the two orders became theological parties, the Jesuits at the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth centuries almost always defending Probabilism (q.v.), while the Dominicans adopted probabiliorism as their view. The most violent conflict, however, arose in the mission‑field. The Jesuits had had it almost to themselves in the era of the Counterreformation, except in America, where the Preaching Friars had been active, and one of the noblest of missionaries, Las Casas (d. 1566), had not only sought the conversion of the Indians of Mexico, but protected them from the greed and cruelty of the Spaniards. They came to China after the Jesuits had already occupied the field; they opposed and soon denounced at Rome the " accommodation " (q.v.) of the rival order, and after a long struggle won the victory in 1782though the downfall of Christianity in China followed almost immediately.
	The secularizing policy of Joseph II. (d. 1790)
diminished still further the number of convents
which the Reformation had spared; the same thing
took .place in Germany, and the Revolution sup
pressed the order in France, until it was restored
by the. eloquent advocacy of Lacordaire in 1840.
Great progress was made under the generalahip of
Alexander Vincent Jandel, a Frenchman (d. 1872),
who published a revised constitution in 1872, the
		most important change being the
6. Present limitation of the general's term, which
	Condition.	Pius VII. in 1804 fixed at six years
		and Pius IX. in 1862 at twelve. The
general has resided since 1272 at Santa Maria sopra
Minerva in Rome. Fifty‑two provinces are named
in the new constitutions, but several of these are
merely nominal. There are about 300 houses,
with some 3,000 members. Under Pope Leo XIII.,
482
a great admirer of Thomas Aquinas, the order once more assumed importance by its influence on theological learning. There have been four Dominican popes: Innocent V. (d. 1276), Benedict XI. (d. 1304), St. Pius V. (d. 1572), and the learned Benedict XIII. (d. 1730).
Two houses of the female branch of the order, that of Prouille and San Sisto at Rome, arose in the founder's lifetime. Their rule prescribed confinement to the cloister, ascetic practises, the contemplative life, and employment of time as far as possible analogous to that of the brothers; the obligation of poverty was for obvious
	7. The	reasons not as Strictly imposed on
	Sisters.	them. New houses were at first
		founded wherever the order spread,
and were under the direction of the provincial. As
their number grew, this produced difficulties and
interfered with the work of the friars, who got
themselves released from this charge in 1252,
though they were obliged to reassume it two years
later, as the female houses were suffering from the
separation. Only a few remained under episcopal
care. They followed in the main the fortunes of
the friars. At first wholly contemplative, they
devoted themselves later to the education of girls;
and their rule was correspondingly mitigated. At
present there are about ninety houses of the " sec
ond order," with some 1,500 inmates. For the
" third order," composed of confraternities of
people living in the world, see TER.s.T,IARIEB; CON
FRATERNITIES, RELIGIOUS. (G. GR$TZMACHER.)
BInr.IOaeArar: Early lives of Dominic are collected in A3B, At::., i. 358‑658; some of the same, with others not included, are in J. Qubtif, $criptores ordinis pradicatorum, ed. J. Echard, i. 1‑56, Paris, 1719. The Vita by Dietrich of Apolda (c. 1296 A.D.), ed. A. Curd, Paris, 1887. Consult: E. Caro, St. Dominique et lea Dominieains, Paris, 1853; J. B. H. Lacardaire, Vie de 3. Dominique, ib. 1882, Eng. tranal., London, 1883; A. T. Drane, Hist. of Bt. Dominic, ib. 1891; J. J. Berthier, Le Testament de S. Dominique, Freiburg, 1892; M. J. Rousset, Der heilipe Dominica,, Freiburg, 1899; T. Alemany, Life of St. Dominic with Sketch of the Dominican Order, New York, n.d.
On the order, for sources consult: Monumenta ordinis fratrum prmdioatorum historica, now in course of publication at Rome, 1896 sqq.; Asta capitulorum . . . prasdioatorum, ad. C. Douala. Toulouse, 1894. Further: W. G. D. Fletcher, Black Friars of Oxford. Oxford, 1882; C. F. R. Palmer, Notices of the Friar Preachers o/ the Bag. Province, London, 1884; Friar Preachers of Leicester, Leicester, 1884; A. T. Drane, Hist. of Cathmine of Siena and her Companions, London, 1887; idem, Spirit of the Dominican Order. ib. 1896; B. M. Reichert, in Historische Jahr6Rchsr, 1897, ii. 363‑374; B. A. A. Wilberforce. Dominican Missions and Martyrs in Japan, London, 1897; M. D. Chapotin, Histoirs des Dominicains de . . France, Rouen, 1898; Fransieca Raphael, Der Deist des Dominicaner Orden#, Dulmen, 1901; J. Herkless, Frances and Dominic and the Mendicant Orders, New York, 1901; E. G. Gardner, Saint Catherine of Siena, London. 1907; Heimbucher. Orden and %ongregationen, i. 540 sqq.; Currier, Religious Orders, pp. 271‑283; Neander, Christian Church, vol. iv. passim (valuable); Schaff, Christian Church, v. 1., pp. 519 sqq.
DOMIRICALE, do‑min"i‑Wli: A white linen cloth used by women when receiving the Lord's Supper; either a napkin, upon which the bread was laid instead of upon the bare hand, or the veil which women generally wore in the house of God.
DOMMCCAL LETTER: A letter used to indicate Sunday in ancient calendars, which marked

488
RELIGIOUS
the first seven days of the year by the letters A‑G and repeated them for every succeeding week. The same letter thus designated Sunday throughout the year except in leap‑years, when the dominical letter changed from A to G, B to A, etc., after Feb. 28 (in some calendars after Feb. 24). It is used‑in finding the date of Easter of any given year. See CALENDAR, THE CHRISTIAN, § 4; EASTER, 1., 3.

DOMINIS, MARCO ANTONIO DE: Archbishop of Spalato (on the coast of Dalmatia, 160 m. s.e. Of Trieat); b. of a noble Venetian family on.the island of Arbe (80 m. s.e. of Triest), off the Dalmatian coast, 1560; d. at Rome Sept. 8, 1624. He was professor of mathematics at Verona, Padua, and Brescia, and was appointed bishop of Zengg (on the coast of Croatia, 10 m. n. of his native island) in 1596, and two years later archbishop of Spalato and primate of Dalmatia and Croatia. His position was a difficult one owing to the conflict between the curia and the republic of Venice; and the complications in which he was involved led him to thorough canonical, historical, and dogmatic studies which later bore fruit in the publication of the De republica ecclesiastics. The incompatibility between a strong tendency toward an episcopal. system and the autocratic rule of the pope induced him to resign his office, to withdraw from the Roman Church, and to separate himself from his friends and‑ country. In the Consilium profectionis, which he published (London, 1616; also in part i. of the De republica eccleaiastica) to explain his conduct, he expresses his dissatisfaction with the position of the bishops under the pope, declares that the Roman Church in doctrine and polity has fallen from the purity of Christian antiquity, professes to be actuated by the love of Christ and the truth, and says that he hopes to promote the reunion of Christendom (chaps. xii., xiii., xx.). By way of Venice, Switzerland, and Heidelberg he went to England, arriving Dec. 16, 1616. At St. Paul's in London he joined the Anglican Church, and in 1618 was made master of the Savoy and dean of Windsor. The same year he published in London The Rocks of Christian Shipwreck, a book of popular character, previously published at Heidelberg in Italian (Scogli del naufragio christiano). It was a polemic intended to warn and admonish his countrymen, and at the same time a keen Biblical and patristic critique of the chief Roman doctrines and institutions. Meanwhile he had completed his chief work, the De republics ecclesiastics libri ( 3 parts, i., London, 1617; ii., 1620; iii., Frankfort, 1658; books viii. and xx. were never printed). With much learning he treats of the hierarchical order; the power of the Church, the rights of the laity, the decision of questions of faith, jurisdiction, church property and liberties; the difference between priests and bishops he makes not one of ecclesiastical functions, but of jurisdiction and relation to the Church in general, from which, rather than from the pope, the episcopal power is derived and by which it is conferred through the election by the Christian congregation. To the early part of his stay in England belongs also the Papatu8 Romanus seu de origine, progressu
ENCYCLOPEDIA
atque extinctione ejus (London, 1617), which was inspired, according to the preface, by King James 1. He carried on correspondence with such men as Hugo Grotius and Paolo Sarpi, and published the latter's Historia del concilio Tridentino (the manuscript of which he had brought with him from Venice), with additions, in 1619, dedicated to James 1.
	After the good reception accorded to De Dom
inis in England and the polemical activity he had
displayed, great surprise was occasioned in [Jan.]
1622, by the news that he intended to return to
Italy. The reasons he gave in a letter to the king
‑advancing age, the raw air of England, etc.
were evidently only pretexts. He was warned of
danger to himself in his purpose; but nevertheless
he went back, trusting to the protection of his for
mer friend, Pope Gregory XV. He received ab
solution only after a threefold recantation, inclu
ding an appearance in public in St. Peter's with
a	rope • about his neck and in penitential garb.
His literary activity naturally took a new direc
tion. As an offset to the Consilium profectionis
he published Reditus ex Anglia consilium (Rome,
1623; Eng. transl., Litge, 1623; London, 1827), in
which he explains his apostasy as due to a twofold
disorder, brought on by his own conceit and vin
dictiveness toward his superiors, and condemns
all his polemical writings of the earlier period.
His retractation made no impression, however, and
the book scarcely attempts to refute the material
brought together previously in so great abundance.
Gregory XV. died July, 1623, and the case of De
Dominis was reopened. Before it was decided,
however, he died in prison. On Dec. 20, 1624, ,his
body was carried to the Church of Santa Maria
sopra Minerva, his picture and a sack containing
his books were placed beside it, and a conclave de
prived him of all ecclesiastical honors, confiscated
his property, and handed him over to the civil au
thorities for execution of sentence; his body was
publicly burned on the next day. His books were
naturally already on the Index.	It has been as
serted that he was sent to England by Paul V. to
convert the king and bishops and was ill treated
when he returned to Rome because he did not suc
ceed (cf. J. W. Jaeger, Historia ecclesiaslica sceculi
deeimi septimi, i., Hamburg, 1709, p. 382, dee. iii.,
lib. ii., cap. xv.). His works not already men
tioned include A Sermon Preached in the Mercers'
Chapel, London (London, 1617) and a Tractatus de
radiis visus et lucis in perspectivis et iride (Venice,
1611), in which he came near giving the true sci
entific explanation of the rainbow. Opinions con
cerning De Dominis differ. His. ability and learn
ing are unquestioned; but his honesty has been
seriously impugned by Protestants as well as Roman
Catholics. It is said that he obtained the copy of
Sarpi's Concilio Trudentino surreptitiously, pub
lished it without the author's consent, and made
unjustifiable alterations and additions. His con
duct in England is said to have been shamelessly
avaricious. 	K. BENRATH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Trajano Boezalini letters al Spr. Mutio, in
	La trilancia politics di tulle is opere di Trafano Boccalini,
	iii. 7‑40, Castellans, 1678, R. Neile, Marco Antonio de

