161	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Mandeeans
		Mande
who also employed " Egyptians " and " Red Sea "
in just such a metaphorical sense as did the Man
doeans. Indeed, the question of the sources of
Mandaeism is just that of the sources of Ophitism
and Gnosticism in general. These, systems are not
traceable to the teachings of the Persian Zarathus
tra, nor to Phenician heathenism, nor to the Greek
mysteries, but simply to the Babylonian‑Chaldean
national religion, which was domiciled in the region
where Ophites, Perat2e, and Mandamus lived, and
where they were distinguished from Christians (cf.
W. Anz, Zur Frage mach der Uraprung des Grlosti
zi8mus, pp. 59 sqq., Leipsic, 1897). While some
fundamental conceptions are changed, as when the
names of Babylonian deities become the names of
the planets and are regarded as evil spirits, yet the
derivation is so clear upon investigation that no
doubt can be entertained upon this point.
The Mandwan baptism can not be derived from
the Jewish baptism of proselytes, nor is it Christian
	baptism taken over and exaggerated; the Man
daean practise is diametrically opposed to both.
			Christian baptism implies metanoia,
	rz. Baby‑ ethical rebirth, and it marks the in=
	lonian and auguration of an ethical renewing of
	Manichean the heart after the pattern of the Sa
		Ideas	vior; the MandIean rite, so frequently
	Borrowed. repeated, is a theurgio‑magical opera
			tion and aims at an ever‑increasing
insight into the secrets of the kingdom of light
through the mediation of water, the element of the
king of light. The Mandsean light‑god Maria Rabba
is to be identified with the Babylonian Ea (see
BABYLONIA, VIL, 2, § 3), and his emanation Manda
de hayye or his son Hibil Ziwa with Ea's son Mar
duk (see BABYLONIA, VIL, 2, § 10). Ea, the god
of profound knowledge, father of the mediator
Marduk, enthroned in the world‑sea, whose holy
element is water, is the Ea of the brilliant ocean of
heaven, as comes out in the Ayar‑yora and the
heavenly Jordan of the Mandwans. Similarly, as
Marduk, the conqueror of Tiamat, appears in vari
ous incarnations like that of Gilgamesh, so do Hibil
Ziwa and his successors. The parallels of Ishtar's
descent into hell and that of Hibil Ziwa, the divi
sion of the planetary worlds into a system of seven,
and the seat of Es, in the ‑North with the Mandaean
direction of worship to that quarter are sufficiently
obvious. Similar relationship can be established
with Manicheanism. Mani was in his youth an ad
herent of the Babylonian Mu'tasilah (" baptizers "),
an early Babylonian sect. Palestinian Hemero
	baptists, Elkesaites (q.v.), Nazarenes, and Ebion
ites (q.v.) were sects which propagated in the West
under Jewish influence Babylonian ideas, especially
those of a mediator and the closely connected rite
	of baptism; these sects took form in pre‑Christian
times and later were hostile to Christianity. John
the Baptist gave to the rite of baptism, thus de
	rived, a new ethical content by connecting with it
the Old‑Testament expectation of a Messiah. Sim
	ilarly the second sacrament of the Mandmans, the
	Eucharist, must be explained upon usage grounded
	in nature‑religions, in honor paid to the pure ele
	ments of nature and its gifts, and not as a perver
	sion of the Christian mystery. The original teach‑
declared in the fourth century the State religion,
its doctrines had been in conflict with many op
posing forms of belief. But its doughtiest oppo
nent was not the decrepit faith in the gods of Greece
and Rome. A more dangerous foe was found in
ancient philosophy, especially in its latest form of
Neoplatonism, which strove for spiritual control of
the world and combined the theoretical with the
practical. The one lack of Neoplatonism was a per‑
ing of Mani could not have been very different in
this matter from the common Mandaean‑Gnostic
doctrine (see MANI, MANIcHEANs). The conception
of eons and of the ruh al‑hayat, " spirit of life," are
alike in the two systems (cf. the Valentinian Zoe).
Similarly the work of the original man in combating
the original devil is practically the same in Man
daeism and Manicheanism, though the former has
made the development more complex by introdu
cing a stratum of Aramaic thought in the names of
angels and devils. While, then, the religious sys
tem of the Mandaxans has especial interest rather
in connection with the universal history of religion
than with the theology of Christianity, yet there is
much in it which can shed light upon the history of
doctrine. In particular, the form of the Mandaean
sacraments affords ground for thought to the in
vestigator of the history of the Christian sapra
ment of baptism. 	(K. KESSLER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Ginza, called also the Sidra rabba, is best consulted in the ed. of H. Petermann, Thesaurus give liber magnua, vulgo " Liber Adami," vol. i., Berlin, 1867, vol. ii., Leipsie, 1867 (based on a comparison of four MSS. of 16th and 17th centuries). A prior ed. was by M. Norberg, Codex Nasaraua, liber Adami appellatua, vols. i.‑iv., Copenhagen, vol. v (onomasticon), Lund, 1817 (misleading, being a Syriac transcription, but has Latin tranal.). A Germ. transl., with notes, has been issued by W. Brandt, G6ttingen, 1893, and the same scholar gives the titles of the tracts or books of which the Ginza is composed in his very scholarly Manddiache Religion, pp. .207‑209, Leipsic, 1889. Other Manderan writings published are: Qolaeta, by J. Euting, Stuttgart, 1867 (a liturgical work); parts of the Sidra de Yahya ("Book of John"), in Germ. transl. by G. W. Lorsbaeh, in Beitragen zur Philosophic and Geachichte, v (1799), 1‑44. Mandman inscriptions have been published: H. Pognon, Inscriptions mandaitea lea coupes de Khouabir, 2 vols., Paris, 1898‑99 (cf. the review by M. Lidzbarski in TLZ, 1899); idem, Une incantation contre lea genies malfaiaanta en Mandaite, Paris, 1892; M. Lidzbarski, in Ephemeris fur aemitiache Eloigraphik, i. 1 (1900), 89‑106; cf. J. H. Mordtmann and D. H. Moller, Sabdische Denkmaler, Vienna, 1883.
For early reports concerning the Mandeeans consult: F. Ignatius a Jesu, Narratio originia, rituum et erromm Christianorum S. Joannia, Rome, 1652; Abraham Ecchellensis, Eutychiua patriarchs Alexandrinua vindicatua, pp. 310‑336, Rome, 1660; Jean Thdvenot, Voyage au Levant, Paris, 1664; J. Chardin, Journal du voyage . . . en Peres, London, 1686; C. Niebuhr, Reisebeachreibung nach Arabien and andern . . . Ldndern, 3 vols., Hamburg, 1774‑1837, Eng. transl., 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1792. The two important modern works besides that of W. Brandt, ut sup., are by H. J. Petermann, Reisen im Orient, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1861; and M. N. Siouffi, ‑0tudea our la religion lea Soubbae ou SaWene, laura dogma, leurs maura, Paris, 1880. Not to be overlooked is W. Brandt, in JPT, :viii (1892), 405‑438, 575‑603. Consult further: J. Matter, Hist. du gnoaticiarm, ii. 394‑422, Paris, 1828; L. E. Burckhardt, Les Nazoriene ou Mandai‑Jahja (disciples de Jean), Stras. burg, 1840 (based on Norberg); D. Chwolsohn, Die Saabier, i. 100‑138, St. Petersburg, 1856; J. M. Chevalier Lyeklama, Voyages . . dana la Mlaopotamie, vol. iii., book 3, chap. iv., Paris, 1868; Babelon, in Annales de philoaophie chr4tienne, 1881; E. Bischoff, Im Reiche der Gnosis. Die myatiachen Lehren lea judiachen und chriatlichen Gnoaticiamua, Manddiamua and Manichdiamue and ihr babyloniach‑mtraler Uraprunp, Leipsic, 1906; an important body of magazine literature is indicated in Richardson. Encyclopaedia, pp. 674‑675; Encyclop'todia Brfr tannica, xv. 467. For the language: T. N51deke, Manddi8che Grammatik, Halle, 1875; idem, in Abhandlungen der Gottinger Geaellachaft, 1862; H. Pognon, Inscriptions, ut. sup., pp. 257‑308.
MANDE, mdn'de, HENDRIg: Dutch mystic of the Windesheim community; b. at Dort c. 1360; d. in the monastery of Sion, near Beverwijk, 1431.
want of which, as contrasted with Christianity, it
		failed to attain popularity. Even more
	r. The dangerous than this was a religion
	Religion which, rising in the Orient, united in
Character‑ itself the charms of the new with the
	ized. allurements of the old as represented
		in the mysteries ‑ which were so
attractive to the peoples of that time. This was
Mithraism, of which Renan once rightly remarked,

lands	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	158
Mani, Manioheans
Very little is known regarding his life. When his
biographer, Jan Busch (q.v.), entered the monas
tery of Windeaheim, Mande was already an old
man. All known of his early life is that be was
physically frail and weak and that his education
enabled him to fill the position of court scribe with
William VI., count of Holland, under difficult con
ditions. He was deeply impressed by Groote's
sermons (see GRooTE, GEERT), and, as a result of
visions of the Crucified One with his stigmata, he
resolved to enter a monastery and chose that of
Windesheim at Deventer, taking the vows in 1395.
On account of his health he never became canonims,
in spite of the great veneration inspired by his vi
sions and his gracious personality. He cultivated
intimate relations with the prominent members of
the new devotion. In a little tractate he has given
an account of his visions; this Busch translated
into Latin and added some accounts of the author
derived from his associates. In the monastery
which he rarely left, and only in its service‑he
occupied himself with copying manuscripts. His
death occurred during a journey with Busch di
rected by the authorities at Windeaheim.
	Of Mande's writings in French and German,
composed for the brethren, fourteen are mentioned
by Busch. They did not become widely known in
spite of their graceful diction and depth of mean
ing. Mande was strongly influenced by Ruys
broeck, but was simpler and more easily under
stood. He was indeed called the Ruysbroeck of
northern Holland. Only in 1854 were his writings
rediscovered. They are as follows: Ltber unus
quomodo veterem hominem cum adtbus 8uw eruere
debemu8 et Chriato nos unire. The Dutch manu
cript was found by G. Visser and printed in his
H. Mande. Bijdrage tat de Kennis der Noord
Nederlandache Mystiek, The Hague, 1899. Liber de
intimis domini nostril J. Christi et aeptem vice qui
bus itur ad ea, found by S. Becker and published
by C. K. de Bazel, Leyden, 1886, new ed. in Viaser,
ut sup. Mande refers to Bonaventura's Itinerar
ium mends, more especially to the section de aep
tem itinenbus aternitatis. Liber de perfecta amoris
altitudine et de vii8 ad eam perveniendi, ed. Visser
after a Brussels manuscript. De sapida eapientia,
according to Visaer; it exists in an Amsterdam man
uscript and treats of the seven gifts, under the
title: Van der gave der amakender urijaheit. Specu
lum verdtatis, also in the Amsterdam manuscript,
Een apiegel der waerheit, printed in Visaer, ut sup.,
appendix V.; De luce veritatia, extant in the same
manuscript; De trabus statibus hominia conversi,
in quibus consistit perfeetio vine 8piratualia. This is
Mande's most important and beat known writing,
based on Joel ii. 12, 13. In it Mande has ex
plained his whole conception of the spiritual life.
Amorosa querela amantis animm Deum scum pro
ltberatione tenebrarum defeduumque auorum, extant
in several manuscripts and printed by W. Moll in
the Kalender voor Protestanten in Nederland, 1860,
p. 113. Allocutio brevis amantis animm cum amato
suo, printed in W. Moll's Joh. Brugmann, i. 310,
Amsterdam, 1854. De preparations interniv nostree
habitation* in Moll, Brugmann, i. 293. Dialogue
etve collocutio devotte animm cum Deo amato suo et
re8ponsio ejus ad animam devotam, supposed by Visaer to be in the third part of an Amsterdam manuscript (of. Viaser, ut sup.). De raptibus et collocutionibus cum Deo et Dei secum decent (of. Visser, in the Nederlandsche Archief van Kerkgeachiedenia, 1901, p. 249. In the issue for 1902 the dieteche text van H. M. apokalypais is printed).
Of the writings mentioned by Busch there are missing De vita apirituali et devota and De vita eontemplativa; these are probably developments of parts of the De tribes statibus. The tractate Van den gheesteliken opgave, found by Borssum in Amsterdam and published in the Archief for 1896, has not yet been proved to be by Mande.
According to Busch, all the writings of Mande enumerated were written in his own hand but without the addition of his name. During the disorders succeeding the Reformation and the suppression of the monasteries the tradition of authorship was lost. Mande's mysticism as described by Viaser is less grandiose than Ruyabroeck's. Mande to simpler, more sentimental, and more Biblical, and he may be looked upon as the precursor of Thomas A Kempis, who popularized him. L. SCHULzE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The one source is the Chronicon Windeshemense of J. Busch, ed. K. Grubs, Halle, 1887. Consult W. Moll, J. Brugmann i. 260, Amsterdam, 1854; idem, Kerkpeaciedenis van Nederland voor de Havorming, 2 cola., ib.1864‑71; J. G. B. Aoquoy, Het Klooster to Windssheim, i. 260, Utrecht, 1875; ADB, xx. 165; above all, the monograph by G. Visser mentioned in the text.
MANDEVMLE, BERNARD. See DE18M.
MANEGOLD OF LAUTEHBACH: German Augustinian monk; b. about 1060; d. after 1103, probably on May 24. At an early age he entered the cloister of Gebweiler in Alsace, but when it was destroyed by partizans of Henry IV., he went, after a period of wandering, to Bavaria about 1086, and found refuge in the cloister of Raitenbach. After 1090 he lived in the cloister of Marbach, near Colmar in Alsace, ultimately becoming prior, and opposing Henry to the very last. The great importance attached to the pamphlet of the scholastic Wenrich of Troves (q.v.) moved Manegold to compose his Labor ad Gebehardum (MGH, Lib. de lite, i., 1890, 308‑430), dedicated to Archbishop Gebbard of Salzburg, and written in the lifetime of Gregory VIL, though not published until after his death. Manegold reveals himself as an enthusiastic partizan of the Gregorian party, and upholds the pope's views in all the disputes of the period, though from a radically democratic platform. Thus royalty, in his view, is not an ordinance of God, but an office bestowed by the people, and the relation between king and people is in the nature of a treaty, breach of which by the king enables the people to recede from the treaty and to dissolve the subject relation. In the light of these principles, Manegold vindicated the pope's right to release the Germans from their oath of allegiance to Henry IV., though without being clear concerning the relation of such an exercise of popular sovereignty to the papal act of nullifying the oath. In his Opusculum contra Wolfelmum Coloniensem (ed. A. Muratori, Anew. dota, iv. 163‑208, Padua, 1713; cf. Lib. de lite, i. 30,3‑‑308), Manegold assils the assumption of a

158	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Mande
		Mani, Manloheans
compatibility of the teachings of the ancient phi
losophers with Christian dogma.
	Manegold of Lautenbach has often been con
fused with the philosopher Manegold (Histoire lit
Mraire de la France, ix. 280‑290, Paris, 1750), who
probably likewise came from Alsace, and gained
much renown as a teacher in France between 1070
and 1090.	CARL M1RBT.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. van Giesebrecht in &itzunpsberichte der
	Miinchener Akademie, 1888, ii. 297‑330; N. Paulus, in
	Revue cavtolique d'Alsace, 1888, pp. 209‑221, 279‑289.
	337‑345; W. Martens, Gregor VII., Leipsic, 1894; C.
	Mirbt, Die PuUizietik im Zeitaker Gregors VII., PASSIM,
	ib. 1894; G. Meyer van Knonau, Jahrbiieher des deatschen
	Reichs unter Heinrich IV. and V., vol. iii., ib. 1900; J. A.
	Endres, in Riatorisch‑politiache Bldtter, ex"ii (1901),
	389‑401, 486‑495; G. Koch, Manegold roan Lautenbach,
	Berlin, 1902; KL, viii. 597‑598.
	MANETHO: Egyptian historian. He was prob
ably a native of Sebennytus, chief town of the nome
of that name, flourished in the third century B.c.,
during the reign of Ptolemy Soter and possibly
of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and was a priest of On
(Heliopolis). He wrote in Greek for the temple
archives an " Epitome of Things Physical," on
Egyptian philosophy and theology, and what is
cited by Josephus (Ant. I., iii. 9) as " Egyptian His
tory." Only fragments of these works are ex
tant, in citations. Of the " Epitome " the most
extensive fragments are in Plutarch's De hide et
Osiri (chaps. viii., ix., xlix., lxii., Luiii.). Of the
" History "the most important fragment is a cata
logue of the kings of Egypt of dynasties I.‑XXX.
(Menes‑Nectanebo II.), preserved in part in Julius
Africanus and Eusebius. The fragments have been
collected in C. and T. Willer, Fragments historicorum
Gracorum, vol. ii (Paris, 1848).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. J. Lauth, Manetho and der Turiner
	K6nigapapynes, Munich, 1865; G. F. Unger, Chronologisdes
	Manetho, Berlin, 1867; J. Krall, Composition and $chicksale
	du manethonisehen Geachirhtsvxrkes, Vienna, 1879.
	MANGOLD, WILHELM JULIUS: German Lu
theran; b. at Cassel Nov. 20, 1825 ; d. at Bonn
Mar. 1, 1890. He entered the University of Halle
in 1845; later he spent a year and a half at Mar
burg, and so distinguished himself here that in the
autumn of 1848 he was urged by his examiners to
embrace an academic career. Until Sept., 1849,
he devoted himself at Gtsttingen to ecclesiastical
history, and in the following year served with suo‑
MANI, MANICHEANS.
The Religion Characterized (¢ 11.	Origin of Man (¢ 6).
Mani's Origin; Legendary Accretions (§ 2).	The End of the World (§ 7).
Mani's Life (§ 3).	Two Classes of Manicheans (§ 8).
Manichean Cosmogony (¢ 4).	Fasts, Feasts, and Prayer (§ 9).
Commingling of Light and Darkness (¢ 5).	The Church (¢ 10).
When Christianity had won its fight and been declared in the fourth century the State religion, its doctrines had been in conflict with many opposing forms of belief. But its doughtiest opponent was not the decrepit faith in the gods of Greece and Rome. A more dangerous foe was found in ancient philosophy, especially in its latest form of Neoplatonism, which strove for spiritual control of the world and combined the theoretical with the practical. The one lack of Neoplatonism was a per‑
teas as private tutor to two sons of the elector. On Thiersch's retirement Mangold chose the vacant department of New‑Testament theology in place of ecclesiastical history. Having acquired a considerable reputation both as teacher and author, he received in 1863 s call to Vienna, from the Evangelical faculty of theology there, but at the same time, in spite of the intrigues of his adversaries, he was at last, by command of the elector, appointed regular professor of theology at Marburg. Here, besides his constant application to his specialty of Biblical instruction, and to his other university duties, including the rector's office, which he filled in 18691870, he took much interest in the Reformed congregation at Marburg and in the extraordinary Hessian Synod, in whose behalf he labored as a member of the Prussian House of Deputies. His call to Bonn in 1872 was due to the minister Falk. Here he labored indefatigably and successfully for over seventeen years, in the spirit of his chosen motto, " Speaking the truth in love." He was largely influenced by his teacher and veteran colleague, Ernst Henke, his memorial tribute to whom (Marburg, 1879) clearly reflects his own theological attitude. Although he fully understood honest orthodox zeal and was patient with ignorance, be had abundant occasion in Bonn for decided opposition to arbitrary traditionalism. However, be soon became one of the best loved teachers of the university, which in 1876‑77 elected him rector.
	Omitting his numerous minor works, of which a
complete lief is given in the Protestarltiache Ifirchen
zeituny for 1890, no. 17, it is necessary to mention
here the following larger books: Die Irrlehrer der
Pastoralbriefe (Marburg, 1856); Der Rdmerbrief and
die Anfarlge der romischen Gemeirlde (1866); and an
independent work, not merely a recasting of the
last‑named work, Der RSmeriSriej and seine
geschichtlichen Voratcasetzurlgen (1884). He was
also widely known for his two greatly enlarged new
editions of his predecessor Friedrich Bleek's Eirl
leiturlg in das Neue Testament (Berlin, 1875; 1886).
He left Bleek's text as it stood, but amplified it by
excellent supplements, thereby prolonging the use
fulness of Bleek's remarkable work by coordinating
it with the progressive development of New‑Testa
ment scholarship. 	A. KAMPHAUBEN.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Protestantieche Rirchenraituny, 1890, no. 17.
The Future Life (§ 11).
Mani's Attitude Toward the Bible (¢ 12). Manichean Literature (§ 13).
History of the Religion (§ 14).
Component Sources of the System (¢ 15).
sonal center around which to gather its forces, for
want of which, as contrasted with Christianity, it
		failed to attain popularity. Even more
	><. The dangerous than this was a religion
	Religion which, rising in the Orient, united in
Character‑ itself the charms of the new with the
	ized. allurements of the old as represented
		in the mysteries ‑ which were so
attractive to the peoples of that time. This was
Mithraiam, of which Reran once rightly remarked,

Mani, Manicheans	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	154
" If the world had not become Christian in the fourth century, it would have become Mithraic." See MITHRA, MITHRAISM. When this enemy had been conquered by the polemics of the Fathers, Babylonia, the cradle of Mithraism, sent a dreadworthy successor to the West, the religion of Mani, or Manicheism. Of Babylonian‑Persian origin, the teaching of Mani found its way smoothed by its predecessor, Mithraism. Christianity fought its hardest battle with this new religion, which, though too far removed from Christianity to become a Christian sect, yet combined in itself all the elements which made Gnosticism, with its emphasis upon higher wisdom, so dangerous to Christianity. Manicheism had an existence of nearly a thousand years. It united to Ophitism, the oldest and purest form of Gnosticism, the best elements of the teachings of Marcion and Bardesanes, and so built up the most important of all Gnostic systems. Yet it had, at least as respects Christianity, all the advantages of independence; and it confidently claimed ability to supply a universal need. Its basis was pagan as contrasted with the Christian foundation of other forms of Gnosticism. Mani's object was to give to the Persians of Sassanian times a better religion than that of Zoroaster; he had not apostolic Christianity in view as an opponent. Hence he utilized the sources found in the metropolis of metropolises, Babylon, and built upon the foundations of religion laid there so many centuries earlier. That he later had regard to the Christianity of the West and to the Buddhism of the East is indeed not to be denied; but the influence of Christianity is small compared with the abounding paganism worked into his system. The elements, then, out of which Mani created the religion which he gave to his disciples to propagate, were the Babylonian‑Aramaic beliefs of his time, with Parseeism controlling the theory, Buddhism influencing the ethics and life, Christianity furnishing holy names and external analogies, and Mandwism giving its " king of light." A great literature arose about this faith. Concerning the founder Christians and non‑Christians wrote; Church Fathers and professional polemists as well as philosophers and historians who had no bias, litterateurs of the East and of the West were engaged in discussing it. Christian sources are in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and a few in Arabic; the nonChristian mainly in Arabic or Persian, and the latter, as belonging to the soil on which the religion grew and because of the natural sympathy and habits of writing of the East, are the most valuable as giving the purest forms of tradition.
The native name of the founder is Mani (Gk. Manes, Manichaios, Lat. Manes or Manichet;us), the etymology of which is doubtful. It is not of Persian but of Babylonian‑Aramaic derivation, and is to be connected with the Mana so frequently occurring in Mandaean writings (see MAN‑
2. Mani's MANS). The Acta Archelai gives the Origin; founder's original name as GSIrbicius,
Legendary changed later into Curbicus and Urbi‑
Accretions. cus. Mani's father's name is given as Fatak (Patak), and his family is said to have been of distinguished Persian origin, to have emigrated from Ecbatana in Bactria and
settled near Ctesiphon. Ibis mother is reputed to have belonged to the Arsacidae. Mani is said to have been born in the city of Mardinu in 215‑216; he was crucified at Gundev Shapur in 276. A cycle of legend surrounds the circumstances of his birth. According to reports, his father took the boy under his especial care, removed him from his mother, and, in consequence of a change in his religious convictions, joined a South Babylonian sect, the Mu`tasilah, " baptizera," and took up his residence in the district of Mesene on the lower Tigris, where he gave his son instruction until his twelfth year, at which time Mani reached independent conclusions on the matter of religion. Reports indicate that Fatak was essentially a religious leader who used his son to further the diffusion of his teachings. The Acts Archehi mentions two supposed forerunners of Mani, Scythianus and Terebinthus. The former is reported to have been a " Saracen " merchant of Arabia who went to Egypt and absorbed all the wisdom of that land during a residence there, and through his disciple Terebinthua wrote a number of books. He then went to Judea to propagate his doctrines but was worsted in a disputation and lost his life. Terebinthua fled to Babylonia with his master's books and treasures, there took the name of Buddas (or Baiddas), engaged in a disputation with Persian priests of Mithra, but was worsted, gaining as convert only an old widow who fell heir to his books and treasures, and bought as a slave Curbicius (see above), who in turn came into possession of the treasures of Scythianus. But this whole story arises in a misconception. " Terebinthus," though it might be used as a proper name, means " pupil," and embodies also a development of the term rubbiya, having the same general meaning. Mani is spoken of as the disciple of his father, is identified with Terebinthus, and his father with Scythianus, as coming from the country of the Scythians, while the term " Saracen " (see above) is explicable from Fatak's settlement in Mesene (Characene). This explanation fits well with the varied sources drawn upon in the construction of the system. Allegorical reconstruction then accounts for the story of Scythianus and Terebinthus given above.
Manichean tradition places the first independent development in the religious life of Mani in his twelfth year. The traveled youth received then a revelation from the king of light through the angel Elta'um (" El [God] is allied," cf. the name of the Talmudic angel Tumiy'el, in which the elements are the same, only reversed in order) directing him to withdraw from the Mu'tasilah and
3. Mani's purify himself by ascetic practises.
Life.	The next twelve years were spent in
preparation for his Work, espeeWly ;n
the study of Babylonian religion; during this time he was in contact with the Christians of South Babylonia. Mani's first public appearance is set by a trustworthy Manichean source on the coroner tion day of Shapur L, Mar. 20, 242, and he is asserted to have begun his work as a religious teacher in his twenty‑eighth year. While the occasion, the collection of a large concourse of people, was happily chosen, the disfavor of the king compelled

155	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Mani, Manicheans
Mani to leave the kingdom, and he is said to have lived abroad forty years, extending his travels to Khorassan, Bokhara, China, and India. The statement that Mani had as disciples Thomas, Addas, and Hermas, two of whom he sent to Syria and Egypt, is unhistorical. Bar Hebrrrus asserts that Mani chose twelve disciples. The early Manichean tradition knows only of a personal propaganda of Mani to the north and east of the Persian realm, in which he declared himself to be the last of a series of divinely sent ambassadors of the true God who had commissioned Zoroaster, Buddha, and Jesus. This conception is the same as appears in the Clementine literature, the " great prophet " of Elkesaite thought. Still, how little Mani intended to accept Jesus as a forerunner appears in the later Persian report that Mani's system made Jesus a devil. After long wandering, in which possibly Manichean communities were established in Turkestan and India, Mani returned to Persia, where his followers had increased. He attempted to win over the brother of Shapur, though political circumstances must have predisposed the king to reject overtures on account of dangers to the dynasty from the Persian priesthood; the teacher, however, appears personally to have impressed Shapur favorably. Freedom to practise their religion is said to have been granted his followers, though it appears that this favor was subsequently withdrawn, since Mani had twice to flee the realm. Concerning the remainder of‑Mani's life little that is reliable has come down. His following increased at various points in the empire; and he is said to have enjoyed the favor of Hormisdas I., the successor of Shapur I., and to have received a city in Khuzistan as his residence. On the accession of Bahrain I. he was crucified and flayed, and his skin was stuffed with straw and nailed to the gate which long bore his name. A severe persecution of his followers began immediately after the death of the master. Of Mani's personal characteristics little is known, but the Fihrist says that he had a physical defect, a malformed leg. He had fine philosophical and linguistic endowments, profound religious knowledge, and a decided aptitude for literary work. His moral precepts make his character worthy of all honor.
As the basis for the study of the system of Mani the Acta Archelai and the reports of Augustine are no more employed, but rather the Kitab al‑Fihrist and the reports of Theodore bar Choni, which depend upon early Manichean writings. The fundamental part in this system is the theory of the origin of the world, which is rooted in Persian dualism. The world began in a mixing of two opposing elements light and darkness, one essentially good, the other essentially evil. The original light was self‑existent, and was called " the first
;. Mani‑ (or original) excellence," i.e., the
	chean	source of the derived " excellences "
Cosmogony. or eons, also "the king of the para
		dise of lights." This entirely spiritual
existence consisted of five elements, eternal exist
ences, which composed the body and soul of the
divine being; the five corporeal elements were mild
ness, knowledge, understanding, secrecy, and dis.
cernment; the five spiritual elements were love, faith, fidelity, generosity, and wisdom. The kingdom of light, coeternal with the king, included an ether of light and an earth of light; the ether was composed of the same material elements as the body of the king of light, while the earth had as its elements breath, wind, light, water, and fire. This earth of light was under the government of a special light‑deity, who was surrounded by twelve excellences of like nature. It was a transcendental correlative of the present earth. From above and at the sides this light world was unbounded, but beneath it met the realm of darkness, which was without limits from below and at the sides. This darkness was also a personal being, who filled his world in a manner like that of the light‑god, though he is never called " god " by Mani. The representation of darkness resembles that of the early Babylonian Tiamat, the personified chaos. Darkness was also constituted of five elements, cloud, burning, burning wind, air, and darkness, and the regions were divided as were those of light, while the description follows in part the exposition of the Mandsean lower regions (see MANDlEAN$, § 5). The first step toward the commingling of the two elements and the forming of earth came about through the formation of Satan in the realm of darkness, who came into being out of the eternal elements of darkness. He is pictured with the head of a lion, the body of a dragon, the wings of a bird, the tail of a fish, and with four feet. He moved about in the darkness and discovered a gleam of light which appeared to him of the nature of a challenge and he moved to attack it. The king of light put forward the " original man " (primes homo) to meet the assault. Different accounts follow of the way the combat proceeded and of the combatants actually engaged; but the fight ended in victory over man, who was bound and surrounded by the elements of darkness. The king of light entered the conflict with other deities of light, rescued the original man, and put to flight the powers of darkness. Among the helping eons were " the friend of lights," " the spirit of life," and " gladness." Victory seems to have been gained in part by the mystic power of knowledge of the secret name of darkness, though the accounts vary in different authorities.
Meanwhile the elements of the world of light combined, pair by pair, to produce the world of sense. To this commingling of elements diverse in nature is due the varying effects of matter upon substances and upon man, the elements of light producing effects corresponding to 5. Commin‑ their character, beneficent and pleas‑
gling of ant, the elements of darkness causing Light and destructive and maleficent results. Darkness. Thus, fire has a twofold agency, it preserves and warms or it consumes and destroys. In the progress of creation the spirit of life through his three sons slew the three powers taken prisoner by man, killed and flayed them, and from their skins was made the vault of heaven. The regions of the universe were divided off, angels were appointed to support the heavens, others the earths. According to one account, there were ten heavens and eight earths. The cosmology was

