E: The symbol employed to designate the Elohistic (Ephraimitic) document which, according to the critical school, is one of the components of the Hexateuch (q.v.). See HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE, II., 4.

EACHARD, JOHN: English clergyman and satirist; b. in Suffolk c. 1636; d. at Cambridge July 7, 1697. He studied at Catherine Hall, Cambridge, of which he became Master in 1675. He was created D.D., by royal mandamus in 1675 and was elected vice-chancellor of the university in 1679 and again in 1695. He published anonymously his famous essay, The Grounds and Decisions of the Contempt of the Clergy arid Religion, inquired into in a Letter to R. L. (London, 1670), in which he attributed the failure of the clergy to their defective education. Other works from his pen are, Some Observations upon the Answer to an Enquiry . . . in a second Letter to R. L. (London, 1671), a sequel to the foregoing; Mr. Hobbs' State of Nature . . (London, 1672); and Some Opinions of Mr. Hobbs (1673). Eachard was master of a light bantering style that was particularly effective in satire, but he [Page 42]

[Page 43]

[Page 44]

[Page 45]

[Page 46]

[Page 47]

[Page 48]

[Page 49]

[Page 50]

[Page 51]

[Page 52]

[Page 53]

[Page 54]

66 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA ~~ rn Church EATON, ARTHUR WENTWORTH HAMILTON: Protestant Episcopalian; b. at Kentville, Nova Scotia, Dec. 10, 1849. He was educated at Har vard College (A.B., 1880), and was ordered dea con in 1884 and ordained priest in the following year. After being rector of St. Andrew's, Chestnut Hill, Mass. (1885-86), he spent two years in Europe, and since 1888 has been head of the department of English literature in the Cutler School, New York City. In theology he is a Broad-churchman of the Maurice and Phillips Brooks type. He has written The Heart of the Creeds; Historical Relig ion in the Light of Modern Thought (New York, 1888); Acadian Legends toad lyrica (1889); The Church of England in Nova Scotia and the Tory Clergy o f the Revolution (1891); Tales o f a Garrison Town (in collaboration with C. L. Betts; 1892); Acadian Ballads (New York, 1905); and Poems of the Christian Year (1905). He has also edited several works of English literature.

EBED JESU, f'bed jf'sa: Nestorian theologian; b. in Mesopotamia about the middle of the thirteenth century; d. at Nisibis, in Armenia, Nov., 1318. He became bishop of Sinjar (60 m. w. of Mogul) about 1285, and in 1291 metropolitan of Nisibis. His importance is principally of a literary character, since he is regarded as the last great writer of the Nestoriana. The most important of his works is the metrical " Catalogue " of Syriac authors, in which in four books he treats of the writings of the Old and the New Testament, of translations from the Greek into Syriac, and of works originally written in Syriac, especially Neetorian productions. Other works of note are " The Pearl," a dogmatic work, in five parts; the Nomocanon, a collection of the canons of synods; and Paradises Eden, a collection of poems. Other works have been lost.

Bisr4oaserar: The " Catalogue " was edited by Abraham Ecchellenais, Rome, 1853; by J. 8. Aeeemsn, with Latin trawl. and commentary, in Bsbliothsca orierualia, iii. 1, pp. 1-382, Rome, 1728; an Eng. transl. appears in Appendix A of G. P. Badger's Nattorians and their Ritual, ii. 381379, London, 1852, which contains also a fraud. of " The Pearl," ii. 380 eqq.; " The Pearl " is also in A. Mai, Scrip torum roelerum nova coltectio, ii. 317 eqq., 10 vole., Rome, 1826-38, where (pp. 189 eqq.) will be found also the Nomocanon. The poems were edited by H. Giemondi at Beirut, 1888 (cf. N6ldeke in ZDM(#, 1889, aliii. 875, and Zingerle, in the same, 1875, xxiz 498). Consult: W. Wright, A Short Mist. of Syriac Literature, pp. 285 eqq.. London, 1894; & Duval, La Ltd*ature ayriaqus, Paris, 1000.

EBEL, 5'bel, JOHANN WIZHELM: German preacher; b. at Passenheim (75 m. s.s.e. of KSnigaberg), East Prussia, Mar. 4, 1784; d. at Hoheneck, near Ludvpigsburg (9 m. n. of Stuttgart), Wiirttemberg, Aug.18,1861. After his graduation at KSnigeberg, he became acquainted with Johann Heinrich

SchSnherr (q.v.), and espoused his views of relative dualism. His pronounced evangelical views, and eloquent advocacy of practical Christianity, were distasteful to the rationalistic and dead orthodox clergy of the province, who tried, from the beginning of his ministerial career at Hermadorf (1807-09), to awe him into submission, and, upon his removal to Konigaberg as preacher and teacher (1810), resented his growing popularity by charging him with heresy. The charge, however, was dismissed as unfounded, while Ebel was chosen preacher of the Old Town Church at KiSnigaberg, the largest in the city, in 1816, and filled that high position until his deprivation in 1842.