Dominus	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	484
Donation of Constantine
	Dominis, his. Shiftings in Religion, London, 1624; L.
	Veith, De vita . . de Dominis, appended to his Edm.
	Rideeri Syelema, Mechlin, 1825; F. A. Reuseh, Der In
	dex der verbotenett BTscher, ii. 401‑404, Bonn. 1885; H.
	Newland, The Life and Contemparaneous,Church History
	of Antonio de Dominis, Oxford, 1859; KL, iii. 1949‑50.
	DOMINUS. See Domus.
	DOMITTAN, do‑mish'i‑an (TITUS FLAVIUS DO
MITIARUS): Roman emperor 81‑96; b. at Rome
Oct. 25, 51; d. there Sept. 18, 96. The son of the
emperor Vespasian and Flavia Domitilla, he succeed
ed his father Sept. 13, 81. He ruled at first in an
autocratic, but zealous and intelligent manner, and
strengthened the life and the ordinances of religion.
Aristocratic opposition, however, especially of the
senatorial body, awakened in him a distrust which
was fostered by informers and quickly led to bloody
executions, particularly in 95‑‑96. The result was
a. reaction, culminating in a conspiracy to which
the emperor fell a victim.
	In 96 Domitian instituted repressive measures
against the Christians, and though his policy was
both brief and of limited extent, its execution was
severe and cruel. The distress of the Roman con
gregation was increased by the quick and unex
pected character of the blow. One of its most
prominent members, Flavia Domitilla (q.v.), was
banished, and her husband, the consular Flavius
Clemens, was put to death. It is not impossible that
the ex‑consul Manius Acilius Glabrio (q.v.) also suf
fered as a Christian. The causes which led to the
stringent measures against the Christians are un
known, but they were probably connected with
the contemporary political executions; the em
peror's distrust extended to the firmly organized
congregation which stood aloof from public life,
yet had members in the higher social circles and
even the hostile aristocracy which surrounded him.
His self‑deification, which resulted in such official
and unofficial designations as theos, Deus, Dominus
et Dens, Zeus eleutheros, and Jupiter, as well as his
systematic attempts to regenerate the ancient
cults, must also be taken into consideration. Since
there is no reliable tradition to show that the perse
cution extended beyond Rome, and since Tertullian
knows only of a brief period of oppression (Apol., v. ),
the numerous martyrdoms mentioned by the his
torian Bruttius and the banishments to which
Tertullian alludes were doubtless limited to Rome.*
The measures taken by Domitian, according to
Hegesippus, against the relatives of Jesus, who
were denounced, imprisoned, and carried to Rome
as members of the royal house of David, were in
spired, on the other hand, simply by political con
siderations connected with the relations between
the government and the Jews. The emperor ques
tioned the prisoners solely regarding their political
affiliations and finally dismissed them as politically
harmless. It is incorrect to assume, with Hegesill
pus, that this affair caused a cessation of the perse‑
	s If, as is commonly admitted, the Apocalypse was writ
ten during the reign of Domitian, and the reigning emperor
was associated by the writer with Nero (Rev. vi. 9 aqq.,
xvii. 5, 8, 11, etc.). it would seem reasonable to infer that
the persecution extended beyond Rome, or at least that a
wide‑spread persecution seemed imminent.	A. H. N.
cution of the Church, for there was no persecution
of the Church per se. 	VICTOR SCHULTZE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. B. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, i. 104 sqq., London, 1890 (collects the sources); H. Schiller, Geschichte der rornischen Kaiserzeit i. 520 eqq., Gotha, 1883; F. Pichemayr, T. Flavius Domitianus, Amberg, 1889; W. M. Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 259‑263, London, 1893; E. G. Hardy, Christianity and the Roman Government, pp. 85 sqq., ib. 1894; L. Pullan, Church o; the Fathers, New York, 1905; Schaff, Christian Church, i. 427‑428. For the life of Domitian consult Suetonius, Eng. transl. by A. Thompson, revised by T. Forester, pp. 479‑505, London, 1896.
DOMITILLA, FLAVIA : According to Dio Cassius (Ixvii. 14; cf. Suetonius, Domitian, xv.), a niece of the emperor Domitian, married to her cousin, the consul Flavius Clemens; both were condemned for " atheism " (or " Judaizing ") in 96 A.D., Clement was beheaded, and Domitilla was banished to the island of Pandateria (in the Tyrrhenian Sea; the .modern Ventotene, about half‑way between Ponza and Ischia). The acts of Nereus and Achilleus, and Eusebius, who quotes from a heathen writer Bruttius (Hilt. eccl., iii. 18; Chron., in MPG, viii. 605), represent Domitilla as a niece of Flavius Clemens and the place of her banishment as Pontia (Ponze; so also Jerome, Epist., Lxxxvi. [cviii.] ad Eustochium, NPNF, 2d ser., vi. 197). Some have thought that there were two Domitl7las, but it is more natural to suppose that the two accounts, though discrepant, refer to the same person. One of the oldest catacombs, on the Ardeatine Way, near Terracina, is called Ctemmeterium Domitillm or Ccemeterium Nerei et Achiillei. See CLEMEIQT OF ROME, § 2.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mommsen, in CIL, vi. 172; F. X. Kraus, Roma sotterranea, p 43, Freiburg, 1872; G. B. de Rosai, Bullettino di areheologia eristiana, 2d ser., vi (1875), 6971; J. S. Northoote, Roma aotterranea6 pp. 69‑70, ib. 1879.
DONALDSON, SIR JAMES: Church of Scotland; b. at Aberdeen Apr. 26, 1831. He studied at Aberdeen (B. A., 1849), New College, London (1849‑51), and the University of Berlin (1851). He was tutor of Greek in Edinburgh University 1852‑54, rector of the high school at Stirling 1854‑56, classical master end rector of the Edinburgh High School 1856‑81, professor of humanity in Aberdeen University 1881‑86, and is now principal and vicechaneelior of St. Andrews University and principal of the United College of St. Salvator and St. Leonard. He was knighted in 1907. His books include: A Critical History of Christian Literature and Doctrine from the death of the Apostles to the Nicene Council (3 vols., London, 1864‑66); and The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Thirty‑Nine Articles of the C,turch of England: The Legal, Moral, and Religious Aspects of Subscription to Them (1905). With Alexander Roberts he edited The Ante‑Nicene Christian Library (24 vols., Edinburgh, 1867‑72).
DONATION OF CONSTANTINE.
Contents of the Mcurneut (¢ 1).
Its History (i 2).
Origin (§ 3).
Present State of the Discussion (f 4).
The " Donation of Constantine " is the name traditionally applied, since the later Middle Ages, to a document purporting to have been addressed by Constantine the Great to Pope Sylvester L,

485	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Dominus
		Donation of Constantine
which is found first in a Parisian manuscript (Codex lit. 2777) of probably the beginning of the ninth century. Since the eleventh century it has been used as a powerful argument in favor of the papal claims, and consequently since the twelfth it has been the subject of a vigorous controversy. At the same time, by rendering it possible to regard the papacy as a middle term between the original and the medieval Roman Empire, and thus to form a theoretical basis of continuity for the reception of the Roman law in the Middle Ages, it has had no small influence upon secular history.
After a remarkable introduction (chap. i.), the emperor promises a " clear narration " of the marvels which the apostles Peter and Paul have wrought through the " supreme pontiff and universal pope" Sylvester (ii.); but
r. Contents before proceeding to this he gives of the (iii. iv.) the confession of faith which Document. Sylvester has taught him, and admonishes all nations to accept it and adore the Christ whom " our universal father " Sylvester preaches. He goes on (vi.‑x.) to give the history of his conversion, baptism, and deliverance from leprosy by Sylvester, in terms which agree substantially with the Sylvester legend (see SYLVESTER I., PoPE), and asserts his desire to show his gratitude for the benefits of Peter. Accordingly, in agreement with his " satraps," the senate, and the Roman people, he recognizes the primacy of the vicar of the Prince of the Apostles, and intends to raise his see above all earthlythrones (xi.). Accordingly he sanctions (xii.) the precedence of the " see of Peter " over Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, and decrees (xiii.) that the church founded by himself near the Lateran palace shall be honored as the " head and summit of all the churches in the whole world," stating at the same time that he has built churches to Peter and Paul, and endowed them with his possessions in Judea, Greece, Asia [Minor], Thrace, Africa, and Italy. He hands over (xiv.) the Lateran palace to the pope, and allows him to use the imperial diadem and the other insignia of empire. The Roman clergy (xv.) are also distinguished by senatorial rank and eligibility to the patriciate and consulate; he gives the pope the exclusive right to confer holy orders upon senators. He asserts (xvi.) that Sylvester has refused to wear the imperial diadem over the tonsure, and therefore he himself has set the white miter with his own hand upon the pope's holy brow. In order (xvii.) that the papal throne may not be of low esteem, he leaves to the pope the power and jurisdiction, " in imitation of our sovereignty," over the city of Rome and " all provinces, places, and cities of Italy or of the western regions," confining his own sovereignty to the East, where he intends to build up a capital for himself at Byzantium. He lays (xix.) a solemn obligation upon his successors, " satraps," the senate, and all peoples of the earth to leave these provisions intact, and invokes an eternal curse upon those who violate them. He proclaims (xx.) that he has signed the decree with his own hand and laid it upon the body of St. Peter, closing with the imperial signature and the date.
	It is a controverted question whether Adrian I.,
in his letter of May, 778, to Charlemagne (Jaff6,
Regesla, 2423) refers to this document. The pas
sage (line 9) in which he alludes to Constantine and
		Sylvester seems to imply a knowledge
	a. Its of it, but lines 18 sqq. more easily bear
	History. the opposite construction. The Codex
		Parisinua, however, is positive evi
dence that it was known at Saint Denis early in the
ninth century, perhaps before 793. The next old
est testimonies to it also belong to the Frankish
kingdom‑the pseudo‑Isidore, Ado of Vienne, and
Hincmar of Reims. On the other hand, no Roman
references to it during the ninth or tenth century
are met. Two Frankish popes, Gregory V. and
Sylvester II., are the first to base certain territorial
claims upon it. These excited such vigorous im
perial opposition that the chancellor of Otto III.,
Leo of Vercelli, boldly asserts that the document
is a Roman forgery. Another Frankish pope, Leo
IX., brought it up half a century later, using it in
a controversy with Byzantium so energetically
that it was not again forgotten. Peter Damian
cites it against the antipope Cadalus of Parma, and
Gregory VII. alludes to it in the oath which he
tenders to Herman of Balm, a claimant of the
empire (1081). Anselm of Lucca and Cardinal
Deusdedit include it in their collections of canons.
The publicists of the early twelfth century use it as
the basis for far‑reaching conclusions; in a word,
by this period it is known everywhere and em
ployed as a valuable weapon in the strife with the
civil power, whose representatives were forced to
take it into account. As a rule, they contented
themselves with denying, not its authenticity, but
the conclusions drawn from it. This line of argu
ment was inconclusive. The first to attack the
validity of the document itself was the republican
party in Rome, under Arnold of Brescia's influence;
one of his adherents, a jurist, maintained in 1151,
in a disputation with Gerhoh of Reichersberg, that
it was invalid because Constantine was baptized
or rebaptized in the Arian heresy, and a year later
they went further, declaring the whole thing a lie
and a heretical fable, and supporting their conten
tion by historical arguments, as that Constantine,
according to the pseudo‑lsidore, had already been
baptized before he came to Rome. But these
utterances made little impression. Frederick Bar
barossa and his partisans did not attack the authen
ticity of the document; and the popes of the later
twelfth and the thirteenth centuries appealed
with increasing confidence to it. The Waldenses,
Cathari, and Apostolic Brethren, on the other hand,
stoutly maintained that the Donation had marked
a step away from the original purity of the Church,
in the direction of Antichrist, with whom some of
them even identified Sylvester. At the end of the
thirteenth century the lawyers of Philip the Fair
took up once more the Arnoldiat line, and denied its
legal validity. Their theory found considerable
approbation in the University of Paris, and soon
spread throughout Western Europe. Their argu
ments, however, were of a scholastic type, and the
possibility of the document being a mere forgery is
not mentioned until the rise of historical criticism

Donation of Constantine
Donatiem	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	488
in the fifteenth century. Nicholas of Cuss came (1432‑33) to the conclusion that Constantine never made any such donation; Laurentius Valla gave a brilliant demonstration of its spuriousness in 1440, and Reginald Pecock came independently to the same conclusion in 1450. For a century longer, however, in spite of their arguments, the general belief in its authenticity continued to prevail among the great body both of ecclesiastics and lawyers, so that it is not surprising that Luther first learned of its spuriousness from Hutten's edition of Valla's treatise. The defense of the authenticity ceased on the Roman Catholic side when Baronius abandoned it, as far as the external form went, in 1592though he and his successors attempted, up to the beginning of the nineteenth century, to maintain the accuracy of its substance.
Since the admission of the spuriousness of the document, the most diverse views have prevailed as to its real origin. The Roman Catholic writers
thought it Greek (Baronius) or Frank3. Origin. ish (Thomassin, Zaccaria, Cenni); the
Protestants (Freher, Schrockh) believed that it originated in Rome. The dates assigned to its composition ranged from the pontificate of Stephen II. (757‑767) to c. 963. In the first edition of his Papat/abeln des Mittelalters (Munich, 1863) D611inger demonstrated conclusively that it was not Greek, but Western. Between 1882 and 1884 Grauert subjected the structure and vocabulary to a more searching examination than it had ever received, concluding that it originated on Frankish soil soon after 840. In the course of the vigorous discussion aroused by this theory Friedrich propounded a new view in 1889, that the document consists of an older part, written before 653, and a later, added by Paul 1. not later than 754.
The net result of all these modern examinations, including that of Loening in 1890 and of Martens still more recently, gives a substantial agreement
on certain propositions: (1) The 4. Present Donation is a forgery. (2) It is the State of the work of one man or period. (3) The
Discussion. forger has, however, made use of
older material, including, for chaps. vi.‑x., a version of the Sylvester legend not now extant, but current in Rome in the eighth century; for iii. iv., an ancient confession of faith; and for the opening and closing chapters, genuine Byzantine imperial documents. (4) The forgery originated in Rome, between 752 and 778; whether under Paul I., Stephen II., or Adrian I. is still disputed. As to the purpose of its composition, Seheffer‑Boichorst believes it to have been the exaltation of St. Sylvester; but for this a new legend, not a legal document, would have been the natural means to employ. The form adopted shows that the forger had in mind to confirm or make possible certain legal claims of the Roman Church. The recognition of the pope as a potentate equal in rank to the emperor, the attribution of senatorial rank to the Roman clergy, dominion over all the provinces of Italy or of " the Occidental regions "‑these were not things seriously claimed or contended for by the Roman Church of the eighth and ninth centuries. The probability is that the
forger, as happened in other cases, not venturing clearly to designate the object aimed at, enveloped it in sufficiently vague circumlocution. In this case it would seem obvious that the tendency of the forgery is visible in the seventeenth and following chapters relating to the donation of territory. But since the popes of that period made no pretensions to sovereignty over the whole of Italy, the special design would have been to provide a firm basis for their claims to the part which they did desire, the exarchate of Ravenna. It is accordingly probable that the document was meant to serve as a weapon in their conflict for the possession of this, and specifically to be laid before the Frankish court. Reasoning from this, the simplest solution of the date problem is the view that it was composed shortly before Stephen IL's departure from Rome on Oct. 14, 753. This date offers the least difficulty in regard to both external and internal evidence, and is consonant with the history of the document, which makes its first appearance in the abbey of Saint Denis, where Stephen spent the winter of 754, and is found there between two letters (whose authenticity is, indeed, questioned) from Zacharias, Stephen's predecessor, and Stephen himself.
(H. BBHMER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The beat text is given by K. Zeumer, in Festpabe /fir Rudolf von Gneist, Berlin, 1888; a tranal. is given in Henderson, Documents, pp. 319‑329. Consult: J. J. I. von Dallinger, Die Papstfabeln do& Mittelalters, pp. 72‑125, 2d ed., Stuttgart, 1890, Eng. tranal., Fables Reapedinp as Popes of the Middle Apes, London, 1871; R. Peeock, The Repressor of over much Blaming of the Clergy, ed. C. Babington, Rolls Series, No. 19, vol. ii., pp. 351‑386; A. Bonnesu, La Donation de Constantin, Lisieux, 1879; Gmelin, Daa Scluinhunpaverspreden and die Sehenkunp Pippins, pp. 36‑37, Vienna, 1880; J. Friedrich, Die constantinisehe Schenkunp, N5rd6ngen, 1889; W. Martens, Die falache Generalkonsession Konstantins, Munich, 1889; idem, Beleuchtunp der neussten Kontroveraen fiber die r6mische Frape under Pippin and Karl den Gsoaeen, iii. 151 sqq., ib. 1898; F. Gregorovine, Rome in the Middle Apes, ii. 359‑362, London, 1894; T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, vii. 135 aqq., Oxford, 1899.
DOftATISM.
Origin (¢ 1). The Actual Breach (§ 2). Repressive Measures against Donatiata (§ 3). Decay of the Sect (§ 4). Opposition of Augustine (J 5). Doctrinal Position of the Two Parties (¢ 8).
Donatism a schismatic movement which originated in the African Church early in the fourth century, was an outcome of the Diocletian persecution, as the persecutions of Decius and Valerian had given birth to Novatianism. In the former persecution the demand for the delivery of the sacred books of the Christians made the question of their duty a complicated one; a compromise
with the government might both in><. Origin. sure the bishop's personal safety and protect his flock, but it was very like apostasy. The conduct of Mensurius, bishop of Carthage, is told in his correspondence with Secundus of Tigisis, the primate of Numidi$. He adopted the expedient of leaving heretical writings to the persecutors in the churches, which satisfied the proconsul; and he censured those who courted martyrdom by declaring themselves