Xani, Xanicheaas	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	168
worked out in definite detail, and the geography of each region laid down. The sun and moon were set in place; the former became the home of the " original man," of the " friend of lights," and of the "spirit of life "; in the moon resided the "mother of life" (Ishtar) and the "maiden of light." Both bodies were created out of the purest material of light possible after the commingling of elements the sun of good fire, the moon of good water‑and both sail on the ocean of heaven. The sun and moon exercise a cleansing efficiency, separating the elements of pure light from the elements of darkness until the smallest possible residuum of admixture is left. All the light remaining in the present universe mingled with darkness and awaiting deliverance is named collectively by the oriental Manicheans after a Christianized terminology " the suffering Jesus, suspended from every tree," and in pantheistic fashion African Manicheans saw in objects that show brilliancy or light or glowing color, particularly in the bloom and fruitage of the plant world, the suffering Jesus or " light‑souls." They have brought into connection with this the suffering servant idea of the Deutero‑Isaiah and the expectant creation of Rom. viii. 18 aqq. The princes of darkness, named archons, who were taken prisoners in the combat between the two sets of powers, were set by the spirit of life in the heavens as stars.
The power of the princes of darkness continued even after their conquest in the lower world. In order to retain power over the light which had been captured, the chief archon allied himself in marriage with five evil feminine powers and begot Adam,
the first man. Adam combined in 6. Origin himself the natures of light and of
of Man. darkness; his body belonged to the
lower class of dark matter, while in his soul were the concentrated elements of light. As a consequence the two elements were at war in him. A second result from the marriage of the archon was the birth of Eve, in whom the evil part was by far preponderant, the reverse of Adam's case. Recognizing their evil condition, both begged for help from the higher eons, and Jesus was sent, who instructed Adam regarding the difference between the two kingdoms, about the commingling of the two elements, concerning the possibility of a release of the light still commingled with darkness, and warned him against connection with Eve, who as the servant of the demons would lead him farther into the material world. Still other accounts of the origin of Adam are given in the narrative of Theodore bar Choni, according to which Adam was the son of Ashkelon, the son of the king of darkness, while Jesus is made to come and wake Adam out of his death sleep. The Fihrist reports that the earth archon had by Eve the hateful redhaired Cain, to whom Eve bore Abel of fair complexion and also two daughters, " the worldlywise " and the " daughter of greed "; the last Cain took as his wife, giving the other to Abel as his wife. Abel's wife, akin by nature to the light elements, became by an angel of light the mother of two daughters; Abel charged Cain with the paternity, and Cain in anger slew Abel and married the
widow. To offset the loss of Abel, the archon taught Eve witchcraft in order to enable her to secure Adam as a husband. She bore Adam a son, Shatil or Seth, who was, however, so filled with the elements of light that the archon sought to kill him with the aid of Eve. But Adam took the child and fed it, called to his help the powers of light, and succeeded in foiling the designs of the archon and of Eve. Eve was enabled by the chief devil to recall Adam to live with her, but the reproaches of Seth brought about the separation of the pair, and Seth and Adam wandered to the East and after their death entered paradise, as did the daughters of Abel's wife, while Eve, Cain, and the " daughter of greed " wander in the hells.
The purpose which underlies the process of world development, viz., the release of the imprisoned elements of light, is carried out through
q. The End the followers of the teaching of Mani. of the During the moon's first half, the ship
	World.	of the moon fills itself with the as
		cending particles of light, including
the souls of the upright, in the last half these are
transferred to the sun. When all the light is thus
freed, the end of the world of sense comes, the sig
nal being given by " the Third Ancient One," who
is also the "friend of lights" (see above). The
spirit of life, the original man, the gods of light, and
the saints gather, the angels which sustain heaven
and earth remove their support, all material things
fall together and a universal fire enwraps them and
burns for 1,468 years, the imprisoned light is set
free and complete separation is made between light
and darkness. The government of the kingdom of
light is once more completely established, while the
world souls return to their grave in the deep, where
the darkness lies immovable.
The Manichean community falls into two parts, adepts, and hearers. Entrance is conditioned upon the result of a trial of the candidate's ability to govern his sensual tendencies. Failing in this, he remains outside; but if he still would show his sympathy with the faithful, he may
& Two become a hearer. The true Mani‑
	Classes of	chean must first of all suppress lust of
Manicheans. every kind. To him is forbidden the
		heaping up of riches, eating of flesh,
drinking of wine, witchcraft, hypocrisy, and use of
such handicrafts as exhibit the injurious effects of
fire and water. All forbidden things were classed
together in the conception of " the three seals."
The seal of the mouth prohibited impure words and
impure foods; that of the hands referred to all
affairs which injured the world of light; that of the
breast referred to the purification of thought and
motive. To adepts marriage was forbidden, to
hearers it was permitted conditionally as a matter
of necessity. For the hearers Mani composed a
decalogue. This class was to deal with the mat
ters of this world as little as possible, to plant no
tree, to build no house, though they might sustain
the family relation, engage in commerce, and hold
office. The honor in which the hearers held the
adepts was noteworthy; the latter were regarded as
immaterial existences of light and were supported
by the hearers upon the best that was obtainable,

167	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Xani, Xaaicheans
the hearers kneeling as they offered their services. On account of these services to the adepts, the hearers were often called " protectors " and " warriors for religion," the latter expression having a connection with Mithraism, in which miles, " soldier," was a grade of the clergy. The number of the adepts could never have been great.
Manicheism had, as a rule, seven fast‑days in each month upon which monthly and yearly fasts were celebrated. Concerning the details the sources differ greatly. Augustine and Leo the Great report that the Manicheans of the West in the fifth century fasted, as a rule, on Sunday and Monday, the adepts on both days, the hearers
g. Fasts, only on Sunday, and with this the
Feasts, and Fihrist agrees. These fasts were in Prayer. honor of the sun and moon, or rather of the spirits whose seat was placed in those bodies. The two days after new moon constituted a monthly fast. Another fast was when the sun was in Sagittarius at the end of the third quarter of the year and the moon was full; approximately Nov. 22‑23. A fast took place also on dates corresponding nearly to Dec. 21‑22. A partial fast of a month, food being taken only after sunset, coincides with the Mohammedan Ramadan, and was possibly borrowed by Mohammed from the Manicheans. Doubtless Babylonian fasts lie at the basis of this whole series. The great special feast was that in memory of the execution of Mani, and was called Bemm and celebrated in March, when a pulpit, elaborate in its adornment, with five steps, was set up, but was not occupied. Possibly this was instituted by the founder in imitation of Christ's institution of the Lord's Supper. In general, Manicheans observed the festivals of the country in which they lived, so as to obliterate as far as possible discernible differences between themselves and the rest of the population. Worship among the Manicheans knew no sacrifice, but prayer was held of supreme importance. Four seasons of prayer daily were prescribed, at midday, in the afternoon before sunset, in the evening after sunset, and at night three hours after sunset. For prayer the Manichean prepared himself by washing with flowing water, standing erect; he then turned to the sun, if it were day, to the moon if it were *night and the moon were visible, otherwise to the north, prostrated himself, and so directed his petitions. It was not, however, to the sun and moon in themselves that the Manicheans addressed their prayers, but in these bodies they saw the chief visible representations of the world of light, while the north was the seat of the king of light. At each season of prayer twelve prostrations occurred and twelve prayers were uttered. The general tenor of these prayers was that of praise of the various powers or instruments of light which had a place in the hierarchy of the system. They bore a very close relation to the Mandwan formula, and to Babylonian hymns. The attributes ascribed to the beings worshiped were often derived, even borrowed, from those ascribed to Marduk, Shamash, and Sin in the Babylonian system.
The confession of every member contained in brief four articles which each must know, though
only the adepts appreciated their full significance. These were faith in God, in his light, in his might, and in his wisdom, which are named
:o. The " the four excellences." These have
	Church.	a Christian sound, but in fact God is
		the king of the paradise of light, his
light is the sun and the moon, his might is the five
angels, and his wisdom is the religion, that is, the
Manichean church. The five grades of the Mani
chean church are symbolized by the five steps of
the Bema; the highest grade is composed of teach
ers, " sons of mildness "; the second of servers,
" sons of knowledge "; the third of presbyters,
" sons of understanding "; the fourth of the true
(adepts), " sons of secrecy "; and the fifth of the
adherents (hearers), " sons of discernment." Thus,
the church visible consists of the last two classes;
a select number of the adepts furnish the clergy,
and the community is made up of the rest of the
adepts and the hearers or adherents. Augustine
gives practically the same arrangement, but ap
plies to the grades the Christian terms master,
bishop, presbyter, elect, and auditors or hearers.
The epithets applied to these five grades (given
above in quotation marks) all have significance in
the terminology of the system. Thus the lowest
class are called sons of discernment because they
have discerned in Mani's teaching the most perfect
religion. The three upper grades correspond closely
to the three grades of the Mandwan clergy. Au
gustine's statement that there were twelve teachers
and seventy‑two bishops is a. further indication of
Mani's borrowing from the Christian system, for
this arrangement is not to be derived from Baby
lonia. Both Augustine and the Fihriat mention a
head of the church who corresponded to the Rish
nmma of the Mandeeans or to the pope of the Ro
man Church. Holy offices, like the sacraments of
the Christian Church, arose among the Manicheans,
but were employed only among the adepts; to this
is due the lack of information concerning them.
The Church Fathers speak of a Manichean bap
tism and service of communion. In a time like the
fourth century, when the sacraments of the Chris
tian Church were part of a secret discipline, it is
not strange that on the one side the Manicheans
kept their rites secret, nor, on the other, that the
foes of the Manicheans charged them with trav
esties of Christian rites. The baptism of the
Manicheans should doubtless be brought into con
nection with the employment of water in nature
religions, and the Eucharist may also be so re
ferred, as in the case of the Manda;ans (q.v., 1 7).
In the Eleusinian mysteries, in Parseeism, and in
Mithraism there was a kind of Eucharist. The
Manicheans of the Middle Ages had instead of bap
tism a laying‑on of hands by which hearers were ad
vanced to the grade of adept. The churches were
like those of the Manda:ans, small and unadorned.
Bloody sacrifice had no part in the system.
When one of the adepts dies and his soul leaves his body, the original man sends a light‑god in the form of a wise guide, i.e., Jesus, and with him three other light‑deities and a light‑maiden, who carry five articles which symbolize relationship to the kingdom of light‑a water vessel, a cloak, a head‑

Xani, Nanicheans	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	188
band, a crown, and a wreath of light. The number five corresponds to the five elements of the light‑deity, and derivation from Baby‑
ii. The Ionian‑Aramaic sources is clear. Re‑
Future semblances to Mandaean characteristics
	Life.	also are noticeable in some of these
		particulars. Outside of these sources,
a close dependence upon Zoroastrianism is dis
coverable, as, for instance, in the light‑maiden as
compared with the fravashi of Zoroaster. At the
death of the adept, however, the devil of greed and
the devil of lust are alert to assail the soul, which
cries to the light‑deities for help; they approach
and the devils retreat. The symbolic articles are
received by the soul, which then ascends to the
moon, thence to the sun, thence to " the mother of
the living," and finally to the " highest light " in
the paradise of light, where the soul attains to its
original condition before the commingling of the
two sets of elements. At the death of the hearer
the same vain attempt is made by the devils as in
the case of the adept, but the help of the divine is
found. The soul wanders a long time, however, in
a state like that of a man who has a bad dream,
seeing horrible shapes and expecting to sink into
slime and filth. Finally its constituents of light
are liberated and it enters the company of the adepts.
Over the souls of those who do not belong to this
faith, the devils have full power to seize and tor
ment, especially by the production of shapes of
fearful form. Their cries to the light‑deities are
met only by reproaches and reminders of their evil
deeds. Their torture continues till the end of this
world, and then they are cast into the hells. The
transmigration of souls does not appear to have
been taught by Mani, though it may have been
hinted.
The character under which Mani promulgated his system appears in a formula of prayer and also in a citation from his " gospel ": " Blessed be our leader, the paraclete, the ambassador of light." Indeed, his employment of New‑Testament terminology in matters other than this naming of himself " the paraclete " comes out in a number of
particulars. Chapters in his chief a. Mani's work, " The Book of Secrets," deal
Attitude with " the son of the poor widow . . .
toward	whom the Jews crucified," with " Je‑
Ihe Bible. sus' testimony to himself in his rela‑
lations with the Jews," and with " the testimony of Adam concerning Jesus." Mani regarded Jesus as a devil, as did the Mand&anB, though humanly speaking he was the " son of a poor widow "; contemporary with Jesus, however, was the real savior, but he was present in a body which had only the appearanee of reality (the Docetic doctrine). This real savior came from the world of light to bring a larger knowledge of divine things, as he long before had come to Adam. To this real savior Mani, in spite of his rejection of the historical Christian savior, gave the name Jesus, and to discriminate between the two Mani usually spoke of the Christian savior as the Messiah, just as did the MandEeans. The real savior of Mani had no objective existence, his whole human course, including his sufferings, being only apparent. The
Fathers of the Greek and Roman Churches refer to a redeeming Christ in the system of Mani whose seat is in the sun and the moon; this is the " original man," and he cooperates as savior with the heavenly Jesus. This doctrine of a double savior is one of the characteristic teachings of Manicheism, and the connection with Gnosticism comes out in the diffusion of knowledge as one of the functions of the redeemer. It follows from Mani's doctrine regarding the union of heavenly and infernal elements in the work of Christ that he made a sharp distinction between genuine and spurious writings in the Bible, particularly of the New Testament. The Gospels were not by the disciples of Christ, but were written, or at least interpolated, from the Jewish standpoint. Therefore Mani wrote a new " gospel " (the title of one of his books). The Acts of the Apostles is spurious and the Pauline epistles are not uninterpolated, though Paul was the most enlightened of the apostles. The teaching of Christ, originally in parables and obscure form, has been misunderstood and perverted; yet the light peeps out often even in the corrupt Gospels, as where Jesus deals with his descent from heaven and his superhuman might. The seeming crucifixion is itself a parable of the suffering of the light commingled with darkness in nature and in the human soul. The Old Testament is treated even more severely, since it originates with the Jews. The God of the Old Testament is the prince of darkness and the prophets were lying servants of the devil. Moses is expressly called an apostle of darkness, and his law proceeded from the Archon. Mani proclaimed himself the last of the prophets, his predecessors being Adam, Seth, Noah, Abraham, Buddha, Zoroaster, the messiah as " the word of God," and Paul.
Mani was the author of a series of greater writings, seven in number, and of many smaller tracts which dealt with individual points. His followers continued to imitate him in putting forth tracts (often as letters), and the Fihrist speaks of seventy‑
six titles of this character. Unfori3. Mani‑ tunately Manichean literature has al‑
	chean	most entirely perished, owing to the
Literature. persecutions of the religion. Accounts
of Mani's literary activity come from various sources, Syriac, Arabic, and Greco‑Roman. Al‑Nadim reports in the F%hrist that Mani wrote one. book in Persian and six in " Syriac," i.e., Babylonian Aramaic. Mani seems to have used a sort of cipher, but the Sassanian‑Persian became the customary script of Manichean writings. The books alleged to be written in Syriac are:. (1) The
" Book of Secrets" mentioned b~ EPjPwiiw Ana
T!tus of ]Rostra (q.v.) as Mysteries, and among
Christians it was described as the book which seeks to destroy the law and the prophets. It probably contained Mani's dogmatics and polemics. The
titles of the chapters as given in the accounts which have been transmitted appear mere riddles, though some of them probably relate to recognized fundamentals in the system. (2) The " Book of Giants " dealt with cosmogony and demonology, and Gen.

vi. 1‑4 probably exerted an influence upon this conception. The Babylonian myth of the contest

159	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Xani, Maniolisans
between gods and demons was not without effect. (3) The " Book of Chapters " is concerned with directions for the " elect," a sort of catechism, and was probably the book with which Augustine dealt in his celebrated Contra epistolam Manichoi quam vocand Fundamenti (Eng. transl. in NPNF, 1 ser., iv. 129‑150). The Manichean Felix asserted that it contained " the beginning, middle and end," i.e., the entire teaching concerning the history of the gods to the end of men. It was written in epistolary form in imitation of Paul's method, and was designed by the author to be the fundamental book of instruction. It began with a description of the original relations of light and darkness before the commingling, and proceeded with a fantastic development of the pleroma of light, etc. (4) The title of the fourth work was probably Shapurakan (" for Shapur "). According to Biruni, Mani wrote this book for Shapur I., son of Ardashir, in order to win him to the faith. The Fihrist sums it up in three chapters dealing with the death of the adherent, of the apostate, and of the sinner. This book was probably not known in the western world. (5) The " Book of Making Alive " was probably that known to Epiphanius, Photius, and Augustine as Thesaurus. It was of considerable size, since Augustine cites a seventh book. (6) The Pragmdteia was possibly the original title of another work which is otherwise unknown. The seventh of Mani's main works, written in Persian, was his Engeliun (Evangelion, " Gospel "). Biruni says of it that it was of a character entirely different from the Christian Gospels, that the Manicheans regarded it as the only correct one and called it the " Gospel of the Seventy," and that it was arranged in the order of the twenty‑two letters of the old Aramaic alphabet. It was written during the author's exile in Turkestan, and the initial capitals were, in Persian fashion, worked in ornamental designs, from which among the Persians Mani was known as " the painter," a charaoterizatibn not known to the Arabs or in the West. Possibly the reference in this title has something to do with the pictorial character of Mani's representations of heaven and hell. Biruni ascribes to Mani also a " Book of Books." The first, third, fifth, and last of the works named above were ascribed to Scythianus (§ 2 above); part of Mani's work may have originated with his father and been enlarged by himself. Not to be overlooked in this survey is the Canticum amatorium, a liturgical hymn to the eternal father of light often mentioned by Augustine. Of the lesser Manichean writings those issued by Mani and those by later writers can not be distinguished. Some are directed to cities or regions; thus three are to India, six to Kashgar (Chitral), seven to Armenia, ten to Ctesiphon, etc. Others are directed to persons who are otherwise unknown. The subjects dealt with are very varied and range from the theories of the system to the conduct of life. Greco‑Roman sources recognize a like number of lesser writings, but the titles given do not afford data for identification with those mentioned in the Fihriat. A collection of these minor documents was made later and was known as " the Book . of Epistles." The Acts
Archelai and Epiphanius have preserved genuine fragments of one writing, other fragments are collected in Fabrieius‑Haries, Bibliotheca Grmca, vii. 311 sqq. In these fragments dependence can not be placed upon the forms of the names of the persons addressed.
In spite of the severe persecution which Bahrain 1. instituted against the Manioheans, the system spread rapidly in all directions. The Manicheans fled into Turkestan, and thence they were scattered in other directions under further persecutions. After reaching the West, they adopted many ideas from the Christians, as has been suggested in the. preceding account. With growing i¢. History numbers differences regarding special of the points arose, and so came sects. In so‑
	Religion.	oordance with the founder's direction,
		the entire church was under a chief
called Imam, who was obligated to reside in Baby
lonia. The first successor of Mani was named Sis
or Sisinius, to whom some of the lesser writings are
attributed. One cause of division among Mani
cheans was a dispute respecting the residence of
the Imam; a party known as the Dinawarier, " re
ligious," split off and settled along the Oxus, but
later became reconciled with those who remained
in Babylonia. A later division, in the early part
of the eighth century, produced the Miklasites,
named from Miklas, successor of a Persian ascetic
named Zadhurmuz, and their leading principle was
laxity in observing the rules of separation from
non‑Manicheans. The number of Manicheans be
came very great in the northern part of the Per
sian highlands, the refuge of all sects. New perse
cutions arose in the eighth century under Shapur II.
and Chosroes I. The religion bad already spread
eastward, and though probably the founder did
not reach India, in the first persecution after his
death his followers reached Malabar, which became
a new center for the diffusion of the faith. By
about 930 A.D. a strong Turkish tribe on the border
of China had embraced the religion, inscriptional
traces of which fact are known (Marquart, in Wiener
Zeit8ehrift fur %unde des Morgenlandes, xii., 1898,
157 200). By about 980 the number of Manicheans
in Bagdad was small, though in the villages they
were more numerous. In spreading westward the
religion first reached Syria and Palestine, where
Titus of Bostra opposed it; then it spread into
Egypt and through Roman North Africa, where its
success was great. Proconsular Africa was one of
the chief Manichean regions, and an edict of Dio
cletian is known directing the prosecution of the
" sect derived from the hostile Persian kingdom."
They were again assailed in edicts after the year
377; but in Augustine's time their church was in
flourishing condition in North Africa, having a
good organization, numerous communities, and
zealous leaders. Indeed, this branch is of especial
interest because of Augustine's nine years' conneo
tion with it as an adherent and his later polemics
against it. On account of these facts, fuller in
formation bas come down than would otherwise
have been. the case, especially in regard to the
teachers who then were prominent. Among these
were Felix and Faustus of Mileve, who settled in

Mani, Manichean®	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	160
Manning
Carthage in 383. By Faustus' reputation Augustine was much attracted, but he was soon undeceived, since on close association he found Faustus shallow and uninspiring. Faustus wrote a polemic against the Catholic Church, which Augustine answered in his Lfbri xxxhi. adversus Faustum (Eng. transl. in NPNF, 2 ser., iv. 155‑345). Felix was more intimately connected with Augustine, and a disputation between them in the church at Hippo lasted two days, the principal matter of which is reported in Augustine's De actis cum Felice Manichwo, while the result was the defeat of Felix and his renunciation of Manicheism. Under the Vandals the Manicheans of North Africa suffered severe persecution. In Italy, especially at Rome, the religion gained a firm foothold and large numbers of adherents; Leo the Great sought the assistance of the civil authorities against them, and governmental measures were taken to suppress them under Valentinian III. and Justinian. The religion spread as far as Spain, where it was connected with Priscillianism (see PRISCILLIAN, PRISCILLIANISTS). The Manicheans of later times were the Cathari of South France in the eleventh and twelfth centuries (see NEW MANICHEANS,. II.), while in the East their doctrines were continued in the teachings of the Paulicians (q.v.).
The great success of this system of belief is to be found in two particulars: first, its completeness of development as a Gnostic creation, using so fully, richly, and immediately the original sources of all Gnostic forms of faith, viz., the AssyrianBabylonian religion with its wealth of mythical material; second, the genius of its
iS. Com‑ founder, who systematized this mate‑
ponent rial and developed it into a coherent Sources of and artistic unity. All the questions
the System. which were raised by the inquiring thought of his times, questions which concerned the being, destiny, and duties of God and man, questions which related to past, present, and future, were answered in a manner wholly selfconsistent. Where earlier Gnostic systems were weak, Mani's was strong. The problem of necessity and free will he solved by the hypothesis of the original duality of being and the subsequent commingling of the two elements. While the founder was a philosopher, he clothed his ideas in full mythological dress. This dress, however, was not of his own creation, built out of his fancy, in this respect differing from earlier Gnostic doctrines. It was borrowed from the sources already sufficiently indicated, from the surroundings in which Mani' s youth and manhood were passed. The " king of light " ig clearly Ea (see BABYLONIA, VIL, 2, § 3), originally the ocean of heaven, the deity of profoundest knowledge, enthroned in the deep of the world‑sea. In the Manichean system water becomes light, while the Mandaeans retained water as the sacred element. Marduk, son of Ea, reappears in Mani's teaching as the " original man," and his wanderings are the antetype of the adventures of the type as developed in Manichean‑Elkesaite and Mandaean doctrines. The model for the " spirit of life " was Ramman (see AssYRIA, VIL, § 4; BABYLONIA, VIL, 2, § 6), with recollections of
Shamash and Sin, while the original devil is the
Babylonian Tiamat (see CREATION, BABYLONIAN
AccouNTs). The mechanism of redemption fol
lows the Babylonian pattern, and the bema recalls
in form the ziggurat. These particulars do no
more than sug',oest the wholesale appropriation of
the material ready at band in Babylonian religion.
On the other hand, it is noticeable that Mani made
the stars evil spirits and forbade the witchcraft and
magic which had so large a part in the old faith.
The period of transition from the older faith and
the break from its control were under the influence
of the Mu'tasilah, to which some of the practical
details of the religion may be due. To Zoroastrian
ism something must be accredited, though far less
than was formerly thought necessary. Both re
ligions deal fundamentally with light, and many
forms in the two systems are identical, while the
influence of the Zoroastrian prayer and eschatology
is easily discernible. The great chasm between the
two faiths is found in the conception of darkness.
In Zoroastrianism Ahriman is a creation of Ormazd
become perverted; in Manicheism, darkness is as
essentially eternal as the light and originally evil
in nature. Similarly, the Parsee conception of
man is that the body is a pure creation of Ormazd,
who also gave the soul, while Mani makes it a atruo
ture of darkness and the prison of the soul. The
view of Baur that Manichean morals were drawn
from Buddhism can not be substantiated, the one
close connection here being the similarity between
the idea of the adept and the Buddhist striver after
Nirvana. 	(K. KESSLER f .)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Owing to the various persecutions of the Manicheans their writings as a whole are lost. Portions of them are almost certainly embodied in the Ginza of the Mandwans (q.v.). Other fragments are found in the Syriac of Theodore bar Choni, and in the Arabic in the Fihriat (see below). The source of first importance is the Fihrist aVulum (finished 988 A.D.) of Muhammad ibn Ishak, generally known as Al‑Nadim, the part concerning Mani being edited with transl. and commentary by G. Fldgel, Leipsic, 1882. Next to the Fihriat as a source is (Abu Fath Muhammad al‑) Shahrastani (d. 1153), Kitab almiM mannukal, ed. W. Cureton, i. 188‑192, London, 1842, in Germ. transl. by T. Haarbriicker, 2 vols., Halle, 1850‑51. Interesting details from Mani's writings, in Arabic transl., are furnished by (Muhammad ilm Ahmed al‑) Biruni in his " Chronology of the Oriental Peoples," written about 1000 A.D., ed. E. Sachau, pp. 207‑209, Leipsic, 1878, Eng. tranal., London, 1879 (cf. K. Kessler, Mani, i. 304‑‑323, Berlin, 1889), and in his " India," ed. E. Sachau, London 1887, Eng. tranal., ib. 1888. A discussion of Mani's life and teaching is contained in the Nestorian "Chronicle" of 'Amr ibn Matta, ed. H. Gismondi, Rome, 1896‑97, though the basis is the Acta Archelai and Epiphanius. Further minor Arabic sources are indicated in Hauck‑Herzog, RE, xii. 194. From the Syriac the matter derivable from Ephraem Syrus is collected in Kessler's Mani, ut sup., pp. 262‑302. Items of information may be gathered from the Syriac martyrologies in the collections of Assemani, 2 vols., Rome, 1748, and Bedjan, Paris, 1890 aqq. Theodore bar Choni's Eskolion (in H. Pognon, Inscriptions mandaitea des coupes de Khouabir, 2 vols., Paris, 1898‑99) is of great value, since the author cites long passages from the Manichean originals. The Middle‑Persian Pahlavi texts sometimes contain material. Such are: the Shikand‑pumanik yipar, in Eng. transl. in SBE, vol. xxiv., consult pp. 243‑251; the Dinkard, ed. with Eng. tranal. by Peshotun D. B. Sungana, 6 vols., Bombay. The New‑Persian Firdausi has some material in the Shahnameh, for which cf. Kew ler, ut sup., pp. 373‑376. The report of the Armenian Eanigh is accessible in ZHT, ii (1840).
Of Western sources the first is the Ada dispubtionis