Brnrrooawray: The moat important of the works of Ebel are: Die Weiehtit von Oben, K6nigsberg, 1823; Oedtihliche Ertielsunp, Hamburg, 1825; Die apoatotiache Predipt id zt%tgemdat, Hamburg, 1835; Die Treat. KSnigsberg, 1835; Veratand and Vernunft (in company with G. H. Diestel), Leipeio, 1837; ZtugnitaderWahrheit (by the same), ib. 1838; Orundziige der Erkenntnitt der Wahrheit, ib. 1852; Die PhiloeopAie der he6lipen Urkundt des Chraaknthume, Stuttgart, 1854-58. For his life consult: J. I. Mombert, Faith Victorious, being an Account of the Life and Labours and of the Times of J. Ebel, London, 1882; H. wagener, Ueber J. W. Ebel, Ludwigsburg, 1881. Consult also: E. Hahnenfeld, Die religiose Btwepung zu Konigsberg, Braunsberg, 1868; E. Ksnita, Aupkldrunp nach AclenqutZttn fiber den FC6nipaberger (1886-l,,8), Rtlipionaproaeu, Basel, 1882; Bibliotheea Sacra, vol. avi., 1889.

EBER, 5'ber, PAUL: German theologian and Reformer; b. at Kitzingen (11 m. e.s.e, of Wurzburg) Nov. 8, 1511; d. at Wittenberg Dec. 10, 1569. He received his first education at home, and attended the schools of Nuremberg, then entered the University of Wittenberg on June I, 1532, where his teachers were Luther and Melanchthon, and in 1537 was made a member of the faculty, being appointed regular professor four years later, first of Latin and then of physics. His lectures comprised the wide range of the liberal arts, although his chief attention was devoted to Latin, history, natural science, and even to anatomy. A versatile literary activity was the result. With the aid of Melanchthon he wrote his Contexts populi Judaici historic

ECK, JOHANN.

Education. Teacher at Ingolstadt (§ 1).

Disputations with Luther and Carlstadt (§ 2).

Attacks on Luther and Melanchthon (§ 3).

Papal Emissary and Inquisitor (§ 4).

Zwingli and his Followers (§ 5).

Peace Overtures (§ 6).

1. Education. Teacher at Ingolstadt.

Johann Eck (properly Johann Maier or Mayr) the German Roman Catholic controversialist, was born at Eck (now Egg, near Memmingen, 43 m. s. of Augsburg), Swabia, Nov.13, 1486; d. at Ingolstadt Feb. 13, 1543. At the age of twelve he entered the University of Heidelberg, which he left in the following year for Tubingen. After taking his master's degree in 1501, he began the study of theology under Johann Jakob Lempp, and studied the elements of Hebrew and political economy with Konrad Summenhart. He left Tubingen in 1501 on account of the plague and after a year at Cologne finally settled at Freiburg-im-Breisgau, at first as a student of theology and law and later as a successful teacher. In 1508 he entered the priesthood and two years later obtained his doctorate in theology. At Freiburg in 1506 he published his first work, Ludicra logices exercitamenta and also proved himself a brilliant and subtle orator, although obsessed by an untamable controversial spirit and unrestrained powers of invective. At odds with his colleagues, he was glad to accept a call to a theological chair at Ingolstadt in Nov., 1510, receiving at the same time the honors and income of a canon at Eichstadt. In 1512 he be came prochancellor at the university and from that time until his death he was in complete control of the destinies of Ingolstadt, on which he impressed the character of ultracatholicism which made it a bulwark of the ancient faith in Germany. His wide knowledge found expression in numerous writings. In the theological field he produced his Chrysopassus (Augsburg, 1514), in which he de veloped a Semi-Pelagian theory of predestination, while he obtained some fame as commentator on the Summulae of Peter of Spain and on Aristotle's De caelo and De anima. As a political economist he defended interest, despite the opposition of the bishop of Eichstadt.

2. Disputations with Luther and Carlstadt.

As early as the spring of 1517 Eck had entered into friendly relations with Luther, who had regarded him as in harmony with his own views, but this illusion was short-lived. In his Obelisci Eck attacked Luther's theses, which had been sent him by Scheurl, and accused him of promoting the heresy of the Bohemian Brethren and of fostering anarchy within the Church. Luther replied in his Asterisci adversxes obeliseos Eccii, while Carlstadt defended Luther's views of indulgences and engaged in a violent controversy with Eck. A mutual desire for a public disputation led to a compact between Eck and Luther by which the former pledged himself to meet Carlstadt in debate at Erfurt or Leipsic, on condition that Luther abstain from all participation in the discussion. In Dec., 1518, Eck published the twelve theses which he was prepared to uphold against Carlstadt, but since they were aimed at Luther rather than at the ostensible opponent, Luther addressed an open letter to Carlstadt, in which he declared himself ready to meet Eck in debate.

The disputation between Eck and Carlstadt began at Leipsic June 27, 1519. In the first four sessions Eck maintained the thesis that free will is the active agent in the creation of good works, but he was compelled by his opponent to modify his position so as to concede that the grace of God and free will work in harmony toward the common end. Carlstadt then proceeded to prove that good works are to be ascribed to the agency of God alone, whereupon Eck yielded so far as to admit that free will is passive in the beginning of conversion, although he maintained that in course of time it enters into its rights; so that while the entirety of good works originates in God, their accomplishment is not entirely the work of God. Despite the fact that Eck was thus virtually forced to abandon his position, he succeeded, through his good memory and his dialectic skill, in confusing the heavy-witted Carlstadt and carried off the nominal victory. He was far less successful against Luther, who, as Eck himself confessed, was his superior in memory, acumen, and learning. After a disputation lasting twenty-three days (July 4-27), Eck was greeted as victor by the theologians of the University of Leipsic, who overwhelmed him with honors and sent him away with gifts. The impression produced by Eck upon his auditors during that momentous time may be best learned from the account of the humanist Peter of Moselle, who described him as tall, stout, and squarely built. His voice was full and rolling, and of an admirable quality for an actor, or even for a public crier, while the sum total of his features would seem to argue the butcher or the professional soldier rather than the theologian. As far as his intellectual gifts were concerned, he had a wonderful memory, which, if supplemented by other talents in like proportion, would have made him a marvel, but he lacked swiftness of apprehension and deep insight, so that his masses of arguments and citations were indiscriminate, and he was filled with an inconceivable impudence though he had the cleverness to conceal it.