48?	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Donation of Constantine
Donatism
in possession of sacred books and refusing to surrender them. Secundua, on the other hand, extolled the latter class as martyrs, and refused his approval to any concession. Light is thrown upon the words of Mensurius by the accusations brought against him and his archdeacon Cwcilianua in the Acts of Saturninus and his companions, which are Donatist at least in their present form. Mensurius had evidently taken pains to check anything which could call forth a more acute persecution, and opposed the extravagant reverence shown to confessors. Though it is uncertain how far the accusations against Caecilianus, showing passionate hatred of him, are true, he had clearly been imprudent. The latent fundamental opposition in the Carthaginian Church was thus tinged with personal bitterness, which broke out severely on the death of Mensurius. There is a difference of opinion as to the circumstances under which the actual breach came to pass. The moderate party seems to have at once elected Ciecilianus to succeed Mensuriua and to have taken order for his consecration without waiting for the primate, probably thinking to gain the advantage of a fait accompli and insure his recognition outside of Africa; but the manner of the proceeding gave occasion for forcible objections on the part of the faction hostile to CBcilianua and of the Numidian bishops. The latter sent to Carthage as Weruentor (administrator of the see) Bishop Donatus of Casae Nigrae, who was the real founder of the schism. According to the most reliable authorities, he was sent before Ctecilianus's consecration, to intervene in the factional strife in the name of the Numidian bishops, and perhaps to put off decisive action until their arrival. His openly declared hostility to Oaecilianus only made the latter's party more active and determined. Donatus consecrated Majorinus as bishop, and Seventy of the Numidian bishops, assembled at a council in Carthage, summoned Caecilianus before them, refusing to acknowledge him even when he expressed his readiness to undergo a second consecration.
Though personal differences were the active causes of the Donatiat Schism, its extent and duration show that there were deeper grounds. The opposition between the rigorist and the moderate attitudes had been widely at work and the spread of this purely local schism into one which had destructive consequences for the whole African Church was also due largely to the new relations between Church and State which began at this time.
In 313 the emperor Constantine gave a s. The subsidy (equivalent to over $80,000) Actual to Caecilianus and his party; he called
Breach. the attention of his representatives in
Africa to the schism, and directed that exemption from taxation should apply only to the clergy of Caecilianua's party. These measures forced the Donatists to appeal formally to Constantine, and he referred the matter to Melchiades, bishop of Rome. Ten bishops of each party were to appear with Oaecilianus in Rome; three Gallic and fifteen Italian bishops were to act with MelchiadeS as assessors. As the Roman bishop had from the first maintained friendly relations with
Caecilianus, who had priority of consecration also in his favor, it is not surprising that the award recognized him as the lawful bishop. Donatus was treated as the real defendant, and excommunicated on a charge of having rebaptized lay people and reconsecrated bishops who had lapsed in the persecution. The way of reconciliation was smoothed for the bishops of Majorinus's party by permission to retain their sees; where there were two bishops in one see, the senior was to hold it and a diocese to be found elsewhere for the other. The letters of Constantine to Mafius (called also A blrsbius or Ablavius), vicar of Africa, and to Chrestua, bishop of Syracuse, show that the Donatists complained they had not had a full and fair hearing in Rome. The emperor ordered a new hearing at Arles in 316, of which an account is given in the report made by the bishops there assembled to Sylvester of Rome, and in the canons passed by the synod. The African practise of rebaptizing schismatics, applied by the Donatists to the adherents of Caecilianus, was disallowed, and the Roman custom of mere laying on of hands sanctioned. The Donatiat accusation that Felix of Aptunga, the consecrator of Caecilianus, had been a traditor (one who gave up the sacred books to the heathen; see LAPSED), which had been only incidentally considered, took a prominent place here; but the synod decided that only those against whom traditio could be proved by official documents should be considered guilty, and that even in those cases orders conferred by them were valid. A section of the Donatiats yielded to these decisions; but the remainder appealed once more to the emperor, and he summoned the principal witnesses and representatives of both parties to him at Rome. When Camilianus did not appear Constantine thought of sending delegates to try the case in Africa, or even of going thither himself, but finally transferred the hearing to Milan. Here both Ca;cilianus and his opponent Donatus (called " the Great " by his adherents to distinguish him from Donatus of Casse Nigree), who had succeeded Majorinus as claimant of the see of Carthage, were present. The decision was once more in favor of Caecilianus; but the emperor forbade both contestants to return to Africa, sending two bishops as delegates in the hope of restoring peace.
When these efforts proved fruitless he took up in earnest the repressive measures which he had already threatened. Orders were sent out to take their churches away from the Donatiats, which meant the use of force, as they were unlikely to surrender them peaceably. Blood was Shed in taking possession of a church in Cart. Repres‑ thage, and persecution, regarded as sive fleas‑ a mark of the true Church, only inures against creased the fanaticism of the Donatists.
	Donatists.	They assured the emperor that they
		would never hold communion with
" the rogue " Ceecilianus, and he was so far im
pressed that he revoked his order and allowed the
banished bishops to return. The schismatic party
made the most of this reprieve, and a council of 270
of their bishops sat for two months undisturbed in
Carthage (before 340). Still, their organization

Donatism Donne
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
488
was practically confined to Africa, though they had one community in Spain and another in Rome itself.
The. situation changed on Constantine's death. Constans, to, whom Africa fell, adopted severe measures to restore the unity of the Church, after offers of money had been scornfully rejected by Donatus's orders. But this time the achismatics met force with force. Another Donatus, bishop of Bagae, enlisted the dangerous fanatics known as Circurncelliones (q.v.) in support of their cause. The date of this persecution has not been determined; it must have been between the Synod of Sardica, which attempted to enter into some kind of relations with Donatus, and the death of Constans‑possibly in 342. The schismatic bishops, including Donatus himself, were once more banished, and their churches given over to the followers of Osecilianua. His successor, Gratus, in a council at Carthage, gave thanks for the restoration of unity as a work well pleasing to God, and lauded the servants of God, Paul and Macarius, through whom it had been brought about. The rebaptism of those who had received the sacrament according to the orthodox formula was forbidden, and all veneration of Donatist martyrs strictly prohibited.
Under Constantius the Donatists fared no better. Donatus died in exile, and was succeeded by the Spaniard Parmenianus. But when Julian permitted the return of Athanasius and other bishops who had been expelled by the semi‑Arran court party, the Donatists demanded the same treatment, which they gained, as well as the restoration of the churches; the latter only after armed conflict with the catholics in some cases. Whole communities were won for the schism during this period of toleration; but with Julian's death began a new epoch of imperial repression. Valentinian forbade rebaptism; Gratian, soon after his accession, and still more definitely in 378, prohibited all gatherings of heretics‑in 379 specifically of the rebaptizers, i.e., the Donatists. These regulations could not at first be enforced in Numidia, and Donatism, maintained for a while an unbroken outward front.
The inner decay of the sect had; however, already begun. It undoubtedly owed its long existence in Africa not only to its more or less nationalist position, but to the wise leadership for seventy‑five years of Donatus the Great and Par‑
4. Decay menianus. The qualities of Donatus
	of the	were recognized even by his opponents;
	Sect.	he was a .man of deep learning, of
		eloquence, and of undaunted courage.
His work was well continued by Parmenianus,
against whose writings the work of Optatus (q.v.)
is specially directed. Tychonius, however; who
was one of the most prominent, members of the sect
and has left a lasting name in the history of exe
gesis, rejected the extreme views which had pre
vailed and pronounced against rebaptism. Par
menianus addressed a warning to him, and on his
contumacy he was excommunicated by a Donatist
synod. He does not seem to have formed any dis
tinct party; when that of the Rogatists, who held
similar moderate views, was formed is not clear,
though they were persecuted by the pagan king Firmus in 372 or 373 through Donatist influence. Of much more significance was the split caused by the Maximianists soon after Primianus had succeeded Parmenianus in 392. He belonged to the moderate side, and was accused by the daacon Maximianus, a relative of Donatus, of surrendering the old principles of the sect. The extremists called a synod at Cabarsussi in 393, deposed him, and elected Maximianus in his place, while an opposition synod at Bagae, three times as large, adhered to Primianus and excommunicated Maximianus. By secular aid the churches of the Maximianists were taken from them, but some of them still existed at the time of the conference of Carthage in 411.
	Whatever	the effect of these dimensions may
have been, there can be no doubt of the influence
exerted by the most powerful and determined
enemy of Donatism, Augustine (q.v.), who for
almost twenty years devoted himself to the recov
ery of its members. In his see city of Hippo they
were the majority, and displayed bitter hostility
		to the Church, which suffered from
g. Opposi‑ the violence of the Circumcelliones.
tion of By personal conference and by literary
	Augustine.	activity he tried to win back the
		schisznatics; but when conciliatory
measures, such as those of the Synod of Carthage
in 401 and 403, seemed to have little effect an
appeal was made to the secular power in 404.
Strict laws brought a number of Donatist com
munities, with their bishops, into the Church; but
after the relaxation of this severity in 409 they
began to relapse. A deputation of catholic bishops
obtained an imperial order for a conference at
Carthage which the Donatists were required to
attend, though they could have but little doubt of
its issue in the temper of the government. It took
place in May, 411, between 286 catholic and 279
Donatist bishops, Augustine and Petilianus being
the chief speakers on the two sides. After a three
days' debate the imperial representative,, Mar
cellinus, decided against the Donatists, and the
laws Vere once more strictly enforced against them.
In 414 and 415 attendance at their meetings was
forbidden on pain of death, all civil rights were
'taken from them, and special commissioners were
charged with the execution of these measures.
The writings which Augustine controverted show
clearly enough how far this system of making peace
was from really attaining its object. But the com=
men danger from the Vandals probably brought
Donatists . and catholics nearer together, and the
gradual influence of Augustine's teaching doubtless
contributed much to the weakening of the schism.
The remnants of the sect which‑ were found as late
as well into the Byzantine period finally yielded to
fresh repressive measures on the part of the gov=
ernment.
The fundamental question discussed in the debate just referred to concerned the holiness of the Church as conditioned by the moral state of its members. Novatianism had reduced its original stipulations to the demand that the lapsed should not be restored; Donatism ,had gone a step farther .and

489	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Donatism
		Donne
limited its requirements to the quality of the bishops.
Both sides appealed to Cyprian, who had declared
lapsed bishops incapable of performing their func
tions and had favored rebaptism, indeed, but
whose whole conception of the Church had regarded
		its holiness as resting on its provision
6. Doctrinal with the means of grace. The schis
	Positions matics laid down the principle that no
of the Two one could give what he had not
	Parties.	sanctification, the Holy Spirit. They
		regarded persecution as stamping
them with the note of the true Church, and the
friendship of earthly rulers as proving the oppo
site of the catholic,; their community, requiring
holiness of its bishops and members, was alone the
true bride of Christ. The catholics, on their side,
distinguished between heretics and schismatic,,
though they accused the Donatists of teaching
some heretical doctrines. Thus they still desig
nated their opponents brethren, and acknowl
edged their baptism; but Optatus calls their organi
zation only a quasichurch, because it is not the
catholic. True catholicity is lacking to them be
cause they are confined to one region, not spread
throughout the world; apostolicity is lacking
because they have cut themselves off from the
apostles' fellowship. Augustine strongly empha
sizes the unity of the Church in the spirit of love.
He does not insist so much on subordination to the
episcopate as does Cyprian; but he considers the
Donatists to show their lack of essential Christian
love, of the Spirit, by the very fact of their sep
aration from the one Church. Though, as an
ethical teacher, he demands personal holiness from
the Church's officers not less urgently than the
Donatists, he calls it holy because it possesses and
communicates the spirit of love, even though all
its members do not walk perfectly in that spirit.
His belief in that inseparable connection between
the catholic Church and the means of grace led
him into his conviction that brotherly duty toward
those without required him to " compel them to
come in " (Luke xiv. 23).	(N. BONWETBCH.)
	[The failure of all efforts to allay the Donatist
controversy was due in large measure to the abso
lutely uncompromising spirit of the Donatists and
to the impracticability of their demands. They
would have no fellowship with any individual or
body of Christians who would not join with them
alike in the charges that they made against Men
surius, Caecilianus, Felix of Aptunga, etc., and in
the condemnation of the alleged acts. Further,
they disfellowshiped all who would not disfellow
ship Ceecilianus, Felix, and their direct supporters.
Most of them refused to recognize.the validity of
baptism received at the hands of any bishop or
presbyter outside of the Donatist communion, and
insisted on the rebaptism of all who came into their
fellowship from without. Catholics could harmo
nize with them only by making a complete surren
der, repudiating their baptism and ordination, and
disfellowshiping all other eatholics.	A. H. N.]
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are: Eusebius, Hitt. escl., x. 5‑7
	(the notes of MoGifert to the Eng. transl. in NPNP,
	2d series, i. 380 sqq., are noteworthy); Augustine, the
	anti‑Donatistic writings, brought together and trans‑
lated in NPJVB, let series, iv. 389‑861; Optatus Melevitanue, De achismate Donatistarum, ed. Du Pin, with rich illustrative material, Paris, 1700, printed in MPL, xi. (cf. vol. viii.), a good edition also in CSEL, vol. xxvi.; early notes on the schism are collected in M. J. Routh, Rdiquia sacra, iv. 275 sqq., 5 vole., Oxford, 1846‑48. Consult: C. W. F. Watch, Historie der Ketsereien, vol. iv., Leipsic, 1768; F. Ribbeck, Donator and Aupuatinue, Elberfeld, 1858; C. Bindermann, Der Wipe Aupustinus, ii. 366 eqq., iii. 178 eqq., Greifswald, 1889; 6. M. Deutsch, Drei Aktenatucke sur Geschichte doe Donatiemus. Berlin, 1875; D. V51ter, Der Uraprunp des Donatismus, Freiburg, 1883; 0. 6eeck, in ZKO, x (1889), 505; H. WNW, Kirchenpesehichte, i. 176‑179, Freiburg, 1892; W. Thilmmel, Zw Beurtheilunp doe Donatiemus, Halle, 1893; T. Hahn, Tychonius Studien, in Studien sur Gewkichte der Theoiopie and Kirehe, vol. vi., part 2, Leipae, 1900; J. McCabe, St. Augustine and his Ape, chap. xi., New York, 1903; L. Pullan, Church of the Fathers, ib. 1906; Schaff, Christian Church, iii. 380‑370; Neander, Christian Church, ii. 182 sqq.; KL, iii. 1969‑79; DCB, i. 881‑896; Harnack, Litteradur, i. 744 sqq., 11. i. 463‑458; idem, Dogma, iii: passim, v. 38 sqq., 140 sqq., 162.