161	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	N<ani, Xanicheans
		Xanning
Archelai, most accessible in M. J. Routh, Rdiquia sacrie,
v.	1‑206, Oxford, 1848, in Eng. transl. in ANF, vi. 179
235, cf. H. von Zittwitz, in ZHT, 1873, pp. 467‑528.
Next to this come the Anti‑Manichean writings of Augus
tine, the most important of which are in vols. i., viii. of
the Benedictine ed. of his works. Some of these are
translated in NPNF, 2 ser., iv. 37‑365, with Introductory
Essay on the Manichcran Heresy by A. H. Newman, ib.,
pp. 3‑29. Epiphanius dealt with Manicheism in Hwr.,
lxvi. Consult also Alexandri Lycopolitani contra Mani
chari opiniones disputatio, published Leipsic, 1895, Eng.
trans]. in ANF, vi. 241‑252. Other Greek sources are
given in Hauck‑Herzog, RE, xu. 196‑197, as is the West
ern literature between 1700 and 1800.
	Of later works on the subject the first place is due to
Kessler's Mani, ut sup., of which only vol. i. is pub
lished, though vol. ii. is promised, and to his Unterauch
ungen zur Genesis des manichdischen Religionwyateme,
Berlin, 1876. Perhaps of next importance is G. Flugel,
Mani, seine Lehre and seine Schriften, Leipsic, 1862. Con
sult further, A. von Wegnern, Maniclueorum indulgentice,
Leipsie, 1827; F. C. Baur, Das manichdische Religions
system, Tiibingen, 1831; F. C. Trechsel, Ueber Kanon,
Kritik and Exegese der Manichder, Bern, 1832; F. Spiegel,
Eranische Alterthumakunde, ii. 185‑232, Leipsie, 1873;
A.	Geyler, Das System des Manichdismus and sewn Verhd1t
niss zum Buddhismus, Jena, 1875; E. Rochat, Essai our
Mani et so doctrine, Geneva, 1897; A. Dufourcq, De Mani
cheeismo, Paris, 1900; A. Briickner, Faustus von Mileve.
Ein Beitrag zur Gesehichte des abendldndischen Mani
chdismus, Base], 1901; F. W. K. Miiller, Handschriften‑Reste
in Estrangelo‑Schrift aus Turfan, Chinesisch‑Turkestan,
Berlin, 1904; C. Salemann, Ein Bruchstuck manichliischen
Schrtfetums, St. Petersburg, 1904; idem, Manichdische
Studien, Leipsic, 1908; E. Bischoff, Im Reiche der Gnosis,
ib., 1906; F. Gltmont, Recherches sur le Manichqsme. 1.
La Cosmogonie d' aprbs Theodore bar Kh6ni, Brussels, 1908;
Harnack, Dogma, passim, consult Index; Neander, Chris
tian Church, i. 479‑506 et passim.
	MANIPLE. See VESTMENTS AND INSIGNIA, ECCLE
SIASTICAL.
	MANN, CAMERON: Protestant Episcopal mis
sionary bishop of North Dakota; b. in New York
City Apr. 3, 1851. He was educated at Hobart
College (A.B., 1870) and the General Theological
Seminary, from which he was graduated in 1873,
and was ordered deacon in the latter year and ad
vanced to the priesthood in 1876. After being a
missionary at Branchport and Dresden, N. Y., in
1873‑74 and curate of St. Peter's, Albany, N. Y.,
in 1875, he was rector successively of St. James',
Watkins, N. Y., from 1876 to 1881 and of Grace,
Kansas City, Mo., from 1881 to 1901. In 1902 he
was consecrated missionary bishop of North Da
kota. In theology he is a liberal High‑church
man, and has written Future Punishment (New
York, 1888) and Comments at the Cross (1893).
	MANN, WILHELM JULIUS: Lutheran tbeo
logian; b. in Stuttgart, Germany, May 29, 1819;
d. in Boston, Mass., June 20, 1892. He received
his preparatory education in the Latin school at
Blaubeuren and the excellent gymnasium of his
native town. In his early school‑days he became
the intimate friend of Philip Schaff, " the presiding
genius of international theology " as he afterward
used to call his learned friend. In 1837 he took up
the study of theology at the University of Tii
bingen, where Professor Christian Friedrich Schmidt
exerted the greatest influence on him. In 1845 he
came to America through the invitation of Philip
Schaff. He first taught in Mereersburg, Pa., and
for some time was assistant pastor of Salem's Re
formed Church in Philadelphia. In 1848 he be‑
came coeditor, with Dr. Schaff, of Der deutsche Kirchenfreund, becoming editor‑in‑chief in 1854. In 1850 he accepted a call to the Evangelical‑Lutheran Zion's congregation in Philadelphia, founded by Henry Melchior Muehlenberg (q.v.) and entered the Lutheran Ministerium of Pennsylvania, where he found his proper spiritual home and field for his pastoral and theological activity in this country. Twice he held the office of president of the Ministerium and wrote, in connection with his friend, Dr. G. F. Krotel, an exposition of Luther's Catechism, which was published by the synod and is still in use. In the confessional controversy which agitated the Lutheran Church about the middle of the nineteenth century, he took strong ground against " American Lutheranism " and its champion, Dr. Samuel Simon Schmucker (q.v.). Against the latter's Definite Platform (1855) Dr. Mann wrote his Plea for the Augsburg Confession (Philadelphia, 1856) and in the following year his Lutheranism in America: an Essay on the present Condition of the Lutheran Church in the United States. When the Ministerium of Pennsylvania founded its own theological seminary in Philadelphia (1864) Dr. Mann was elected a member of the first faculty, together with Drs. Charles Porterfield Krauth and Charles William Schaeffer. For twenty‑seven years he held his position as professor of Hebrew, New‑Testament exegesis, German homiletics, Symbolics, and ethics. He prepared a little text‑book for his students in ethics: General Principles of Christian Ethics: the first Part of the System of Christian Ethics by C. F. Schmidt (1872). During the last part of his life his literary activity was chiefly confined to the sphere of American, particularly Pennsylvanian, church history. His principal works in this field are: Life and Times of Henry Melchior Miihlenberg (Philadelphia, 1887), written for the centennial of Miihlenberg's death; and the new edition of the Halle Reports prepared by Dr. Mann in connection with Drs. Beale Melanchthon Schmucker and W. Germann, in Germany. Only the first volume of this important and valuable publication was completed by him. Another valuable book is his life of William Penn, in German (Reading, Pa., 1882). ADOLPH SPAETH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Emma T. Mann, Memoir of the Life and Work of W. J. Mann, Philadelphia, 1893 (by his daughter); A. Spaeth, in Lutheran Church Review, Jan., 1893, also published in pamphlet form, Dr. W. J. Mann, ein deutsJA‑amerikanischer Theologe, Erinnerungablaetter, Reading, 1895; H. E. Jacobs, in American Church History Series, vol. iv., passim, New York, 1893.
	MANNING, HENRY EDWARD: English c:udi
nal; b. at Totteridge (12 m. s.w. of Hertford) July
15, 1807; d. in London Jan. 14, 1892. He received
his preparatory education at Harrow, and went in
1827 to Balliol College, Oxford. His chief distinc
tion in the university was as a debater, rather than
as a scholar. At this period of his life his inter
		ests were primarily political, but the
	Early Life financial losses sustained by his father
and Educa‑ rendered a parliamentary career im
	tion. possible for him, and after graduating
		with first‑class honors in 1830 he ob
tained a subordinate position in the colonial office.
Coming under Evangelical influence he resigned
in 1832 and returned to Oxford. There he was

Xanning	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	162
Iffansel
elected a fellow of Merton College and was ordained
priest on Dec. 23. He was soon appointed curate
to John Sargent, the Evangelical rector of Laving
ton, Sussex, and in the following year he was insti
tuted to the rectory as Sargent's successor. In
this same year (1833) he married a daughter of his
late rector, but his wife died four years later. This
blow Manning felt keenly, and his sorrow, added to
tendencies long at work within him, doubtless pre
	disposed him still more to the principles of the Ox
ford Movement (see TRACTARIANIBM). At the time
of his ordination he believed in the doctrine of bap
tismal regeneration, and before long modified his
view of the Eucharist and accepted the tenets of
	apostolic succession and the value of tradition. He
			was likewise active in the promotion
	Activity in of a system of education which should
		the	be under religious control, and aided
Anglican in the establishment of diocesan boards
	Church.	in cooperation with the National So
			ciety for Promoting the Education of
	the Poor. In Dec., 1840, he was appointed arch
deacon of Chichester, and two years later select
	preacher at Oxford. At this period of his life he
	published his Unity of the Church (London, 1842),
in which he ably defended the doctrines of Anglo
	Catholicism. In 1838 he had visited Rome and
	had seen Wiseman, but he was still totally out of
	sympathy with Roman Catholicism.
The conversion of W. G. Ward and Newman to
	Roman Catholicism left Manning at the head of the
	High church party in the Anglican Church. In
	1847, however, he was compelled by illness to take
a continental tour, which lasted until July, 1848,
	and took him through Belgium and Germany to
	Italy. Most of this time, however, was spent in
	Rome, and in April and May, 1848, he was received
	in audience by Pius IX. His doubts concerning
the catholicity of the Anglican Church were mean
	time increasing, although there is no evidence that
	he seriously contemplated withdrawing from her
	communion. Events shortly after his return to
	England, however, turned the tide of his convic
tions. The consecration of the unorthodox Hamp
	den to the see of Hereford and the decision in the
	famous Gorham case seemed to him evidence that
			the Church of England was not a part
	Steps Lead‑ of the Church catholic, and though he
	ing to his presided at a meeting of the Chichester
	Conversion clergy to protest against the so‑called
to Roman " Papal Aggression " in the creation
	Catholicism. of Roman. Catholic dioceses in Eng
			land in 1850, he resigned his archdea
	conry and went to London. There he placed him
self under the instruction of the Jesuits, and on
	Passion Sunday, Apr. 6, 1851, was received into
	the Roman Catholic Church. On the following
	Sunday he received minor orders, and was ordained
	priest on June 14. In the following year Manning
went to Rome, where he spent the next three years
in study at the Accademia dei Nobili Ecclesiastici.
	Receiving his doctorate from the pope in 1854, he
	began regular work in England, and three years
later was made provost of the chapter of West
minster and superior of the Congregation of the
Oblates of St. Charles. For eight years he labored
with unceasing activity, preaching, writing, and working among the poor. A strong ultramontanist, he was appointed by the pope in 1860 domestic prelate and pronotary apostolic with the title of Monsignor. He consistently objected, therefore, to the welcome accorded Garibaldi on his visit to England in 1864, even though his general ultramontane course aroused the suspicion of a large body of English Roman Catholics.
In 1864 Cardinal Wiseman died, and the pope, ignoring the names submitted to him by the chapter, nominated Manning his successor as archbishop of Westminster, London. He was consecrated at the pro‑cathedral of St. Mary's, Moorfields, June 8, received the pallium at Rome on Michaelmas Day, and was enthroned at St. Mary's Nov. 6. A rigid disciplinarian, he spared neither himself nor others, and worked consistently in an ultramontane spirit to advance Roman Catholicism in Eng‑
	Labors for land, He accordingly opposed New
		his New man's plan of founding a Roman
		Faith. Catholic hall at Oxford, and, believing
		that the Roman Catholic Church should
provide education for its own members, he made an
unsuccessful attempt to establish a Roman Catholic
university at Kensington, which remained open only
from 1874 to 1878. On the other hand, he was
more than successful in the promotion of parochial
schools, and was unswerving in his opposition to all
that was at variance with the teaching of his Church.
He gained additional prominence in 1870 by his
advocacy of the doctrine of papal infallibility, and
in 1875 replied to Gladstone in his Vatican Decrees
in their Bearing on Civil Allegiance. On Mar. 15 of
the same year he was created a cardinal, although
he did not receive the hat until Dec. 31, 1877, when
he was in Rome. After the death of Pius IX. (Feb.
7, 1878), Manning attended the conclave and,
although some of the Italian cardinals were pro
pared to vote for him as pope, he cast his ballot
for Cardinal Pecei (Leo XIII.). With the new
pope, however, he was less in sympathy, and for
the remainder of his life his chief interests were
social questions, especially total abstinence, for the
advancement of which he founded a " League of
the Cross," which in 1874 numbered some 30,000
		members in London alone. He was
		Philan‑ likewise extremely active in the cause
		thropic of labor, and his urgent advocacy of
	Interests. the claims of the working classes drew
		upon him the charge of socialism, al
though he rightly denied the truth of the assertion.
In 1889 he assisted in settling the strike of the long
shoremen, while he was also active in movements
for the suppression of the East African slave‑trade
and Hindu child‑marriage, in addition to advoca
ting the raising of the minimum age for child labor.
		Cardinal Manning was a prolific writer, and his
works betoken a man of sincere conviction, earnest
faith, and noble character. He was preeminently
an ecclesiastic and a diplomat, even though in mat
ters of mere intellect he was inferior to certain
others of his period. His chief works, written for
the most part under the press of manifold ecclesi
astical and public duties, are as follows: The Unity
of the Church (London, 1842); So‑== (4 vols.,

188	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
1842‑50); Sermons Preached before the University of Oxford (Oxford, 1844); The Grounds of Faith (London, 1852); Sermons on Ecclesiastical Subjects (3 vols., Dublin, 1863‑73); The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost (London, 1865); England and Christendom (1867); Petri privilegium (1871); National Education and Parental Rights (1872); The Internal Mission of the Holy Ghost (1875); The Vatican Decrees in their Bearing on Civil Allegiance (1875); The Infallible Church and the Holy Communion of Christ's Body and Blood (1875); The True Story of the Vatican Council (1877); Miscellanies (3 vols., 1877‑88); National Education (1889) ; and the posthumous Pastimes (1893).
BIBLroGa"ax: Lives have been written by E. S. Puroell, 2 vols., London, 1895; A. Zimmermann, 1880; A. W. Hutton, London, 1892; J. R. Gasquet, ib. 1895; F. de Pressensd, Paris, 1896, Eng. trans]., London, 1897 (reviewed by G. Grabineki, Uno Studio su1 Card. Manning, Florence, 1897); H. M. Hemmer, Paris, 1898; and W. P, Ward, in Ten Personal Studies New York, 1898. Consult further: J. Lemire, Le Cardinal Manning et son action socials, Paris, 1893; Cardinal Manning: a Character Sketch or Foreshadowinpe. Being Extracts from his earlier Sermons, ed. H. E. H. King, London, 1895; S. Roamer, Cardinal Manning as Presented in his own Letters and Notes, London, 1896; J. A. Nicholson, The Adoration of Christ. A Vindication of the Catholic Doctrine and Refutation of the Heresies taught by Card. Manning in the Devotion to the Sacred Heart, ed. C. E. Roney‑Dougal, London, 1897; DNB, :vcavi. 62‑68 (the bibliography contains reference to much incidental matter). A noteworthy list of magazine literature is indicated in Richardson, Encyclopaedia, pp. 676‑677.

MANNING, JAMES: Baptist preacher and educator; b. near Elizabethtown, N. J., Oct. 22, 1738; d. at Providence, R. I., July 29, 1791. He studied at Hopewell Academy in New Jersey, and at Princeton College (B.A., 1762). After about a year of evangelistic preaching in several colonies, he was urged by members of the Philadelphia Association to join them in an effort to establish a Baptist university. At about the same time the association voted its approval of an effort to enlist the entire Baptist body in an effort to found such an institution in Rhode Island. Manning was sent to Rhode Island in 1763 to confer with leading brethren and to promote the enterprise (see BArT1sTS, II., 2, § 3). In 1764 the legislature granted a charter in accordance with which the president and a majority of the trustees must always be Baptists; but all the leading denominations of the colony shall have representation on the board and members of all Evangelical denominations shall be eligible for professorships, etc. Pending the raising of funds and the fixing of the location of the college, Manning accepted the pastorate of the church at Warren, R. I., and conducted there an academy which should prepare the way for the future college. The Calvinistic Baptists of New England had been so zealous for absolute independency that they had never united in associations. In 1767 Manning led in the formation of the Warren Association, which was to become a factor in the struggle for religious liberty and in the promotion of educational and missionary work. In 1770 he led in the negotiations for the permanent location of the college, which resulted in the choice of Providence. He accepted the pastorate of the Providence church,
then in a weak and discouraged condition, and soon brought it to great prosperity. The raising of funds and the erection of college buildings, the duties of administration, heavy teaching duties, and denominational leadership, together with the pastorate, gave him abundant occupation. He sought and secured the help of English Baptists in the equipment and endowment of the college. His college duties were suspended during the war, Rhode Island having been early captured by the British who turned the college buildings into barracks. In 1782. the college was reopened. In 1786 he was chosen by the Rhode Island General Assembly to represent the State in the national convention for the framing of the federal constitution. He used his great influence in favor of the adoption of the constitution by Rhode Island and other New England States, where there was much opposition. He was an eloquent and impressive preacher, master of an elegant and forceful literary style, while his attainments gave him a commanding position among his contemporaries. His theological views were moderately Calvinistic. A. H. NEwMAN.
BmijoaRAPHY: R. A. Guild, Life, Times and Correspondence, of . . . James Manning, and the Early Hist. of Brown University, Boston, 1864; W. B. Sprague, Annals o,/ the American Pulpit, vi. 89‑97. New York, 1860; F. Piper, Lives of the Leaders of our Church Universal, trans]. and ed. H. M. MacCracken, pp. 808‑814, Philadelphia, 1879; A. H. Newman, in American Church History Series, vol. ii., ib. 1894.
MANNI%, DANIEL: Irish Roman Catholic; b. at Charleville (33 m. n.n.w. of Cork), County Cork, Mar. 4, 1864. He was educated at the Christian Brothers' School, at St. Colman's College, Fermoy, and St. Patrick's College, Maynooth (18821890). Since 1891 he has been connected with the latter institution, where he has been professor of mental and moral philosophy (1891‑94), professor of theology (1894‑1903), and president (since 1903). In 1906 he was appointed domestic prelate to the pope, and in 1907 was made a senator of the Royal University of Ireland.

HANSEL, HENRY LONGUEVILLE: Church of England; b. at Cosgrove (33 m. s. of Northampton), Northamptonshire, Oct. 6, 1820; d. in London July 30, 1871. He was educated at the University of Oxford, where his course was exceptionally brilliant; was ordained deacon (1844) and priest (1845). After graduation he tutored privately, meanwhile prosecuting studies in ancient and modern languages and in ecclesiastical history. He was appointed reader in mental and modern philosophy in Magdalen College (1855); Bampton lecturer (1858); Waynflete professor of moral and mental philosophy (1859); " professor fellow " of St. John's (1864); professor of ecclesiastical history (1866); and dean of St. Paul's, London (1868).
Hansel was eminent both as an author and as a teacher in the department of logic, and a fruit of this side of his activities is his edition of H. Aldrieh's Artis logicte rudiments (London, 1862). His favorite themes, however, were those of metaphysics, but he passed into this realm by the path of psychology, a result of which was his Prolegomena logica, an Inquiry into the Psychological Character

Mansi Maori
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
164
of Logical Processes (1851, 2d ed., 1860). In spite of his preference for metaphysics, he commanded a lesser degree of attention there than he had in the logical field. His Metaphysics; or the Philosophy of Consciousness Phenomenal and Real (Edinburgh, 1860) is concerned with psychological problems, including causality and ethics; his Philosophy of the Conditioned (London, 1866) is a defense against Mill of the philosophy of Hamilton; but the best results of his work as a metaphysician are to be found in a prior work, the Bampton Lectures, The Limits of Religious Thought Examined (Oxford, 1858), in which he sought to apply Hamilton's philosophy of the conditioned to apologetic uses. Other works, showing the range of his activity, are: Demons of the Wind and Other Poems (London, 1838); Letters, Lectures and Reviews (posthumous; 1873); and Gnostic Heresies of the First and Second Centuries, ed. J. B. Lightfoot (1875). When he died, he was at work on a commentary on Matthew for the Bible Commentary which he left unfinished. He also edited, in collaboration with John Veiteh, Hamilton's Lectures on Metaphysics and Logic (4 vols., Edinburgh, 1859‑60), and published a volume of Lenten Sermons (1863), as well as individual sermons on occasional topics.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. W. Burgon, The Lives of Twelve Good Men, ii. 149‑237, London, 1889; DNB, xxxvi. 81‑83.

MANSI, GIOVANNI DOMENICO: Italian prelate and scholar; b. at Lucca Feb. 16, 1692; d. there Sept. 27, 1769. In 1708 he joined the " Regular Clerks of the Mother of God," founded at Lucca in 1583 by Giovanni Leonardi, devoted himself to theological teaching and writing, and became archbishop of Lucca in 1765. His literary productions are partly original, partly new and revised editions of famous older works. He issued new editions of Baronius' Annales together with the continuation of Raynaldus and the criticisms of Pagi (38 vols., Lucca, 1738‑56), of Natalis and Graveson's Historia ecclesiastics, of Reiffenstuel's and later of Laymann's Theologia moralis, of the Vetus et nova ecclesim diseiplirut of Thomassin, and a number of others. He began his original work with a treatise on reserved cases in 1724; and his Epitome doctrinte moralis et canonicce (Venice, 1770), taken from the works of Benedict XIV., has been often reprinted. But his most celebrated works were concerned with the councils of the Church. In 1746 he published a chronological investigation of the councils of Sirmium and Sardica, and not long afterward began his renowned SartctoruM coneiliorum et decretorum collectio nova (6 vols., Lucca, 1748‑52), intended as a supplement to the collection of Labbe, Cossart, and Coleti. It contains 320 papal briefs, the acts of 200 councils previously omitted, and notes on 380 councils whose acts are lost. At the request of the Venetian publisher Zatta, he undertook to reduce to unity and further supplement and annotate the labors of his predecessors; and the Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio was the result. He delivered the complete manuscript to the printer in 1765; thirty‑one folio volumes appeared up to 1798, when its publication ceased with the Council of Florence
(1439). Beginning in 1900, a facsimile of the earlier part has been coming out in Paris, which is intended to bring the work down to the end of the nineteenth century in forty‑five volumes. (G. LAUBMANNt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The biography by his associate Franceschini is in vol. xix. of Mansi's collection of councils; that by Dominic Pacchi is in J. A. Fabricius, Bibliotheca latina medic; et infimm oetatis, i., pp. xi.‑xix., Florence, 1858. Consult also: A. Zatta, Commentarius de vita et acriptis J. D. Mansi, Venice, 1772; Lichtenberger, ESR, viii. 634‑635; KL, viii. 626‑627.

MANT, RICHARD: Church of Ireland; b. at Southampton Feb. 12, 1776; d. at Ballymoney (12 m. n.n.w. of Belfast), Ireland, Nov. 2, 1848. He was educated at Winchester and at Trinity College, Oxford (B.A., 1797; M.A., 1801). Ordained deacon in 1802 and priest in 1803, he was curate of Buriton, Hampshire (1804‑08); Crawley, Hampshire (1808‑09); and Southampton (1809‑10); vicar of Great Coggeshall, Essex (1810‑13); and rector of St. Botolph, London (1815‑20); and East Horsley, Surrey (1818‑20). He was Bampton lecturer in 1811 and domestic chaplain to the archbishop of Canterbury from 1813 to 1815. In Apr., 1820, he was consecrated bishop of Killaloe and Kilfenora and in Mar., 1823, he was translated to Down and Connor, to which Dromore was added in 1842. Mant was a very voluminous writer, both in prose and verse; of his works the most important are: Sermons for Parochial and Domestic Use (3 vols., Oxford, 1813); his annotated Bible, in collaboration with George D'Oyly (3 vols., Oxford, 1814; see BIBLES, ANNOTATED, II., § 9); Sermons Preached before the University of Oxford (1816); The Book of Psalms in a Metrical Version (1824); The Gospel Miracles, in a Series of Poetical Sketches (London, 1832); The British Months, a Poem (1835); Ancient Hymns from the Roman Breviary (1837); and History of the Church of Ireland, from the Reformation (2 vols., 1840). Of Mant's numerous hymns may be mentioned: " For all thy saints, 0 God " and " Come, Holy Ghost, my soul inspirel "
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Memoirs were written by W. B. Mant, the bishop's son, London, 1857, and by E. Berens, ib. 1849. Consult further: DNB, xxxv7. 96‑98; 8. W. Duffield, English Hymns, pp. 152, 183, 221, 342, 488, New York, 1886; Julian, Hymnology, pp. 713‑714.
MANTELETTA. SEE VESTMENTS AND INSIGNIA, ECCLESIASTICAL.

MANTON, THOMAS: English nonconformist; baptized at Lydiard St. Lawrence (38 m. s.w. of Bristol), Somersetshire, Mar. 31, 1620; d. in London Oct. 18, 1677. He was graduated from the University of Oxford (B.A., 1639; B.D., 1654; D.D., 1660), and was ordained deacon in 1640. He settled at Stoke Newington, London, in 1644 or 1645, and became rector of St. Paul's, Covent Garden, in 1656. He was one of the three scribes to the Westminster Assembly, and during the commonwealth preached many times before parliament. Despite his close relations with the commonwealth, he favored the restoration and was made in 1660 one of the twelve chaplains to the king, though he never performed the duties or received the emoluments of the office. In the same year he was offered the deanery of Rochester, but

165	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	8f
		Maori
declined to subscribe. In 1662 he left St. Paul's
and held meetings at first in his own house, and, as
the attendance increased, elsewhere; these meet
ings were ignored till 1670, when Manton was
arrested and kept in prison for six months. In
1672 he became one of the first six preachers for
the merchants and citizens of London in Pinners'
Hall. Manton was exceedingly attractive in the
pulpit, pacific in spirit, and a man without enemies.
He wrote commentaries on James (London, 1651
and often; latest issue, 1844), on Jude (1658), and
on the Lord's Prayer (1684); many of his sermons
were printed separately, while collections, with
memoirs, etc., were made by W. Bates (5 vole.,
1678‑1701) and by R. Baxter (1 vol., 1679; re
printed, Achill, 1842), and individual sermons figure
in sermon anthologies.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. Harris, Some Memoirs of the Life and
	Character of T. Manton, London, 1725; R. Baxter Ch7ia
	tian Biography, pp. 199‑226, ib. 1768; Walter Wilson,
	Hiat. of Dissenting Churches, iii. 545‑566, ib. 1810; W. A.
	Shaw, Hiat. of the English Church , . . 1840‑1880, vol. ii.
	passim, ib. 1900; DNB, xxxvi. 101‑104.
	MANUEL, NIBLAUS: One of the notable
personalities at the closing period of the Reforma
tion; b. at Bern 1484; d. there Apr. 30, 1530.
Until 1522 he devoted himself almost exclusively
to art. At the same time he figured as a satirical
poet and as such helped very successfully the cause
of the Reformation, especially in Bern. In 1512 he
was elected into the great council of Bern, and in
1523 was appointed prefect in Erlach. After the
disputation of Baden in 1526 the Reformation in
Bern made rapid progress. Haller abolished the mass
and, after six gilds of the town had joined his cause,
received Guillaume Farel and Franz Kolb (qq.v.) as
assistant preachers. In 1528 at the Disputation of
Bern (see BERN, DISPUTATION OF) Manuel took an
active part. Shortly afterward he entered the small
council of Bern. After that he was almost entirely
alienated from art, and the poet gave way to the
statesman. Manuel now became an enthusiastic
itinerant. Between 1528 and 1530 he advocated in
more than thirty assemblies and conferences the
cause of the Reformation and of Bern, and gathered
new friends for the new teaching. His consider
ateness and kindness made him appreciated every
where. In May, 1528, he became member of the
board which occupied itself with the organization
of the new church, superintended the moral condi
tion of the congregation, and settled matrimonial
disputes. In the autumn of the same year Manuel
advanced to the position of Venner of Gerbern, act
ing as judge and taking part in the government of
the state. While he has a place in the history of
German painting, popular poetry, drama and satire,
and was influential in the political development of
his native city of Bern, most significant was his atti
tude toward the religious change of his time. As
among the powerful men in Germany Hutten was
the most ingenuous ally of Luther, so Manuel was the
most popular ally of Zwingh in German Switzerland.
Fight against Rome was the watchword of the day,
and Manuel served this fight by the satire of his
brush, pen, and spoken word, and he became the
spiritual father and champion of the Reformation in
Bern. He acquired his greatest fame and exercised
his chief influence as a poet in the service of the Ref
ormation. Satire and polemics form the core and
essence of his poetical productions. His two mo
ralities‑Vom Papst and seiner Priesterherrschaft and
Von Papsts and Christi Gegensatz performed at
Bern in 1522, completely destroyed there the au
thority of the bishop of Lausanne and induced the
council of Bern to allow the free preaching of the
Gospel. Thus Berchthold Haller (q.v.) had free
scope for the development of his reformatory work.
No less effect had his satires‑Ablasskrdmer (1526)
which belongs to the best satirical productions of
the Reformation; Ecks and Fabers Badenfahrt
(1527), a satire on the disputation of Baden and
especially directed against Dr. Eck; Krankheit
(1528); Klagred der arnten Gotzen (1528); Elsli
Tragdenknaben and Uly Rechenzan (1530), a merry
carnival play. 	(F. LISTt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Biographies are by S. Scheurer, in Berneriachen Mausoleum, 1742; K. von Griineisen, Stuttgart, 1837 (against this Rettig wrote his Ueber tin Wandgemrilde von Niklaua Manuel, Bern, 1862); J. Baehtold, Frauenfeld, 1878 (a masterpiece); B. Handcke, ib. 1889. Further literature of minor interest is given in Hauck‑Herzog, RE, xii, 241.

	MAON, MAONITES: A place and people men
tioned in the Old Testament. The place‑name oc
curs in Josh. xv. 55 (see JUDEA), and there is men
tion in Judges x. 12 of a people called Maonites.
Modern critics, following the lead suggested by the
best Septuagint readings, correct this to Midianites
(cf. the commentaries on Judges of Moore, Budde
and Nowack). Traces of a place or territory of the
name "Maon" are found in the Meunim (Mehunim)
of I Chron. iv. 41 (Hebr. and R. V.); II Chron. xx. 1
(R. V. margin), xxvi. 7. In these passages the
Meunim appear in company with nomads, for the
most part, and are located in mount Seir. The
data used by the chronicler, therefore, implied the
existence of a stock of Meunim who about 860‑700
B.c. came from the south and assailed Judah. This
agrees with the fact of a modern site named Ma'an,
fifteen and a half miles southeast of Petra. In case
this is correct, it might be that the Meunim of Ezra
ii. 50 and Neh. vii. 52 were the descendants of some
of these who had been made prisoners in the cam
paigns noted by the chronicler and had been assigned
to service in the temple (cf. Ezek. xliv.7). The fact
that the Meunim are represented as parties to an
alliance with important peoples like the Moabites
and Ammonites suggests that they are to be con
nected with the early Arabic stock of the Minwans,
whose sway was overthrown by the Sabians (see
ARABIA). Winckler and Hommel connect the Mime
ans with the North Arabian Mu~ri (see ASSYRIA,
VI., 2, ‑§ 1). 	(H. GUTHE.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Glaser, Skizze der Geachichte and Geographic Arabiens, ii. 14‑15, 21 sqq., 450‑451, Berlin, 1890 and cf, another view by Sprenger, in ZDMG, xliv. 505 zqq.; F. Hommel, Ancient Hebrew Traditions as Illustrated by the Monuments, pp. 251, 272, London, 1897; idem, Aufatitze and Abhandlungen, iii. 273 sqq., Munich, 1892; F. Buhl, Geachichte der Edomiter, pp. 40 sqq., Leipsic, 1893; Winekler, in Schrader, KAY, pp. 140 sqq.; DB, iii. 240; EB, iii. 2934‑35.
MAORI. See NEW ZEALAND.