3. Attacks on Luther and Melancthon.

Soon after his return to Ingolstadt,, Eck attempted to persuade Elector Frederick of Saxony to have Luther's works burned in public, and during the year 1519 he published no less than eight writings against the new movement. He failed, however, to obtain a condemnatory decision from the universities appointed to pronounce on the outcome of the Leipsic disputation. Erfurt returned the proceedings of the meeting to the Saxon duke without signifying its approval, while Paris, after repeated urging, gave an ambiguous decision limited to " the doctrine of Luther so far as investigated." Eck's only followers were the aged heretic-hunter Hoogstraten and Emser of Leipsic, together with the allied authorities of the universities of Cologne and Louvain. Luther returned Eck's assaults with more than equal vehemence and about this time Melanchthon wrote OEcolampadius that at Leipsic he had first become distinctly aware of the difference between true Christian theology and the scholasticism of the Aristotelian doctors. In his Excusatio (Wittenberg? 1519?) Eck, irritated all the more because early in the year he had induced Erasmus to caution the young theological student against precipitating himself into the religious conflict, retorted that Melanchthon knew nothing of theology. In his reply to the Excusatio, Melanchthon proved that he was thoroughly versed in theology, and Eck fared still worse in October of the same year, when he sought to aid Emser by a virulent tirade against Luther. Two biting satires, one by OEcolampadius and the other by Pirkheimer, stung him to a fury which would be satisfied with nothing less than the public burning of the entire literature in the market-place at Ingolstadt, an act from which he was restrained by his colleague Reuchlin.

4. Papal Emissary and Inquisitor.

Eck was far more highly esteemed as the dauntless champion of the true faith at Rome than in Germany. In Jan., 1520, he visited Italy at the invitation of Leo X., to whom he presented his latest work De primate Petri adversus Ludderum (Ingolstadt, 1520) for which he was rewarded with the nomination to the office of papal prothonotary, although his efforts to urge the Curia to decisive action against Luther were unsuccessful for some time. On June 16, however, appeared the fateful bull Exurge Domine, in which forty-one propositions of Luther were condemned as heretical or erroneous. Entrusted with the publication of the bull in Germany, Eck returned home, only to find how rapidly Luther had gained favor. At Meissen, Brandenburg, and Merseburg he succeeded in giving the papal measure due official publicity, but at Leipsic he was the object of the ridicule of the student body and was compelled to flee by night to Freiberg, where he was again prevented from proclaiming the bull. At Erfurt the students tore the instrument down and threw it into the water, while in other places the papal decree was subjected to still greater insults. At Vienna its publication encountered grave difficulties, and Eck had good cause to set up a votive tablet to his patron saint upon his safe return to Ingolstadt, although even there only the authority of the papal mandate made the publication of the bull possible. This last humiliation was due, in great measure, to the fact that he had availed himself of the permission to pronounce the papal censure on prominent followers of the new movement besides Luther, and had thus made his office a means of personal revenge. Eck's letter to Charles V., written in Feb., 1521, seems to have had little effect upon the proceedings at the Diet of Worms.

Wealth and power were included in the aspirations of Eck. He appropriated the revenues of his parish of Gunzburg, while he relegated its duties to a vicar. Twice he visited Rome as a diplomatic representative of the Bavarian court to obtain sanction for the establishment of a court of inquisition against the Lutheran teachings at Ingolstadt. The first of these journeys, late in the autumn of 1521, was fruitless on account of the death of Leo X., but his second journey in 1523 was successful. With great insight and courage he showed the Curia the true condition of affairs in Germany and pictured the general incapacity of the representatives of the Church in that country. Of the many heresy trials in which Eck was the prime mover during this period it is sufficient to mention here that of Leonhard Kaser, whose history was published by Luther.

5. Zwingli and his Followers.

In addition to his inquisitorial duties, every year witnessed the publication of one or more writings against iconoclasm and in defense of the doctrines of the mass, purgatory, and auricular confession. His Enchiridion locorum communium adversus Lutherum et alios hostes ecclesiae (Landshut, 1525) went through forty-six editions before 1576. As its title indicates, it was directed primarily against Melanchthon's Loci, although it also concerned itself to some extent with the teachings of Zwingli. Eck offered to refute Zwingli's " heresies " in a public disputation (Aug. 13, 1524), and appeared at Baden, only 12 m. n.w. of Zurich, but in the hands of the bitterest partizans of the Roman Church, and from May 21 until June 18, 1526, the debate went on. Zwingli was not present, but supported his friends who were there by constant suggestions. The affair ended decidedly in favor of Eck, who induced the authorities to enter on a course of active persecution of Zwingli and his followers (see BADEN [IM AARGAU], CONFERENCE OF). The effect of his victory at Baden was dissipated, however, at the Disputation of Bern (Jan., 1528), where the propositions advanced by the Reformers were debated in the absence of Eck, and Bern, Basel, and other places were definitely won for the Reformation (see BERN, DISPUTATION OF). At the Diet of Augsburg Eck played the leading part among theologians on the Roman Catholic side.