DOHATUS, do‑n6'tvs, VESONTTIERSIS: Bishop of Beaanpon; b. about 594; d. after 657. He was the son of the Frankish duke Waldelenus, and was educated in the monastery of Luxeuil. He was consecrated bishop of Besangon about 625 and was a zealous promoter of the monastic life, founding the cloister of Palatium (later St. Paul) before the walls of the city, while his brother Namelenus established a second monastery and his mother, Flavia, the nunnery of Jussanum (Joussan‑Moutier). For the latter Donatus drew up a special rule which is of interest since it served as the model, together with the rule of St. Columban, for the rules of Cmsarius and Benedict of Nursia. Donatus took part in the synods of Clichy, 626 or 627, Reims (?), between 627 and 630; and ChAlons‑sur‑Shone, between 639 and 654. His name appears for the last time on a document of 657. (A. HAUCK.)
BIRwoolAFuT: ASB, Aug., ii. 197‑200; E. LSning, DeutacAes Kirckanrecht, ii. 433, 8trasburg, 1878; F. 0. Beebaas, Columbar von Lexusil KlosterrWel, pp. 37‑38, Dresden, 1883.

DONNE, JOHN: Clergyman and poet, dean of St. Paul's; b. in London ‑ 1573; d. there Mar. 31, 1631. He studied at Hart Hall, Oxford (M.A. by convocation, 1610), and in 1592 was admitted to Lincoln's Inn. He immediately became an intimate of the intellectual leaders of the time and had soon won for himself a great reputation as a wit and poet. In 1596 he took part in the expedition to Cadiz, under the Earl of Essex, and on his return was appointed secretary to the Keeper of the Great Seal. About 1600 he lost this position through a clandestine marriage with a niece of the lord keeper. As early as 1592 he had renounced the Roman Catholic faith, and in 1610 he published in London Pseudo‑Martyr, a treatise against Catholicism. He wrote the book at the suggestion of James I., and it is probable that he was well paid for it. This was followed (1610 or 1611) by Conclave Ignatid: sive ejus in nuperis in/erni eomitiis inthronizatio and an English Ignatius his Conclave; or his Inthronization in a Late Election in Held (1611). Both works were republished later with titles changed. The original Latin is now extremely rare. As his sovereign was unable to do anything for him immediately in the way of political preferment, Donne continued in civil pursuits till 1615,

Donne
Dorchester	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	490
when he took orders. He was urged to do this by James, who immediately made him royal chaplain. On the insistence of the king the University of Cambridge reluctantly conferred the degree of doctor of divinity on Donne in March of the same year. Many livings were offered him throughout the country, but he preferred to remain in London. However, in 1616 he accepted the rectory of Keyston, in Huntingdonshire, and later in the same year that of Sevenoaks. He never resided in either parish, remaining in London, where he was appointed divinity reader of Lincoln's Inn. During the next few years he came to be recognized as one of the first preachers of his time, and in 1621 he was appointed dean of St. Paul's. He was chosen prolocutor of the convocation in 1623, and again in 1624. In the spring of the latter year he was given the rectory of Blunham, in Bedfordshire, and the vicarage of St. Dunstan's‑in‑the‑West, London. Donne's ability as a preacher continued to increase, and his popularity grew in proportion. He surpassed all others; and, indeed, the editor of his last sermon claims that Donne finally surpassed even himself. This sermon, called by Donne "Death's Duel," was preached just five weeks before his death. He was buried in St. Paul's.
At present Donne's reputation rests on his poetry. He wrote much verse, but it was usually handed around in manuscript, little of it being published in his lifetime, though his poems were greatly admired by his contemporaries. A collection of his poetry was published in 1633. It contains satires, elegies, epigrams, letters, etc. He is usually classified as a " metaphysical poet," and occupies an important place in English literature. He set a style in English poetry that continued dominant till the time of Dryden; and even in Browning's ruggedness and obscurity may be detected the influence of Donne. His sermons were published in various forms, including three volumes edited by his son, John Donne the Younger (London, 1640, 1649, 1660). As many as 180 are now known. They are marked by poetic, imaginary, and philosophic insight, and with Donne's other literary works constitute a memorial of great industry and rare talents.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A very full list of his works is given after the extended sketch of his fife in DNB, xv. 223 sqq. Besides the volume of eighty sermons. mentioned below, two others, one containing fifty and the other " six‑andtwenty " (really only twenty‑four), were issued by his son. London, 1649‑60; an edition of his Poems was also issued by his son, ib. 1650 and often, who published also Essay" in Divinity, ib. 1&51, and a collection of Letters ib. 1651 The best edition of the Poems is by Grosart in 2 vols., ib_ 1872. The Works, ed. H. Alford, 6 vols., Oxford, 1839, are poorly put together. His Life, by Isaak Walton, was issued first in the L%%%. Sermons of Donne, published by his son, London, 1640, and the best edition, containing " careful and learned notes," is by H. K. Guston, 1855.
DONNELL, ROBERT: Cumberland Presbyterian; b. in Guilford County, N. C., Apr., 1784; d. at Athens, Ala., May 24, 1854. His parents early moved to Tennessee. He offered himself in 1806 to the so‑called " Council " of the Cumberland Presbytery, who encouraged him to exercise his gifts as a catechist and exhorter. He preached independently of ecclesiastical connection, and for
the most part in Alabama, until 1811, when he placed himself under the care of the newly organized Cumberland Presbytery. From that time on he labored incessantly, in Tennessee, Alabama, and western Pennsylvania, organizing many churches, and winning the position of a leader in his denomination. He was a member of the committee appointed in 1813 to draw up a confession of faith and discipline for the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. He was the author of Thoughts on Various Subjects (Nashville, 1852).

BromoanAPHT: Lowry, Life of Rev. Robert Donnell, Nashville, 1867; R. Beard, Biographical Sketches of Some of
the Early Ministers of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, 2 vole., Nashville. 1867.

DONNELLAN (DONNELAN) LECTURES: A lectureship named after " Mrs. Anne Donnelan, of the parish of St. George, Hanover Square, in the County of Middlesex, Spinster," who bequeathed to Dublin University £1,243 " for the encouragement of religion, learning and good manners, the particular mode of application being entrusted to the Provost and Senior Fellows." The income was appropriated as salary of a lecturer in divinity, to be chosen annually on Nov. 20th from among the Fellows, at which time the subject was determined. The lectures in each series are not less than six in number, and one‑half of the salary is paid on delivery of the lectures, the rest when at least four are published. During a number of years no appointments have been made, some of those made have been declined, and many of the lecturers have failed to publish. The following is believed to be a complete list of those which have appeared in print:
1794. T. Ebington, The Proof o/ Christianity . . from the Miracles recorded in the New Testament, Dublin, 1796.
1797, 1801. R. Graves, The Divine Origin of the Jewish Religion proved from the . . . Last Four Books of the Pen'ateuch, 2 vole., London, 1807.
1815‑16. F. Sadleir, The Various Degrees of Religious Information Vouchsafed to Mankind, in his Sermons and Lectures, 3 vole., Dublin, 1821‑24.
1818. W. Phelan, Christianity provides . Correctives for . . . Tendencies to Polytheism and Idolatry, in his Remains, ad. J. Jebb, London, 1832.
1821, 1824. J. Kennedy, The Researches o/ Modern Science . . demonstrate the Inspaation of . . . Scripture, 2 vole., ib. 1826‑27.
1823. F. Sadleir, The Formulas of the Church of England Conformable to the Scriptures, Dublin, 1824.
1838. J. H. Todd, The Prophecies Relating to Antichrist in . . . Daniel and St. Paul, ib 1840.
1839. J. H. Todd, The Prophecies Relating to Antichrist in the Apocalypse of St. John, ib. 1846.
1851. M. O'Sullivan, The Hour of the Redeemer, ib. 1853.
1852. W. Lee, Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, ib. 1854 (often republished)
1853. W. de Burgh, The Early Prophecies o/ a Redeemer, ib. 1854.
1854. C. P. Reiehel, The Nature and Offlees of the Church. London, 1856.
1855. J. Byrne, Naturalism and Spiritualism, Dublin, 1856.
1855‑56, 1859. J. MaoIvor. Religious Progress, London, 1871.
1857. J. C. MaoDonnell, The Doctrine of the Atonement deduced from Scripture, ib. 1858
1858. J. Wills. The Antecedent Probability of As Chris. tian Rel n. Dublin, 1860.
1860. Atkins, Pastoral Duties, London, 1861.
1861. W. P Walsh, Christian Missions, Dublin, 1862.
1862. W. de Burgh. Messianic Prophecies of Isaiah. ib. 18&3.

491	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Donne
Dorchester
1863. A. G. Ryder, Scriptural Doctrine of Acceptance faith God, ib. 1865.
1869. A. Daunt, Person and Offices of the Holy Spirit, ib. 1874.
1871‑72. J. Leech, The Epistle to the Hebrews, ib. 1874.
1875‑76. F. F. Carmichael, Jesus Christ, ib. 1876.
1877. J. H. Jellett,TheEf/lcacyo/Prayer,London, 1878.
1877‑78. J. Quarry, Religious Belie/, Dublin, 1880.
1878‑79. G. A. Chadwick, Christ Bearing Witness to Himself, London, n.d.
1879‑80. T. Jordan, The Stoic Moralists and the Christians, Dublin, 1880.
1880,81. C. H. H. Wright, TheBook of Koheleth, London, 1883.
1882‑83. H. Jellett, Thoughts on the Christian Life, ib. 1884.
1883‑84. J. W. Murray, Christian Vitality, Dublin, 1884.
1884‑85. R. T. Smith, Man's Knowledge of Man and of God, London, 1886.
1887‑88. W. Lefroy, The Christian Ministry, ib. 1890.
1888‑89. J. H. Kennedy, Natural Theology and Modern Thought, ib. 1891.
1889‑90. T. S. Berry, Christianity and Buddhism, ib. 1891.
1891‑92. T. L. Scott, The Visions of the Apocalypse, ib. 1893.
1892‑93. W. M. Foley, Christ in the World, Dublin, 1894. 1897‑98. C. F. Darcy, Idealism and Theology, London, 1899.
1898‑99. E. J. Hardy, Doubt and Faith, ib. 1899.
1899‑1900. M. Kaufmann, Social Development under Christian Influence, Dublin, 1900.
1900‑01. G. R. W ynne, The Church in Greater Britain, London, 1901.
1901‑02. J. O. Hannay, The Spirit and Origin of Christian Monasticism ib. 1903.
1902‑03. L. A. H. T. Pooler, Studies in the Religion of Israel, ib. 1904.
1903‑04. F. W. Maoran, English Apologetic Theology, ib. 1905.
1906‑07. H. J. Dukinfield Aatley, Prehistoric Archeology and the O. T., Edinburgh, 1908.

DONOSO CORTES, JUAN FRANCISCO MANUEL MARIA DE LA SALUD: Marquis de Valdegamas, Spanish author and statesman; b. at Valle de la Serena (near Castuera, 135 m. sm. of Madrid), in Estremadura, May 9, 1809; d. in Paris May 3, 1853. He studied law in Salamanca and Seville and settled in Madrid, where he engaged in literature and politics. In the revolution of 1832 he took the part of Isabella against Don Carlos. He entered the Cortes in 1835. About this time he established a newspaper, the Avenir, in which he published many articles of political and historical character. He continued to give his enthusiastic support to Isabella and accompanied her on her flight to England in 1840. On her return to Spain in 1843 he was appointed secretary and tutor for the young queen. In 1848 he was sent as ambassador to Berlin, but returned to Madrid in the same year. He immediately reentered the Cortes, where, in Jan., 1848, he startled his party and his country with a bitter denunciation of all liberal principles and the demand for a dictatorship. In 1851 he proclaimed the absolute supremacy of the Roman Catholic Church in his Ensayo sombre el catolicismo, el liberalismo y el socialismo. This essay, an eloquent and brilliant plea for the ideas of Gregory VII. and Innocent 111. against modern tendencies, was immediately translated into French and German and, a few years later, into English. Essay on Catholicism, Liberalism and Socialism, in Their Fundamental Principles, Philadelphia, 1862; another transl., Dublin, 1874. At the close of his career, he was ambassador at Paris for two years.
A collected edition of his works in five volumes, including a biography by Tejado, was published at Madrid in 1855. A French edition appeared in Paris in 1858.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Besides the biography by G. Tejado, men‑
tioned above, there is a sketch from the Italian of G. E. de Castro in the Philadelphia translation and an excellent sketch in KL, iii. 1982‑Sb.
DONUS (DOMNUS): Pope Aug., 676‑Apr., 678. All that is known of him is that he was a Roman by birth, that he adorned certain churches in Rome, and that he banished the Syrian monks from Rome. The Donus B. assigned by some lists to 974 did not exist, but is due to a misreading of the title Domnus (dominus) papa as a proper name.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Liber ponlificalis, ed. L. Dueheane, i. 348, Paris, 1886, ed. T. Mommsen, in MOH, Gest. pont. Rom., i (1898), 192; Mann, Popes, 1. ii. 20‑22.
DOOLITTLE, THOMAS: Non‑conformist; b. at Kjdderminster (15 m. n. of Worcester) 1631 or 1632; d. in London May 24, 1707. As a boy he was converted under the preaching of Richard Baxter. He studied for the ministry at Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, and in 1653 became pastor of the parish of St. Alphage, London Wall, London. He received Presbyterian ordination and soon became popular as a preacher. When the Uniformity Act was passed in 1662 he declared himself a non‑conformist and opened a boarding‑school which he maintained in different localities till 1687, and after this time he continued privately to prepare pupils for the ministry.
	After the great fire in London in 1666 Doolittle
was one of the non‑conformist preachers who de
fied the law by erecting meeting‑houses in the
ruins. For a while he was not disturbed; but,
when he insisted on preaching, his meeting‑house
was seized and he fled to escape arrest. On the
indulgence of Mar. 15, 1672, he took out a license
for his meeting‑house; but this was revoked the
next year, and it was not till the Toleration Act
of 1689 that he was allowed to resume services at
his old church. While popular as a preacher, and
influential as a tutor, Doolittle was neither a
scholar nor an original thinker. Among the most
popular of his works were: A Treatise concerning
the Lord's Supper, London, 1665; A Call to De
laying Sinners, 1683; and A Complete Body o f
Practical Divinity, 1723, folio.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Memoirs were prefixed to the Body o/
Practical Divinity, ut sup.; DNB, xv. 236‑238.
DOORKEEPER. See OsmIAluns.
DORA, SISTER. See PATnsorr, DoaoTHY W1rNOroW.
DORCHESTER, DANIEL: Methodist; b. at Duxbury, Mass., Mar. 11, 1827; d. at West Roxbury, Mass., Mar. 13, 1907. He studied at Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn. (18481851), and held pastorates in Connecticut 1847‑55, and in Massachusetts 1858‑89. He was presiding elder of the districts of Worcester 1865‑68, Lynn 1874‑77, and North Boston 1882‑85. In 1854 he was elected to the State Senate of Connecticut, and in 1855 was appointed chairman of a committee to investigate the condition of the feeble‑minded. In 1882 he was elected to the Massachusetts Leg‑