X&P~ a	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	188
Xar?arg, Oonferenoe of
	KAPPA: The linen cloth with which the eom
munion‑table, and afterward the altar, was cov
ered. See ALTAR, III., 1, a, § 2.
	MARAIS, JOHANNES ISAS: Dutch Reformed;
b. at Capetown, South Africa, Aug. 23, 1848. He
was educated at South African College, Capetown
(B.A., Board of Examiners, Cape of Good Hope
[now University of the Cape of Good Hope], 1867),
the Dutch Reformed theological seminary, Stellen
bosch (from which he was graduated in 1870), and
the universities of Edinburgh and Utrecht (1871
1873). From 1873 to 1877 he was minister of the
Dutch Reformed church at Hanover, Cape Colony,
and since the latter year has been professor of
apologetics and speculative philosophy in the theo
logical seminary at Stellenbosch. He has likewise
been president of the council of Victoria, College,
Stellenbosch, since 1883, and lecturer in Hebrew
there since 1890, while since 1884 he has also been
a member of the council of the University of the
Cape of Good Hope.
	MARAN, ma"rau', PRUDENT: French Benedic
tine; b. at Sdzanne (40 m. s.s.w. of Reims) Oct. 14,
1683; d. in Paris Apr. 2,1762. In his twentieth year
he became a member of the Congregation of St. Maur,
and the rest of his life is mainly a record of schol
arly activities. In 1734, on account of his agita
tion against the constitution Unigenitus, he was ex
pelled from the abbey of Saint‑Germain‑des‑Pr6s,
but returned to Paris a few years later. Evidence
of his profound knowledge of dogmatics and eccle
siastical history is found not only in his original
works but also in his exhaustive introductions to
critical editions of the Fathers. He completed
three such editions after the death of their first pro
jectors‑Cyril of Jerusalem, begun by Touttde
(Paris, 1720); Cyprian, begun by Baluze (1726), an
edition which was the standard until the appear
ance of Hartel's text (Vienna, 1868‑71); and Basil,
begun by Gamier (1730). His most important
work, however, was his edition of Justin, Tatian,
Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Hermas (1742).
His original works, anonymous like his editions, in
clude a Dissertation sur lea s6miariena (Paris, 1722),
written in defense of Toutt6e's introduction to
Cyril; Divinitas Domini nostri Jesu Christi mani
festa in seripturis et traditions (1742); La DivinW
de Jesus‑Christ prouvee contre les heretiquea et les
deistes (3 vols., 1751); La Doctrine de l'ecriture et des
Pyres sur les gu&isons miraeuleuses (1754); and Les
Grandeurs de Jesus‑Christ awe la defense de sa di
vinite (1756).	(G. LAUBnzANxt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHT: D. Tasein, Hid. liafire de la congr6gation
	de Saint‑Maur, PP. 741‑749, Brussels, 1770.
	MARANOS: A name given the "New Christians"
of Spain from the fact that they included Moors.
See SPAIN.
	MARBACH, mdr'bda, JOHANN: German Reform
er; b. at Lindau, Bavaria, Apr.14,1521; d. at Stras
burg Mar. 17, 1581. He began his studies at Stras
burg in 1536,and three years later went to Wittenberg,
where he lived in the same house with Luther and
took his doctor's degree in 1543. After holding
temporary positions at Jells and Isny, in 1545 he
accepted a call to Strasburg, which was to be the field of his lifelong labor. Here, from 1545 to 1558, he was pastor of the Church of St. Nicholas; canon at St. Thomas' from 1546; professor from 1549, and from 1552 president of the Church Convocation. In 1551 he was an envoy from Strasburg to the Council of Trent. Until Butzer's departure for England (1549) Marbach was on the most cordial terms with the recognized head of the Strasburg Church, and remained a regular correspondent until Butzer's death (1551). By degrees, however, Marbach developed a tendency toward a more exclusive Lutheranism than that represented by the Strasburg Reformers. In the violent opposition to the Swiss, Calvinistic, and Unionistic elements in Strasburg, Marbach was leader. The result of this conflict was the " Lutheranizing " of Strasburg, as evidenced in the Strasburg Kirchenordnung of 1598, principally Marbach's work.
During his sojourn at Strasburg (1538‑41), Calvin had founded and served a congregation of French refugees, which to the younger generation of Strasburg theologians appeared more and more like a foreign body in the local church. From 1553 complaints began to be urged against the pastor of the French congregation, Gamier, because he did not hold the doctrine of the Strasburg church on the Lord's Supper. He was obliged to leave Strasburg in 1555. In the same year, Peter Martyr, a teacher at the High School, betook himself to Zurich to escape making stricter declarations on the same subject. The last prominent advocate of a Unionistio‑Calvinistic theology at Strasburg was Jerome Zanchi (1516‑90), a teacher in the High School, and member of the French congregation. When in 1560 Marbach reprinted at Strasburg the treatise of the ardent Lutheran Tilemann Hesshusen, De prtesentia corporis Christi in ccena Domini with the author's vehement preface against the Elector Palatine Fredbrick III. and the Palatine theologians in Strasburg, open strife broke out between Zanchi and Marbach. The main points of contention were the doctrines of the Eucharist, of Ubiquity (q.v.), just then coming into prominence, and of the perseverance of the elect and predestination. This controversy gave occasion for a thorough discussion of predestination between the Lutheran and the Reformed theologians. Marbach advocated his own standpoint in his three principal writings: Christlicher and wahrhaftiger Unterricht von den Worten der Einsetzung des heiligen Abendmahla
(1565); Chrisgicher Unterricd and waWaj'~e Prweisung, dass Jesus Christus durch die persbnliche Vereinzgung der gottlichen and menachlichen Naturen in alle gottliche Herrlichkeit erhaben and versetzt sei (1567); Antwort and griindliehe Widerlegung der vermeinten Trostschrift Tossani, in der er den Zwirtgli8chen Sakramentaschwarm aufs neue die Bahn bringt (1579).
Amid all these conflicts Marbach's course was determined not by vainglory nor personal malevolence, but by a sincere love of purity in doctrine and of ecclesiastical discipline and order, as he conceived them. His standpoint in the question as to creed subscription was always that in accepting the " Wittenberg Concord " (1536) Strasburg acceded to the

187
RELIGIOUS
ENCYCLOPEDIA
Marburg, Conference of
Lutheran Confession; and he understood this con
fession just as the later Lutheran theologians gen
erally understood it. The sole canon which he
applied in theological controversies was pure Luther
anism. From this doctrinal position he combated
not only the Calvinists but the Schwenkfeldians and
Anabaptists, who were still active at Strasburg;
while, on the same platform, he accomplished the
introduction of the Lutheran catechism at Strasburg
(1554), and strove for the use of uniform hymn
books and a common liturgy, though not with im
mediate success. He instituted private confession
in the Church of St. Nicholas, and kept up there
the rite of confirmation when it began to fall into
disuse in other Strasburg churches. In the interest
of a " uniform doctrine and confession," Marbach
also took an active part in bringing about the ac
ceptance of the Formula of Concord (q.v.), as is
shown by his correspondence from 1567 with Jacob
Andre& and Martin Chemnitz. Moreover, he pre
vailed with the Strasburg theologians to sign the
Zerbst Formula (1.571), while the official accept
ance of the Formula of Concord was opposed by
the town council. In the Palatinate he assisted
Elector Ludwig, in 1576, to restore Lutheranism
after the death of Frederick III. He was likewise
eminently active (1564‑78) in Zweibrileken (see
WOLFGANG, COUNT PALATINE). This lean, stirring,
industrious little man was by no means lacking in
sincere piety, which did not exclude personal
irritability, petty intrigues, and doubtful methods
in the heat of conflict. Against the Jesuits and the
superstitions favored by them he published a
vigorous treatise, Von Mirakeln and Wunderzeichen
(1571). 	PAUL GRtINBERG.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are Marbach's own writings; Die Strassburger Kirchenordnung of 1598; the Christlirhe Leichpredigt, Strasburg, 1612; G. Obrecht, Patriotische Gedenkrede, ib. 1659; J. Fecht, Hiet. eccl. saculi xui., supplernentum, Durlach, 1683. Consult: W. T. It6hrich, Geschichte der Reformation im Blame, vol. iii., Strasburg, 1832; various essays in W. Horning, Beitrdge zur Airehenpeschiehte des Elsasses, ib. 1881‑93; W. Horning, Dr. Johann Marbach, Beitrdge zu dessen Lebembild, ib. 1887; idem, Handbuch der Geschichte,der evangeliech4uthertschen Kirche in Strasabwv, ib. 1963; F. Hubert, Die Strassburger liturgischen Ordnungen im Zeitaiter der Reformation, G6t_ tingen, 1900; J. M. Ran, Quellen zur Geschichte des kirchlichen Unterrote . . . 1630‑IB00, i. 1, pp. 141‑154, Giitereloh, 1904; T. Gerold, Geschichte der Kirche St. Niklaus in Stras.burg, Strasburg, 1904.
MARBECB~ PILGRAM: Anabaptist leader arid author; b. at Rattenberg (23 m. e.n.e. of Innsbruck) about the end of the fifteenth century; d. in cr near Augsburg c. 1547. He was brought up in the Roman Catholic communion, but left it in early manhood and about 1522‑23 became a " promulgator of the Wittenberg Gospel." But he found that " where God's word was preached in the Lutheran way a fleshly freedom followed in its trail " and soon became dissatisfied with Lutheranism. About 1525‑26 he " accepted baptism as a witness of the obedience of faith, having regard in this solely to God's word and command " (his own account in his disputation with Butzer). He became an expert engineer and in 1525 was appointed by the Austrian government to a responsible position in connection with the mines of that region. Early in 1528 he was in danger of being arrested and punished as
an Anabaptist and made his way to Augsburg, where he hoped to find toleration and employment (J. Walch, Dwas fabularum humani generis, Augsburg, 1606). But persecution had already begun in Augsburg and in October he went to Strasburg, where his engineering skill was called into use. At this time Strasburg contained a greater number and a greater variety of Anabaptist leaders than any other city. Marbeck's force of character, attractive personality, intellectual vigor, blameless Christian walk, literary skill, and generosity brought him marked consideration among his fellow believers and at first won the highest praise from the leading Evangelical pastors, Butzer, Capito, Zell, and Blaurer. He gained the friendship of Margaretha Blaurer (q.v.) to such an extent that she protected him as far as she was able from persecuting measures, when Butzer turned against him and rebuked Butzer for his intolerance. Profoundly convinced of the evil of infant baptism, he was zealous in his efforts to win not only the masses but the preachers to antipedobaptist views. The publication of two books in support of his position led to his imprisonment (October, 1531); but because of his engineering skill he was liberated without promising to desist. On Dec. 9, at his own request, he engaged in a discussion with Butzer, the record of which has been preserved. In twenty‑eight articles he defended the antipedobaptist position with a logical acumen rarely excelled. But the council decreed his banishment and after an earnest plea for the Anabaptists he departed for Ulm and soon settled again in Augsburg. Until his death he was the guiding spirit of the antipedobaptist congregations in the neighborhood of Ulm and Augsburg. In 1542 he published an exposition of his views on baptism, sin, hereditary sin, divine worship, magistracy, and the Lord's Supper (Vermahnung such ganz klnrer grundlwher and unwidersprechlwher Bericht zu wahrer Christlwher ewig bestandiger Bruder‑Veretnigureg). This brought him into controversy with Schwenckfeld and his followers. A. H. NEWMAN.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Loeerth, Zmei biographische Skdzren aus der lViedernufer in Tirol, Innsbruck, 1895; T. W. Rdhrich, ZHT, 1860; C. A. Cornelius, Geschichts des mtanaterischen Aufruhre, vol. ii., Leipsia, 1860; J. W. Baum, Capita and Bucer, Elberfeld, 1860; L. Keller, Bin Apostd der Wiedergtufer, Leipsic, 1882; C. Gerbert, Geschiehte der Strassburger Sedenbewegung zur Zeit der Reformation, Strasburg, 1889; A. Ii. Newman, Hint, of Anti‑Pedo• baptism, pp. 249‑253, Philadelphia. 1897. Sidelights are cast by the writings and letters of the contemporary religious leaders, Bucer, Capita, Luther, Zwingli, and others. MARBURG BIBLE. See BiBLEs, ANNOTATED, I., § 3.
MARBURG, CONFERENCE OF: A gathering of Protestant theologians at Marburg Oct. 2‑4, 1529. The controversy on the Lord's Supper had already assumed considerable dimensions, when in the summer of 1526 the Diet of Speyer convened; therefore the Protestants took pains Preliminary to come to an agreement in order to ftegotia‑ present a united front to their oppobona nents. The efforts at harmony originated among the Strasburg theologians, but were frustrated by Luther's firm adherence to his convictions. An attempt of Butzer in the summer of 1526 to influence Luther through Justus

Marburg, Conference of
Xarcellinue	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	188
Jonas was also without result. Jonas first suggested that perhaps by a personal meeting of the leaders a remedy might be found; but it was Johann Haner, former preacher of the cathedral in Wurzburg, who approached Landgrave Philip of Hesse with the proposal of a conference. Ulrich of Wiirttemberg used his influence upon the young prince for the same purpose. From the beginning political machinations were a factor in the efforts at harmony. In Feb., 1528, Duke Ulrich invited (Ecolampadius and Butzer to the court of the landgrave at Marburg, probably for the purpose of winning the support of Philip for the South Germans. Philip, however, was very anxious to bring together Luther and GJcolampadius, and the development of affairs at the Diet of Speyer about 1529 made it necessary to strive for agreement. The Strasburg theologians presented at Speyer a formula of the Lord's Supper which so skilfully concealed the opposition of the contending parties as to offer a basis for a temporary alliance between Saxony, Hesse, Nuremberg, Strasburg, and Uhn on Apr. 22,1529. The leading authorities, however, saw that these preliminary negotiations would lead to a result only in case of a real agreement on the Lord's Supper. The landgrave therefore invited Zwingli on the same day to a religious conference, and Zwingli declared his willingness to attend. The theologians of Wittenberg took a different attitude. Melanchthon was evidently offended by the political nature of the proposed alliance, and Luther dissuaded the elector from giving his consent because " no improvement was to be hoped for among the principal opponents " (Zwingli), even if the members of the conference should come to an agreement. After June 10 the theologians of Wittenberg received a formal invitation from Philip to meet at Marburg. Under the influence of the elector, Luther and Melanchthon gave their final con nt on July 8, but unwillingly and with no hope good results. The landgrave, however, persevered, and Zwingli was full of zeal, both aiming at a great political alliance of all Evangelical states. Neither the Wittenberg theologians nor the elector knew of the political intentions of the landgrave.
On Sept. 27, 1529, Zwingli and Ulrich Funk from Zurich, C;colampadius and Rudolph Frey from Basel, Butzer, Hedio, and Jacob Sturm from strasburg arrived at Marburg. Even before the arrival
of Luther, Zwingli had come to an The understanding with the landgrave on
Conference. political questions; but in order to
make it effective, it was necessary to reconcile Luther. He arrived at Marburg on Sept. 30, with Melanchthon, Jonas, Cruciger, Veit Dietrich and Georg Rorer from Wittenberg, Myconius from Gotha, Menius and Eberhard von der Thann from Eisenach. Duke Ulrich of Wurttemberg arrived the same night. The colloquy began on OCt. 2, after the arrival of the South German Lutherans Osiander, Brenz, and Stephan Agricola. Although a great crowd had gathered at Marburg, only fifty to sixty Persona were admitted. At the beginning it was agreed that the question of the Lord's Supper should be the primary point of discussion. Luther adhered to the plain and simple words of
Christ, " This is my body," which he wrote with a piece of chalk on the table, rejecting any metaphorical interpretation. (Ecolampadius, who replied first, started from John vi. and then pointed to the existence of numerous metaphors in Holy Scripture, which Luther, of course, did not deny. What he demanded, however, was justification for the assumption of a metaphor in the passage on the Lord's Supper where the text is clear without it. He also declared that he in no way rejected the spiritual eating, as mentioned in John vi. 53; he even regarded it as necessary, but from this, he said, it did not follow that the bodily eating instituted and commanded by Christ was of no use or unnecessary. This was the point on which the controversy hinged‑whether beside spiritual eating which both parties equally emphasized, bodily eating was also necessary. A further point of debate was the question of the ubiquity of the body of Christ, which Zwingli rejected on the basis of Rom. viii. 3; Phil. ii. 7; Heb. ii. 7. The characteristic difference in the fundamental conceptions of Zwingli and Luther showed itself in their estimate of reason. Luther conceded to it no right of decision in questions of faith, while Zwingli replied that God would not propose to us for our belief anything inconceivable. At the end of the debate nothing had been accomplished. Then Butzer, as chief representative of the Strasburg theologians, stated their doctrine of the Trinity, original sin, baptism, etc., and asked Luther for a testimony of his orthodoxy, but Luther did not comply with his request. " Our spirit and your spirit do not agree," he said; for the same spirit could not, in his opinion, dwell in people who simply believed the word of Christ and those who vehemently combated it and gave it the lie. Therefore he wished to leave his opponents to the judgment of God; they might teach as they thought it justifiable before God.
Thus the official negotiations were ended, but still the landgrave hoped to succeed by personal influence in his efforts at union. Luther now de‑
clared himself willing to draw up a statement of the
		most important points of doctrine on
	Articles of which an agreement was possible. Thus
	Marburg. originated on Oct. 4 the so‑called
		" Articles of Marburg." Fourteen
theses testified to agreement on the doctrine of the
Trinity, the person of Christ, faith and justification,
the Word of God, baptism, good works, confession,
secular authority, tradition or human order, and
infant baptism. The fifteenth article, on the sacra
ment of the body and blood of Christ, confesses as
uniform doctrine the necessity of partaking of it
in both kinds and rejection of the mass, and also
that the spiritual eating of the body and blood is
principally necessary for every Christian. As to
the disputed point in the Lord's Supper, Christian
charity should be shown toward each other. The
document was signed in three copies by the ten
official participants in the colloquy, Luther,.Jonas,
Melanchthon, Osiander, Agricola, Brenz, G;colam
padius, Butzer, Hedio, and Zwingli. By signing
the articles, Zwingli had evidently gone to the ex
treme limit of concession in the interest of his great
plans. Not entirely without reason, Melanchthon
thought that the Swiss had " followed Luther's

169	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Marburg, Conference o!
		Marcellinus
opinion." As the Wittenberg circle had no idea
of the political machinations which called forth
	Zwingli's love of peace, they naturally carried away
an impression of the complete humiliation of their
opponents. But Zwingli ascribed the victory not less
to himself and explained the articles in his own sense.
It soon became obvious that instead of bridging
over the opposition, the conference of Marburg had
brought it to fuller expression.	(T. KOLDE )
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Articles were printed by H. Heppe,
	Die 16 Marburger Artikel, Cassel, 1854; by Bindseil, in
	CR, xxvi. 122‑127; and by T. Kolde, in Die Augsburg
	ische Konfession, pp. 119 sqq., Goths, 1896. Sources for
	the history are the Opera of Zwingli, ed. Schuler and
	Schultheiss, vole. vii.‑viii.; the Braefe of Luther, ed. De
	Wette, vols. iii. iv., or Enders' Luthers Briefwechsel,
	vol. vii.; in T. Kolde, Analecta Lutherana, Gotha, 1893;
	the Brieflvechsel of J. Jonas, ed. Kawerau, Halle, 1884
	sqq.; the reports of contemporaries such as Melanchthon,
	in CR, i. 1099 sqq.; of Jonas, ib., p. 1095; of Butzer in
	his Commentary on the Gospels, Strasburg, 1530. Consult
	further: L. K. Schmidt, Das Religionagesprach zu Marburg,
	18,29, Marburg, 1840; J. Kradolfer, Dos MarburgerReligions
	gesprdch, 1629, Berlin, 1871; Schirrmacher, Briefs and
	Akten zur Geschichte des Religionsgesprdchs zu Marburg,
	1629, Gotha, 1876; M. Lenz, ZKG, iii (1879), 28 sqq.,
	220 sqq., 429 sqq.; A. Erichson, Das Marburge' Religions
	gesprdeh, 1629, Strasburg, 1880; Egli, in Theologischer
	Zeitschrift aus der Schweiz, i (1884), 1 sqq.; F. H. Foster,
	in Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1887, pp. 363‑369; Schaff,
	Christian Church, vi. 629‑653; T. M. Lindsay, Hist. Ref.,
	i. 352‑359; the literature under JONAS, JUSTIN; LUTHER;
	MELANCHTHON; ZWINGLI; and also the principal works on
the REFORMATION.
	MARCA, mdr"ed', PIERRE DE: French theo
	logian and prelate; b. at the chAteau of Gant, near
	Pau (56 m. e.s.e. of Bayonne), Jan. 24, 1594; d. in
Paris June 29, 1662.	He was educated first at
	Auch and then at the University of Toulouse, and
	took up the study of law, beginning his public life
	in 1615 at Pau, as a member of the Council of
	Barn. When the country was annexed to France
	in 1620 he rendered important services to Henry
	IV., and was named president of the parlement
	which replaced the former independent council.
	He occupied this post till 1639, when he was sum
	moned to Paris to join the council of state. He
	had already published some small treatises and a
	Histoire de Bearn (Paris, 1640; new ed., Pau, 1894),
	and now took part in the exciting discussion on the
	liberties of the Gallican Church at the request of
	Richelieu. His De concordia sacerdotii et imperii
	seu de libertatibus ecclesice Gallicance (vol. i., 1641)
	was put on the Index in 1642; but Richelieu re
	warded him by the nomination to the bishopric of
Conserans in 1643.	He was not yet, however, in
	orders; and his book prevented him from obtain
	ing papal confirmation until 1648, when, after he
	had published a submission to the censure of the
	Holy See (1646) and another book, De singulars
	primatu Petri (1647), in which he controverted the
	theory that the Church had originally had two
	heads, Peter and Paul, he was taken back into
favor.	He was ordained priest in 1648, but could
	not take possession of his bishopric until 1651. In
	the following year he was named archbishop of
	Toulouse, but again, owing to the suspicion of Jan
	senism, did not obtain the papal confirmation until
1654.	In 1656, however, he supported the con
	demnation of Jansenism in the assembly of the
French clergy. 	The king employed him in both
political and ecclesiastical affairs, and after Mar zarin's death in 1661 wished to have him near at hand. He was accordingly named for the archbishopric of Paris in Feb., 1662, and confirmed by the pope in June, but died three days after the news of his confirmation arrived. Baluze issued a new edition of his De concardia, which now appeared complete in print for the first time (1663). Although it was again condemned by the Congregation of the Index the next year, Baluze issued new editions in 1669 and.1704, and it has been several times reprinted since. Collections of smaller treatises were posthumously published by De Faget in 1669 and by Baluze in 1681. (J. F. voN SCHULTE.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Brief biographies appeared in the editions by Baluze and De Faget; P. Bayle, Dictionary Historical and critical, iv. 98‑104, London, 1737 (quotes from sources which well illustrate the text).
MARCELLA: Roman Christian of the fourth and fifth centuries. She came of a wealthy family and married early, but when her husband died seven months after the marriage, she made a vow of perpetual celibacy and gave all her goods to her relatives and the poor. When Jerome came to Rome in 382 she became his friend and studied the Scriptures with him. When Rufinus translated Origen's work " On First Principles " she herself went to Pope Anastasius and showing him the heretical passages induced him to condemn the doctrines of Origen. At the sack of Rome in 410, she was tortured by the Goths, who sought to make her reveal her supposed wealth, and died shortly afterward.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The chief source of information on her life and character is Jerome's letters, especially no. 127, Eng. transl. in ANF, vi. 253‑258; cf. DCB, iii. 803.
MARCELLIANS: The followers of Marcellus of Ancyra (q.v.).

MARCELLINISTS: A heretical sect of the latter part of the second century, consisting of the adherents of Marcellina, a pupil of Carpocrates (q.v.), whose system of Gnosticism she taught with much success in Rome while Anicetus was bishop (cf. Irenaeus, Haer., I., xxv. 6, ANF, i. 351).
	MARCELLINUS, mar"cel‑li'nus: Pope June 30,
2'06, probably to Oct. 25, 304. He is mentioned by
Jerome, Nicephorus, and the Chronographon Syn
tomon; other early sources omit his name on ac
count of the apostasy ascribed to him. Eusebius
says that Marcellinus succeeded Caius in the twelfth
year of Diocletian (a statement confirmed by the
Catalogus Liberianus), and adds (Hilt. eecl., VII.,
xxxii. 1) that " persecution overtook him." While
this implies more than that the persecution merely
occurred during his bishopric, it does not neces
sarily denote that Marcellinus was a martyr, de
spite the statement of Theodoret (Hist. eccl., i. 2)
that he distinguished himself during the persecu
tion. The Liber pontifwalis, on the authority of a
lost Passio Marcellini, probably dating from the
fifth century, expressly states that Marcellinus, a
Roman by birth and the son of Projectus, became
a thur~ ficus in the persecution, but quickly repented
of his apostasy and was beheaded. This is denied
by Augustine, but the Donatists knew of the accu‑

Marcellus	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	170
Xarch
sation and it is also mentioned in the acts of a
Council of Sinuessa forged in 501. There seems to
be no good reason to doubt that he actually lapsed
for a time and later made atonement, but his martyr
dom is improbable. The only detail known con
cerning his administration is that he enlarged the
Roman catacombs. The Pseudo‑Isidore contains two
spurious decretals of this pope. (A. HARNACx.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The sources are indicated in the text. Con
	sult Liber pontifimlis, ed. Mommsen in MGH, Gest. pont.
	Rom. i (1898), 41‑42; and the critical sketch in DCD,
	U 804‑806, where the sources are adequately discussed.
	MARCELLUS: The name of two popes.
	Marcellus L: Pope 308‑309. According to the
LZer ponttficalis a Roman by birth, he succeeded
Mareellinus after a vacancy of four years (not seven
as the Liber ponttficalis and the Catalogue LZer
ianvs give) due to the persecution. He was ban
ished by Maxentius, not, however, as a Christian,
but on account of the fierce quarrels which then
vexed the Roman church as to the treatment of the
lapsed, and induced the emperor to seek peace by
the banishment of the heads of both parties. He
seems not to have died in exile, and was appar
ently buried in the cemetery of Priscilla. Little
else is known of him with any certainty. The as
sertion that he delivered the sacred books to the
heathen and offered incense rests on a confusion
with his predecessor arising from the similarity of
their names. 	(A. HARNACx.)
BIBLIOa$APHT: Liter pon4ficalie, ed. Mommsen in MGH,
	Gut. pont. Rom., i (1898), 43‑44, ed. Duehesne, i. 165,
	Paris, 1886; B. Platina, Lives of the Popes, i. 64‑65, Lon
	don, n.d.; Bower, Popes, i. 40‑41.
	Marcellus II. (Marcello Cervini): Pope 1555;
b. at Montefano, in the March of Ancona, May 6,
1501; d. at Rome May 1, 1555. He became a car
dinal under Paul III. in 1539, and was papal legate
during the opening period of the Council of Trent.
He belonged to the party which strove for a reform
of the Church on medieval principles. Great hopes
were entertained of the results to follow from his
pontificate, but it lasted only from Apr. 10 to
May 1, and gave him no time to take any decisive
steps.	(A. HAucx.)
BxswoaBAPSy: P. Polidoro, De vita, testis et moribua Mar‑
eeUi 11.. Rome, 1744 (depends upon a MS. life by the
brother of Marcellus); Ranks; Popes, i. 212, iii. 153‑155;
Bower, Popes, iii. 318.

MARCELLUS: The name of five Christian martyrs bides Marcellus I., bishop of Rome (q.v.).
1. A certain Marcellus is said to have been martyred by the Prefect Priscus at Chalon‑surSafte during the reign of Antoninus Pius, probably in 140. His festival is appointed for Sept. 4, but some throw doubt on the historicity of the legend.
2. Marcellus the Centurion, beheaded at Tingis (Tangier) on the birthday of the Emperor Diocletian, probably in 298, for refusing to celebrate the occasion with sacrifices.
S. A third Marcellus, born at Rome, was martyred, according to tradition, at Argenton‑sur‑Creuse (165 m. s.w. of Paris) during the reign of Aurelian. Fleeing from the persecutions of tblis emperor to the city where he was fated to die, he attracted the attention of the Prefect Heraclius by his miracles and
was scourged and roasted without being harmed. He was accordingly beheaded, while his friend Anastssius was scourged to death. Both these martyrs are commemorated on June 29.
4. Marcellus, Bishop of Apamea (the modern Kalaat al‑Madik, 120 m. n.e. of Beirut) was burned to death during the reign of Theodosius the Great by a pagan mob roused by his destruction of their temples.
	6. Marcellus, Bishop of Die, was born at Avig
non, and died a prisoner of the Arians at Die (100
m. n. of Marseilles), early in the sixth century. He
succeeded his brother as bishop and at his conse
cration a dove descended on his head. Refusing
to accept Arian teachings, however, he was im
prisoned until his death. His festival is appointed
for Apr. 9. 	(G. U11raoxNt.)