6. Peace Overtures.

While still at Ingolstadt Eck drafted for the use of the emperor a list of 404 heretical propositions from the writings of the Reformers, and collaborated with more than twenty Catholic theologians in writing the confutatio pontificia, in which the Catholic refutation of the Protestants was embodied. His efforts at peace, in which his readiness to meet the Reformers half-way shows him to have been sincere, failed, however, on account of the hatred and contempt with which he was regarded by the Protestant theologians. He renewed his efforts at Worms in Jan., 1541, and succeeded in impressing Melanchthon as being quite prepared to give his assent to the main principles of Protestantism. After the meeting at Regensburg in the spring and summer of the same year, on the other hand, he exerted himself to prevent any compromise between the two theologies. The last important phase of his activity was his conflict with Butzer, whom he attacked on account of the attitude assumed by the latter in his edition of the transactions of the Conference of Regensburg (q.v.). Special mention should be made, among Eck's many writings, of his German translation of the Bible (the New Testament a revision of H. Emser's rendering) which was first published at Ingolstadt in 1537.

(C. ENDERS.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: T. Wiedemann, Dr. Johann Eck, Regensburg, 1885; J Greying, J. Eck als junger Gelehrter, Munster, 1908. The subject is treated in more or less detail in all works on the Church history of the period, in the accounts of the life of Luther, Melanchthon, OEnolampadius, Osiander, and Zwingli (see the literature under those articles). Consult particularly Schaff, Christian Church, vi. 188 sqq.; Moeller, Christian Church, vol. iii.; Cambridge Modern History, vol. ii., New York, 1904.

EDMUND (EADMUND), SAINT, OF CANTERBURY (EDMUND RICH): Archbishop of Canterbury; b. at Abingdon (7 m. s. of Oxford), Berkshire, c. 1175; d. at Soisy-en-Brie (75 m. s.e. of Paris), France, Nov. 16, 1240 or 1242. He studied at the universities of Oxford and Paris and became a teacher about 1200, or a little earlier. For six years he lectured on mathematics and dialectics, apparently dividing his time between Oxford and Paris, and winning distinction for his part in introducing the study of Aristotle. Through the influence of a pious mother he had led from boyhood a life of singular self-denial and austerity; and it is not surprising to find him tiring of secular subjects and ready to go over to theology. Though for some time he resisted the change, he finally entered upon his new career between 1205 and 1210. He received ordination, took a doctorate in divinity, and soon won fame as a lecturer on theology and as an extemporaneous preacher. After expounding the "Lord's Law" for a number of years, Edmund became disgusted with scholasticism and gave up his chair at Oxford. Some time between 1219 and 1222 he was appointed treasurer of Salisbury Cathedral, and held this position for eleven years, during which time he also engaged in preaching. In 1227, at the bidding of Innocent III., he preached the sixth crusade through a large part of England.

In 1233 came the news of his appointment, by Gregory IX., to the archbishopric of Canterbury. The chapter had already made three selections which the pope had declined to confirm, and Edmund's name had been proposed as a compromise by Gregory, perhaps on account of his work for the crusade, and he was consecrated Apr. 2, 1234. Before his consecration he allied himself with the national party, whose object was to make the kingdom independent, maintain the Great Charter and exclude foreigners from civil and ecclesiastical office, and in the name of his fellow bishops he admonished Henry III. at Westminster, Feb. 2, 1234, to take warning of his father, King John. A week after his consecration he again appeared before the king with the barons and bishops, this time threatening his sovereign with excommunication, if he refused to dismiss his councilors, particularly Peter des Roches, bishop of Winchester. This threat was sufficient. The objectionable favorites were dismissed; and soon the archbishop was sent to Wales to negotiate peace with Prince Llewellyn.

In 1237, in order to destroy the authority of Edmund, Henry induced the pope to send Cardinal Otto as legate to England. Through numerous disputes with bishops and monks, not to speak of the rupture with the king, and the excommunication of Simon de Montfort and his bride, Edmund had already made his position a difficult one. As the champion of the national Church against the claims of Rome he now found himself arrayed against the pope. In Dec., 1237, he set out for Rome, hoping to enlist the pope on the side of ecclesiastical reform. From this futile mission he returned to England in Aug., 1238, to find himself reduced to a cipher. If he excommunicated his monks, they appealed to Rome and paid no attention to his interdict. Finding himself foiled at every turn he finally submitted to the papal demands; and early in 1240, hoping to win his cause against his monks, he paid to the pope's agents one fifth of his revenue, which had been levied for the pope's war against Emperor Frederick II. Other English prelates followed his example. Then came the demand that 300 English benefices should be assigned to as many Romans. This attack upon the rights of the national Church was more than Edmund could endure. In the summer of 1240, broken in spirit, he retired to the abbey of Pontigny, France, which had been the refuge of his predecessors, St. Thomas and Stephen Langton. A few months later he died at the priory of Soisy. In less than a year after his death miracles were alleged to be wrought at his grave; and in 1247 he was canonized.