noremus
Dorothea	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	492
islature for Natick, and from 1889 to 1893 was superintendent of Indian Bchoals of the United States. After 1893 he lived in retirement at Melrose and West Roxbury, Mass. He wrote The Concessions of Liberalists to Orthodoxy (Boston, 1878); The Problem of Religious Progress (New York, 1881); Why of Methodism (1887); Christianity in the United States (1888); Romanism versus the Public School .System (1888); and Christianity Vindicated by its Enemies (1896).

DOREMUS, SARAH PLATT (HAINES): Reformed (Dutch) philanthropist; b. in New York Aug. 3, 1802; d. there Jan. 29, 1877. In 1821 she married Thomas C. Doremus, a wealthy merchant of New York, and seven years later began philanthropic work for Greek women during the GrecoTurkish war. In 1835 she took an active interest in the Canadian Grande Ligne mission, later becoming president of a society for the furtherance of this work. In 1840 she commenced to hold Sunday services in the female wards of the Tombs in New York, and on the formation of the Woman's Prison Association, two years later, she became one of its managers and was its president after 1863. In 1841 she became a manager of the New York City and Tract Mission, and nine years later aided in the foundation of the House and School of Industry, of which she was elected president in 1867. She was also one of the founders of the Nursery and Child's Hospital in 1854, and in 1855 was one of the prime movers in the establishment of the Woman's Hospital in New York, the first of its kind in the world, of which she became president in 1864. In 1860 she aided materially in the establishment of the Woman's Union Missionary Society; in 1866 she helped to organize the Presbyterian Home for Aged Women, and in 1876 she was one of the committee to form the Gould Memorial in behalf of Italo‑American schools. But it was as the friend of every American Protestant foreign missionary and one who kept open house for them so long as her husband's means allowed that her memory will be longest preserved.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: In Memoriam of Mrs. Doremua, Edinburgh, 1877.
DORMER, AUGUST JOHANNES: German Protestant, son of Isaak August Dorner (q.v.); b. at Schiltach (30 m. n.e. of Freiburg) May 13, 1846. He studied in GUtingen, Tiibingen, and Berlin (Ph.D., 1867), and, after being Vikar to the‑German congregation in Lyons and Marseilles (1869) and traveling in the Orient (1870), was lecturer at Gdttingen 1870‑73. He then visited the United States, and on his return was professor and codirector of the theological seminary at Wittenberg 1874‑89. Since 1889 he has been professor of systematic theology at Konigsberg. He has edited his father's System der christhchen Sittenlehre (Berlin, 1885) and Briefwechsel zwischen H. L. Mortensen unit 1. A. Domer (2 vols., 1888), and has written De Baconis philosophia (Berlin, 1867); Augustinus, seine theologische unut seine religionsphilosophische Anschauung (1873); Ueber die Prinzipien der Kantschen Ethik (Halle, 1875); Prediglen vom keiche Goltes (Berlin, 1880); Kirche
and Reich Gottes (Goths, 1883); Das menschliche Erkennen (Berlin, 1887); Das menschliche Handeln (1895); Grundriss der Dogmengeschichte (1899); Grundriss der Encyklopadie der Theologie (1901); Zur Geschichte des sittlichen Denkens and Lebens (Hamburg, 1901); Grundrias der Religionsphilosophie (Leipsie, 1903); Grundprobleme der Religionsphilo8ophie (Berlin, 1903); Individuelle and soziale Ethik (Leipsie, 1906); and Die Entstehung der ehristlichen Glaubenslehren (Munich, 1906).
DORMER, ISAAK AUGUST.
Early Life. Professorship at Tifbingen (§ 1). Professor at Kiel (§ 2). Later Life. In Berlin (§ 3). Dorner's Theology. His Personality (§ 4). His Works (§ 6).
One of the foremost German theologians of the nineteenth century; b. at Neuhausen ob Eck. (60 m. s.s.w. of Stuttgart), Wdrttemberg, June 20, 1809; d. at Wiesbaden July 8, 1884. His father was pastor at Neuhausen. He studied in the Latin school at Tuttlingen, the collegiate seminary at Maulbronn, and the University of Ttibingen (1827‑32). For two years he assisted his father as pastor, then became repetent in theology (1834) and professor extraordinary (1838) at Tiibingen. In 1835 his colleague David Friedrich Strauss (q.v.) published his Leben Jesu, and Dorner was induced in 1839 to issue his Entwickelungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi, a work
of directly opposite tendency, in which :. Early the historical Christ of the Gospels is
Life.	traced through the ages of the Church
Professor‑ as the greatest fact in Christian
ship at thought and experience. This work
Tiibingen. determined Dorner's place among
	theologians and doctrinal historians,
and was a most effectual answer to Strauss and
his mythical theory. The work was afterward
greatly enlarged and improved by an exhaustive
study of the sources from the Apostolic Age down
to the kenosis controversy (see CHRIBTOLOGY;
KExosls), and appeared in a second edition as
Die Lehre von der Person Christi (4 vole., Stutt
gart, 1846‑56; Eng. transl., History o f the Develop
ment o f the Doctrine o f the Person o f Christ, 5 vols.,
Edinburgh, 1861‑63).
From 1839 to 1843 Dorner was professor in Kiel. His principal writing during this period was the dogmatic treatise dedicated to Claus Harms (q.v.), Das Princip unserer Kirche nach dem innern Verhdltniss seiner zwei Seiten betrachtet (Kiel, 1841).
In this work he maintained that the s. Profes‑ so‑called material and formal princi‑
sor at plea of the Reformation‑i.e., justifi‑
Kiel.	cation by faith, and the supreme
authority of Scripture‑were to be considered as two pillars inseparably joined, so that each stands with and through the other. This was his word of comfort to those distressed by Strauss. No criticism can alter the fact that the primitive Church did record in the New Testament, by means of the Spirit proceeding from Christ, its impressions and experiences of Christ's salvation. On the other hand, faith holds fast to the written word. For the Christ whom faith

493	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Doremns
Dorothea
experiences is the Christ of Scripture, which alone enables the Christian to understand and assert faith and the mystery of his new personality. Justification, he used to say, is the only completed fact in the Christian; everything else is growth.
In 1843 Dorner became professor at KSnigsberg, in 1847 at Bonn, in 1853 at 0ottingen, and finally
in 1862 at Berlin as successor of 3. Later Nitzach. Here he was also superior
Life. In consistorial councilor (Oberkirchen‑
Berlin. rath), and for twenty‑two years he
exerted a mighty influence on the Evangelical Church of Prussia, and on students from all parts of the world. He visited America in 1873 as delegate to the conference of the Evangelical Alliance in New York. His last years were clouded by a painful cancerous affection of the face and by the incurable illness of a son. Nevertheless, he worked on his Christliche Sittenlehre till the last weeks of his life, which were spent at Wittenberg in view of the Luther house.
Dr. Dorner was one of the profoundest and most learned theologians of the nineteenth century, and ranks with Schleiermacher, * Neander, Nitzach, Julius M011er, and Richard Rothe. tie mastered the theology of Schleiermacher and the philosophy of Hegel, appropriated the best elements of both, and infused into them a positive Evangelical faith and a historical spirit. The central idea of his system was the divine‑human per‑
sonality of Christ, as the highest revs. Dorner's elation of God, the perfect ideal of
Theology. humanity, and the Savior from sin His Per‑ and death. The primary postulate
sonality. of faith in regard to the Redeemer is
that he was free from sin and not himself in need of redemption. From this, faith proceeds to the supernatural origin of his person. Christ is the center of humanity, and not merely an individual. God's indwelling in him was not merely a dynamic divine immanence, but a pen. sonal self‑communication of God. In him the divine and human natures were united. This union involved no diminution of the Logos. The kenosis of the Logos is to be thought of as a self‑humiliation in love to meet the needs of mankind. Demer's theology is preeminently Christological, and his monumental history of Christology is a rich mine of accurate and extensive scholarship and Christian experience. He lectured on exegesis, on New Testament theology, on symbolics, but more especially on dogmatics and ethics, in which he excelled all his contemporaries. He was one of the revisers of Luther's Bible, and proposed a correspondence with the Anglo‑American revision committee, while in New York, 1873, which was carried on for a short time. He was alive to all practical church questions, and labored as Oberkirchenrath for synodical church government, and the development of the lay agency and the voluntary principle. He took a deep interest in the work of the Innere Mission (q.v.) and was one of its directors: With Wichern and Von BethmannHollweg, he was one of the founders of the Church Diet (q.v.) in the revolutionary year 1848, and one of the leading speakers and managers at its
annual sessions. He was a most devoted and uonacientious teacher, and a favorite among students. The Johanneum and the Melanchthon House in Berlin are memorials of his active interest in indigent students. The leading traits in his personal character were purity, simplicity, courtesy, gentleness, humility, and love.
	Dorner's	more important publications not al
ready mentioned were as follows: Der Pietismus,
insbesondere in Wurttemberg . . mail besonderer
Beziehung auf das Verhaltniss des Pietismus zur
Kirche (Hamburg, 1840); Das Verhdltniss zwischen
Kirche and Staat (inaugural address at Berlin,
Bonn, 1847); Sendschreiben izer Reform der evan
gelischen Landeskirchen im Zusammenhang mit
		der Herstellung einer evangeliseh‑deut‑
	g. His	schen Nationalkirche (Bonn, 1848);
	Works.	Ueber Jesu siindlose Vollkommenheit
		(Goths, 1862; Eng. tranal„ by Henry
B. Smith, in the American Presbyterian Re
view, 1863); Geschichte der protestantischen Theologie
(Munich, 1867; Eng. transl., History of Protestant
Theology, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1871); System der
christlichen Glaubenslehre (2 vols., Berlin, 1879‑81;
2d ed., 1886‑87; Eng. transl., A System of Christian
Doctrine, 4 vols., Edinburgh, 1880,82; the eschato
logical portion, advocating the doctrine of a fu
ture probation, was edited, with introduction and
notes, by Newman Smyth under the title Darner
on the Future State, New York, 1883); Gesammelte
Sehriften auf dem Gebiet der systematischen Theo
logie, Exegese and Gesehichte (Berlin, 1883; con
tains valuable metaphysical essays on the un
changeability of God, and criticism of the kenosis
theory of the incarnation); System der christlichen
Sittenlehre (Berlin, 1885, edited by his son, A. J.
Dorner; Eng. transl., System of Christian Ethics,
Edinburgh, 1887). A collection of letters between
Dorner and his lifelong friend, Bishop H. L. Mar
tensen, appeared after his death (2 vols., Berlin,
1888). With K. T. A. Liebner he founded and
edited the Jahrb4cher fur deutsche Theologie (Stutt
gart and Gotha, 1856‑78).
(PHILIP ScHAFFt) D. S. SCHAFF.
BIHmGGHAPHY: P: Schaff. Germany: its Universities, The‑
ology, and Religion, pp. 376‑380, Philadelphia, 1857; Dekan Jager and Diakonus Knapp, Zur Brdnnerung an Dr. lsaak August Dorner, Tuttlingen, 1884 (funeral addresses); P. Kleinert. Zum GeddeAtnise 1. A. Dornere. Berlin, 1884 (a eulogy delivered at Berlin); Andover Review, ii (1884), 176; J. Bobertag, 1. A. Dorner, aein Leben and seine Lehre, Gfitersloh, 1906. A good account of his theological system is given by his son, A. J. Dorner, Derv Andenken von Dr. 1. A. Dorner, in TSK, 1885.

DOROTHEA: 1. St. Dorothea is said to have been a virgin of Cwsarea in Cappadocia, and to have suffered martyrdom during the persecutions of Diocletian. She is mentioned in the various recensions of the so‑called Martyrologium Hieronymianum, the Codex Wissenbergensis giving the day of her death as Feb. 6. But she is unknown to the Orient, and accordingly seems to be merely legendary. A Dorothea who was " a virgin consecrated to God " is also mentioned by Rufinus (Hilt. eccl., viii. 17), who states that she escaped by flight from the persecutions of Maximinus.
(A. HAUCK.)