	MARCELLUS OF ANCYRA: Bishop of Ancyra
(the modern Angora, 220 m. s.e. of Constantinople);
b. probably in the latter part of the third century;
d. about 374. He took part as bishop in the synod
		held at Ancyra apparently in 314, and
	Early Life; eleven years later was a somewhat in
	Trinitarian conspicuous opponent of the Ariana at
	Doctrine. Nima. In 335, however, he attracted
		attention by a book of which little is
known, being extant only in fragments. His work
was evoked primarily by a treatise of the Lucian
iatic Asterius, although it formed a general attack
upon both the living and the dead leaders of the
great Eusebian party. His polemic was aimed
against the Eusebian and Arian doctrine of three
divine hypostasea, which had been received from the
teachings of Origen. Perceiving the pagan basis of
this doctrine, Marcellus opposed not only the doc
trine of Christ's inferiority which it implied but also
its polytheistic coloring. A rigid defender of mono
theism, he acknowledged only one God, although
he recognized a certain differentiation in him. Pre
		vious to the creation of the wOrid God
	Doctrine had been simply a " monad," but with
	of the the formation of the universe the first
	Trinity. period of salvation was introduced by
		the " procession " of the Logos, which
was eternal in God and has since remained the " op
erative activity" of God. In the incarnation of
the Logos it became, in a somewhat stronger form,
"divided from the Father by the weakness of the
flesh," though it existed potentially in the Father
not only throughout the period between the crea
tion and the incarnation, but also afterwards, so
that God and the Logos are not to be separated, and
the eye of faith accordingly sees the Father in
Christ (John xiv. 9). In like manner Marcellus re
gards the Spirit as contained within the Logos until
Jesus breathed on his disciples and bade them re
ceive the Holy Ghost (John xx. 22), after which it
proceeded operatively from the Father and the Son.
Up to the time of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit,
therefore, Marcellus taught binitarianism, but after
this event "the monad was extended into a triad."
Nevertheless, this " extension " did not produce a
disruption of the "monad," which is "potentially
indivisible," so that the Father, the Logos, and
the Spirit are one God. After the paruaia, when

Maroellw March
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Christ will appear in the flesh, both the Logos and the Spirit will be wholly reunited with God, and the "monad " will again exist as it existed before the creation of the world. The kingdom of the man Christ will then have an end (cf. I Cor. xv. 28), but the Logos, whose power has neither beginning nor interruption, will then, again existing in the Father, retain the divine omnipotence which he had never lost.
Marcellua of Ancyra accordingly taught trinitarianmonotheism, which in its development from a "monad " to a "triad "formed part of the plan of salvation, and in this teaching his theological interestswerecentered. He emphasized the thought that the "non‑incarnate Word " is called merely Logos and not Son in the Scriptures, and he accordingly referred the terms " Son of God," "image of the invisible God," and "first‑born of every creature " (Col. i. 15), as well as all Biblical designations of Christ except the Logos‑concept, to the incarnate Logos. He thus escaped the Eusebian assumption of a "creation " of the Logos, which destroyed the doctrine of its eternity; and at the same time found a confirmation of his theory that the historic Christ was " God appearing in human form "and at the same time " the perfect man."
The Euaebian Synod of Constantinople in 336 condemned the work of Marcellus as heretical, since it assumed that the Son began with his birth by Mary and also postulated an end of his kingdom.
He was accordingly anathematized, the
Teachings destruction of his book was ordered, Condemned; his followers, who seem to have been
Later Life. numerous in Galatia, were bidden to return to orthodoxy, and Basil was apparently appointed to succeed him as bishop of Ancyra. Where Marcellus went after his deposition is unknown, but the death of Constantine in 337 permitted him to return to his see. That he was formally reinstated seems scarcely probable, but at all events his reappearance in Ancyra resulted in tumultuous scenes. He was again condemned at a second synod in Constantinople in the latter part of 338 or the early part of 339, and in the summer of the latter year went to Rome, where he was declared to be innocent. He then left Rome, and is next found at the Synod of Sardica. in 343, where he was condemned for the third time by the Eastern Church, but was again acquitted by the Western. Of his subsequent fortunes little is known. According to Sozomen, he returned to Ancyra as bishop, only to be again expelled in 350, but the assertion is supported by scant evidence. He was repeatedly condemned both by the Homoiousiansand the younger Nicene school, while in the West, on the other hand, his doctrines were not discussed at any synod between 343 and c. 380, although Basil complained that the Occident had no words of blame for the teachings of Marcellus. Where he passed the last thirty yearn of his long life is unknown, nor are the place and exact date of his death determined. He is said by Jerome to have written many works against the Ariana, although none are now extant. At the time of his death he had many followers in Galatia, though it is uncertain how far they actually understood and accepted
his teachings. A committee sent apparently in the early part of the eighth decade of the fourth century, from Ancyra to Athanasius, who was mistrustful of Marcellus, though he never polemized against him, presented a symbol which accepted the definition of the Son given in the Nicene Creed, but spoke of only one hypostasis of the Trinity, and also revealed other traces of the influence of Mar cellos. He left no representative of his theology, however, and Marcellianism remained an impersonal heresy. It was condemned by Pope Damasus c. 380, and with the acceptance of the first canon of the synod held at Constantinople in 381, the name of Marcellus was placed on the list of heretics in the West after the middle of the fifth century.
		While it is true that the Christology of Marcellus
	recalls the doctrine of Paul of Samosata (see Mow
ARCHIANISM), if the historic Christ be regarded as
	the " new man " and the Logos or Spirit in him
	be considered undivided from God, on the other
			hand, the historic Christ is, in his
	Position in teaching, also " God manifest in the
	the History flesh." Both these views appear aide
	of Dogma. by side in the system of Marcellus,
			as they do in almost all the Chris
	tology of the early Church before Apollinaris
and the Nestorian controversy. Any estimate of
the position of Marcellus in the history of dogma
must proceed, therefore, from the twofold assump
tion that his general conception of Christianity was
	closely akin to that of Irenaeus and that the creed
	of Sardica represented his economic trinitarian
	"monotheism." A remarkable similarity with the
	latter document is shown by the views of Phaeba
	dius of Aginnum and the older writings of Hilary,
	while both Tertullian and Novatian are in harmony
with Marcellus in their development of the " monad"
	into a " triad " in the course of the plan of salva
tion. These points of resemblance, as well as the
	agreement of Marcellus with Irenaeus, find their
	explanation in the fact that he represents the tra
	dition of the pre‑apologetic age, as it is found in
the "binitarianism" of Herman, the Epistle of Bar
	nabas, and the Second Epistle of Clement, as well
as in many Gnostic systems; nor is it impossible
	that these traditions may have originated in Asia
	Minor, where both Marcellua and Irenmus lived,
	and where both modaliatic Monarchianiam and
	Montanism flourished. 	(F. Lochs.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: In MarceRiana (G6ttingen, 1794) C. H. G.
	Rettberg carefully collected the fragments of Marcellud
	writings, cf. MPG, xviii.; they are also in Kloatermann's
	ed. of Euaebius' "Against Marcellus; " Leipeic,1908. Earlier
	discussions are antiquated by T. Zahn, Marcellue roan Arr.
	cgra, Goths, 1867. Consult further: Hefele, Concilienpo
	achichte, vol. i.; Harnack, Dogma, passim, consult ‑Index;
	R. 8eeberg, Lehrbuch der Dogmenpeadtichk, i. 175‑178,
	Leipeie, 1895; F, Loafs, in Sitzungsberiehte der Berliner
	Akademie, philoaophiech‑hiatoriache Klasse, 1902; idem, in
AbAandluapen der Berliner Akademie, 1909, pp. 1 eqq.; DCB, iii. 808‑813 (excellent).

MARCH, DANIEL: Congregationalist; b. at Millbury, Mass., July 21,1816; d. at Woburn, Mass., Mar. 2, 1909. He was educated at Yale College (A.B., 1840) and Yale DivinitySchool, from which he was graduated in 1845, after having been principal of Chester Academy, Vt., and Fairfield Academy, Conn. He held successive pastorates at Cheshire, Conn.

Xarcianites	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	172
Marcion, Marcionites
(1845‑48), First Congregational Church, Nashua,
N. H. (1848‑54), First Congregational Church, Wo
burn, Mass. (1855‑61, 1876‑93), and Clinton Street
Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia (1861‑76). After
1893 he was pastor emeritus of the First Congrega
tional Church, Woburn. In theology he advocated
" practical, common‑sense interpretation of the Gos
pel of Christ." He wrote Religion for Heart and
Home (Woburn, Mass., 1858); Walks and Homes of
Jesus (Philadelphia, 1866); Night Scenes in the
Bible (1868); Our Father's House (1869); Home
Life in the Bible (1873); From Dark to Dawn (1878);
Days of the Son of Man (1881); The First Khedive:
Lessons in the Life of Joseph (Philadelphia, 1887);
Morning Light in Many Lands (Boston, 1891).
Several of his works were translated into Swedish
and German.
MARCIANITES. See MESSALIANS.
			MARCION, MARCIONITES.
		Marcion's Life (§ 1).
		His System (§ 2).
		Relation to Christianity and the New Testament (§ 3).
		His Affiliations and Significance (§ 4).
		His School and Sect (§ 5).
	The facts of the early career of Marcion are dif
ficult to establish, partly because of the tendency
of ecclesiastical writers, from whom information of
him is gained, to believe and report damaging stories
concerning heretics. The principal sources for his
			life are the writings of Justin Martyr,
r. Marcion's Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and
		Life.	Tertullian, and these writers are not
			in entire accord. His birthplace is
given as Sinope, in Paphlagonia, on the Euxine, and
he is described as a shipmaster of Pontus. Tertul
lian tells of his coming from Pontus (c. 140) and
joining the Christian community at Rome, in the
first warmth of his faith making them a present of
200,000 sestertii (Tertullian, " Against Marcion,"
iv. 4; Prcescriptio, xxx.; ANF, iii. 349, 257). He
speaks of his differences with the Roman commu
nity, of his excommunication, of the return of his
gift, and of his attaching himself afterward to the
Gnostic teacher Cerdo (q.v.). According to the
same authority the Marcionites dated the time of
their master's separation from the Church 115
years and	six months from the time of Christ
(" Against Marcion," i. 19; ANF, iii. 285). This
would be the autumn of 144. Justin in his first
apology written about 150 (chaps. xxvi., lviii.)
notices the	great activity of Marcion. Irenaeus
(Hwr. III., iv. 3) speaks of Marcion's flourishing
under the	episcopate of Anicetus (154‑165) and
tells how Polycarp met Marcion and addressed him
as the first‑born of Satan (HBr. III., iii. 4, iv. 3).
These give the few certain facts in regard to Mar
cion's life, his separation from the church in 144,
his study of Gnosticism, and his foundation of a
separate Christian community.
	Of the genesis of Marcion's thought tradition
gives only a slight insight. He was a disciple of
Cerdo, and, according to Irenwus, Cerdo taught that
the God announced in the law and the prophets
could not be the father of Jesus Christ. The one
was known	and the other unknown; one was only
just, the other good. On this basis Marcion erected and developed his idea of the complete and ab‑
solute distinction between Christians. His ity and Judaism. His comprehen‑
System. sive work bore the title " Antitheses,"
and was a semi‑dogmatic treatise contrasting contradictory sentences from the law and the Gospel. Tertullian made industrious use of this work in his reply to Marcion. Origen knew of it, perhaps, and also Ephraem, but Epiphanius and Hippolytus did not use it. Antithetical sentences were used as the chief arguments, but they were fortified by examples taken from other passages. Marcion's teaching is especially remarkable for its lack of interest in metaphysical questions. It is certain, however, that he did not regard the Cosmos as the creation of the supreme God; it was the production of a demiurge. " Marcion has with the help of demons in all countries largely contributed to the expression of blasphemies and to the refusal to recognize as God the creator of our world. He acknowledges another God who because he is essentially greater has done greater deeds than the other " (Justin Martyr, I., xxvi; cf. ANF, i. 171). Marcion differs entirely from Valentinus in failing to discuss eons. Marcion's thought concerns itself entirely with the religious records of the Jews and the Christians. His demiurge is the creator and lord of all men, who has, however, a chosen people, and is the God of the Jews, the God of the Old Testament. Marcion's reading of the Old Testament convinced him that the principle of retributive justice found in the Old Testament could not be reconciled with that of love and goodness as represented by the God of the new covenant (Tertullian, " Against Marcion," I., vi.; ANF, iii. 275). The creating God is just according to the maxim, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"; this maxim was expressly annulled by the good God (Matt. v. 38‑39). The God of creation caused fire to come down from heaven, the good God in Christ forbade his disciples from doing this (II Kings i.; Luke ix. 54‑55); stealing was encouraged by the God of creation of the Old Testament (Ex. xii. 35‑36) and forbidden in the New; the creation God is neither omnipotent nor omniscient; he had to investigate what Adam was doing and find out what was going on in Sodom. The good God knows all things and is all‑powerful. The Old Testament with its ceremonial law and its low standard of morality is quite fitted to the creation God, but neither he nor his book should have recognition among Christians. Marcion did not employ the allegorical method of interpretation, he accepted the letter of the Old Testament with its miracles and its prophecies. He seknowledgod ths,t the creation God was to send a Messiah to collect the chosen people in his kingdom to rule over the whole earth and to exercise judgment upon heathen and sinners. It is at this point that the good God is introduced; before this he was unknown in the world of the demiurge who did not even suspect his existence, but the plan of the demiurge the good God could not allow to be carried out. He wishes to be merciful to sinners and to free all from the bonds of the God of the Jews. He determined

1'73	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Xarcianitee
		Marcion, Marcionitee
therefore to appear in the world in the person of
Christ, but Marcion took no interest in the nature
of the union between the two, though on this point
he must be called a docetist (see DocETIsaI; GNOS
TICISM). In the Gospel of St. Luke Marcion made
an arbitrary change in the text in order to provide
for an immediate appearance of God in the world:
" In the fifteenth year of the Emperor Tiberius God
came down to Capernaurn and taught on the sab
bath days."' In order to influence the Jews, Christ
attempted to adapt himself to their conditions,
calling himself the Messiah; but in all his activity
he showed himself the opposite of the demiurge;
while the demiurge only approved of just persons,
Christ called to himself publicans and sinners and
those who were weary and heavy laden. Accord
ing to the law lepers were unclean; Christ touched
them. Elisha healed one individual by water;
Christ healed many through his word. The demi
urge sent bears against the children in order to
avenge their mockery of Elisha; Christ bade chil
dren to come unto him. The Messiah of the demi
urge was sent to gather together the Jews of the
dispersion, Christ is to free all men. Judaism is
restricted to one people; all peoples furnish con
verts to Christianity. Jewish hopes are concerned
with an earthly kingdom; Christ promises to his
own a kingdom heavenly and eternal. Only as
time went on did the demiurge understand the sig
nificance of Christ's career. When he saw his law
being rejected he abandoned the Messiah to the
believers in the demiurge who crucified him. Here
again his victory over the good God was only ap
parent. The dead Christ he sent down to Hades;
but Christ preached and found believers even there
who rejected the God of the Jews. The veiling of
the sun at the time of the crucifixion was the work
of the demiurge. The Messiah of the demiurge
has still to appear and will establish an earthly
kingdom to last 1,000 years, a realm opposed to
the heavenly kingdom of Christ where those who
have risen from the dead live and reign, released
from the impediment of matter after laying aside
their earthly bodies. But the good God continues
to be the God of love. Those who do not follow
him but cling to fellowship with the demiurge he
refuses to punish; he simply gives them over to
the demiurge in whose fire they will burn. For be
lievers in the heavenly father there is no judgment;
they exist in God's love and nothing seems more
inconceivable to Marcion than the notion of a Christ
returning for judgment.
	In all these speculations there is one great funda
mental thought, viz., the idea of the absolute orig
inality and independence of Christianity. This was
		brought out in Marcion's dispute with
3. Relation the Roman presbyters, in which he
	to Chris‑ quoted from Luke v. 36‑37, vi. 43. In
tianity and applying this to Christianity Marcion
	the New indicated his conviction that its con
Testament. nection with Judaism should be en
		tirely severed. For Marcion's New
Testament see CANON of SCRIPTURE, Il., 3, § 1.
His position was that the original Christian records
as they were handed down in the Church had either
been intentionally falsified or been written by men
to whom the spirit of Christ was foreign. The first place in his class of false apostles was occupied by Peter, James, and John, and he was careful to support this position by citing the Epistle to the Galatians. For him Paul alone was the true apostle; yet he disregarded the Jewish elements in Paulinism. The favorite Pauline antitheses between the law and the Gospel, anger and grace, works and faith, flesh and spirit, sin and righteousness, death and life, were congenial to his thought and germane to his method. In Marcion's system the Gospel of the free grace of God in Jesus Christ is given so much weight that it caused him to view the Church conception of the Gospel as an unpermissible falsification.
As to whether Marcion was a Gnostic or not it must be said that in many different directions he was distinct from the Gnostics, whose orientalism was absent from his system. He was not interested in religious philosophy, and reo‑
4t His ognized no distinction between faith
Affiliations and gnosis. The Gnostic division of and Signifi‑ classes with different standards of concance. duct and different aims he did not accept, and the teaching concerning eons he entirely omitted. His work is chiefly important from the point of view of Christian ethics. All works of the creating God, he affirmed, were to be rejected. He preached the strictest asceticism, denied the lawfulness of marriage, and issued strict provisions in regard to fasting (Tertullian, " Against Marcion," I., xxix., IV., xvii., xxix., xxxiv., xxxviii., xliv., etc.). The type of his propaganda also differed from the Gnostics'. A purified church in which all were to have a place was his aim. He kept many of the church customs in their entirety, baptizing with water and with the trinitarian formula. He did not, however, distinguish between the baptized and catechumens (see CATECHUMENATE), but it was especially his strict asceticism which opposed an obstacle to the growth of his party. Marcion was highly reverenced in his communities, being called the most holy master. His antitheses were given a canonical position. His popularity and his wide influence over the masses made his work the gravest danger to the Church in the second century. He exerted a power never attained by the Valentinians and other Gnostic groups, and was especially dreaded by the orthodox. Possibly the baptismal creed of Rome was prepared to counteract his teaching.
	Many of	Marcion's followers did not adhere
strictly to his teachings. Some of them agreed
with their master in recognizing two principles,
others insisted that there were three. Apelles, the
		Marcionite about whom most is known
g. His (Tertullian, Prcescrniptio, xxx.; ANF,
School iii. 257), seems to have engaged in
	and Sect.	magical practises and paid great atten
		tion to visions, to the utterances of
oracles, and to the prophetical revelations of a
woman named Philumene, his companion. He dif
fered also from Marcion in his metaphysical inter
ests. His rule of faith began with the words:
" There is one good God and one beginning and
one power unnamable " (Epiphanius, Hcer., xliv.
1‑2). But he denied with the Marcionites that the

Xa r~ enkr ~onites	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	174
world was created by the good God. He taught a
fully developed system of angelic mediation, in
which there was a creative angel, a fire angel, an
angel who spoke to Moses. The ancient authori
ties differed as to the number of these beings in his
system. Apellea differed also from Marcion in his
Christology. Christ did not merely seem to have
appeared; in truth he took on flesh, he had real
flesh and body. He really appeared in the world,
and was truly crucified and truly buried and truly
rose again. But Apelles did not accept the virgin
birth of Christ, and according to him Christ had a
sidereal body. He agreed with Marcion as to the
origin of the Old Testament and its unsuitability
for Christians, the whole volume being unworthy
of credence. He wrote a book to show that what
ever Moses had written about God was untrue. He
called the story of the ark a fable on the ground
that it could not have held more than four ele
phants. The orthodox party accused him of pick
ing and choosing according to his inclinations, to
which he replied by quoting Christ's well‑known
apochryphal saying "be ye skilful money changers "
(see AGRAPHA, 5). Altogether his teaching shows a
roturq to Gnosticism. Three other Marcionites appear
in early Christian literature, Lucian, Megethius, and
Mark. Some of these recognized three principles, a
good and evil principle in addition to the demiurge.
The only complete account of any late marcionite
system is found in the Armenian writer Eznik. He
speaks of three principles, of the creation being due
to a just God, while the creation God succeeds in
getting it into his power, and then forming an aW
anre with Adam. Matter by itself produces dia
bolical creation. This chaotic condition is'cured
by the supreme God sending his son from heaven.
Those who believe on him as he is revealed through
Paul are saved. Marcionite communities seem to
have been found especially throughout the East,
but also in the West. Their ardor in braving per
secution was equal to that of the orthodox, and
Marcionite martyrs are frequently mentioned in
Eusebius. Near Damascus a description of a Mar
cionite church has been found proving that in the
year 318 the Mareionites were allowed to worship
freely (P. Le Bas and W. H. Waddington, Inscrip
tions Grecquea, Vol. iii. p. 582, no. 2558, Paris, 1870).
But a few years later the sect was prohibited by
Constantine (Eusebius, Vita, iii. 64). It disap
peared earlier in the West than in the East, where
it lasted still for a number of centuries. Theo
doret, for example, claims to have converted 1,000
Marcionites in eight villages (MPG, lxxxv. 1316),.
They were also numerous in Armenia. Perhaps
the Paulicians (q.v.) originated from the Marcion
ites. 	(G. KRDGER.)
B‑raoaasrvZ: The principal sources, though indicated in the text, may be stated again here for convenience: Tertullian's " Against Marcion " (the main source), " Prescription against Heretics," " On. the Flesh of Christ," and " On the Resurrection of the Flesh," all in Eng, trawl. in ANF, vol. iii.; Justin Martyr, L, xavi., lviii.; Ire‑us, Has, I. Xcviii., IV., iii. sqq.; Hippolytus, Philoeophumena, VIL, nix.; Epiphanius, Bar., alii.; Philaster, Her., alv.; and Eenik, Germ. travel. from the Armenian, by J. M. Schmid, Vienna, 1900, of. C. F. Neumann, in ZHT, iv (1834).
The subject is treated in most of the works on GNos‑
mccem‑consult especially the books by Neander. Be‑. Matter, Lipaus, Hamaok, Msnsel, and King‑‑and in those mentioned in and under Docranrz, HxsTos: or (q.v.). A monograph in by H. U. Meyboom, Marcion en de Man cioniten, Leyden, 1888. Of the highest value is Harnaek, Geachichte, i. 191‑197, 839‑840, ii. 1. pp. 297 eqq., 591, ii. 2, pp. 537 eqq. et passim, consult index under Marcionites; also his Dogma, i.‑iii. paeaim, consult index; cf. 21VT, ria (1876), 80‑120. Other references are A. Lipsius, Quellen der allmten Ketrergeechichte, Leipeio, 1875; A. Hilgenfeld, Die Keturpeechiehte des Urchrietentnums 2 vols., ib. 1884‑86; idem, Cordon and Marcion, in ZWT, acv (1881), 1‑37; F. Kattenbusch, Daa apostoliache Symbol, vol. ii. passim, Leipsic, 1900; R. Liechtenhan; Die Offenbarunp im Gnosticismue, pp. 3410, G5ttingen, 1901; A. C. McGiffert, The Apostles' Creed, New York, 1902; Schaff, Christian Church, 1482 eqq.; Neander, Christian Church, i. 458‑473 et passim; Krager, History, pp. 7782; DCB, iii. 816‑824.
For Marcion's relation to the canon consult the works cited under CAxoN or ScarnTVamm, especially that of Zahn. Other works pertinent are: A. Hahn, Das Evanpelium Marciona in seiner urapranplichen Gestalt, KSnigsberg, 1823; G. Volkmar, Die Evanpeliurn Marcions, Leipsio, 1852• W. Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century, London, 1876; [W. R. Cassels], Supernatural Religion, 3 vols., 1879. On Apellea consult A. Harnack, Do Apel• lie pnoai monarchioa, Leipsic, 1874; and TU, vi. 3 (1890), 109‑120, xx. 3 (1900), 93‑100.

	MARCUS: Pope Jan. 18‑0et. 7, 336, successor
of Sylvester. According to the Ltber pontif cilia
he was a Roman by birth, the son of Priicus, and
was buried in the cemetery of Balbina on the Via
Ardeatina. He may have been archdeacon during
the pontificate of Melchiades. The Liber portti
ficalis attributes to him the provision that the pope
should be consecrated by the bishop of Ostia, and
states that he held two ordinations in Rome in the
month of December; but he did not live to see
that month. He built two basilicas, and received
large gifts from Constantine, of which a list is
given in the Leer ponttfcalis. The Pseudo
Isidore attributes to him a reply to a letter from
Athanasius. 	(A. HARNACg.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Liber ponti*alia, ed. T. Mommsen, in MOM, Oeat. pont. Rom, i (1898), 73‑74; B. Platina, Lives of the Popes, i. 75‑77, ondon, n.d.; Bower, Popes, i. 54; DCB. UL 825.

MARCUS AURELIUS ANTOftINUS: Roman emperor Mar. 7, 161‑Mar. 17, 180; b. at Rome Apr. 26, 121; d. probably at Sirmium (260 m. n. of Dyrrhachium, the modern Durazzo) Mar. 17, 180. He was the son of Annius Nerus, who died c. 130, and was adopted and educated by his grandfather, Marcus Annius Verus. As a child he en. joyed the favor of Hadrian, and became versed in philosophy at an early age. In 138 he was adopted by Antoninus Pius, whose daughter he married, apparently in 145, and the year after Antoninus as. cended the throne, Marcus Aurelius became consul for the first time. In 146 he received the tribu nician power and then became coregent though he did not bear the title imperator. Proposed as the successor of Antoninus, he was autocrator after Mar. 7, 161, He immediately made Lucius Verus coregent and placed him in charge of the Parthian war. He assumed the cognomens of Armeniacus shortly after 163 and Parthicus Maximus and Medicut in 166, the same year in which both emperors seem to have assumed the title Pacer potri,m. .In this. same year he triumphed over the Parthians,

175	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Maroion Maroionitea
Marcus '~remita
and after crushing the Marcomanni bore the cognomen Germanieus in 172, while three years later, after his expedition against the Iazygi, he termed himself Sarmaticus. In the latter year he made an expedition to Asia, returning by way of Smyrna and Athens, where he was initiated in the Eleusinian mysteries, and arrived in Rome in 176, when he celebrated a triumph over the Germans and Sarmatians. He then associated his son, Commodus, with him in the government, but in 177 both were called to Germany, and during this expedition Aurelius died, apparently of the plague.
Despite the fact that his reign was a period of almost unceasing war, Marcus Aurelius found time for literary activity. His philosophical standpoint was that of eclectic Stoicism, and the writings of Epictetus were his favorite reading; in religion he sought to avoid every form of folly, as he shunned all sophistry and pedantry in philosophy. His ideal of life and his efforts to attain it are given in his Meditations, but the extent of his knowledge of Christianity is uncertain. His view that the contempt of death manifested by the Christians was based on obstinacy was merely the general opinion of the philosophers of his period, and any apparent affinity between his Meditations and Christian thought is merely accidental and undesigned.
The position of the Church during his reign was practically what it had been under his predecessors, although local persecutions were more frequent and received encouragement in 176 by his stringent laws against superstitions and foreign religions. On the other hand he expressly confirmed Trajan's policy of pardon for all who should recant, and the tradition of his policy toward the Christians in the early Church was accordingly twofold. The older view, represented by Tertullian and Lactantius, ignores the sufferings of the Christians under the " good " emperor or refers them to the machinations of evil counselors, while the later tradition, as given by Sulpicius Severus, Chrysostom, and Orosius, brands his reign as the age of the fifth persecution. The most trustworthy records of the condition of the Church at this period are: the account of the martyrdom of Justin and his companions at Rome, written between 163 and 167; the Peregrinus Proteas of Lucian, composed shortly after 165; the letters of Dionysius of Corinth; the works of Melito of Sardis, especially his " Apology," written in the second half of the reign of Aurelius; the lost " Apologies " of Apollinaris and Miltiades, and the extant " Apology " of Athenagoras, composed in the closing years of the reign; the authentic socount of the persecutions at Lyons and Vienne given by Eusebius, the most important and detailed source; the account of the martyrdom of Carp‑, Papylus, and Agathonice; and scattered references to the Christians in the fragments of the older anti‑Montanistic writers preserved by Eusebius, as well as in the works of Lucian, Aristides, Fronto, and Celsus. It is evident, from these sources, that the persecutions became more numerous in the latter part of the reign of Aurelius, and that the rule laid down by Trajan was not always followed although the government sought to suppress the disorders and thus issued decrees which
the Christians construed as acts of toleration. The
letter of Marcus Aurelius (usually appended to
Justin Martyr's first "Apology"; Eng. transl. in
ANF, i.187), dealing with the " thundering legion,"
is a forgery, though it may be based on a genuine
letter. According to this the army under Marcus
Aurelius was saved in the face of a vast army of
Germans by answer to the prayer of the Christians
in the shape of a refreshing rain which fell on
the Romans but was a withering hail as it reached
the Germans. The "thundering legion" long
bore this title, but did not derive its name from
this miracle. 	(A. HARNACK.)
BIBLIOGRAPBY: There is an excellent list of works in Bald
	win, Dictionary, iii. 1, pp. 365‑366. The editio princeps
	of the " Meditations " was by G. Xylander, Greek and
	Latin, Zurich, 1559; best ed., by T. Gataker, London,
	1643, Cambridge, 1652, Eng. transl., by George Lang,
	London, 1880; late ed., by C. Cless, Berlin, 1900. Numer
	ous trausls. exist in English and continental languages.
	Among the sources are the Vita by Capitolinue; Dion
	Cassius, lxxi.; the letters of Marcus Cornelius Fronto (ed.
	A. Mai, Milan, 1815, Rome, 1823); and the Letter of the
	Churches of Vienne and Lyons, cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl.,
	IV., xiv.‑V., viii. The subject is treated in the works
	on the history of Rome; in those on the history of phi
	losophy, e.g., by Ueberweg, Erdmann, and Windelband;
	in those on the persecutions of the Christians, in the
	works on the history of the early church; and in the
	classical dictionaries. Lives are by J. Capitolin, Paris,
	18.50; E. Renan, Paris, 1882, Eng. traneL, London, n.d.;
	B. Gabba, Milan, 1884; P. B. Watson, London, 1884.
	Consult further: L. M. Ripault, Histaire philosophique
	de Marcus Aurelius, etc., 5 vols., Paris, 1830; M. E. de
	Suekau, Ptude our MarfrAuTRe: ea vie et as doctrine,
	Paris, 1857; A. No81 des Vergers, Essai our Afaro‑Aur~le,
	Paris, 1860; M. KSnigsbeck, De atoiciamo Marci Antonini,
	K6nigsberg, 1861; E. Zeller, Vortr&ge and Abhandlungen,
	pp. 82‑177, Leipsic, 1865; A. Badek, M. Aurelius An
	tonius a1a Preund and Zeitgenosse deg Rabbi Jehuda ha
	Nasi, Leipsic, 1868; F. W. Farrar, Seekers after God,
	London, 1891; L. Alston, Stoic and Christian in the 2nd
	Century. A Comparison of the ethical Teaching of Marcus
	Aurelius with that of contemporary and antecedent Chris
	tianity, London, 1906; Schaff, Church History, ii. 326‑330.