Edmund is one of the most attractive figures of medieval history. His life was one of self-sacrifice and devotion to others. From boyhood he practised asceticism; and throughout his life he wore sackcloth next his skin, pressed against his body by metal plates. After snatching a few hours' sleep without removing his clothing, he usually spent the rest of the night in prayer and meditation. Besides his "Constitutions," issued in 1236 (printed in W. Lynwood's Constitutiones Angliae, Oxford, 1679), he wrote Speculum ecclesiae (London, 1521; Eng. transl., 1527; reprinted in M. de la Bigne's Bibliotheca veterum patrum, v., Paris, 1609).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: A Vita by Bertrand of Pontigny, with Epistolae variae and other pertinent material is in E. Martene, Thesaurus novus anecdotorum, iii. 1775-1826, Paris, 1717; another, by his brother, Robert Rich of Pontigny, is in L. Surius, Yitm sanetorum, Nov., vi. 388-378, Paris, 1575 and is also in W. Wallace, Life of St. Edmund of Canterbury, London, 1893. Sources of knowledge are the works of Matthew of Paris, ed. H. R. Luard, no. 57 of the Rolls Series, vole. iii.-v.; Annales monastici, ed. H. R. Luard, no. 38 of Rolls Series, 4 vole.; Gervase of Canterbury, ed. W. Stubbs, no. 71 of Rolls Series, vol. ii. MS. material is indicated in T. D. Hardy, Descriptive Catalogue, no. 26 of Rolls Series, iii. 87-9B; while documents of value are given in Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, i. 483, 465. Modern accounts, besides the work of wgl laee ut sup., are: OV. F. Hook, Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, vol. iii., 12 vols., London, 1860-76; E. Jaspar, Notice biographique sur S. Edmorul, Lille, 1872; L. F. Masse, The Life of S. Edmond of Canterbury, London 1874· ib. 1897; F. de Paravieini, Life of St. Edmund of Abingdon, ib. 1898; W. R. W. Stephens, The English [Church 1066-127,0, pp. 22$-233, 277, ib. 1901; DNB, avi. 405-410.

[Page 80]

[Page 81]

[Page 82]

[Page 83]

[Page 84]

[Page 85]

[Page 86]

[Page 87]

[Page 88]

[Page 89]

[Page 90]

[Page 91]

[Page 92]

[Page 93]

[Page 94]

[Page 95]

[Page 96]

[Page 97]

[Page 98]

[Page 99]

Eisenach Conference Elagabalus THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG

of the nobility (1861); the taxation of congregations (1874); church discipline (1857); the treatment of sects (1852, 1855, 1884); religious instruction in secondary schools (1868); the introduction of a Biblical text-book instead of the whole Bible in primary and secondary schools (1898); and the inspection of religious instruction in secondary schools (1900). The topic of Christian charity was brought up in discussions on aid for emigrants (1855, 1872, and 1894), the organization of charities (1865), Christian work in war (1868 and 1870), furtherance of foreign and home missions (1872), and care of dismissed prisoners (1892). As a result of a recommendation of the conference a collection for German Evangelicals in foreign countries is now taken up every other year in most of the German State churches.

The resolutions following all these discussions were, of course, not legally binding; but the opinions of the most prominent theologians and jurists,

as expressed in the papers and reports Practical of the conference, had a permanent

personal intercourse of men charged with church administration from all parts of the country. And the conference was not satisfied with mere theoretical discussions; it was drawn by an inner necessity to productive work for the common interests of Evangelical Germany. In this connection may be mentioned the practical impulse given in 1859 to the organization of associations for the cultivation of religious art, the regulations for the building of Evangelical churches (1861 and 1898), the propositions for getting up a uniform almanac for the German Evangelical Church (1868, 1870) and selecting daily lectionaries from the Bible for use at home and in the Church (1868). Detttsches Evangelisciies Institut in Jerusalem, an enterprise of the German Evangelical Churches that had its inception in the conference of 1900, may also be mentioned.

The desire to publish the results of its discussions soon led to the founding of the Allgemeines Kirchenblatt fur das evangelische Deutschland, which, besides the protocols of the conference, compiles the laws and regulations of general interest enacted by the German Evangelical Church authorities. It forma the most complete collection of documents for modern church law in the German Evangelical Church. The question of church statistics was discussed in 1859, and resulted in the volume Zur kirchlichen Statistik des evangeliscTten Deutschlands imJahre1862 (Stuttgart, 1865). Since 1880suchstatistics have been published regularly. In 1861 the revision of Luther's translation of the Bible was advocated. It was decided to procure a uniform text on the basis of a received text of the Canstein Bbile Institute, with due regard to the original editions of Luther's Bible, and to modern scholarship. The revised New Testament appeared in 1867 and was approved by the conference in 1868. In 1870 the revision of the Old Testament was undertaken and in 1883 appeared the so-called Probebibel. The entire work was completed and accepted by the conference in 1892. At its first meeting the conference decided upon a selection of the best hymns,

and the execution of the plan was entrusted to such hymnologists as Vilmar, Bahr, Wackernagel, Daniel, and Geffken. Their work, consisting o>r 150 Ifernlieder, was approved by the conference in 1853, and generally appreciated, but the hymns have not come into common use, principally because the selection confined itself too exclusively to older periods.) In 1878 the conference again took up the matter and appointed a committee to revise the Prussian Militar-liirchenbuch. This revision, which was finished in 1880, has contributed greatly to uniformity in the use of hymns in the church, in the school, and in the home. It has been introduced in the army and navy. In 1880 a committee was appointed to collate and revise the melodies. Their work was published in 1890. Another committee was appointed to revise the old pericopea and to supplement them by a second series of Epistles and Gospels. Its work was finished and approved in 1896. In 1880 the conference tool up the discussion of lather's smaller catechism which was then used in sixty different versions, and in 1884 there appeared a revision that quickly supplanted earlier imperfect editions.