Dort
Dosker	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	494
BInm00aAPHY: ASB, Feb., i. 771‑776; Aldhelm, De laudibua virpinitatie, ed. J. A. Giles, pp. 62‑63, Oxford, 1843; Dom Fea, Breve vita di S. Dorotea, Turin, 1889.

2. Dorothea the Recluse was born at Montau, near Marienwerder (45 m. s.s.e. of Danzig), 1347; d. at Marienwerder 1394. She lived in Danzig with her husband until she was forty‑four, and had nine children. Then she devoted herself to a solitary ascetic life, inhabiting a cell adjoining the cathedral of Marienwerder in 1393 and 1394, and following a rule which she said was divinely revealed to her. Miracles occurring at her grave and the universal veneration induced the grand master of the Teutonic Order and the clergy of the neighborhood to begin proceedings for her canonization; but these were stopped when it came out in 1404 that she had sharply criticized the Order and predicted its downfall. The people, however, continued to revere her and regarded her as the patron saint of Prussia.
(J. J. HERZOGt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Early Vitce by different authors are collected in ASB, Oct., xiii. 493‑575. Consult F. Hipler, Meiater J. Marlenmerder and die K(ausnerin Dorogea von Montau, Leipsic, 1865.

DORT, SYNOD OF: The largest and, next to the Westminster Assembly, the most imposing of all synods of the Reformed Churches, convened by the States General of the Netherlands at the instance of the Calvinists to try to settle the disputes between the latter and the " Remonstrants," or followers of Jacobus Arminius (see ARMINIuB; REMONSTRANTS). It met at Dort (Dordrecht, on an island in the Meuse, 10 m. s.e. of Rotterdam)
Nov. 13, 1618, and adjourned May 9, Constitution 1619. The Dutch churches of the and Or‑ provinces sent thirty‑five clergymen ganization. and a certain number of elders; the
States General were represented by six deputies; the academies by Gomarus and Polyander of Leyden, Thysius of Harderwyk, Lubbertus of Franeker, and Walmus of Middelburg. Foreign countries had been invited to participate, and twenty‑seven delegates were present from the Palatinate (Abraham Scultetus and others), Nassau, Hesse (Georg Cruciger), East Friesland, Switzerland (J. J. Breitinger and Jean Diodati), England, and Scotland. [The English representatives appointed by King James I. were George Carleton, bishop of Llandaff (afterward of Chichester); John Davenant, bishop of Salisbury; Samuel Ward, professor at Cambridge; Joseph Hall, afterward bishop of Exeter and Norwich (who left during the sessions and was replaced by Thomas Goad); and Walter Balcanquall, a Scotchman and chaplain of the king.] Anhalt was not invited, Brandenburg declined to be represented, and four delegates chosen by the National Synod of France were forbidden to leave the country by Louis XIII. Jan Bogerman, pastor at Leeuwarden, was elected president, H. Faukelius and J. Rolandus were appointed assessors, and F. Hommius and S. Damman secretaries. The Remonstrants had chosen sixteen clergymen and the Leyden professor Simon Episcopiu to represent them. As they were late in arriving the first ses‑
sions were devoted to a discussion of a new translation of the Bible, and it was agreed that three members should undertake the Old Testament, and three others the New; it was then declared that the Heidelberg Catechism should be expounded in sermons in all the churches.
Not until Dec. 6 and the twenty‑second session was the main business of the gathering reached. The Remonstrants were told that they could merely express their opinions and the Synod would pronounce judgment. Against this they immediately protested. Episcopius in an eloquent speech said that they had all come of their own accord, and that they should not be accused of
heterodoxy; while they . were ready Proceed‑ to discuss the dogmas in question, ings, and they would not submit to any human Expulsion power or belief, but only to the word of the Re‑ of God in the Holy Scripture. Their monstrants. status in the Synod was discussed for
many days, but finally the delegates of the States General decided that they had nothing to do but to defend their beliefs; the Synod must decide at the end. The Remonstrants then submitted successively written statements in defense of each of the Five Articles (see REMoNSTRANTS). They were asked to put in writing their objections to the Confession, at first refused to do so, but finally complied. The members of the Synod and of the States General sometimes addressed them very bruskly. Matters grew worse when the question arose whether the Remonstrants could speak against the convictions of their opponents. They unanimously refused to go on if they should not be allowed to do so, and it was decided to submit the question to the States General; in the mean time the Remonstrants must remain in Dort. Thus ended the year 1618. On Jan. 3, 1619, the Remonstrants were informed of the decision, which sustained the majority of the Synod, and they again declared that they could not accept it. It was decided to proceed without them. They tried to bring about a reconciliation by offering to answer any question submitted to them in writing, but the president rejected their proposal. On Jan. 18 (the fifty‑seventh session) they were finally asked if they would submit, and answered decidedly " no." Bogerman delivered a passionate speech, exclaiming, " You have begun with lies and you end with lies," and concluding " Dimittimini, its, its." The net result of six weeks' time was that the Remonstrants were expelled, while they were commanded not to leave Dort.
The Synod now divided in groups which met in the morning to formulate their opinions about the doctrines of the Remonstrants, while they met in the afternoon for discussion. In the 125th session
it was voted that the Five Articles of Decision the Remonstrants were contrary to
of the the doctrine of the Reformed Church,
Synod. and that their objections to the Con‑
fession and the Catechism were not supported by the authority of Scripture. A committee was appointed, to express the final decision in the form of canons, which were adopted and

496	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	DDooeker
signed by all at the 136th session (Apr. 23). The doctrine of absolute predestination was maintained, though not acceptable to the supralapsarians. It was now decided at Bogerman's suggestion to depose the Remonstrants from their positions, and the provincial synods, the classes, and presbyteries were directed to execute the sentence. The Confession and Catechism were considered in presence of the foreign delegates and were found to agree in every respect with Scripture. Finally Conrad Vorstius (q.v.) was declared unworthy of his position as professor of theology on account of his heretical writings.
On May 6 the members of the Synod marched in procession to the cathedral of Dort, where Bogerman delivered a Latin address and the secretaries read the canons against the Remonstrants. Three days later they met for a formal farewell to the foreign delegates at a banquet tendered by the city authorities of Dort. The Dutch delegates met again from May 13 to May 29 to consider certain ecclesiastical affairs.
For two centuries the decision of the Synod of Dort was the basis of the Reformed Church in Holland, and the Canones Dordraeenam gave it a peculiar character; for what they stated concerning predestination differed as much from Calvin's Inatittuiones as from the Helvetian Confession and the Consensus Genevensis. H. C. RoaaEt.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: For the original records consult: Acfa aynodi . . . DordrwAti, Dort, 1620; Ada et ecripta spnodalia Dordracena miniatrorum remonslrantium Herdenaici, ib. 1620; Canones Spnodi Dordraeentu, cum no& D. Tileni, Paris, 1622. Consult: J. Halesius, Hisi. concilii DordraoenZ Hamburg, 1724; M. Graf, Beytrdge sur Kennb niss der Gesehirhte der Synods van Dordrech4 Basel, 1725; B. Glasius. Geschiederue der . . . Synods . . . to Dordreeht, 2 vols., Leyden, 1860‑81; Schaff, Creeds, i. 512523 (history), iii. 550‑597 (the canons, in Let. and Eng.); Moeller, Christian Church, iii. 410‑415 (lucid). The Canons of the Synod of Dort are part of the symbolical books of the Reformed (Dutch) Church in America, and are officially published by that denomination (New York).

DOSITHEOS, do‑s?rth6‑es, OF JERUSALEM: Patriarch of Jerusalem 1699‑1707, and one of the most important figures of the modern Greek Church. He reformed the cloisters by a strict insistence on their communal life, erected churches, took great interest in the Holy Sepulcher, and defended the holy places against the claims of the Roman Catholics and the Armenians. He extirpated the Protestant tendency which had entered the Church through Cyril Lucar (q.v.), and opposedin his "Manual " (Bucharest, 1690) Johannes Karyophyllis, the logothete of Constantinople,. who taught a Calvinistic doctrine of the Lord's Supper. He assailed the Roman Catholic Church both in practise and by the publication of such controversial works as the " Book of Absolution " (Jassy, 1692), the " Book of Love " (1699), and the " Book of Grace " (1705). His chief objects of attack were the union, the procession of the Holy Ghost, and the light of Mount Tabor. His chief work was his posthumous " History of the Patriarchs in Jerusalem " (Bucharest, 1715), in which he gave the entire history of the Greek Church and dogma, together with savage polemics against other Churches. Despite its lack of criticism, the book
is valuable for its material where Dositheos drew from sources accessible to him alone, and it thus forms a Greek counterpart to the Annals of Baronine and the Magdeburg Centuries.
(PHILIPP MEYER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Legrand, BiUiopraphie hell6nique, 4 voles, Paris, 1894‑98. and the works cited under JvaDeALEM, SYNOD OP.
DOSITHEUS, du‑sith'e‑us, THE SAMARITAN: A false Messiah among the Samaritans, and founder of a religious sect. Very little is known of him; and the uncertainty of the reports is increased by his being confounded with an older Dositheus. the teacher of Zadok, who founded the sect of the Sadducees. He was probably a contemporary of Jesus, or perhaps a little later. In those days of great religious excitement he presented himself to the Samaritans as the prophet promised in Deut. xviii. 18 (which passage, according to Samaritan doctrine, is the only true Messianic prophecy ever given) and as the Son of God (Origen, Contra Celsum, i. 57, vi. 11; ANF, iv. 421, 578). His doctrines can not be definitely determined. He seems to have laid stress upon the precepts of the law (Epiphanies, Hwr., i. 13) and gave to the words concerning the Sabbath in Ex. xvi. 29 a ridiculously literal interpretation (Origen, De prineipiis, IV. i. 17: " Each one must remain until the evening in the posture, place, or position in which he found himself on the Sabbath‑day; i.e., if found sitting, he is to sit the whole day, or if reclining, he is to recline the whole day," ANF, iv. 366). The number of his followers was probably never great, but they lasted into the sixth century. Theophilus, a Persian, wrote against them in the fourth century (Assemani, Brbl. Orient., i. 42), and in 588 Dositheans and Samaritans disputed in Egypt over Dent. xviii. 18 (cf. Photius, BibL cod., 230).
(G. UHLHoRNt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. L. von Mosheim, lnetitugones historise Chridiance, i. 376‑389, Helmstadt, 1739 (the fullest ac. count, of. Eng. trans]., ed. W. Stubbs, i. 86, London, 1863); C. W. F. Welch, Historie der Ketsenisn, f. 182 sqq., Leipsic, 1762; A. Hilgenfeld, Die Ketwrpeechidte des Urehriatenthume, pp. 155 sqq., Leipsic,1884; Harnack, Lit<eratw, i. 152 sqq.; DCB, i. 902‑904.
DOSKER, HENRY ELIES: Presbyterian (Southern Branch); b. at Bunschoten (25 m. s.e. of Amsterdam), Holland, Feb. 5, 1855. He studied at the Latin school, Harlingen, Holland, the gymnasium of Zwolle, Holland, Hope College, Holland, Mich. (B.A., 1876), New Brunswick Theological Seminary, and McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago (B.D., 1879). After pastorates at Ebenezer (1879‑‑82) and Grand Haven, Mich. (1882‑86), he was lector of historic theology in the Western Theological Seminary, Holland, Mich., until 1888, and then pastor in the same city till 1894. He was then appointed professor of church history in Western Theological Seminary, and since 1903 has been professor of the same subject in the Presbyterian Seminary of Kentucky, Louisville, Ky. He edited Hope, the magazine of Hope College, 1894‑1903, and was associate editor of the Presbyterian and Reformed Review 15981902. Since 1903 he has been an editorial contributor to the Christian Observer, Louisville, Ky.