MARCUS EREMITA.
Identification and Early Citations (1 1). Ascetic and Polemic Treatises (1 2). Spurious Writings (¢ 3). Details of His Life ($ 4). His Theology ($ 5).
	Marcus Eremita, ascetic and theologian, flour
ished apparently in the first half of the fifth century
and died after 430. He first became known by a
series of treatises described by Photius in his Bib
liotheca, although no details of his life are given
there. The nine tractates named and summarized
		by Photius, however, agree with those
	z. Identifi‑ now extant, with the exception of the
	cation and " Ascetic Chapters." Marcus was
	Early identified by Bellarmine with a monk
	Citations. of the same name, who about 900
		prophesied ten additional years of life
to the wounded Emperor Leo VI., and the same
scholar also advanced the hypothesis that the wri
tings ascribed to the Eremite had been fabricated
or corrupted by the heretics of his time. Although
this theory was later refuted, Marcus attracted little
attention until his treatise against the Nestorians,
previously unknown, was published by Papadopu
los Kerameos (St. Petersburg, 1891), and since that
time it has been shown that all the writings as‑

Xarcas Eremite.	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	178
Margaret of Navarre
cribed to Marcus by Photius were actually written
by him, or at least by a single author. The first
certain mention of Marcus Eremita dates from the
seventh century, when he was twice cited by Doro
theus, a Palestinian archimandrite. In the same
century he was quoted by Isaac of Nineveh, Anae
tasius Sinaita, John of Damascus in the eighth cen
tury, and Theodore the Studite in the ninth. An
important historical note concerning this author is
given by Nicephorus Callistus, who states that the
ascetics Euphymius, Simon the Stylite, Nilus, Isi
dore of Pelusium, and the " famous Marcus " were
almost contemporary. The last three he designates
as pupils of Chrysostom, a statement which is par
ticularly important in the case of Marcus, since
neither his writings nor any tradition connect him
with this saint. A divergent tradition identifies
Marcus Eremita with an ascetic of the same name
living in the Egyptian monastic colony of Cellia.
According to this identification, Marcus would have
attained an extreme age in 395, even if he were not
already dead.
	The first two works of Marcus are treatises " On
the Spiritual Law and On Them that Think they
are Justified. by Works." They originally formed
a single work entitled " On the Spiritual Law,"
and contained 412 mystic and ascetic aphorisms
		devoted to the interpretation of the
	s. Ascetic law of the spirit (Rom. vii. 14). The
and Polemic underlying thought is monastic re
	Treatises. nunciation of the world, and the con
		ception is characterized by a combina
tion of a mystic concept of grace with ascetic zeal,
the object of all human activity being the removal
of obstacles through grace. The treatise of Mar
cus " On Repentance " is an exposition of penitence
required by the commandment of God. Essentially
a matter of the heart and the conscience, it need
not be manifested openly since it consists in morti
fication of desires, continual prayer, and bearing of
sorrow. It is requisite for all the descendants of
Adam, though in itself it can not win the kingdom
of heaven.
	The treatise " On Baptism," devoted to the
efficacy of baptism with respect to regeneration
and the new moral life of the Christian, is the most
valuable source for Marcus' doctrine of salvation.
He holds that baptism is perfectly efficacious for
the destruction of sin, but all good works are merely
an outworking of the perfect gift of grace conferred
through it, according to man's fulfilment of the
commandments, so that God and not man is re
sponsible for all good, while the individual and not
Adam is to answer for all sin.
	The " Salutary Admonitions to Nicholas " are
addressed to a young monk who had asked for
counsel in his struggle against anger and fleshly
lusts, while the " Disputation with a Lawyer " is
a dialogue of " an aged ascetic " (the author him
self) with a lawyer concerning the two monastic re
quirements not to invoke the law and to refrain
from works of the flesh. The " Colloquy of the
Mind with the Soul " is an apostrophe in which the
author's mind accuses itself and the soul of ascrib
ing the responsibility of the sins which they them
selves commit to Adam, Satan, or mankind in gen‑
eral. In the treatise " On Fasting," Marcus seeks the ethical mean for monastic fasts, so they may actually serve to correct the heart and not to make it proud. In contradistinction to these ascetic treatises, the tractate " On Melehizedek " is exegetic and dogmatic in character, and is a polemic against a heretical view prevailing in the author's time, despite episcopal anathemas. Those who maintained these false teachings, while orthodox in the main, even in their Christology, held that they might teach " deeper mysteries than the apostles " with reference to the account of Melchizedek in Heb. vii. They regarded him as essentially divine and as a true son of God in the sense that he was a theophany of the " non‑incarnate Logos." To these treatises must be added the recently discovered polemic against the Nestorians, which is indubitably genuine. In a somewhat obscure fashion Marcus seeks to prove that the Scriptures regard the incarnate Logos invariably as a single Christ, the God‑Man being neither mere God nor mere man, but both in virtue of " essential unity." Internal evidence dates this polemic in the beginning of 430 or 431.
Four treatises are incorrectly ascribed to Marcus Eremita. These are a Paraenesis, which is identical with the fifth homily of Macarius (q.v., 1); "On Paradise and the Spiritual Law," closely similar to the thirty‑seventh homily of Macarius, but with a long preface which is lacking in the edition of Macarius; a fragment of the so‑called second letter of Marcus which corresponds to a pas3. Spurious sage in Macarius; and the incomplete
	Writings.	" Ascetic Chapters," the greater part of
		which is contained in the ascetic Cen
turies of Maximus Confessor, while the remainder
are repeated almost word for word in Macarius.
The ascription of these writings of Macarius to
Marcus is doubtless due in great measure to the
similarity of the names. That these treatises were
not composed by Marcus is shown both by'the fact
that Photius does not mention them and also by their
partial or complete identity with the works of other
authors, this correspondence being nowhere found
in the eremite's genuine treatises. The " Ascetic
Chapters " seem to be excerpts of some late author.
The writings of Marcus Eremit, render it evident that he was a monk of authority and that he composed all his ascetic tractates for monks or ascetics. It may be inferred, moreover, from his " Salutary Admonitions to Nicholas," that before he went to the desert Marcus bad been the abbot of a monastery in Ancyra. The Colloquy implies that he became an anchorite late in life, although it is not known what desert he chose. Since, how‑
	4. Details	ever, his writings were best pre
	of his Life.	served in the laura of Sabas, the region
		where his memory was retained the
longest, and since he resided in Asia and his
creed is Asiatic and non‑Egyptian in character,
there is good foundation for the supposition that
he sought the Syrian rather than the Egyptian
desert. Johannes Moschus, moreover, in his Pra
tum spirituale makes certain statements " about
Father Marcus the Anchorite," who lived in the
Syrian desert. The date of Marcus is approxi‑

177	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Xarcus Eremite
		Margaret of Navarre
mately fixed by the monastic system which was at once developed yet free in form, the mention of the Council of Nic:ea as an event of the past, the development of the doctrine of the three hypostases of the Godhead, his independence of tradition, and his creed in his polemic against the Nestorians, as well as by the omission of all mention of the Antiochian Creed of 433 or of the Chalcedonian Creed.
As a theologian Marcus was ethical rather than dogmatic, feeling that it was more important to keep the commandments of Christ than to speculate concerning the miracles of God. Convinced that the truth was contained in the apostolic tradition of the Church, and needed only to be guarded against innovations, he never dogmatized except when obliged to do so, and then based his arguments directly on the Bible so far as he could. He accordingly decided Christological controversies by referring the predicates both of exaltation and humility to Christ, guided by his belief in the uncom‑
bined yet essentially indivisible union g. His of the Logos and the flesh, since the
Theology. deeds of a mere man could not give
	salvation.	The general theological
position of Marcus closely approximates that of
Chrysostom, Nilus, Isidore of Pelusium, and, in
Biblical doctrine, of Theodore of Mopsuestia. His
ethical attitude is in harmony with his theology.
His asceticism is practical rather than mystical,
and he attaches little value to mere formalism. In
his teachings concerning sin and grace Marcus
Eremite held that man was mortal since and be
cause of the sin of Adam, inasmuch as he, being
himself condemned to die, could beget none but
mortal offspring. Though this death is termed
sin and punishment, he denies original sin in so far
as he restricts sin to voluntary acts. Death is de
fined as " estrangement from God," which must be
obviated by the atonement of Christ, yet the view
is nowhere expressed that death is the cause of sin,
but the opinion is maintained that the prevalent
of sin is the fault of the individual, though all are
subject to a captivity and impurity which can be
removed only by the grace of Christ. Grace ac
cordingly consists, on the one hand, of the ransom
from death by the death of Christ, and, on the
other, in the mystic gift of the Holy Ghost through
the baptism of the Catholic Church, which thus re
stores the perfect freedom of the will hindered by
the dominion of sin. The power to fulfil the com
mandments of Christ is conferred by grace, though
the human will is a necessary condition of the mani
festation of grace according to Phil. ii. 13. Never
theless, in all good works hidden grace alone is re
vealed, and all self‑righteousness is thus excluded,
while grace so completely annihilates the entire
" fault of Adam " that the death of the baptized is
traced to their own iniquities. On the other hand,
death is necessary for the attainment of complete
perfection, for while man remains in the flesh, his
human nature renders it impossible for him to be
come unchanging. 	(JOHANNES KUNZE.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The works of Marcus are found most handily in MPG, lxv. 903‑1140 with prefatorial matter, pp.
893 sqq. One of his hitherto unknown writings (§ 1 above)
is printed by P Kerameus in Analekta Hierosolymitikes
atachyolopias, i. 89‑113, St. Petersburg, 1891. For Syriac,
VII.‑12
translations cf. J. S. Awemani, Bibliotheea orientalis iii. 1, pp. 96, 194, Rome, 1728; W. Wright, Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British Museum, London, 1871; E. Sachau, Verzeichnis der syriachen Handschriften . . . zu Berlin, Berlin, 1899. Consult: J. Kunze, Marcus Eremita, sin neuer Zeupe fur das allkirchliche Taufbekenntnis Leipsic, 1895; idem, in TLB, xix (1898), 393‑398; C. Oudin, Commentaries de acriptoribus ecdesiasticis, i. 902‑908, Leipsic, 1722; G. C. Hamburger, Zuverldasipe Nachrichten von den vornehmaten Schriftetellern, iii. 1‑3, Lemgo, 1780; Fabricius‑Harles, Bibliotheca Greca, ix. 267‑289, Hamburg; 1804; T. Ficker, in ZHT, xxxviii (1868), 402 eqq.; U. Chevalier, Rgpertoire dee sources hietoriguw, Paris, 1877‑86; J. Fewler, Institutiones lxitrolopice, ed. Jungmann ii. 143‑146, Innsbruck, 1892; Ceillier, Auteure aacr&, xi. 634‑643; H. G. Floes, Macarii Epvptii epistolm, in MPG, lxv. 877 sqq.; DCB, iii. 826‑827; KL, viii. 684.
MARESIUS, SAMUEL. See DES MARETs, SAMum..
MARGARET OF NAVARRE: Daughter of Duke Charles of Orl6ans‑Angoul8me, duchess of Alengon, and later Queen of Navarre, patron of the Reformation in France; b. at Angoul@me Apr. 11, 1492; d. at the chiteau of Odos, near Tarbes, Dec.
		21, 1549. After her father's death,
	Social	she was sent by her mother, the witty
Position;	and ambitious Louise of Savoy, to the
Patronage	court of Louis XII., her guardian,
of Letters. 	where she received an excellent educa‑
tion. Endowed with rare mental qualities, including eagerness for knowledge and a warm appreciation of everything beautiful, she studied philosophy and theology in addition to the living and dead languages. On Dec. 1, 1509, she married Charles, last Duke of Alencon, and on the accession of Francis I. in 1515, was introduced to the court. The king was very fond of his sister, for whose intellect he had a high esteem, and often asked her advice in difficult matters. Like him, she was the patron of many scholars and men of letters, who clustered about her at her court at N6rac. Among them were some of a serious turn of mind, who spoke to her of religion, such as Lef6vre d'Etaples (see FABER STAPULENBIB, JACOBUS) and his friend G6rard Roussel (q.v.), Michel d'Arande, Clement Marot (q.v.), and Guillaume Briconnet, bishop of Meaux (q.v.), who with the help of D'Arande, of Evangelical tendencies, was trying to awaken in his diocese a religious life that would lead to a study of the Bible. Between 1521 and 1524 she kept up a correspondence with Briqonnet, through which she became acquainted with " the wisdom of learned ignorance," the art of contemplating God without intermediary (neglecting all scholastic deductions and even the use of the sacraments) and finding union with him only through an intense faith and increasing love.
These letters also discuss the need of reform in the Church. In his reforming zeal Brigonnet had chosen Lef6vre d'Etaples as his vicar‑general, and sent Michel d'Arande to Margaret as her chaplain.
The latter expounded the Scriptures Attitude in private to Margaret and her brother Toward and mother, who, she says, often exReform. pressed the wish to reform the Church;
and she mentions the spreading of the idea that " divine truth is not heresy." It was on suspicion of heresy, however, that the Franciscans arraigned Brigonnet before the Parlement of Paris

Xargaret of Navarre	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	178
Xarheineke
in 1524: He was coerced into giving up his re
forming projects; but Michel d'Arande, LeMvre
d'Etaples, and Gerard Roussel remained in the
private circle of the princess. In 1525 her hus
band died, and she spent the first period of her
widowhood at Lyons, where D'Arande preached
before large audiences. During the captivity of
Francis I. the persecution of the Huguenots began.
When Louise of Savoy was regent, although she
had seemed unfriendly to the monastic orders and
favorable to reforming ideas, she allowed the in
troduction into France of the Inquisition. LeMvre
and Roussel, abandoned by Briponnet, took refuge
at Strasburg, whither Michel d'Arande soon fol
lowed them. On June 24, 1527, Francis gave his
sister in marriage to Henri d'Albret, king of
Navarre, eleven years her junior. In her new posi
tion Margaret remained faithful to her Evangelical
convictions, which were shared by her husband.
With his assent she tried to reform the Church in
their little kingdom. Gerard Roussel was made
abbot of Clairac and later bishop of Oloron. Through
her influence with Francis I., Lef6vre was appointed
librarian of the chateau of Blois, and when he was
persecuted by the Sorbonne, she had him brought
under her protection at Nerac. In Strasburg, where
Lefevre and Roussel had praised her dispositions,
great things were expected of her for the cause of
reform in France. In 1527 Sigismund von Hohen
lohe, dean of the cathedral there, imbued with Lu
theran ideas, entered into communication with her,
expressing the desire to come to France to help the
cause. In May, 1528, Capito dedicated to her his
commentaries on Hosea, saying " All eyes are
turned toward you; you are the hope of all Re
formers." As duchess of AlenQon, she had done
much in that neighborhood for the revival of let
ters and for reform in religion. In the duchy of
Berry, which she had ruled since 1518, the univer
sity of Bourges flourished under her protection,
and it was here that Calvin and Beza were inclined
toward Protestantism under Wolmar's teaching.
She intended to found a college in Bearn, to which
Sturm and Latomus were to be called (1533); but
her plan was not destined to be realized until her
daughter Jeanne d'Albret founded the Academy
of Orthez. Staying in Paris with her husband in
1533, she caused Gerard Roussel to preach the
Evangelical doctrine in the chapel of the Louvre,
and his boldness of speech raised a storm not only
against him but against his patroness: The Miroir
de lame p9cherease (see bibliography) was condemned
and prohibited by the Sorbonne, because it made no
mention of the saints or of purgatory. . Francis, ex
asperated by the insults directed against his sister,
banished several of the most prominent reactionary
clergy. By the help of his confessor Guillaume Petit,
bishop of Senlis, he opened a process before the
University of Paris for the reversal of the condemna
tion of the Miroir, and the sentence of the Sorbonne
was annulled. To allay the popular excitement,
Francis ordered both Roussel and his antagonists to
keep silence on controverted points. Margaret took
a lively share in her brother's correspondence with
Melanchthon and Butzer with the view of working
out a plan which might promote the reunion of
Christendom by mutual concessions. When, however, Francis definitely took the side of the persecutors, Margaret lost all her influence over him in religious matters, and retired in disgust to Navarre, where she and her husband devoted themselves to promoting the cause of reform.
Searching the Scriptures, she became far more advanced, in all that concerned dogma, than her teachers D'Arande, Roussel, and even Lef6vre d'Etaples. This is manifest in her book Les Marguerites de la Marguerite, and in her last verses, Dia‑
logue de Momme et de Dieu and Lea Favoring Prisons. She adopted Calvin's doo‑
of the Ref‑ trines of salvation and the sacraments,
ormation in and rejected confession, indulgences,
Navarre. and prayer to the saints. As to the
external forms of religion, which appeared to her non‑essential, she kept up at the same time most of the old rites, because, although opposed to clerical abuses, she had always hoped for a reform without a complete breach with Rome. But she did not wish to retain unity at the cost of renouncing the newly recovered truths or of employing compulsion. She ordered that justification by faith should alone be preached in the kingdom of Navarre. The service was held,, and the psalms were sung, in the vernacular. Many monastic abuses were reformed, and only godly and Evangelical priests appointed to parishes. These improvements, established by Margaret in the churches of Bearn and later introduced by Roussel in his diocese of 0leron, paved the way for a more thoroughgoing reform which was made later by Jeanne d'Albret, and explains the latter's success. The little mountain kingdom became the refuge of persecuted Protestants, for all of whose needs Margaret provided. As long ago at Alengon she had sheltered Saints‑Marthe, who had escaped from the gallows at Grenoble, so now she begged mercy from Francis I. for persecuted heretics, such as Louis de Berquin, Etienne Dolet, and the Waldenses of Provence. She spent most of her time either at Nerac with her court around her, or in the convent of Tusson, whither she retired during her mourning after Francis L's death (1547), and set an example of Christian virtue. At all critical conjunctures she prayed without ceasing. From this period of her life date most of her religious poems, many of which were printed in the Marguerdtea de la Marguerite des princesses, while some remain in manuscript in the BibliotMque Nationale.
But her whole time was not given up to religious pursuits. She was by nature a lover of mirth and
gaiety. She had comedies performed Other at Nerac and at Mont de Marsan by Interests Italian players, and wrote a series of
in Life. lively tales entitled Heptameron des
nouvelW, in the style of Bomeeiols Decameron, in which she drew from the example of human frailty the moral lesson that one can not rely on one's own strength but should have recourse in all circumstances to God. During the last illness of Francis I. she went to him, and her presence seemed to revive him; but scarcely had she returned to Nerac when she heard of his death
(Mar. 31, 1547). The income of 24,000 livrcs which

179	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	MXXargaret of Navarre
			arheineke
he granted her was used largely for charity.	In
	1538 she established a foundling asylum under the
	name of " Hospice des enfants de Dieu le P6re,"
	commonly known from the costume of the inmates
as " Les enfants rouges."	On Oct. 20, 1548, she
	unwillingly gave her decidedly Protestant daugh
	ter, Jeanne d'Albret, in marriage to the vain and
untrustworthy Antoine de Bourbon.	Little more
	than a year later, after a long illness, she died, and was
	lamented and eulogized by native and foreign poets,
as she well deserved to be.	G. BONET‑MAURY.
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: Her works include: Le Miroir de lame
	pecheresae, au quel site recongnoiat see faultea et pechez,
	ausai les grdees et benefloea h wile faietz par Jesus Christ
	son eapoux, Alengon, 1531, and elsewhere often, e.g., Paris,
	1533, Lyons, 1538, Eng. transl. by Princess Elizabeth, A
	Godly Medytacion of the Christen Sowle, London (7), 1548;
Poesies et dialogue entre Marguerite de France et .	. Char
	lotte de France, Alengon, 1533; Les Marguerites, ut sup., 2
	vols., Lyons, 1547; L'Heptameron, Paris, 1559, and else
	where in innumerable editions and translations. Her letters
	are scattered in Letters di xiii. Huomini illuetrt, Venice,
	1564 J. C. Wibel, Lebenageschichte des . . . Siegmunp von
	Hohenlohe, Nuremberg, 1748; Genin, Lettres de Mar
	guerite d'Angouleme, Paris, 1841; A. Champollion, Cap
	tiviM de Francois 1., ib. 1842, and in A. L. Herminjard,
Correspondance des reformateura, Paris, 1878‑97.
	The moat authoritative biography is in F. Frank's ed.
	of Lea Marguerites de to Marguerite des princeaees, Intro
	duction, 4 vols., Paris, 1873. Consult: P. de Bour
	deilles, Seigneur de Brant6me, Vie des dames illuatree, dis
	oours v., ib. 1665‑66; V. Durand, Marguerite de Navarre,
	2 vols., ib. 1849; Miss M. W. Freer, Life of Marguerite,
	Queen q/ Navarre, 2 vols., London, 1857; H. A, Blind,
	Marguerite de Navarre dons ses rapporta avee la reforms,
	Strasburg, 1858; H. de la Ferribre Percy, Marguertted'An
	pouleme, Paris, 1862; V. Lfiro, Marguerite d' Angoul?me,
	ib. 1866; P. Albert, Litteralure franCaiae au xvi. siMe,
	ib. 1881; J. Bonnet, in Bulletin de to societe du proteatan
	tisme francaia, xxxvii. 109‑114; F. Lotheissen. Konigin
	Margareth von Navarra; sin Kulturbiild sue der . . .
	(ranzbeiachen Reformation, Berlin, 1885; Mary Robinson
	Margaret of Angoultrne, London, 1886; A. Lefrane, Lea
	1deea relipieuaea de Marguerite de Navarre, Paris, 1898;
	P. A. Becker, Marguerite . . . et G. Brigonnet, ib. 1901;
	E. Sichel, Women and Men of the French Renaissance, 1498
	1547, London, 1901; Lichtenberger, BSR, viii. 679 sqq.
MARGARET, SAINT: Queen of Scotland;	b.
	in Hungary c. 1045; d. at Edinburgh Nov. 16,
1093.	She was of the royal family . of England,
	granddaughter of Edmund Ironside, the last Eng
	lish king before the Danish usurpation (d. 1016).
	Her father and his brother were sent out of the
	country by Canute, and, as tradition has it, ulti
	mately came to Hungary and there Margaret was
born.	She probably accompanied her father to
England in 1057.	Her marriage with Malcolm III.
	of Scotland took place in‑1067 according to some
	authorities, in 1069 or 1070 according to others.
	She applied to Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury,
	for instruction in the way of God's service, became
	distinguished for her austere and ascetic life, and
	did much to introduce Roman Usages into the Scot
tish Church.
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: A Vita, by a contemporary, probably her
	confessor, Turgot, is in ASB, June, ii. 320‑340 an Eng.
	tranal. of which is edited by W. Forbes‑Leith, 3d ed.,
	Edinburgh 1896. Consult: W. F. l3kene, Celtic Scot
	land, n. 344‑354 Edinburgh, 1877• W. J. Rees, Lives of
	the Cambro‑British Sainte, pp. 219‑231;, 540‑553; Llan
	dovery, 1853; A. P. Forbe, Kalendara of Scottish Saints,
pp. 387‑391, Edinburgh, 1872.
MARGARET, SAINT:	One of the Helpers in
Need (q. v.).
MARGARITA: The term applied in the Greek Church to the vessel containing the consecrated host, while the portions of the host reserved for the sick by the priests in special receptacles are called margaritai (" pearls "). These margaritai are then placed in the consecrated wine, dipped from it with a spoon, and given to the sick.

MARGOLIOUTH, m8r"go‑if uth, MOSES: Church of England; b. at Suwalki (150 m. n.e. of Warsaw), Poland, Dec. 3, 1820; d. in London Feb. 25, 1881. Of Jewish parentage he pursued rabbinical studies in Poland, but having been induced on a visit to England in 1837 to read the Hebrew New Testament he embraced Christianity and was baptized in Apr., 1838. He entered Trinity College, Dublin, in Jan., 1840, and was ordained curate of St. Augustine's, Liverpool, in 1844. He served in many places as curate and vicar and in 1877 became vicar of Little Linford, Buckinghamshire. He wrote many books, chiefly on Hebrew subjects. His chief works are: Fundamental Principles of Modern Judaism (London, 1843); Pilgrimage to the Home of my Fathers (2 vols., 1850); History of the Jews in Great Britain (3 vols., 1851); Curates of Riveradale (3 vols., 1860); Vestiges of the Historic Anglo‑Hebrews in East Anglia (1870); and Poetry of the Hebrew Pentateuch (1871).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Consult: Margoliouth's Curates of Riversdale, ut sup.; the autobiography prefixed to his Fundamental Principles of Modern Judaism, ut sup.; and DNB, xxxvi. 159.
MARGRETH, JOHANN JAKOB: German Roman Catholic; b. at Hamburg May 29, 1873. He was educated at the University of Munster (1892‑94, 1900‑01) and the Gregorian University, Rome (1894‑1900), studying philosophy from 1892 to 1896 (Ph.D., Gregorian University, 1896) and theology from 1896 to 1900 (D.D., Gregorian University, 1900). After being a theological tutor in the dioceses of Osnabriick (1900‑02) and Hildesheim (1902‑03), he became privat‑docent for apologetics at Miinster in 1903. Three years later he was appointed to his present position of professor of moral theology at the Seminary of Mainz. He has written Das Gebetsleben Jesu Christi des Sohnes Gottes (Munster, 1902).
MARHEINEKE, mar‑hai'n6‑ke (until 1823 MARHEINECBE), PHILIPP KONRAD: German Protestant theologian; b. at Hildesheinl (21 m. s.s.e. of Hanover) May 1, 1780; d. at Berlin May 31, 1846. After completing his theological education at Gottingen he became lecturer there, and in 1805 was appointed professor extraordinary and second university preacher at Erlangen. Two years later he was called as professor to Heidelberg, where he remained until he went to Berlin in 1811. His pretentiousness and bombastic style rendered him unpopular with his colleagues, nor were his sermons at the Dreifaltigkeitskirche, where he preached after 1820 as the colleague of Schleiermacher, well received. He began his literary career with his Universalkirchenhistorie (Erlangen, 1806) and with his Allgemeine Darstellung des theologischen Geistes der kirchlichen Verfassung and kanonischen Rechtwissenachaft in Bezug auf die

Xarheineke
Marinug
Moral des Christenthums and die ethisehe Denkart des Mittelalters (Nuremberg, 1807). To this same period belongs his Christliche Predigten zur Bolebung des Gefuhls furs Schone and Heilige (Erlangen, 1805). His general history of the church was overladen with philosophy, but a better reception was accorded to his Geschichte der deutschen Reformation (2 vols., Berlin, 1817). Marheineke was the first to make a scientific study of symbolics, his works on this subject being Chrisuiche Symbolik (3 vols., Heidelberg, 1810‑14), Institutiones symbolicce, dodrinarum Catholicorum, Protestantium, Socinianorum, Ecclesice Grtecce, minorumque societatum Christianorum summam et diserimina exhibentes (Berlin, 1812) and his lectures on Christliche Symbolik (1848). His works are marked by an extravagant admiration of Protestantism and of Luther. In his Grundlegung der Homiletik (Hamburg, 1811) he deduced all homiletics from the eternal concept of sacrifice and advocated spiritual asceticism, while in briefer writings he made a revival of ecclesiastical life conditional upon the acceptance of a new creed, and pleaded for a more general emphasis on dogma.
The obscurity enveloping Marheineke's thought was dissipated by Hegelianism, and he became one of the leaders of the Hegelian school, writing in this spirit Vorlesungen caber die Bedeutung der hegelschen Philosophie in der christlichen Theologie (Berlin, 1842). Long before, in his Christliche Dogmatik (1819) and his Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens and Lebens (1823), he had endeavored to develop the external form of religion to a speculative science, regarding the principle of dogmatics as the immediate consciousness of God or as the reason which solves all mysteries in virtue of its knowledge of God and its identity with the idea. The stages of the development of religion were three: the religion of fancy and opinion in paganism; the religion of reflection and recollection in Judaism; and the religion of revelation or the spirit in Christianity. The basal mystery of all religions and ages, even of nature herself, is the Trinity. The undifferentiated substance is the Father; the eternal outgoing of God from himself, the inward selfdifferentiation of substance and subject, is the Son; and the Holy Ghost reconciles the differentiations between the Father and the Son, thus restoring their unity. In his System der theologisehen Moral (Berlin, 1847) Marheineke's dogmatics reached its fullest development. The cleavage of the Hegelian school was at first greeted by him as a proof of energy, but the Leben Jesu of Strauss was a bitter blow to him, the unceasing opponent of rationalism. In his System der christlichen Dogmatik (Berlin, 1847) he replied to Strauss, holding that Christ was the central figure in the history of the world and that Strauss, by his identification of the Godman with humanity, had confused the center with the circumference. Unfavorable in the extreme to the philosophy of Kant, Marheineke approved of the earlier teachings of Schelling, although for his later views he had only the antipathy which he expressed in his Zur Kritik der schellingschen 0, fenbarungsphilosophie (Berlin, 1843). Marheineke became in his closing years a representative of free‑
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
180
thinking piety, holding that the principle of the Evangelical church was that because a thing was true it was in the Bible, not that because a thing was in the Bible it was true.
	Marheineke collaborated on the Studien edited
by C. Daub and F. Creuzer (Frankfort, 1805‑11)
and on B. Bauer's Zeitschrift fur spekulative The
ologie (Berlin, 1836‑38), edited Hegel's Vorlesungen
caber die Philosophie der Religion (Berlin, 1832) and,
with T. W. Dittenberger, C. Daub's Philo8oph
i8che and theologisehe Vorleaungen (7 vols., 1838
1841). His own theological lectures were edited
by S. Matthies and W. Vatke (4 vols., Berlin, 1847
1849).	(G. Faerr$t.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: K. G. Bretschneider, Theolopiache Syetena von Schleiermacher, Marheineks, Hase, Leipsic, 1828; A. Weber, Le Systlme dogmatique de Marheineke, Strasburg, 1857; ADB, x7‑ 338.