The work of the conference has proved that the need of a closer connection between the German

State churches is steadily growing, Unification and that thin need may be met withof the Na- out interfering with the independence

tional of the individual State churches, Churches. either in confession and order of worship, or in constitution and government. A permanent commission of six members was appointed in 1900, with the president of the conference as chairman, to further a uniform development in the different State churches. The commission, which was increased to fifteen members in 1903, is empowered to communicate directly with the church authorities and to report its communications to the conference. It will depend upon further developments whether this conference offers the proper basis for the effective unification of the German State churches. The Eisenach Conference must either be entrusted with greater authority by the church governments, or it must make way for some new body to be agreed upon by the state rulers and empowered with sufficient initiative and executive power for the fulfilment of its duties.

for daa evangeZische Deutschland, Stuttgart, 1852 eqq. For statistical materiel consult: P. Pieper, Kirchliche Statistik Deutachlanda, Tiibingen, 1899; J. Schneider, Kirehlichea Jahrbuch, 1907, Giitereloh, 1907.

EISENMERGER, aiz'en-meng'er, JOHANN A1PDREAS: German Orientalist; b. at Mannheim 1654; d. at Heidelberg Dec. 20, 1704. He studied .,t the Collegium sapierttite at Heidelberg, where his knowledge of Hebrew attracted the attention of Prince Karl Ludwig, who granted him a traveling stipend enabling him to visit England and Holland. The conversion of three Christians to Judaism while he was at Amsterdam made him decide to collect alt available anti-Jewish data for a work which should prove a warning toChristians, and at the same time shame the Jews. Returning from

ERASMUS.

Early Life (§ 1).
Studies and Travels (§ 2).
Basis of Literary Activity (§ 3).
Various Works (§ 4).
Attitude Toward the Reformation (§ 5).
Relations with Luther (§ 6).
Doctrine of the Eucharist (§ 7).
Closing Years (§ 8).

1. Early Life.

Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus, Dutch humanist and theologian, was born at Rotterdam, Holland, Oct. 27, probably 1466; d. at Basel, Switzerland, July 12, 1536. Information as to his family and early life comes from a few meager accounts written or suggested by himself at a somewhat advanced age and from many but vague references in his writings at all periods of his life. There seems good reason to believe that the tone of self-pity that pervades all these accounts was assumed for purposes at which one may guess, but as to which one can not be certain. He was doubtless born out of wedlock, well cared for by his parents till their early death, and then given the best education open to a young man of his day in a series of monastic or semimonastic schools. All this early education is made by him in the light of later experience to appear like one long conspiracy to force him into the monastic life, but there is no other evidence for this, and recent criticism has suggested ample motives for his desire to give his life-history this peculiar turn. Re was admitted to the priesthood and took the monastic vows at about the age of twenty-five, but there is no record that he ever exercised the priestly functions, and monasticism was one of the chief objects of his attack in his lifelong assault upon the evils of the Church.

2. Studies and Travels.

Almost immediately after his consecration the way was opened to him for study at the University of Paris, then the chief seat of the later scholastic learning, but already beginning to feel the influence of the revived classic culture of Italy. From this time on Erasmus led the life of an independent scholar, independent of country, of academic ties, of religious allegiance, of everything that could interfere with the free development of his intellect and the freedom of his literary expression. The chief centers of his activity were Paris, Louvain, England, and Basel; yet it could never be said that he was identified with any one of these. His residences in England were fruitful in the making of lifelong friendships with the leaders of English thought in the stirring days of Henry VIII.-- John Colet, Thomas More, Thomas Linacre, and William Grocyn. He held at Cambridge an honorable position as Lady Margaret professor of divinity, and there seems to have been no reason except his unconquerable aversion to a routine life, why he should not have spent his days as an English professor. He was offered many positions of honor and profit in the academic world, but declined them all on one or another pretext, preferring the uncertain, but as it proved sufficient rewards of independent literary activity. In Italy he spent three years (1506-09), part of the time in connection with the publishing house of Aldus Manutius at Venice, but otherwise with far less active association with Italian scholars than might have been expected. The residence at Louvain exposed Erasmus to the petty criticism of men nearer to him in blood and political connections, but hostile to all the principles of literary and religious progress to which he was devoting his life. From this lack of sympathy, which he always represented as persecution, he sought refuge in the more congenial atmosphere of Basel, where under the shelter of Swiss hospitality he could express himself with freedom and where he was always surrounded by devoted friends. Here he was associated for many years with the great publisher Froben, and hither came the multitude of his admirers from all quarters of Europe.

3. Basis of Literary Activity.

Erasmus's literary productivity began comparatively late in his life. It was not until he had made himself master of a telling Latin style that he undertook to express himself on all current subjects of literature and religion. His revolt against the forms of Church life did not proceed from any questionings as to the truth of the traditional doctrine, nor from any hostility to the organization of the Church itself. Rather, he felt called upon to use his learning in a purification of the doctrine and in a liberalizing of the institutions of Christianity. He began as a scholar, trying to free the methods of scholarship from the rigidity and formalism of medieval traditions; but he was not satisfied with this. He conceived of himself as, above all else, a preacher of righteousness. It was his lifelong conviction that what was needed to regenerate Europe was sound learning applied frankly and fearlessly to the administration of public affairs in Church and State. It is this conviction that gives unity and consistency to a life which at first eight seems to have been full of fatal contradictions. Erasmus was a marked individual, holding himself aloof from all entangling obligations; yet he was in a singularly true sense the center of the literary movement of his time. In his correspondence he put himself in touch with more than five hundred men of the highest importance in the world of politics and of thought, and his advice on all kinds of subjects was eagerly sought, if none too readily followed.