Dousi
Dowden	THE NEW SCHAFF‑IIIERZOG	496
In theology he is a firm Calvinist of the type of the Dutch Free University of Amsterdam. He has written De Zondagschool (Kampen, Holland, 1882); Dr. A. C. Van Raalte (1893); and Outlines of Ecclesiastical History (Holland, Mich., 1901).
DOUAI, du"5' : A town of France, department of Nord, 20 m. a. of Lille and 110 m. n.n.e. of Paris. (n the sixteenth century it belonged to Spain, and a university was founded there by Philip 11. in 1562. In 1568 Cardinal William Allen (q.v.) opened in connection with the university a college or seminary for English Roman Catholics, which, during the first five years of its existence, sent more than one hundred missioners into England. In later years many of the Catholic gentry of England were educated there, and the college produced about one hundred doctors of divinity and 160 martyrs. In consequence of the political and religious disturbances in the Low Countries it was removed to Reims in 1578, but returned to Douai in 1593. The college was supported by private subscription at first, received a monthly pension of 100 gold crowns from Pope Gregory XIII. in 1575, and an annual appropriation of 2,000 ducats from Philip II. after its removal to Reims. Allen continued at its head till 1588, when he was Rucceeded by Richard Barrett. Douai became French territory in 1667, and both university and college were suppressed during the French Revolution (1793).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The " Records of the English Catholics," edited by fathers Of the Congregation of the London Oratory, vol. i., The1First and Second Diaries of the English College, Douay, ,London, 1878; vol. ii., Letters and Memorials of Williamm Cardinal Allen, 1882; A. Bellesheim, Wilhelm Cardinal Allen and die enplieehen Seminars auf dem Feetlande. Mainz, 18&5; Leon Legrand. L'Univeraite de Douai, 1630‑1790, Dousi, 1888; G. Cardon, La Fondation de l'univeraiM de Douai, Paris, 1892. For the Douai Bible see BIBLE VERBIONs, ENGLISH.
DOUCHOBORS. See DUKHOHORB.
DOUEN, EMMANUEL OREII<TIN: French Prot‑
estant; b. at Templeux‑le‑Gu6rard (Somme) June 2, 1830; d. at Paris July 9, 1896. His parents in 1833 removed to LemS (Aisne), and there his education was begun. Later he studied at Saint‑Quentin, from 1846 to 1849 at Lille, and the next four years at the University of Strasburg, where he particularly distinguished himself in Hebrew. From 1853 to 1861 he was pastor of the Protestant church of Quincy‑S6gy (8cine‑et‑Carne). A disease of the larynx compelled him to give up preaching, and he accepted the position of agent of the Protestant Bible Society of Paris. He was a prolific author, but only the titles of those books which are likely to have interest for a later generation will here be given (for a full list down to 1882 see ESR, vol. xiii., p. 62); Clement Marot et le Psautier huguenot (2 vols., Paris, 1878‑79), a work published at the expense of the. State; Les premiers pasteurs du Desert (2 vols., 1879), decreed a prize by the French Academy; Ettienne Dolet (1881); La Revocation de l'edit de Nantes d Paris, d'aprbs des documents inedits (3 vols., 1894).
DOUGLAS, GEORGE CUPIAGHAM MOft‑
TEATH : United Free Church of Scotland; b. at
Kilbarchan (8 m. a. of Dumbarton), Renfrewshire, Mar. 2, 1826; d. at Bridge of Allan (2 m. n. of Stirling), Stirlingshire, May 24, 1904. He studied at Glasgow and New College, Edinburgh, and after being pastor at Bridge of Weir, Renfrewshire (1852‑57), was professor of Hebrew and Old Testament exegesis at the Free Church College, Glasg6w, until 1892. From 1875 until 1892 he was also principal of the same institution. He was one of the Old Testament revisers from 1870 to 1884. He translated J. C. F. Keil's Lehrbuch der historisch‑kritischen Einleitung in die Schriften des Allen Testaments (2 vole., Edinburgh, 1869‑70), prepared the notes to Judges, Joshua, and the six intermediate minor prophets in Handbook for Bible Classes (3 vols., 1881‑90), and wrote Why 1 still believe that Moses tOrote Deuteronomy (Edinburgh, 1878); A Short Analysis of the Old Testament by Means of Headings to the Chapters (Paisley, 1889); Isaiah One and his Book One. (London, 1895); and Samuel and His Age (1901).
DOUMERGUE, EMILE : French Reformed; b.
at Nimes (30 m. n. of Montpellier) Nov. 25, 1844. After the completion of his education he was editor of Le Christianisme au disrneuvi~me aibcle (18721880), and was also assistant pastor of the Reformed church at Paris and chaplain of the municipal high schools in the same city (1878‑80). Since the latter year he has been professor of church history at Montauban. He has written L'Units de l1glise Reform6e de France (Paris, 1875): La Veille de la loi de l'an X (1765‑1802) (Paris, 1879); La Creation et l'svolution (1883); Essai sur l'hiatoire du culte reforms, principalement au seizibme et au dixneuvieme sibcle (1890); L'Autorits en matibre de foi et la nouvelle ecole (Lausanne, 1892); Le Reveil national (Montauban, 1894); Jean Calvin : Les Hammes et lee chases de son temps (Lausanne, vol. f., 1899, vol. ii., 1902, vol. iii., 1905‑more to follow, a monumental work, intended to be exhaustive); Une Poignee de faux : La Mort de Calvin et lea Jesuites (1900); and Lausanne au temps de la Reformation (1903).
DOVES: Many species of wild doves are found in Palestine. The rock‑dove (columba livia and columba Schimperi) builds its nest in the clefts of the rocks and cliffs (Jer. xlviii. 28; Ezek. vii. 16; Cant. ii. 14). In wooded regions dwell ring‑doves (columba palumbus), which build their nests in the trees; many of them winter in Palestine and fly north in the spring. The stock‑dove, or wood‑pigeon, is rarer. Of turtle‑doves the most common is the ordinary turtle‑dove (turtur auritns), a migratory bird (Jer. viii. 7), which appears in April in great numbers (Cant. ii. 11 sqq.). More rare is the laughing‑dove (turtur risorius), which frequents the neighborhood of the Dead Sea; and the smaller lurtur senegalensis, which prefers to build in the palm‑trees. By the ancient Israelites (Lev. v. 7) and also by the pre‑Israelitic inhabitants of Palestine not only the common house‑dove, but also more choice varieties were domesticated (cf. Pa. lxviii. 13, the description of a rarer variety). Dove‑cotes are mentioned Isa. Ix. 8, and Josephus (War, V. iv. 4) speaks of a number of small towers

497	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Dowden
for tame doves which stood in the garden of Herod's palace. In the account of the deluge the dove appears as a domesticated bird. The figurative language of Old Testament poetry often speaks of the dove, mentioning its simplicity (Hoe. vii. 11), its swiftness (Pa. Iv. 6; Hos. xi. 11), and its plaintive cooing (Isa. xxxviii. 14, lix. 11; Ezek. vii. 16; Nahum ii. 7); in Canticles the dove is used at! a type of the loved one (ii. 14, v. 3, vi. 9). The comparisons are easily understood, but it must not be forgotten that‑ the dove was sacred to Astarte and was, therefore, anciently the object of great honor and care. The dove was frequently offered as a sacrifice; it was, indeed, the legal offering for purification (Lev. xii. 6 sqq., xv. 14‑15; Num. vi. 10), and, among the poor, often took the place of a greater sacrifice (Lev. v. 7, xii. 8, xiv. 22 sqq.). For the symbolical use of the dove in Christian art see SYMBOLISM.
I. BENZINGEH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lucian, Dea Syria, 6v.; H. B. Triatram,
Natural Mist. o/ the Bible, pp. 211‑220, London 1867; E. Lorentz, Die Taube im Alterthume, Leipsie, 1886; DB, i. 619‑620; EB, i. 1129‑30; JR, iv. 844‑84b; DCl3, i. 492. On the dove as a symbol Consult: DCA, i. 575576 and references there; New International Cydopadia, vi. 254‑256.
DOW, LORENZO: Methodist; b. at Coventry, Conn., Oct. 16, 1777; d. at Georgetown, D. C., Feb. 2, 1834. He received only the most elementary education, but determined to become a Methodist preacher, and after being rejected by the Connecticut Conference in 1796 was finally appointed, three years later, to the Cambridge Circuit, N. Y. Within the year he was transferred to Pittsfield, Mass., and Essex, Vt., but had no official relations with his sect after 1799, although he continued to preach its characteristic tenets throughout his life. Believing that he had a special message for the Roman Catholics of Ireland, he visited Great Britain in 1799 and 1805, where the violence of his harangues exposed him to personal danger. During this time he introduced camp‑meetings into England, thus beginning a controversy which resulted in the formation of the Primitive Methodists (see METHOD187s). In 1802 he preached in the Albany district, N. Y., and in 1803‑04 delivered the first Protestant sermons in Alabama. In 1807 he was in Louisiana. The latter years of his life were devoted to fanatical attacks on the Jesuits. He was well known as " Crazy Dow," on account of his long hair and beard, peculiar clothing, and habit of swaying as he preached, but his addresses were characterized by a sarcasm, wit, and fearless courage which gained him throngs of hearers. Among his numerous writings, many of which were issued under the pseudonyms of " Cosmopolite " and " Lorenzo," mention may be made of his Polemical Works (New York, 1814); The Stranger in Charlestoum, or the Trial and Confession of jorenxo Dow (Philadelphia, 1822); A Short Account of a ,Long Travel, with Beauties of Wesley (1823); and the posthumous Journal and Miscellaneous Writings (ed. J. Dowling, New York, 1836) and History of a Cosmopolite, or the Writings of the Rev. Lorenzo Dow, containing his Experience and Travels in Europe III ‑32
and America up to near his Fiftieth Year (Cincinnati, 1851).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Dealings of God, Man, and the Dmril, as Exemplified in the Life, Experience. and Travels of L. Dow, together with his Writings complete, 2 vole., GSnoinnati, 1875.
DOW, HEAL: Temperance worker; b. at Portland, Me., Mar. 20, 1804; d. there Oct. 2, 1897. He studied at the Friends' Academy, New Bedford, Mass., and engaged in mercantile and manufacturing pursuits. He early became an advocate of rigid restriction of the liquor traffic, and entered political life in 1839 as chief engineer of the Portland fire department. He was elected mayor of Portland in 1851 and 1854, and during his first term drafted a bill " for the suppression of drinking‑houses and tippling‑shops," which was presented to the. legislature on the day before its adjournment and carried without change on the following day (May 31, 1851). This law is still in force in its original form. Dow was a member of the Maine legislature 1858‑59, and in 1861 was commissioned colonel of the 13th Maine Volunteers and assigned to the department of the Gulf. A few months later he was commissioned brigadier‑general and placed in command of the forts at the mouth of the Mississippi and subsequently of the district of Florida. He was severely wounded at the battle of Port Hudson in 1863, and was captured the same night and confined for eight months in Libby Prison and Mobile before being exchanged for Fitz Henry Lee. He visited England in 1857, 1866, and 1874 at the invitation of the Temperance Alliance of the United Kingdom, and devoted himself for the remainder of his life to the furtherance of the total abstinence movement, traveling extensively and contributing frequently to magazines and newspapers in support of his principles. He was the Prohibition candidate for President of the United States in 1880, but received only 10,305 votes. Four years later he was instrumental in adding an amendment to the Maine constitution forever prohibiting the manufacture, sale, or keeping for sale of intoxicating .beverages, and directing the legislature to compel a rigid enforcement of the amendment.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Hemiataoenees of Ned Dow: Recollections
o/ 80 Years, Portland, 1898.
DOWDEP, JOHN: Anglican bishop of. Edinburgh; b. at Cork, Ireland, June 29, 1840. He studied at Queen's College, Cork, and Trinity College, Dublin (B.A., 1861), and was ordained priest in 1865. He was curate of St. John's, Sligo (18041867), incumbent of Calry, Sligo (1867‑71), chaplain to the lord lieutenant of Ireland (1870‑74), and assistant at St. Stephen's Chapel of Ease, Dublin (1871‑74). He was Pantonian professor of theology (187487) and canon of St. Mary's Cathedral, Edinburgh (1880‑86), and in 1886 was consecrated bishop of Edinburgh. He was Donellan lecturer at Dublin in 1884, and select preacher at the same university in 1886, 1894, and 1895. He has written The Celtic Church in Scotland (London, 1894); Outlines of the History of the Theological Literature of the Church of England from the Reformation to the tam of the Eighteenth Cen‑

Drracoenites	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	498
tury (1897); Helps from History to the True Sense of the Minatory Clauses of the Athanasian Creed (1897); and The Workmanship of the Prayer Book (1899); and has edited The Annotated Scottish Communion Office (London, 1884); The Correspondence of the Lauderdale Family with Archbishop Sharp, 1660‑1677 (Edinburgh, 1893); and The Chartulary of the Abbey of Lindores (1903).

DOWIE, JOHN ALEXANDER: Founder of the Christian Catholic Apostolic Church in Zion (q.v ); b. at Edinburgh, Scotland, May 25, 1847; d. at Zion City, Ill., Mar. 9, 1907. He was educated in the schools of his native city, and from 1860 to 1868 was engaged in business in Adelaide, Australia. Returning to Scotland, he studied for two years at the University of Edinburgh, and in 1870 was ordained to the Congregational ministry in South Australia.. He held successive charges at Alma and Sydney, but in 1878 retired from the Congregational body. Meanwhile he had become convinced that he possessed the gift of divine healing, and in 1882 removed to Melbourne, where he built a " tabernacle " and established the International Divine Healing Association. After working in Australia for six years, during which time he conducted a large number of missions, he went to the United States, where be labored for two years on the Pacific Coast. In 1890 he removed to Evanston, Ill., and in 1893 transferred his headquarters to Chicago. In 1896 he established the Christian Catholic Church in Zion, of which he made himself "general overseer," repeatedly antagonizing various Protestant denominations, and in 1901 founded Zion City on the shores of Lake Michigan, 42 m. n. of Chicago, in which he sought to prove the practicability of his teachings. There he gained immense power and influence, announced himself as " Elijah the Restorer," became the idol of his followers, and in 1904 he appointed himself " first apostle." Outside Zion City, however, his success was less. An attempt to introduce his views in New York in 1904 ended in failure, and visits to London in 1903 and 1904 were equally unproductive. Beneath his apparent supremacy opposition began to develop, criticism being leveled particularly against his financial administration of Zion City. Charges were also made that he held views conducive to immorality, and during his absence, on account of ill health, in Mexico in 1905 he was deposed from his office at Zion City. He thereupon returned to Zion City and vigorously opposed his deposition, finally securing at least a partial vindication by a court order, which also made prevision for his support.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: R. Had n. John Alexander Dowie and the Christian Catholic Apostolic Church in Zion, Evaoeville, wis., 1906.