MARIA DE AGREDA, ma‑ri'd d6 d‑gr6'dd (Maria Coronel, Maria de Jesu) : A nun of the Franciscan order of the Poor Clares, mother superior of the convent of the Immaculate Conception at Agreda (135 m. n.e. of Madrid) in Old Castile; b. at Agreda Apr. 2, 1602; d. there May 24, 1635. She left a work, alleged to have been divinely inspired, La mystics ciudad de Dios (first published in‑Spanish, 3 vols., Madrid, 1670, afterward also in Latin and other languages)‑a tendency writing in favor of the Scotist Franciscan doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary. The supposed revelations to the author are the wildest flights of imagination. Mary, the immaculately conceived, is carried directly after her birth at divine command into the uppermost heaven, where she beholds the Trinity; 900 angels, under command of the Archangel Michael, are appointed to her service; she is praised as God's eternal wisdom (cf. Prov. viii. 22 sqq.), as ruler of the world, who was present at the transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor as well as at his Last Supper, who rose again after her death at Jerusalem, and ascended to heaven no less than twice, and the like. Pope Innocent XI. prohibited the book in 1681, chiefly on the ground of its one‑sided espousal of an uncanonized dogma. and the heretical teaching propounded therein, viz., that Mary's flesh and blood were present propria. specie in the Eucharist. But Charles II. of Spain interfered in behalf of the work, which his subjects not only loved but almost idolized. He obtained from the pope a suspension of the decree, at least for Spain. An effort to induce Innocent's successor, Alexander VIII., to revoke the edict for all Christendom, was in vain; the new pope confirmed the suspension brief of his predecessor (1690). Alexander's successor, Innocent XII., to please the king, appointed a commission to examine the work, but never published its decision. This reservation of his opinion seemed the more necessary, as during Innocent's pontificate the Sorbonne of Paris condemned the work after the publication of a French edition (La Mystique Citk de Dieu, Marseilles, 1695). The controversy grew more complicated, as the authorship was repeatedly denied to Maria of Agreda and ascribed to the Franciscan Joseph Ximenes Sammaniejo. Pope Benedict XIV. (in an edict of Jan. 1748) declared the authorship to be uncertain, and

181	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Marheinake
Marinas
Clement XIV. and Pius VI. were also compelled to
take notice of the book. A German adaptation in
two volumes was published at Regensburg as late
as 1890 (2d ed., 1893). 	0. ZSCSLEat.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: S. J. Baumgarten, Nachnchten von merk
	witrdiaen Bachern, iv. 214 aqq., Halle, 1753; J. Gdrres, Die
	christliche Mystik, i. 482‑495, Regensburg, 1836; A. M. da
	Vicenza, Della mistica citta di Dio, Bologna, 1873; Germ.
	tranal. of a brief life from this book by B. M. Lierheimer,
	Regensburg, 1875; J. Hergenr6ther, Kirchengeschichte,
	iii. 5211‑528, Freiburg, 1886; F. H. Reuseh, Der Index der
verbatenen B4cher, ii. 253‑257, Bonn, 1885.

MARIAMNE, mar"i‑am'ne: The name of three women connected with the family of Herod. See HEROD AND His FAMILY, I., §§ 2‑4, II., § 4.

MARIANA, JUAN DE: Spanish Jesuit; b. at Talavera de la Reina (68 m. s.w. of Madrid) 1536; d. at Toledo Feb. 17, 1624. He entered the order of Jesus in 1554, and seven years later was appointed professor at the Collegium Romanum, where his chief subject was exegesis, in which his ability was shown by his Seholia in Vetus et Novum Testamentum (Madrid, 1619). In 1565 he was transferred to Sicily, and from 1569 to 1574 taught in Paris, where he gained distinction by his leotures on Thomas Aquinas, until his health forced him to return to Spain. The.last fifty years of his life were spent in Toledo, and in this period falls his literary activity. His Historim de rebus HisPania lZra vigintirquirtque (Toledo, 1592; later extended to thirty books, Frankfort, 1603; Eng. transl., to the death of Ferdinand the Catholic, by J. Stephens, 2 vols., London, 1699) won him the title of " the Spanish Livy."
	Mariana's fame is chiefly due to his De rege et
regis inatitutione libri tree (Toledo, 1599), which,
sanctioned by his ecclesiastical superiors, contains
one of the boldest defenses ever written of the
sovereignty of the ~ people and their right of re
bellion against tyranny. The attack made by Mar
iana in his De monette mutations on the changes
proposed in the coinage by Philip III. resulted in
his imprisonment for a year in the Franciscan
monastery at Madrid. This tractate, together with
six others, some of which were subjected to censor
ship, was included in his Tractatus septem t‑um the
ologici tum politici (Cologne, 1609), which com
prises De adventu beati Jacobi Apostoli in Hi8pan
iam; De editions vulgates sanctorum bZiliomm; De
spectaculis; De monette mutations; De die ei anno
mortis Christi; De annis Arabum cum nostrils annis
eomparatis; and De morte et immortalitate libri tres.
In the closing decade of the sixteenth century Mar
iana wrote his De errortlus qui in forma guberna
tionis Societatis Jesu oemmunt. This was first
printed in French at Bordeaux in 1624 during the
struggle of the Jesuits with the University of Paris,
and later appeared in Latin and Italian, as well as
in the original Spanish (Geneva, 1631), but was
placed on the Index when the Italian version ap
peared in 1628. Mariana was also the author of a
number of minor works, and edited the Contra AL
bigensium errores of Lucas Tudensis (Ingolstadt,
1612). 	O. Z6CKLEat.
BIBLIOOBAPBy; F. Buchholz, Juan de Mariana, Berlin,
1804; P. Bayle, Dictionary Historical and Critical, iv.
124‑133, London, 1837; L. Ranker B4maiche Wrks,
zxiv. 230‑236, x=dv. 80 sqq., Leipsic, 1872‑73; F. H. Reuseh, Index der verbotenen Burner, ii. 281‑282, 341‑
344, Bonn, 1883; idem, Bed"ge zur Geachichte des Je8uitenordena, pp. 1‑23, Munich, 1894; P. Krebs, Die politiache Publizistik der Jesuiten pp. 108‑121, Hale, 1890; A. and A. de Backer, Biblioth6gue des 6crivaine de la soad6M de J4sus, ed. Sommervogel, v. 547‑567, 7 vole„ Lit;ge, 1891 sqq.; H. Hurter, Nomenclator literariua recentiorie theologim catholico!, i. 310‑312, Innsbruck, 1892; Ranks, Papacy, ii. 8, 88; BL, viii. 795‑‑800.
MARIANIISTS (Knights of the Glorious Virgin; Fratres Gaudentes) : A Roman Catholic order established among the nobility of Bologna. about 1233 by the Dominican Bartolomeo de Bragantiis. Its object was to promote public safety during the struggles of the Guelphs and Ghibellines, and to assist widows, orphans, and all in distress. The first Grand Master was Loderino Andalo of Bologna. The Marianists were divided into conventuals and married, the rule of the order permitting not only marriage but also the possession of property and secular life, thus giving rise to the epithet of " Joyous Brothers " as applied to the knights. The habit of the knights was white, with an ashen‑gray mantle bearing a red cross, while the conventuals wore a white or gray habit. Commanderies were gradually established in Modena, Mantua, Treviso, and several other cities of northern Italy, but by the end of the sixteenth century the Marianists doclined, and at the death of their last commendator, Camillo Volta, in 1589, Sixtus V. presented their estates to the college of Montalto.
	The Teutonic Knights were occasionally'termed
" Marianists " or " Knights of St. Mary," and a
community of regular clergy established in 1588 by
Giovanni Adorno of Genoa and St. Francisco Cargo
cioli of Naples was at first termed " Regular Clerks
of St. Mary," although, at the wish of Sixtus V.,
this name was soon exchanged for " Regular Minor
Clerks." In 1816 two French missionary societies
were founded bearing the name of the Virgin: the
" Oblates of the Immaculate Virgin Mary," founded
by the Provenpal Bishop J. E. de Mazenod (d. 1861)
and soon numbering seventy houses in five prov
inces (three European and two American); and the
" Society of Mary," founded by the Abb6 Colin,
which was confirmed in 1836 and has since worked
chiefly in Oceania. 	(0. Z6C1iLEat.)

MARINUS, ma‑rai'nvs or ma‑rt'nus: The name of two popes.
Marinus L : Pope 882884. He was the son of a priest named Palumbus, of Gallese in Tuscany, was a subdeacon under Leo IV. (847855), and became a deacon in 862 or soon after. In 866 he was sent as one of Nicholas L's envoys to the eastern emperor, but was stopped on the Grew‑Bulgarian frontier and forted to return to Rome. He was in attendance upon the eighth ecumenical council as legate of Adrian II., Nov., 869‑Feb., 870, and was recognized as the most capable Roman representative. He next became treasurer (arcariua) of the Roman see, archdeacon, and bishop of Caere in Etruria. He represented John VIII. in the negotiations of 879‑580 with Charles the Fat, and went again to Constantinople in the latter year to persuade Photius into submission, but failed and was imprisoned. He was elected pope in Dec., 882, the

Marinas	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	182
Mark
first case of the breach of the ancient rule forbid
ding the translation of bishops from one see to an
other. He came to terms with Charles the Fat in
June, 883, and succeeded in reconciling the adher
ents of Formosus, whom he recalled to Rome and
to the occupancy of his see of Porto. He excom
municated Photius (q.v.), and maintained friendly
relations with the English King Alfred, dying in
the middle of May, 884. 	(H. B6HMER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Liber pontifcalie, ed. Duchesne, ii., p. lxvii., 224, Paris, 1892 J. M. Watterich, Pontificum Romanorum vita?, i. 29, Leipsic, 1862; J. Hergenr6ther, Photiua, ii. 650‑651, Regensburg, 1868; R. Baxmann, Die Poltik der Pupate, vol. ii., Elberfeld, 1869; F. Gregorovius, Mist. of the City of Rome, iii. 205‑206, London, 1895; Bower, Popes, ii, 292‑293; Mihnan, Latin Christianity, iii. 101; Mann, Popes, iii. 353‑361 et passim.
Marinus II.: Pope 942‑946. He was chosen under the influence of Alberic, who retained entire control of his actions until his death.
It should be noticed that the two popes above
named are in the later lists designated as Martin
II. And III., so that the second Martin (1281,85)
is counted as Martin IV. 	(H. B6aMER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Liber pontiflcalia, ed. Duchesue ii., pp. lxix.‑lxx., Paris, 1892; J. M. Watterich, Pontiftcum Romanorum vita;, i. 40, Leipsic, 1862; R. Baxmann, Politik der PBpate, ii. 94 sqq., Elberfeld, 1869; F. Gregorovius, Mist. of the City of Rome, iii, 318‑321, London, 1895.
MARISTS. See SOCIETY or MARY.
	MARIUS: Bishop of Aventicum 574‑94. In
the process of Frankish conquest between 530 and
540, a considerable part of what is now Switzerland
was incorporated, and with it the old Roman col
ony of Aventicum Helvetiorum. Toward the end
of the sixth century it was made the seat of a bish
opric, and Marius is the first well‑attested bishop.
He was born in the diocese of Autun in 530 or 531,
probably of Gallio‑Roman blood,.and received an
excellent education with a view to the priesthood.
In 585 he took part as bishop of Aventicum in the
Frankish Synod of Macon. He died in 594, on Dec.
31, according to a necrology of the church of Lau
sanne, where he was buried. The chronicle written
by him, the manuscript of which is in the British
Museum, is a continuation, without separate title,
of that of Prosper, covering the years 455‑581, and
contains scanty but useful contributions to the his
tory of Valais and Burgundy. The saintly life at
tributed to him by his epitaph is one of the bright
spots in a dark period. 	(EMIL EGLIt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Chronicon, ed. J. Rickly, is in MEmoires et documents de la aociW de Phial. de la Suisse Romande, xiii. 19‑56, Lausanne, 1853; MPL, lxxii. 793802, and in W. Arndt, below. The chief source for a life is the Cartuiarium Lawannenae reproduced in full in MEmoirea et documents de la aocUt6 de l'hiat. de la Suiaas Romande vol. vi., Lausanne, 1851• cf. MGM, Script., xxiv (1880), 794 aqq., and GH, Aud. ant., xi (1893), 227 sqq. Consult: J. D(ey), in M6morial de Fribourg, i (1854), 49‑55; W. Arndt, Biachof Afarinua von Aventicum, Leipsio, 1875; Holder‑Egger, in NA, 1876, p. 254; KL, viii. 868‑869. The very scattered references are well collected in Potthast, Wepweiaer, p. 768.

MARIUS MERCATOR: Ecclesiastical writer of the fifth century; d. after 451. But little is known of his life. His cast of thought, dogmatic views, style, acquaintance with Augustine, and knowledge of African affairs, point to North Africa as his
birthplace. He appears to have been a cultivated layman, with a lively interest in theology, well read in Scripture, and able in polemics. What is known of him rests wholly on his writings, on a mention of him by Possidius, in Index hbrorum Augustini, iv.; and on a letter to Marius from Augustine, who thanks him for two tracts against the Pelagians, which the "young" author in 418 (hence he was hardly born prior to 390) had sent over to him from Rome (NPL, xlviii. 193). It is possible that he then followed, at Rome, the vocation of a public teacher; at all events, Augustine styles him doctor. He must have removed to Constantinople before 429, where he took part in the last stage of the Pelagian agitations and in the Nestorian dispute. In these matters he so keenly advocated the interests of Rome that he gives the impression of having served the Roman see in some official capacity. He vigorously urged the condemnation of Julian of Eclanum and his companions, and to this end in 429 he addressed a memorial in Greek to the congregation in Constantinople, submitting a copy to the Emperor Theodosius II. and translating the same into Latin (Commonitorium super nomine Calestii). As a result the Pelagians were banished from the capital, and their ecclesiastical condemnation followed at the Council of Ephesus of 431. In the same year Marius issued a second and ampler tract against the Pelagians (Cammonitorium adveraus hwresin Pelagii et Ccelestii vel etiam ecripta Juliani; also under the title Subnotationes in dicta qumdam Juliani ad Pientium presbyterum, with extracts from Julian's writings). His remaining literary activity is confined to translation from Greek into Latin of documents bearing upon the Pelagian and Nestorian controversies. Of particular importance in this regard, especially in view of the meager transmission of the original texts, are his translations from writings of Nestorius (e.g., Sermones V. adversus Dei genetricem Mariam).
	Marius is not to be rated very highly as an au
thor. As exhibited in his writings, he was a close
adherent of orthodox doctrine and an ardent
admirer of Augustine and Cyril. His polemics
included not only Pelagianism and Nestorianism,
but also the theology of the Antiochian school.
His dogmatic position is that of a rather nar
row orthodoxy; his judgment is borrowed, his
polemics is impassioned; he is often unjust, at
times coarse and vulgar. His style is harsh and
frequently ignoble. Nevertheless, his writings and
literal translations are of permanent value for the
history of the Pelagian and Nestorian controver.
sies, inasmuch as not a few of the weightiest of the
original documents are preserved exclusively through
him. 	G. KRtJGER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The first collected edition of Marius' works was by J. Gamier, Paris, 1673; the best is by $. Baines, ib. 1684, reproduced in Gallandi, Bibliotheca vaterum pa, trum, viii. 613‑768, Venice, 1772; MPL, xlvi. repro. ducea in the main the poorer text of Gamier. Consult: F. Loofs, Neatoriana, Halle, 1905; J: Feasler, lnetitutiottes patrologia, ii. 2, pp. 151‑165, Innsbruck, 1896; O. Bardenhewer, Patrolopie, pp. 447‑449, Freiburg, 1901; DCB, iii. 834‑835; XL, viii. 869‑871; W. Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, ii. 1045‑46, London, 1890 (gives list of the writings); Ceillier, Auteura sacra, viii. 498‑508.

183	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Xarinns
		Mark
MARg.
I. The Man. 	Internal Testimony (¢ 2).
II. The Gospel. 	Relation to the Other Synop‑
External Testimony to	tics (§ 3).
Authorship (§ 1). 	Mark xvi. 9‑20 (§ 4).
I. The Man: In Acts xii. 12, 25, a John Mark is named as one of the Christians of Jerusalem, at whose mother's house the meetings of the community were held, who was also a companion of Barnabas and Paul on their missionary journey to Antioch and Cyprus (Acts xiii. 5) but left them when they reached Asia Minor. Because of this defection, Paul refused to take him along on the second missionary journey, and this caused a separation between Barnabas and Paul, Barnabas and Mark going together and Paul and Silas becoming companions. A Mark is mentioned by Paul several times in his epistles (Col. iv. 10, " Mark, the cousin of Barnabas "; II Tim. iv. 11; Philemon 24), always in favorable terms. In I Pet. v. 13 is mentioned one of the name as " Mark my son." These notices do not suffice to prove the existence of two men of the name (Schleiermacher and Kielen in TSK, 1843), but the historicity of at least one Mark is apparent. He was a Jew (Col. iv. 11), and, like the Jesus Justus of that passage and other Jews of the period, took a Roman name in addition to his Jewish name. Acts xii. 12 suggests that his father was already dead in the early years of Christianity. Mark appears to have been younger than Paul and Peter, but still old enough to have been an adult at the time of the crucifixion. Tradition identifies him with the man described in Mark xiv. 13 as " bearing a pitcher of water " and with the young man of verses 51‑52, and also makes him one of the seventy disciples; it does not follow from I Pet. v. 13 that he was converted and baptized by Peter. His missionary activity is abundantly recognized by Paul, and the last historical datum is that of his presence in Rome about 63 A.D. Legend makes him the founder of the Church in Egypt and bishop of Alexandria (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., IV., xv.). The predicate " stump‑fingered " applied to him in Hippolytus, Hcer., VIL, xxx., is possibly a misunderstanding arising from the fact that the Gospel ascribed to him is without such introduction and conclusion as the other Gospels have.
II. The Gospel: Universal tradition ascribes to Mark the authorship of the shortest of the Gospels, and almost as unanimously regards Peter as the authority behind Mark (Tertullian, Adv. Marcion, IV., v.). Bound up with this is the legend
that Mark was the convert of Peter.
r. External Irenmus (Hwr., III., i. 2) reports that Testimony Mark wrote the Gospel after Matthew to Author‑ was written and after the death of ship. Peter, and Origen adds (Eusebius,
Hist. eccl., VI., xxv. 5) that it was written before the Gospels of Luke and John. Clement of Alexandria reports (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VI., xiv. 6‑7) that the writing was undertaken at the request of the converts at Rome, and that Peter neither favored nor hindered the undertaking. These reports may well be based upon the words of Papias recorded in Eusebius (Hiat. eccl., III., ‑ix. 15). This celebrated passage asserts that
the Gospel was based not on Mark's own knowledge of Jesus, whom he had not heard, but on the preaching of Peter, and that this Mark faithfully recorded but did not observe chronological order. This is not to be pressed farther than is legitimate as the report of a well‑informed man of the Church of Asia Minor in the immediate postapostolic period; it is evident both that the Gospel is not a full record and that the order of events is not that of history. Papias says nothing of the method or occasion of writing the Gospel, only it is clear that he thinks of it as composed in Greek, and he calls Mark " the interpreter of Peter." " Interpreter " has often been understood as a synonym of " author " of the written expression of Peter's teaching; but it is better to take the word in its nearer sense of " translator," since the fact that the Gospel contains reports of Jesus' words and the other fact that Mark is expressly said not to have heard Jesus seem to demand a documentary basis. There is no necessity, however, to doubt the Marcan origin of the second Gospel, especially in view of Justin Martyr (Trypho, cvi.) and of the fact that it is ascribed to a man of the second rank when tradition might have assigned the authorship to an apostle.
The Gospel contains no title which gives the author's name. Some scholars regard i. 1 as a title; but since verses 2‑3 are not in the style of the citations usually employed in this Gospel, it is better to take verse 1 as the predicate after " John
came," verse 4. Then the report of z. Internal " the beginning of the Gospel " reaches Testimony. through i. 13, while verses 14‑15 re‑
port Jesus' assumption of the work begun by John. The rest of chapter i. reports the initial success of Jesus; with ii. 1 is registered the beginning of conflict with scribes and Pharisees; iii. 6 notes the purpose of these opponents to destroy Jesus; in rapid succession follow the story of recognition of him as Son of God by the demons, his teaching of the disciples, his wonder‑working, the sending of the twelve to preach and heal, his celebrity (reaching even to Herod's court), his Galilean activity and his journey through Persea, his announcement of his coming death, his last conflicts with the ecclesiastical authorities, his final instructions to the disciples, his suffering and death and resurrection. Evidently the intent of the evangelist was to detail in chronological order the facts of Christ's life, and time notes (viii. 1, cf. vi. 34, ix. 2) show that this purpose was kept in mind, though sometimes the relation of cause and connection is preferred to that of time. Thus the impression the whole Gospel gives is that of a development which proceeds inevitably to the end. But the evangelist never asserts himself as an eye‑witness of the events which he narrates; there is no more reason to connect him with the " certain young man " of xiv. 51 than with the " certain one " of verse 47. Of greater consequence is the matter of trustworthiness. To be noted are the lively freshness of tone, the loving lingering on little episodes, the definiteness of reference to details of place, time, and person, the result of which is to impress the reader with the fact that this book is

Mark
Markos Nngeaikos
THE NEW $CHAFF HERZOG
184
a triumph of the writer's art and with the antiquity and originality of its account. Attempts to make out of the Gospel a " tendency writing " are failures; one view makes it the production of the mediating party, another sees in it a Pauline production, another would make it Petrine‑all of which contain a portion of the truth. The author was certainly not a Judaizer, as certainly the Gospel was meant for the heathen; Pharisaism was condemned, while the Davidic origin of Jesus is asserted, not proved. The universalism of the author is Pauline in its emphasis upon faith and upon the effect of Christ's death. The fundamental interest of the Gospel in the Messiahship of Jesus and in him as the completion of salvation through suffering and death is of early Christian cast. The legendary elements make it difficult to assume Peter's responsibility for all the details, though a leading interest in that apostle may be granted. He is first mentioned (i. 16), and last (xvi. 7), and most frequently, while of certain episodes he is the center; yet some matters can hardly go back to him as the reporter (viii. 33, xiv. 54‑72). If Peter was so important in the councils of the twelve as appears from the Pauline epistles, this alone might account for the frequency with which he figures in the Gospel. Without the report of Papias no one would with so great assurance have ascribed the virtual authorship to Peter. It can not be granted that the evangelist related without arrangement and with omissions what he gives, since a very definite plan fully carried out is evident in the book. That a man who had dwelt in Jerusalem and had in the first decade associated with all the apostles, Paul included, should set down in his Gospel merely what he received from Peter and what Peter used in his preaching seems not at all to fit with probabilities. John Mark, the friend and companion of a Peter and a Paul, whom tradition names as the author of this Gospel, presents the figure of the person whom, apart from tradition, the Gospel itself presupposes‑a man born a Jew but acquainted with Greek, well but not rabbinically educated, wishing to further the speedy conquest of the world by the Gospel. He wrote not as a historian but as a propagator of religious ideas, and put forth his Gospel with the same independence as he showed in his first missionary journey, not to fit with a Pauline or a Petrine statement but to suit the needs of those whose requirement was salvation. If Mark is the author; the date is probably not later than 75 A.D. On the other hand, the development of the material given seems to require several decades. It is debated whether Jerusalem had fallen, since, e.g., chap. xiii. seems to contain reminiscences of the beginning of the Jewish War. The earliest tradition names Rome as the place of writing. Chrysostom's mention of Alexandria seems connected with an attempt to gain honor for that city by relating to it the Gospel of the traditional first bishop. Latinisms favor the Roman origin (xii. 42, xv. 15). The story, first appearing in Ephraem Syrus, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Latin needs no refutation, however; the book was evidently written for readers of Greek. Explanations of facts or expressions which for Jews would need no explanation appear
with considerable frequency (iii. 17, v. 41, vii. 11, xii. 18, xiv. 12).
The hypothesis of Griesbach, accepted in substance by Strauss, Baur, Schwegler, and $eim, makes of Mark an abbreviated compilation from Matthew and Luke. It is based principally upon the fact that Mark has little peculiarly his own apart from single verses and the sections iv. 26‑29,
vii. 32‑37, viii. 22‑26. Such literal 3. Relation agreement between works can not be to the fortuitous, literary relationship alone Other explains. In that case the priority of
Synoptics. Mark is most probable, and that is the
conclusion strongly supported by scholarship. The arguments in favor of Marcan priority are: (1) the arrangement of Mark prevails in Matthew and Luke; (2) this hypothesis best explains the omissions by the other Synoptica of details found in Mark; (3) in the verbal agreements of Matthew and Luke with Mark, the turns of phrasing and expression are Marcan; (4) the dissonance of Matthew and Luke in the history of the infancy and of the passion strongly confirms the hypothesis of their dependence on Mark where the matter is common to all three. On the other hand, the arguments of the opponents of the priority of Mark have some force, since there are Marcan passages which seem to be excerpts or to be in form of statement grounded upon misconception or references to an earlier text. Moreover, there are to be explained the agreements of Matthew and Luke in passages not found in Mark and not containing the words of Jesus. Accordingly there has been supposed an early Mark, and an early Matthew used by Mark, or at least one written source used in both, and indeed these hypotheses have been combined. While it is possible that the original text of Mark is to be distinguished from that which received official recognition, tradition gives no basis for this supposition such as would be afforded by dissonance in reports regarding the book. Fully as difficult to decide is the question whether there were written sources in Mark's possession, or at least prior works of which he knew. Unless the work of a century of investigation is worthless, the present Matthew can not be a source. On the other hand, a collection of the words of Jesus (" apostolic source," " Logia," " Ur‑Matthew," " Urevangelium," see MA1THEw), alleged to have been compiled by Matthew, might have lain before Mark as early as 70 A.D.; but there is no proof that such was the case. While passages like Mark iv. 1‑34 and chap. xiii. impress one as the result of a working over or editing, they do not necessarily presuppose a prior documentary basis. The impression which the book makes is that the author wrote not after books but from the heart and with all the joy that attends a new project. He doubtless knew of many words of Jesus which he did not record, not because they were dissonant from his purpose, but because his ideal was not that of completeness.
The Gospel has met some severe misfortune. Despite the sturdy attempt of Dean Burgon (see bibliography) to defend them as original, the verses Mark xvi. 9‑20 appear as a compilation from Luke and John. The manuscripts B and X close the

186	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Mark
		Markos Eugenikoe
	Gospel with xvi. 8, so also the Sinaitic Syriac and
	the best manuscripts of the time of Eusebius and
Jerome. An alternative ending	is
4. Mark	known to exist in shorter form, and in
	xvi. g‑so. deed appears in some manuscripts along
	side the longer form of conclusion.
	This testifies to the need felt for a fitting ending, and
	shows also that whoever composed the shorter form
did not know of the longer.	The shorter ending
	can be traced to the fourth century, the longer per
haps into the second.	The suspicion that Aristion
	wrote it (so Conybeare, Resch, Rohrbach, Harnack)
	has little support outside of a manuscript of the
Armenian version.	Yet Mark hardly closed his book
with the words " for they feared."	Equally unsat
	isfactory are the hypotheses that Mark died before
	he finished and gave it to his friends who published
	it and that the last leaf was lost from the original
copy.	It is most probable that the original close
	was in times before Papias stricken out by some
	ecclesiastical authority because its account of the
	resurrection conflicted with that of the other Gos
pels.	In manuscripts where it still existed it was
	marked with the obelus, and like so many other obe
lizel passages has perished.	(G. A. Jt)LICHER.)
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: A large amount of pertinent matter is to be
	found in the literature cited under GoaPELe; LuxE;
	MATTHEW. The reader should consult also the pertinent
	sections of the works on N. T. introduction (see BIB
	LICAL INTRODucrioN), particularly those of Holtzmann,
	Weiss, Zahn, and Jiilicher. Works on the cpostolic age
	are also to be consulted, such as E. Renan, Les tvangiles,
	Paris, 1877• C. Weizsbeker, Das apostolische Zeitalter,
	Freiburg, 1892, Eng. transl., London, 1894‑95; A. C.
	McGiffert, Hist. of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, New
York, 1897.
	On the man consult: R. A. Lipeius, Die apokryphen
	Apostelgeschichten and Apoatellegenden, 12. pp 321‑353,
	Brunswick, 1884; T. Zahn, Einleitung in das N. T., ii.
	199‑220, Leipsic, 1899; DB, iii. 245‑248; EB, iii. 2937
	2941. H. B. Swete, in his commentary, London, 1902,
	has an illuminating chapter on " the personal history of
St. Mark."
	On questions of introduction, besides the general works
	already referred to, the following are suggested: F. Hit
	zig, Ueber Johannes Marcus and seine Schriften, Zurich,
	1843; F. C. Baur, Das Mareuaevangelium nark seinem
	Ureprung and Charakter, Tfibingen, 1851; K. R. Kbstlin,
	Der Ursprung and die Kompoaition der synoptiaehen Evan
	gelien, Stuttgart, 1853; A. Klostermann, Das Marcue
	Evangelium, GSttingen, 1867; J. H. Seholten, Het oudate
	Evanyelie, Leyden, 1868; G. Volkmar, Das Evangelium,
	oder Marcus and die Synopsis der . . . Evangelien, Leip
	sic, 1869; W. Weiffenbach, Die Papiasfrapmeute fiber
	Marcus, Berlin, 1878; P. Corssen, in TU, xv. 1, 1896;
	A. Link, in TSlf 1896, pp. 405 sqq.; W. Hadorn, Die
	Entatehung des Marcus‑Evangeliume, Gifitersloh, 1898;
	T. Calmes, Comme as, aont form& lea 6vangiles, Paris, 1899;
	P. Wernle, Die aynoptische Frage, Tfibingen, 1899; E. A.
	Abbott, Diateasarica, part 2, Corrections of Mark adopted
	by Matthew and Luke, London, 1901; A. Menzies, The
Earliest Gospel; Historical Study of .	. Mark, ib. 1901;
	A. Bolliger, Marcus der Bearbeiter des MattMus‑Evan
	Gelium, Basel, 1902; R. A. Hoffmann, Dae Marcuaevanr
	gelium and seine Quellen. Ein Beitrap zur Losung der Ur
	marcusfrage, Konigsberg, 1904; E. Wendling, Ur‑Marcua.
	Verauch einer Wiederherstellung der dlWten Mitteilungen fiber
	daa Lebe» Jesu, Tfibingen, 1905; idem, Die Eutatehung des
	Marcus‑Evangeliuma, ib., 1908; B. W. Bacon, in JBL,
	xxvi., part 1, 1907 (on the prologue); idem, The Begin
	nings of Gospel History, New Haven, 1909; Harnack, 1%t
	teratur (consult the indexes); DB, iii. 248‑262; EB, ii.1761
	1898. On the last twelve verses: P. Rohrbaoh, Der Schluaa
	des Marcus Evangeliuma, Berlin, 1894; J. W. Burgon, Last
Twelve Verses of .	. Mark, Oxford, 1871; F. C. Cony
	beare, in Expositor, 1893, 241 eqq., vf. 1894, 219 sqq.,
1895, 401 sqq.
Of the host of commentaries the following may be mentioned: J. Calvin, in Eng. transl., 3 vols., Edinburgh, 1845‑46; C. F. A. Fritzsche, Leipsic, 1830; J. Ford, Oxford, 1862• A. Klostermann, Gtittingen, 1867; B. Weiss Berlin, 1872; idem Die tier Evangelien im berichtigten Text, Leipsic, 1900; R. Wenger, Stuttgart, 1879; C: A. Keil, Leipsic, 1879; L. Bonnet, Lausanne, 1880; M. Riddle, New York, 1881; P. Behan., Freiburg, 1881 (Roman Catholic, excellent); R. F. Weidner, Philadelphia, 1881; G. F. Maclear, in Cambridge Bible, London, 1883; E: H. Plumptre, New York, 1883; J. A. Alexander, ib. 1884; T. M. Lindsay, ib. 1884; G. A. Chadwick, London, 1887; E. Bickersteth, in Pulpit Commentary, 2 vols., ib. 1888; C. S. Robinson, Studies in Mark's Gospel, New York, 1888; H. S. Solly, London, 1893; J. Morison, London, 1894 (regarded as one of the best); E. Gould, in International Critical Commentary, New York, 1896; F. L. H. Millard, ib. 1901; J. Weiss, Daa SZteate Evanpelium, GBttingen, 1903; J. Wellhausen, 2d ed., Berlin, 1909; A. Maclaren, 2 vols., London, 1906; W. H. Bennett, The Life of Christ according to St. Mark, ib. 1907.