4. Various Works.

Naturally, Erasmus has been most widely known for his critical and satirical writings, such as the "Praise of Folly" (Paris, 1509) and many of the Colloquia, which appeared at intervals from 1500 on. These appeal to a wider audience and deal with matters of wider human interest. Yet their author seems to have regarded them as the trifles of his intellectual product, the play of his leisure hours. His more serious writings begin early with the Enchiridion Militis Christiani, the "Manual (or Dagger) of the Christian Gentleman" (1503). In this little volume Erasmus outlines the views of the normal Christian life which he was to spend the rest of his days in elaborating. The key-note of it all is sincerity. The chief evil of the day, he says, is formalism, a respect for traditions, a regard for what other people think essential, but never a thought of what the true teaching of Christ may be. The remedy is for every man to ask himself at each point: what is the essential thing? and to do this without fear. Forms are not in themselves evil. It is only when they hide or quench the spirit that they are to be dreaded. In his examination of the special dangers of formalism, Erasmus pays his respects to monasticism, saint-worship, war, the spirit of class, the foibles of "society," in the fashion which was to make his later reputation as a satirist, but the main impression of the Enchiridion is distinctly that of a sermon. A companion piece to the Enchiridion is the Institutio Principis Christiani (Basel, 1516), written as advice to the young king Charles of Spain, later the emperor Charles V. Here Erasmus applies the same general principles of honor and sincerity to the special functions of the Prince, whom he represents throughout as the servant of the people. While in England Erasmus began the systematic examination of manuscripts of the New Testament to prepare for a new edition and Latin translation. This edition was published by Froben of Basel in 1516 and was the basis of most of the scientific study of the Bible during the Reformation period (see BIBLE TEXT, II., 2, § 1). It was the first attempt on the part of a competent and liberal-minded scholar to ascertain what the writers of the New Testament had actually said. Erasmus dedicated his work to Pope Leo X. as a patron of learning, to whom such an application of scholarship to religion must be welcome, and he justly regarded this work as his chief service to the cause of a sound Christianity. Immediately after he began the publication of his Paraphrases of the New Testament, a popular presentation of the contents of the several books. These, like all the writings of Erasmus, were in Latin, but they were at once translated into the common languages of the European peoples, a process which received the hearty approval of Erasmus himself.

5. Attitude Toward the Reformation.

The outbreak of the Lutheran movement in the year following the publication of the New Testament brought the severest test of Erasmus's personal and scholarly character. It made the issue between European society and the Roman Church system so clear that no man could quite escape the summons to range himself on one side or the other of the great debate. Erasmus, at the height of his literary fame, was inevitably called upon to take sides, but partizanship in any issue which he was not at liberty himself to define was foreign equally to his nature and his habits. In all his criticism of clerical follies and abuses he had always carefully hedged himself about with protests that he was not attacking church institutions themselves and had no enmity toward the persons of churchmen. The world had laughed at his satire, but only a few obstinate reactionaries had seriously interfered with his activities. He had a right to believe that his work so far had commended itself to the best minds and also to the dominant powers in the religious world. There can be no doubt that Erasmus was in sympathy with the main points in the Lutheran criticism of the Church. For Luther personally he had and expressed the greatest respect, and Luther always spoke with admiration of his superior learning. Luther would have gone to great lengths in securing his cooperation in a work which seemed only the natural outcome of his own. When Erasmus hesitated or refused this seemed to the upright and downright Luther a mean avoidance of responsibility explicable only as cowardice or unsteadiness of purpose, and this has generally been the Protestant judgment of later days. On the other hand the Roman Catholic party was equally desirous of holding on to the services of a man who had so often declared his loyalty to the principles it was trying to maintain, and his half-heartedness in declaring himself now brought upon him naturally the suspicion of disloyalty from this side. Recent judgments of Erasmus, however, have shown how consistent with all his previous practise his attitude toward the Reformation really was. The evils he had combated were either those of form, such as had long been a subject of derision by all sensible men, or they were evils of a kind that could be cured only by a long and slow regeneration in the moral and spiritual life of Europe. Get rid of the absurdities, restore learning to its rights, insist upon a sound practical piety, and all these evils would disappear: this was the programme of the "Erasmian Reformation." No one could question its soundness or its desirability. Its fatal lack was that it failed to offer any tangible method of applying these principles to the existing church system. This kind of reform had been tried long enough, and men were impatient of further delay. When Erasmus was charged-- and very justly-- with having "laid the egg that Luther hatched" he half admitted the truth of the charge, but said he had expected quite another kind of a bird.

6. Relations with Luther.

In their early correspondence Luther expressed in unmeasured terms his admiration for all Erasmus had done in the cause of a sound and reasonable Christianity, and exhorted with him now to put the seal upon his work by definitely casting in his lot with the Lutheran party. Erasmus replied with many expressions of regard, but declined to commit himself to any party attitude. His argument was that to do so would endanger his position as a leader in the movement for pure scholarship which be regarded as his real work in life. Only through that position as an independent scholar could he hope to influence the reform of religion. The constructive value of Luther's work was mainly in furnishing a new doctrinal basis for the hitherto scattered attempts at reform. In reviving the half forgotten principle of the Augustinian theology Luther had furnished the needed impulse to that personal interest in religion which is the essence of Protestantism. This was precisely what Erasmus could not approve. He dreaded any change in the doctrine of the Church and believed that there was room enough within existing formulas for the kind of reform he valued most. Twice in the course of the great discussion he allowed himself to enter the field of doctrinal controversy, a field foreign alike to his nature and his previous practise. One of the topics formally treated by him was the freedom of the will, the crucial point in the whole Augustinian system. In his De libero arbitrio DiaTpiBn sive collatio (1524), be analyzes with great cleverness and in perfect good temper the Lutheran exaggeration, as it seemed to him, of the obvious limitations upon human freedom. As his habit was, he lays down both sides of the argument and shows that each had its element of truth. His position was practically that which the Chinch had always taken in its dealing with the problem of sin: that Man was bound to sin, but that after all he had a right to the forgiving mercy of God, if only he would seek this through the means offered him by the Church itself. It was an easy-going Semi-Pelagianism, humane in its practise, but opening the way to those very laxities and perversions which Erasmus and the Reformers alike were combating. The "Diatribe," clever as it was, could not lead men to any definite action, and this was precisely its merit to the Erasmians and its offense to the Lutherans.