DOWLING, JOHN: Baptist; b. in Pevensey (13 m. a.w. of Hastings), Sussex, England, May 12, 1807; d. in Middletown, N. Y., July 4, 1878. He taught school in England till 1832, when he came to America. For many years be was pastor in New York City, and he also preached in Providence, Philadelphia, and Newark. He be‑
came widely known by his History of Romanism (New York, 1845, and later editions).
DOXOLOGY. See LrrURmcAL Foanruaes.
	D'OYLY, GEORGE: Church of England; b. at
London Oct. 31, 1778; d. there Jan. 8, 1846. He
studied at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (B.A.,
1800), and was elected fellow in 1801. He was
ordered deacon in 1802 and ordained priest in the
following year, and after being curate to his father
for a few months became curate of Wrotham,
Kent, in 1804. From 1806 to 1809 he was mod
erator in the University of Cambridge, and in
1811 was appointed Hulsean Christian advocate.
In 1813 he became domestic chaplain to the arch
bishop of Canterbury, and in 1815 was presented
to the vicarage of Hernhill, Kent. Before he could
take up his residence there, however, he was made
the successor of his father at Buxted, Sussex.
From 1820 until his death he held the rectories of
Lambeth, Surrey, and Sundridge, Kent. He was
treasurer of the Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge, a member of the London committee
of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel,
one of the main agents in the establishment of
King's College, London, and select preacher at
Cambridge in 1809, 1810, and 1811. He pub
lished Two Discourses preached before the Univer
sity of Cambridge on the Doctrine of a Particular
Providence and on Modern Utilitarianism (Cam
bridge, 1811); Letters to Sir W. Drummond Rela
ting to his Observations on Parts o f the Old Testament
in his " (Edipus Judaicus " (London, 1812); Re
marks on Sir W. Drummond's " (Edipus Judai
cus " (1813); An Essay on the Doctrine of Assur
ance, as Maintained by Some Modern Sects of
Christians (1814); Life of William Sancroft, Arch
bishop of Canterbury (2 vols., 1821); Sermons
(1827); and the posthumous Sermons (edited, with
a	memoir, by his son, C. J. D'Oyly, 1847). He
is beat known, however, for the annotated Bible
(3 vola., London, 1814) prepared in collaboration
with Richard Mant (q.v.).
DRABIX, drd'bfk, ZMLAJ (Nicolaus Drabicius): Moravian mystic and prophet; b at Strasnitz (13 m. s.s.w. of Hradisch) Dec. 5, 1588; d. at Preaburg (34 m. ex.e. of Vienna) July 17, 1671. He was educated in his native town, and in 1616 was ordained by the Bohemian Brethren and appointed pastor at Drahotusch. When the nonCatholics were exiled in 1627 he left Moravia with them and found a refuge in Lednitz. His addiction to liquor and his disobedience of the regulations of the Brethren resulted in his deposition from the clergy. Thereupon he devoted himself to the study of the prophets of the Old Testament and, in 1643, set himself up as a prophet. His revelations were based on dreams and on conversations with a divine voice, and are characterized by a bitter hatred of the house of Austria rather than by religious apocalyptios. In 1650 he received fresh inspiration when Comenius was sent by the Bohemian exiles in Poland to their Mora, vian brethren. The accession of Charles X. of Sweden again inspired Drabik with new hopes, and he went to Holland, where Comenius published his

499	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Dowie
Draconites
Luz in tenebris (n.p., 1657). To the very last his prophecies foretold the speedy downfall of Austria and the return of the Brethren. In 1671 he was seized, together with the leaders of the conspiracy of Wesseleny, with which he had had nothing to do, and was executed on a charge of lese‑majest6. (P. KLEINERT.) BIBmoaaAPHT: [A. Comeniuel, Hietoria reveiationum, Amsterdam, 1669; G. Arnold, %irden‑ and Ketzerhiatorie, iii. 353 sqq., 4 vole., Frankfort, 1700‑15; P. F. Gndnenberg. De Niadao Drabitio neoprophda, Altorf, 1721; P. Kleinert, in T$$, 1898; and the literature cited under ComENIi18.
DRACHMAN, BERNARD: Jewish rabbi; b. in New York City June 27, 1861. He studied at Columbia College (B.A., 1882), the universities of Breslau and Heidelberg (Ph.D., 1884), and the Jewish theological seminary at Breslau. He received the rabbinical diploma at Breslau in 1885, and has been rabbi of the Congregation Oheb Sholom, Newark, N. J. (1885‑87), the Congregation Beth Israel Bikkur Cholim, New York City (18871889), and the Congregation Zichron Ephraim in the latter city since 1889. In 1886 he was one of the founders of the Jewish Theological Seminary of New York, in which he was professor of Biblical exegesis, Hebrew grammar, and Jewish philosophy 1887‑1902, and dean 1889‑1902. On the establishment of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in 1902 he was appointed professor of the Bible and rabbinical codes. He was the founder of the Jewish Endeavor Society. In theology he is an adherent of Orthodox Judaism. He has written Die Stellung and Bedeutung den Jehuda Hajjug in der GeschicJtte der hebraischen Grammakik (Breslau, 1885) and From the Heart of Israel (New York, 1905); and has translated The Nineteen Letters of Ben Uziel, from the German of Samson Raphaed Hirsch (New York, 1899).
	DRACONTM, drd‑c6nf't&, JOHANNES (Johann
Drach, Trach; also Carlatatlt, from his native
town): German Reformer and Biblical scholar;
b. at Carlstadt (14 m. n.w. of Wiirzburg) 1494;
d. at Wittenberg Apr. 18, 1566. He entered the
University of Erfurt in 1509, and after taking his
master's degree in 1514 lived there as a prominent
member of the circle of young poets and enthusi
asts led by Eobanus Hessus. Erasmus was the
object of their admiration, and in 1520 Draconites
traveled to the Netherlands to make the acquaint
ance of the great scholar. With the advent of
Luther, however, he found a new leader, his de
votion dating particularly from the Reformer's
visit to Erfurt in Apr., 1521. In June of the same
year he was expelled from his office of canon of
the cathedral church because of his open adher
		ence to Luther's teachings, but vio
	Early Life lent demonstrations by the populace
	1534. and students led to his reinstatement.
		To him was ascribed the instigation
of the antisacerdotal riots of June, 1521, which
led to a definite cleavage between the Evangelical
and Roman Catholic elements. An outbreak of
the plague drove him to Wittenberg in the same
month, and there he pursued the study of Hebrew,
but the following year he accepted the pastorate
of Mlltenberg on the Main. In dogma and pray tise he approached closely to the Wittenberg model, and thus gained the enmity of the local Roman Catholics, though the majority of the inhabitants were on his side. Cited to appear before the commissary of the archbishop of Mainz, he refused to obey, and was excommunicated. At the urgent entreaty of his parishioners, he fled from threatening danger in Sept., 1523, and lived at Wertheim, Nuremberg, Erfurt, and Wittenberg, whence he addressed epistles of consolation to the inhabitants of Miltenberg, where the old system had been reestablished by force. In 1525 Draconites became pastor at Waltershausen near Gotha, and in the following year was made inspector for the district of Tenneberg. Owing to the frequent conflicts in which the performance of his duties involved him, he resigned in 1528 and retired to private life at Eisenach, actuated partly by the desire to devote himself to the preparation of a polyglot Bible. His retirement was regarded with suspicion by his friends, and the charge of heresy was brought against him, but he held to the Evangelical faith in spite of efforts to win him away, and in his defense published Bekenntnis den Glauiens and der Lehre (Erfurt, 1532).
In 1534 Draconites became pastor and professor at Marburg, and labored with zeal in both fields. His publications during this period include Biblical commentaries, sermons, and devotional works. He renewed his friendship with Eobanus Hessus, and in 1540 pronounced the funeral oration over his friend, and later edited his letters (Epistolm fdmiliarm Eoboni Hessi, Marburg, 1543).
A noteworthy feature of his activity
	His Pro‑	was his successful missionary labor
	fessorial	among the Jews He was present at
	Career.	the Diet of Frankfort in 1536, signed
		the Schmalkald articles in the follow
ing year, and in 1541 attended the negotiations at
the Interim of Regensburg. . A letter addressed to
the authorities of that town exhorting them to
adopt Lutheranism attracted the dangerous at
tention of Granvella, whom, however, he eluded
At this time he came into conflict with Thamer, a
member of the University of Marburg, on the rela
tion of faith and penitence. Thamer enjoyed the
protection of the young landgrave, and after a
pastorate of fourteen years Draconites left Mar.
burg in Oct., 1547. For a while he lectured at
Liibeck on the prophets, and in 1549‑50 published
there a long‑contemplated work on Messianic
prophecy under the title Gotten Verheimungen von
Christo Jesu. His reputation as a Hebrew scholar
brought him a call to a chair in the University of
Rostock, where at different times he held the reo
torate. In 1557 he was made superintendent of
Rostock, and as such was plunged into the bitter
controversy between the civic authorities and the
clergy, whose champions were Hesshusen and
Eggerdes. His liberal interpretation of the laws
of the Sabbath again brought upon him the charge
of antinomianism, and in 1560 he was glad to
abandon the conflict on receiving from Duke Al
bert of Prussia the offer of the presidency of the
see of Pomerania, while he also welcomed the new

Dracontius	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	500
Draeadort
position as an opportunity for bringing to com
pletion his contemplated polyglot Bible.
	Under leave of absence he proceeded to Witten
berg and there remained to the end of his life, en
		joying the revenues of his Prussian
His Life at office until removed by the duke in
Wittenberg. 1584. His Biblia Pentapla began to
		appear at Wittenberg in 1583, and by
1585 he had published Gen. i.‑v., Psalms, Prov
erbs, Isaiah, Malachi, Joel, Zechariah, and Micah.
The Hebrew text was presented in very large
type, and beneath each word appeared the transla
tion in Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and German, while
passages which he regarded as Messianic were
printed in red. The value of the work is small,
however, because of the radical changes which he
made in the text of his versions, and its com
pletion was found impracticable.
			(G. KAWBRAU.)
BIBwooBAPH:: The older literature is indicated and worked
	over by J. Moller, Cimbria litterafa, ii. 187‑173, Copen
	hagen 1744 Of great service is O. T. Strobel New
	B*Wdge sur Uttenatur, iv. 1, pp. 1‑138, Nuremberg, 1793.
	A short biography by 0. Kawersu is in Beilrape our baye
	risehen KirdungmchicAte, iii. 247 sqq., Erlangen, 1897.
	For his life in Erfurt consult: C. Krause, Helius Bobanua
	Heasw, vol. i., Gotha, 1879; in Miltenberg, O. Albrecht,
	Die evanpeliwAs Gemeinde Miltenbarp and ihr crater Pre
	diper, Halls, 1898; in Waltershausen, C. Polack, J. Dradk
	in Zeitsdrift des vereine far thiarinpiwhe GescAirhte, vii
	(1890), 211 sqq.; in Marburg, K. W. H. Hochhuth,
	T. Thames and Landpraf Philipp, in ZHT, 1881, pp. 186
	sqq.; in Rostock, 0. Krabbe, Die UniroersiOtt R6etock, p.
	501, Rostock, 1854; for the later portion of his life, J.
	Voigt, Briefs der berehmtesten Gelehrisn mit Herzog Al
	brecM, pp. 218‑284, Konigsberg, 1841; for his work on the
	Bible, L. Dieetal, tieachichte des A. T. in der drist1khen
	%irche, Jena, 1860,
	DRACONTIUS, dra‑cen'shi‑us, BL03SIUS AfflMI
LILTS: Christian poet; b. in Africa; flourished in
the latter half of the fifth century. His poem
in honor of a foreign ruler (possibly the emperor
of the East) aroused the anger of the Gothic king
Gunthamund (484‑498), who confiscated his prop
erty and imprisoned him. He vainly endeavored
to regain the royal favor by his elegy Satisfacdo;
his De laudibus Dei was also written in prison. .
The latter poem is devoted to the divine creation
and preservation and redemption of the world,
and to man's love for God.	In his youth, or at
least before his imprisonment, Dracontius wrote
brief secular poems, epics based on Hellenic legends
(Hylas, Medea, Raptus Helente, and Oreatis Tra
gadia), . two epithalamia, and rhetorical themes
(Verbs Herculis, Deltberatiroa Achillis, and Contro
verafa de 8Wua roiri fords). The two Christian
poems, which breathe a devotional spirit, evince
linguistic and metrical skill, and show extensive
knowledge of the Bible and of profane literature.
Only the first part of the Laudes Dei, the He=&
mean creadonis mundi, was known to Isidore of
Seville (De vir. ill., xxiv.), and this portion was first edited (poorly) by Bishop Eugenius II. of Toledo. At the wish of the Visigothic king Chindaswinth (842‑849), Eugenius also prepared a wretched edition of the Satiafaclio. The true Draoontius first became known through Arevalo.
K. LsIMBACHt.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The best edition of the Carmina minors is by F. de Duhn. Leipsic, 1873; of the Carmina, including the Satialactio, by F. Arevalo, Rome, 1791. The Heaatmeron, ed. J. B. Carpsov, appeared' Helmstedt, 1794; the Raptus Helena is in the Appendix ad opera edita, by A. Mai, Rome. 1871; the Orestes Trapadia, ed. R. Peiper, Wratislav, 1875. Consult: C. Romberg, In Draconhi oarmina minors. Stade. 1878; idem, Maferialien su einem Conlmentar fiber die Orratis trapadia. Hildesheim, 18881889; W. $. Teufel. Oeechirhte der rdmischen Litteratur, ed. L. Schwabe, pp. 1220‑24, Freiburg, 1888; J. B. Pitra, Anateda sacra et classics, i. 178‑180, 'Paris, 1888; W. Meyer, in Silaunpsbe~ der Berliner Akademie, 1890, pp‑ 257‑298; DCB, i. 905‑907.
DRAEI<DORF, drdn'derf, JOHANNES: German Reformer; b. at Schlieben (30 m. s.e. of Wittenberg) 1390; burned at the stake at Heidelberg Feb. 17, 1425. He was of noble descent, and was educated at Dresden by the magistri Peter and Frederick. He completed his studies at the universities of Prague and Leipsic, and in 1417 was ordained to the priesthood in Bohemia. He traversed middle and southern Germany as an itinerant preacher subsequent to 1421, and at Speyer collaborated with the school‑director Peter Tur now of Tolkemit on a manifesto in which he vehemently assailed the abuse of excommunication and the temporal power of the clergy. . In 1424, when the imperial city of Weinsberg was put under ban and interdict, Driindorf endeavored to incite the city and its allies to open rebellion against ecclesiastical control. The municipal council invited him to visit the city, but he was arrested by the elector palatine Louis III., and in Feb., 1425, was brought before the Inquisition at Heidelberg. He frankly acknowledged that he held to the Utraquistic doctrine of the communion indulgences, and that he was opposed to the taking of oaths, to the mass, the doctrine of the infallibility of the councils, the temporal jurisdiction and power of the clergy, papal primacy, the mendicant orders, excommunication, and the like. His religious system seems to have been the result of a combination of Waldensian, Wyclifite, and Tabor istic elements.
HE$NAN HAUI!T.
BIBLIOaaAPH:: J. E. Kapp, Kleine Naciime . . . sur Lprlduterunp der Reformogons.0esrhirhte noWidier UrkUnden, iii. 1‑00. .Leipsia, ‑1730; Krmnmel, in TSH, xhii (1889), 130‑144; H. Haupt, Humitiwhe propaganda is Deutsdtand, in Historisdes Tasehenbuek series e. vii. 283‑288; idem, Waidenserthum and Inquw Lion im SUd‑
Dnd, pp 88‑71, Freiburg, 1890; idem, in Zeitsrhrift f& die GewAishte des Oberrheine, new mrie% xv. 479 sqq.
END OF VOL. lIIr