7. Doctrine of the Eucharist.

As the popular response to the Lutheran summons become more marked and more widely spread, the social disorders which Erasmus dreaded began to appear. The Peasants' War, the Anabaptist disturbances in Germany and in the Low Countries (see ANABAPTISTS), iconoclasm and radicalism everywhere, seemed to confirm all his gloomy predictions. If this were to be the outcome of reform, he could only be thankful he had kept out of it. On the other hand, he was being ever more bitterly accused of having started the whole "tragedy." In Switzerland he was especially exposed to criticism through his association with men there who were more than suspected of extreme rationalistic doctrines. On this side the test question was naturally the doctrine of the sacraments, and the crux of this question was the observance of the Eucharist. Partly to clear himself of suspicion and partly in response to demands that he should write something in defense of Catholic doctrine, he published in 1530 a new edition of the orthodox treatise of Algerus against the heretic Berengar of Tours in the eleventh century. He added a dedication in which he affirms positively his belief in the reality of the body of Christ after consecration in the Eucharist, but admits that the precise form in which this mystery ought to be expressed is a matter on which very diverse opinions have been held by good men. Enough, however, for the mass of Christians that the Church prescribes the doctrine and the usages that embody it, while the refinements of speculation about it may safely be left to the philosophers. Here and there in many vehement utterances on this subject Erasmus lays down the principle, quite unworthy of his genius and his position of influence: that a man may properly have two opinions on religious subjects, one for himself and his intimate friends and another for the public. The anti-sacramentarians, headed by OEcolampadius of Basel, were, as Erasmus says, quoting him as holding views about the Eucharist quite similar to their own. He denies this with great heat, but in his denial betrays the fact that he had in private conversation gone just as far toward a rational view of the doctrine of the Eucharist as he could without a positive formulation in words. Naturally here, as in the case of free will, he could not command the approval of the Church he was trying to placate.

8. Closing Years.

Thus, as the visible outcome of his reformatory activities Erasmus found himself at the close of his life at odds with both the great parties. His last years were embittered by controversies with men toward whom he was drawn by many ties of taste and sympathy. Notable among these was his passage at arms with Ulrich von Hutten (q.v.), a brilliant, but erratic genius, who had thrown himself with all his heart into the Lutheran cause and had declared that Erasmus, if he had a spark of honesty about him, would do the same. In his reply, Spongia adversus aspergines Hutteni (1523), he displays, better than almost anywhere else, his skill in twisting words and phrases to suit the purpose of the moment. He accuses Hutten of having misinterpreted his utterances about reform and reiterates his determination never to take sides in the division of parties. When the city of Basel was definitely and officially "reformed" in 1529, Erasmus gave up his residence there and settled in the imperial town of Freiburg-im-Breisgau. It would seem as if he found it easier to maintain his neutrality under Roman Catholic than under Protestant conditions. His literary activity continued with out much abatement, chiefly on the lines of religious and didactic composition. The most important work of this last period is the Ecclesiastes or "Gospel Preacher" (Basel, 1535), in which he brings out the function of preaching as the most important office of the Christian priest, an emphasis which shows how essentially Protestant his inner thought of Christianity was. The same impression comes from his little tract of 1533 on "Preparation for Death," in which the emphasis throughout is on the importance of a good life as the essential condition of a happy death. For unknown reasons Erasmus found himself drawn once more to the happiest of his homes, at Basel, and returned thither in 1535 after an absence of six years. Here, in the midst of the group of Protestant scholars who had long been his truest friends, and, so far as is known, without relations of any sort with the Roman Catholic Church, he died. So long as he lived he had never been called to account for his opinions by any official authority of the dominant Church. The attacks upon him were by private persons and his protectors had always been men of the highest standing. After his death, in the seal of the Roman Catholic reaction, his writings were honored with a distinguished place on the Index of prohibited books, and his name has generally had an evil sound in Roman Catholic ears. The extraordinary popularity of his books, however, has been shown in the immense number of editions and translations that have appeared from the sixteenth century until now, and in the undiminished interest excited by his elusive but fascinating personality.

[Ten columns of the catalogue of the library in the British Museum are taken up with the bare enumeration of the works translated, edited or annotated by Erasmus, and their subsequent reprints. It is a remarkable showing. The greatest names of the classical and patristic world are included, such as Ambrose, Aristotle, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom, Cicero, and Jerome.]

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The works were edited by Erasmus's friend Beatua Rhenatue, 9 vole., Basel, 1540, and by Le Clerc, 10 vole., Leyden, 1703-08. The beat edition of the Epiatlea is by P. 8. Allen, vol. i., Oxford, 1908, with which should be put Briefs an Deaideriua Eraamus, ed. L. K. Enthoven, Strasburg, 1908; an Eng. travel. of the Epistles . . , to his Ftfttl-first Year, Arranged in Order o/ Time, by F. M, Nichols, appeared, 2 vole., London, 1901-