	MARKOS EUGEHIKOS: Metropolitan of Eph
esus; b. at Constantinople in the latter part of
the fourteenth century; d. 1443 (according to
others, 1447 or 1449). He was educated by the
famous Joseph Bryennios, and at the age of twenty
five became a monk. About 1436, against his will,
the emperor made him metropolitan of Ephesus,
and both in this capacity and as the representative
of the patriarch of Antioch he attended the Coun
cil of Ferrara and Florence. After his return he
resided at first in Constantinople, but his ecclesias
tical polity debarred him both from that city and
from Ephesus. He sought refuge in Athos, but
was imprisoned at least once. In learning, Markos
was inferior to such scholars as Gennadius and
Gemistos Plethon, despite his thorough training in
the theology and philosophy of his countrymen.
He was, however, a powerful though simple ora
tor, and was characterized by unyielding firmness.
His importance in the history of the Church is due
to his opposition to union with Latin Christianity;
both before and after the Council of Florence he
refused to sign the decree of union unless the pope
would permit the use of leavened bread in the sacra
ment, or at least strike out the Filioque from the
creed. According to his panegyrist Syropulos, he
defended himself before the emperor, the patriarch,
and the pope; but this seems doubtful, especially
as Hierotheus of Monembasia states that he fled to
Constantinople instead. His unswerving opposi
tion to the union was not improbably the cause of
its failure. His polemic nature is shown by the
majority of his writings (collected in MPG, clx.),
in which he considers almost all the points of con
troversy with the Latins, such as the doctrine of
the Trinity, the question of purgatory, the signifi
cation of the Epiklesis (q.v.) in the Eucharist, and
the problem of the Tabor light (see HESYCHAST6).
The respect in which he was held is clear from the
fact that he was placed among the saints at an early
date. An Acduthia was composed in his honor in
the fifteenth century, and a decree of the synod
held by the Patriarch Seraphim in 1734 expressly
termed him a saint. 	(PHILIPP MEYER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A list of the pertinent literature, mainly in Greek, is given in Hauck‑Herzog, RE, xii. 287. The early life by Manuel Peloponnesius, of the 15th or 16th century, was edited by Arsenij, Moscow, 1886. Consult Fabricius‑Harles, Bibliotasca Graxa, xi. 670‑677, Hamburg,

Ms~ t du Paequier	THE NEW SCg,4‑FF‑HERZOG	188
1808; A. C. Dematracopulus, Gr®cia or"oxa, pp. 98105, Leipsic, 1872; Krumbacher, Geachichte, pp. 115116; and the literature under FERR•RA.FLo$ENcE, COUNCIL OF.

MARLORAT DU PASQUIER, mdr"18"r8' du pas"ky6', AUGUSTIN: French Reformer; b. at Bar‑le‑Duc (158 m. e. of Paris) about 1506; executed at Rouen Oct. 31, 1562. At the age of eight he was placed in an Augustinian monastery, where he took the vows and was ordained priest in 1524. Nine years later he peas abbot of a monastery at Bourges, but, becoming indoctrinated with the principles of Protestantism, he was forced to flee from France in 1535 and took refuge in Geneva, where he gained a precarious living as a proof‑reader for Greek and Hebrew. At the recommendation of Viret he was appointed to a pastorate in Crissier near Lausanne, and there married. From Crissier he was called to Vevey, where he remained until 1559. The dismissal of Viret in the controversy on excommunication, however, led Marlorat, who approved the rigidly Calvinistic procedure, to resign, and after a brief sojourn in Geneva he was sent in July to Paris as pastor of the Evangelical congregation there. After a year he accepted a call to Rouen as first preacher. In that city, three years previously, the Protestants had formed a community of their own and were still struggling to secure the right to hold public services. On the accession of Charles IX. in Dec., 1560, they addressed a petition, written by Marlorat, to the parliament and the king, requesting permission to use a church. The petition was refused, but the 10,000 Protestants of Rouen felt themselves able to defy the edict of July 25, 1561, and hold their services in the balls of the ancient tower. Marlorat likewise addressed a printed petition to Catharine de' Medici, in which he asserted the loyalty of the Protestants, and in August of the same year he was summoned to Poissy to attend the religious disputation to be held there. In this conference Marlorat was an important figure, and in the debates with the doctors of the Sorbonne, in Jan., 1562, on images, baptism, and similar points of controversy, he was one of the three spokesmen of the Protestants.
Returning to Rouen, Marlorat presided over the provincial synod held on Jan. 25, 1562. After the massacre at Vassy on Mar. 1, 1562, the Protestants of Rouen resolved to seize their city. On the night of Apr. 15 they carried out their purpose, and Marlorat was appointed one of the three heads of the new government, which still professed to be loyal to the king. Rouen was speedily fortified, and on May 27 the city was invested by an army under the command of the Duc~d'Aumale, who, however, was forced to retire on June 12. On Sept. 29 a second force led by Charles himself, Anthony of Navarre, and others appeared before the city. Rouen was gradually reduced, but Montgomery, who commanded the besieged, like Marlorat, would accept no terms which did not include free exercise of the Protestant religion, and on Oct. 26 the city was carried by storm. Marlorat and his family were captured and imprisoned. Three days later he was tried before the parliament on the charge of high treason, and on Oct. 30 was condemned to be exe‑
cuted before the church in which he had lately preached, the sentence being carried out on the following day.
	The chief works of Marlorat were: Novi Testa
menti catholica expositio ecclesiastics (Geneva, 1561);
similar commentaries on Genesis (1561), the Psalms.,
and the Song of Solomon (1562); posthumous com
mentaries on Isaiah (1564) and Job (1585); and
especially his concordance, Thesaurus in locos com
munes rerum, dogmatum . . et phraseon . . . or
dine alphabetico digestus (ed. W. Fenguereius, Lon
don, 1574). English translations were made of his
commentary on Mark and Luke by T. Timme
(London, 1583), on John by the same (1575),
on II and III John by N. Baxter (1578?), and on
Revelation by A. Golding (1574). Marlorat like
wise prepared the index to the lnatitutio of Cal
vin, which has since formed an integral portion of
the work. 	(T. SCHOTT fi.)
BIBLIOOSAPBY: T. Beza, Hilt. eccl., vol. i. passim, ii. 610 eqq., Antwerp, 1580; CR, vols. xvii‑xxi. passim. Sketches of the life have been written by C. D. Kromayer, Strasburg, 1851; in Bulletin de la eocigtM de l'histoire du protektantime francais, vi (1857), 109 eqq.; and by Osmont de Courtisigny, Caen, 1862. Consult also H. M. Baird, Hist. of the Rise of the Huguenots, i. 509, 539, 180, London, 1880.

MARNM PHILIPS VAN.
Early Career (§ 1).	Theological Position and Bible
Diplomat and Soldier (§ 2). 		Translation (§ 4).
Decline of Power (§ 3). 	Other works (§ 5).
	Philips van Marnix, Baron Sainte‑Aldegonde, re
nowned as a Dutch Protestant theologian and
statesman, was born at Brussels in 1538 and died
at Leyden Dec. 15, 1598. After receiving a thor
ough education, he resided for a time in Geneva,
where he formed a friendship with Calvin and Beza.
Returning to his native country between 1560 and
1562, he lived for a time in retirement, from which
he was summoned to the struggle to free the Neth
		erlands from Rome and Spain. Here
	i. Early	his first activity was the preparation
	Career.	of the " Compromise " by which the
		Dutch nobles pledged themselves to
resist the introduction of the Inquisition, while the
petition to the Regent Margaret of Parma (Apr. 5,
1566) on the same subject was also written by him.
He defended the iconoclastic riots in Antwerp in
Aug., 1566, in his Van de beelden afgheworpen in de
Nederlanden in Augusto 1666 and Vraye narration
et apologie des ehoses passes au Pays‑Bas. Before
long he also took up arms in the cause of the Ref
ormation, but, with his brother and Brederode,
was repulsed at Austruweel (Mar. 13, 1567) in an
attempt to raise the siege of Valenciennes, and fled
successively to Breda and Germany. He was ban
ished by the " Council of Blood," Aug. 17, 1568,
and his estates were confiscated; but in this exile
he became the life‑long friend of William the Si
lent, in whose honor he wrote late in 1568 or early
in 1569 the famous " William's Lay," a poem which
is still a favorite folk‑song in Holland. Meanwhile
he had entered the service of the Reformed elector
palatine, Frederick III., and at Heidelberg he
wrote on Christology and the Eucharist, besides
composing his De bienkorf der heiligt roomsche

187	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	M~'~ t do Paenuier
kercke (Emden, 1569) and attending the convention at Wesel (Nov., 1568) and the synod at Emden (Oct. 4‑14, 1571).
Holland soon claimed the services of Marnix, whose principal political activity was exercised between 1572 and 1585. In the former year he was the plenipotentiary of William and secured the promise of the Estates to renew the war with Spain. On Nov. 4, 1573, however, he was s. Diplomat him If captured by the Spaniards at
and Maaslandasluis. He was taken first to Soldier. The Hague and then to Utrecht, where he was induced to make vain negotiations for peace. He was exchanged on Oct. 15, 1574, and from March to June of the following year he acted as William's deputy at the fruitless conferences at Breda. Holland and Zeeland declared themselves independent of Spain and offered the crown, under certain conditions, to Elizabeth of England, Marnix being the head of the embassy which remained in England from Christmas, 1575, to Apr., 1576, in a vain endeavor to persuade Elizabeth to become the sovereign of the Dutch. In the latter year, moreover, he was a leader in the " Pacification of Ghent." Don John of Austria, the Spanish viceroy, who carried through the " Eternal Treaty " (Feb. 17, 1577), recognizing in Marnix a dangerous enemy of Roman Catholicism, now unsuccessfully demanded his expulsion from Brussels. The Spanish attack on the citadel of Namur (July 24, 1577) roused the Dutch to a sense of their situation. Don John was retired from his office on Dec. 7, and three days later the second Brussels union was concluded for mutual protection and toleration. Marnix, as privy councilor after Dec. 29, 1577, first put down the revolts in Groningen and Artois, and, at the Diet of Worms (May 7, 1578), secured German neutrality in the Dutch struggle with Spain.
At this juncture, Marnix and William were attacked in an anonymous pamphlet, to which the former replied in his Response apologetique (see below, § 4) which is particularly interesting for its numerous details of his own life. After
3. Decline a fruitless visit to the Diet of Cologne
	of Power.	in 1580, he entered upon the more hope
		ful endeavor to induce Duke Francis
of Alenpon‑Anjou, the youngest son of Catharine
de' Medici, to accept the throne of the revolted
Dutch provinces. At the head of an embassy sent
to France for this purpose, he reached Plessis (near
Tours) on Sept. 9, 1580, and ten days later the
treaty of Plessis‑lez‑Tours was signed, in which
Marnix ably defended the civil and religious liber
ties of the Dutch. He remained in France until
Mar. 8, 1581, and on July 22 of the same year
Philip was declared deposed in favor of Francis,
Marnix himself preparing the act (Acts de descheance
de Philippe 11. de sa seigneurie des Pays‑Bas). In
November he went to England, where Francis was
paying court to Elizabeth, and on Feb. 19, 1582,
he returned with the new ruler. Francis, how
ever, madly attempted (Jan. 15‑17, 1583) to seize
Antwerp and the most important cities by treason
or a coup d'etat. He was defeated and forced to
leave the Netherlands, while Marnix and William,
as his allies, were exposed to such suspicion that the former retired to his estates in West‑Souburg, near Flushing. He was called from this seclusion to become first burgomaster in Antwerp, Nov. 30, 1584. A few days later the siege of the city by Alexander of Parma began, ending on Aug. 17, 1585, by its honorable surrender, though without recognition of Protestantism. A storm of indignation broke over Marnix, who defended his surrender of the city in his Bref recat de l'estat de is ville d'Anvers du temps de l'ass0gement. But his political activity was at an end, although he visited England in 1590, France in 1591, and Orange in 1597. He resided at West‑Souburg until 1596, when he removed to Leyden.
Theologically Marnix was an enthusiastic partizan of Calvin and Beza, and in this spirit he secured the rejection of the Wittenberg
4. Theo‑ Concord at the Synod of Antwerp logical Po‑ (Aug. 20, 1566). He was also instru‑
sition and mental in securing a Calvinistic PresBible byterian organization, culminating in Translation. a general synod, for the exiled congregations of his coreligionists. Here, too, belong his polemics against the fanatics and Anabaptists, exemplified in his Ondersoeckinge ende grondelijeke wederlegginge der geestdrijvische leers, written in 1595. This was followed by a series of other polemics, the most important being the Response apologetique h un libelle fameux (Leyden, 1598), a reply to an anonymous attack by Emmery de Lyere. He was a stern opponent, moreover, of all revelation of God alleged to exist outside the Bible and creation, and was a genuine Calvinist in his assertion that the secular arm had authority to suppress religious error. He was active as a translator of the Bible and the Psalms. After ten or twelve years of labor, he issued a rimed version of the latter (Antwerp, 1580), but this, though the subject of many debates in the synods, never gained a place in the liturgy, despite its scholarly and literary merits. Like previous Ducch versions of the Psalms, the early Dutch translation of the Bible was essentially faulty, and in 1578 the Synod of Dort deputed Marnix and Dathen to seek suitable revisers. The commission was never executed, but Marnix had already begun to translate the Psalms and some of the Minor Prophets, when, in 1586, the Synod of The Hague made unsuccessful overtures to him for an entire new translation. It was not, however, until 1594, when he was formally requested by the States General to perform this task, that he consented, but he lived to complete only the Psalms and Genesis, though he left fragments of Exodus, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Daniel, and other books (see BIBLE VERsIONs, B, III.).
His most important contribution to theology was the Bienkarf already mentioned. It is a biting satire on the Roman Catholic Church, written by a supposed adherent of that commu‑
g. Other nion, and ridiculing all its arguments
	Works.	against Protestantism. The book,
		which is clearly modelled on the Epis
tolce obscurorum viromm (q.v.), has won for Marnix
a place among the great satirists of all time. The
work ran through more than twenty editions (the

Xaronites	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	igs
last at Groningen, 1862) and was translated into
most European languages (Eng. transl. by G. Gil
pin, London, 1579). After his death appeared his
Traict6 du sacrament de la saincte cene du Seigneur
(Leyden, 1599), an intensely Calvinistic attack on
the doctrine of the Mass. He also carried on a
controversial correspondence on the same subject
with the Louvain professor Michael Bajus, which he
published under the title Opuacula quadam Domini
Sand Aldegondii (Franeker, 1598); while in his
Trouwe vermaninge aen de christlike Gemeynten van
Brabant, Ylanderen, enz. (Leyden, 1589) he urged
his coreligionists to be patient under their afflic
tions. There is no complete edition of the works
of Marnix, but select works were edited by E. Quinet,
(Euvres de P. de Marnix de Sainte‑Aldegonde (9
vols., Brussels, 1857‑60), while his theological
writings were collected by J. J. van Toorenen
bergen, Philips van Marnix van St. Aldegonde
godsdienstige en kerkelijke geschriften (3 parts, The
Hague, 1871‑91). 	(S. D. vAN VEEN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The life of Marnix has been written by: J. Prins, Leyden, 1782; W. Brow, 3 vols., Amsterdam, 1838‑40; E. Quinet, Paris, 1854; T. Juste, The Hague, 1858; A. Lacroix and F. van Meenen, Brussels, 1858; J. van der Have, Haarlem, 1874; P. P. M. Alberdingk Thijm, Leuven, 1876; and G. Tjalma, Amsterdam, 1896. Consult also: P. Fredericq, Marnix en zijne Nederlandache geschriften, Ghent, 1881; Cambridge Modern History, iii. 201 sqq., New York, 1905; A. Elkan, Philipp Marnix van St. Aldeoonde, Parti., Die Jugend Johanna and Philipps von Marnix, Leipsic,1909.

MARONITES.
Character and Claims (§ 1). Origin of the Name. Early Accounts (§ 2). The First Patriarch, Johannes Maron (§ 3). Relation to Monothelitism and Monophysitism (§ 4).Relations with Rome (§ 5). Modern Conditions (§ 6). In the United States (§ 7).

	The Maronites are a Syrian people, forming with
in the Christian Church a peculiar half‑independent
		community or sect. Its members live
:. Charac‑ scattered all over Syria; congregations
	ter and are gathered in Aleppo, Damascus,
	Claims. Nazareth, and the Island of Cyprus;
		but the proper home of the commu
nity is the Lebanon region, from Tripoli in the
north, to Tyre and the Lake of Gennesaret in the
Routh. The districts of Kesrawan, n.e. of Beirut,
and Bsherre (26 m. s.e. of Tripoli) are inhabited
exclusively by Maronites; while in other places
Maronites, Greeks, Jacobites, Druses, and others
live as neighbors. The total number of the Mar
onite inhabitants of Lebanon is somewhat over
200,000, according to the newest reports. They
pursue agriculture and cattle‑breeding, and succeed
well in the cultivation of the silk‑worm. Their
native tongue has for centuries been the Arabic,
but they are of Syrian descent. The liturgy em
ployed in their divine service is in Syriac, though
only a few understand that language; the read
ings from the Gospels, however, are in Arabic.
They like to consider themselves a distinct nation;
and they have, indeed, always succeeded in main
taining a certain measure of political independence.
They are governed by sheiks, elected from among
their own nobility; and to the Ottoman sultan, who appoints a Christian pasha over them, they pay a variable tribute. At the head of their church (the Ecclesia Maronitarum) stands a patriarch, who is elected by themselves and has the title of patriarch of Antioch and all the East. He is elected by a two‑thirds' vote of the archbishops and bishops. He resides during summer in the monastery Kanobin, in the Lebanon, and during winter at Bkerki. He receives confirmation from the pope; for from the latter part of the twelfth century there has existed a relationship between the see of Rome and the Maronites. Although this relationship depends more upon an external basis and upon adjustments made from time to time, and though real unity in doctrine or worship has never existed, the claim of later Maronite authors is often to the effect that from apostolic times their church has maintained an undisturbed orthodoxy, essentially that of the Roman Catholic Church. Authors who have written in this strain are Abraham Ecchellensis (q.v.) and Faustus Nairon, in Dissertatio de origine,
ine ac religione Maronitarum (Rome, 1679). These writers follow somewhat closely a few Roman Catholic writers, though there have been manifest traces of monothelite tendencies.
On the Orontes, between Hamath and Emesa, lay an old monastery dedicated to St. Maron. In the sixth century it was repaired by Justinian, according to Procopius (De odiflciis, v., ix.), and was the most prominent among the Syrian monasteries.
The Maron after whom the monastery
a. Origin was named is generally considered of the Name. identical with the hermit whose life
	Early	Theodoret has described (Religiosa
Accounts. historia, xvi.), the monk and presby‑
ter of whom Chrysostom speaks so highly (Epist. xxxvi.), who probably lived about 400. But the great age and the celebrity of the monastery make it more probable that it took its name from some saint much older, perhaps from Mari, missionary to Babylon, who was buried in the monastery Deir Mar Mari, near Seleucia, on the Tigris; or from Mari the Persian, mentioned by Ibas of Edessa (W. Wright, Hist. of Syriac Literature, London, 1894, pp. 48‑49, 59). However this may be, it is from the monastery that the Maronites themselves derive their name; some scholars, however, derive it from Maronea, a village thirty Roman miles east of Antioch; and others from Johannes Maron (see below). The name does not occur until the eighth century, when it is used by John of Damascus to designate a heretical sect. Exactly in the same manner it occurs later in the writings of Christian authors in Egypt (who wrote in Arabic), such as Eutychius (Ibn Batrik, beginning of the tenth century), Benassalus (Ibn el‑Assal, thirteenth century), and others (cf. E. Renaudot, Hist. patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, Paris, 1713, pp. 419 sqq.). Eutychius says: " At the time of the Emperor Mauricius there lived a monk Marun who taught that Christ had two natures, one will, and one activity (? operation). The most of his adherents, named Maronites after him, dwelt in Hamath, Kinnesrin and `Awasim. After his death, the citizens of Hamath built the cloister Deir Marun

189	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Marouitea
and openly professed his teaching." Benassalus distinguishes Maronites from Melchites (orthodox Greeks) and from Franks (Latins), and reports that the Maronites went over to the religion of the Franks. William of Tyre (q.v.) states that a peopie dwelling in the neighborhood of Byblos, who for 500 years had followed the teaching of the heresiarch Maron, had in 1182 come into relations with the Patriarch Aimerich of Antioch, forsworn their heresy, accepted the orthodox faith, and received bishops of the Roman Catholic Church. These writers show a bias against the Maronites, and William of Tyre is in this matter dependent upon Eutychius, and, further, he does not seem to intend to imply that all Maronites went over to the Roman Catholic Church. Yet, that Maronites were not regarded as orthodox appears from efforts continuing into the eighteenth century to make their teaching conform to the Roman system. The Maronites, in asserting their early and continuous orthodoxy, appeal to the fact that in the acts of the sixth synod (680), which condemned the Monothelites, the Maronites are not mentioned. But other testimony which they adduce for their orthodoxy is taken from later writers whose productions are more or less suspicious both because of their late date and because of an admixture of legend in their accounts of Johannes Maron, which are derived from an Arabic source not earlier than the fourteenth or fifteenth century.
The account given of Johannes Maron, whom the Maronites acknowledge as their first patriarch, is that he was born at Sirflm, near Antioch, was educated in Antioch and the monastery
3. The First of St. Maron. Later he studied in Patriarch, Constantinople, became monk in St.
Johannes Maron, was ordained priest, and wrote
	Maron.	against the heretics. He was intro
		duced to the papal legate in Antioch,
and by him made bishop of Botrus in 676. He
then converted all the Monophysites and Monothe
lites in the Lebanon region to the Roman faith, or
dained priests and consecrated bishops, and gave
the Maronites their political and military constitu
tion. When Theophanes, patriarch of Antioch,
died, in the second year of the reign of Justinian II.,
Johannes happened, it is said, to be present in the
city, and was unanimously elected patriarch. It is
also reported that he journeyed to Rome, and was
consecrated by Pope Honorius; that he built a new
monastery near Botrus after the Greeks destroyed
the old one, and that he died there in 707. But
this story contains anachronistic elements, since
Honorius lived nearly a century before that time.
As no one but the biographer of Marc knows about
a patriarch of Antioch of that name, the story of
his patriarchate seems to be a fabrication. Renau
dot even goes so far as to deny the very existence of
Maron; but there is no reason to doubt that he
really was elected bishop of Lebanon, and exer
cised great influence there in steady opposition to
the Greeks. The Maronites celebrate him on Mar.
2. A singular characteristic of this history of Jo
hannes Maron is that it erroneously identifies the
Mardaites and the Maronites and ascribes to the
latter the doughty deeds narrated of the formei‑
a matter which has given rise to variant explanations of no historic value.
Early reports give no insight, into religious and ecclesiastical conditions prior to the seventh century. If in that century Maronites were Monothelites, they may have received the Monophysite doctrine spread by Jacobus BaradEous (see JACOBITES) in Syria. And if, as is reported, the monks of the
monastery of Maron were made mar4. Relation tyrs because of their agreement with
to Mono‑ the deliverances of the Council of
thelitism Cbalcedon, they could not have been
and Mono‑ supported by their countrymen. The
physitism. Maronites confess that heretical pas‑
sages have gotten into their literature, but they assert that these were smuggled in by Monophysites and Monothelites. In their zeal for Rome they have burned many books of this character, and they boast of the correctness of their later literature, especially that printed in Rome l Their historians declare that at the beginning of the twelfth century a certain Thomas, archbishop of Kafar Tab, near Aleppo, preached among the Maronites the doctrine of the Monothelites and in consequence had a controversy with the Greek patriarch of Antioch. This may have been the schism referred to by William of Tyre, ended by the agreement of Maronites and the Roman Church in 1182, and may have furnished the pretext for preaching the doctrine to the Maronites who lived in Cyprus, where the heresy lingered till the time of Pope Eugenius IV.
The great conversion to Romanism in 1182 was not complete. An anti‑Roman reaction set in and was punished by a papal interdict, from which the country was not absolved until 1215. Rome took
great pains to maintain the union, 5. Relations as, for example, in 1445, in con‑
with Rome. sequence of the Council of Florence.
A national synod was held at the command of Clement VIII. in 1596, in the monastery of Kanobin, to which Girolamo Dandini, a Jesuit, went as papal legate, charged with the revision of all Maronite affairs. According to his report (Missions apostolica al patriarca a Maroniti del Moats LZano, Cesena, 1656; Fr. transl. by Richard Simon, Voyage du Moat Liban, Paris, 1685), the council resuited in submission to the Roman see, and an agreement with respect to doctrines. The differences, however, were neither few nor unimportant. The Maronites retained the celebration of the Lord's Supper under both kinds, the Syriac liturgy, the marriage of the priests, their own fast‑days, and their own saints. A new council was held in 1736 in the monastery of Mary, at Luweiza, in the district of Kesrawan. The celebrated MarOnlte scholar j J. S. Assemani was sent from Rome as papal legate; and the object was to secure among the Maronites
acceptance of the canons of the Council of Trent. How incomplete the success of this mission was is shown by the remark of a Maronite monk: " (The Maronites) recognize the pope as head (of the Church); outside of that they have nothing essentially Catholic." The principal concessions by the Maronites were that they accepted the filioque and kneeling at the consecration, and acknowledged the

Xaronites	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	190
3laranette
councils of 787 (second Nicene), 869 (Constanti
nople), 1439 (Florence), and the Council of Trent;
the Roman catechism (in Arabic) and the Gregorian
calendar were introduced.; the Tridentine exposi
tion of the doctrine of transubstantiation was es
tablished; the marriage of the clergy was confined
to the lower degrees; the name of the pope was in
troduced in the prayers and the mass. Other pro
visions dealt with the preparation of the host, its
reception by the clergy in both kinds, but by the
laity in the form of a sop; the orders of the clergy
and their ordination, and the general constitution
of the Church. While this synod settled the mod
ern form of the Maronite organization, in many
particulars there has been reversion to the earlier
customs.
	In 1584 Gregory XIII. founded the Collegium
Maronitarum in Rome, and from that institution
issued a number of celebrated scholars‑Georgius
Amira, Gabriel Sionita, Abraham Ecchellensis, the
Assemanis, and others. An earlier Maronite scholar
of note was Theophilus, court astrologer to the Caliph
al‑Mahdi, who compiled a " Chronicle " and trans
lated Homer into Syriac. But before theagreement
with Rome there was little literary activity .among
the Maronites. Even afterward, the people re
mained backward in culture, in spite of schools es
tablished among them, and retained many of their
		early customs. Two printing‑presses
	6. Modern were established at Mar Hanna in 1795,
	Conditions. and at Kashia in 1802; but they awa
		kened no interest in reading. For a
long period the Maronites maintained a kind of
supremacy over the Druses; but after 1840 their
power became greatly weakened, feuds arose be
tween them and the Druses, by which the country
was often fearfully devastated. As a consequence
the Maronite Church has greatly suffered. The
priests are poor, being supported only by free‑will
offerings and fees for masses. The monasteries
participate also in the general poverty, and many
have been destroyed. The clergy includes, besides
the patriarch, archbishops and bishops, presbyters,
deacons, sub‑deacons, readers and cantors. The
temporal power is exercised by an emir, who is re
sponsible to the pasha of Saida. (K. KESsr.ERt.)
	The superior of the Syro‑Maronite Church in the
United States is the Rt. Rev. Joseph Yazbek, chor
bishop, and rector of the Maronite church of Bos
		ton, which was dedicated in 1898. The
	7. In the ceremony of the preconization of the
	United	pastor of the church of Boston to the
	States.	chor‑bishopric took place there in 1900.
		The decree was conferred by the Mar
onite patriarch, and was approved by the Roman
Catholic archbishop of Boston. The title of chor
bishop, it should be added, is equivalent to the title
of a vicar in partzbo. It gives the right to use
the miter.
	The church of New York was organized in 1893.
There are also churches in Philadelphia, St. Louis,
Buffalo, Scranton, Pa., Youngstown, O., and Law
rence, Mass., about ten in all, with an equal number
of priests. The sect claims a membership of about
35,000 in the United States.
	The Maronite priests in the United States, al‑
though appointed by the Maronite patriarch, are
under the immediate protection and at the call of
the Roman Catholic bishops in whose dioceses their
churches are located. 	A. A. STAMOUm.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources for doctrine are their ecclesiastical books: Mireale cAaldaicum juxta ritum . . . Maronitarum, Rome, 1592‑94, 2d ad., 1604; their service for the Eucharist was printed at Kozchaya in the Lebanon, 1816, 1855; Libor ministri misam justa ritum . . . Maronitarum, Rome, 1596; 08tcia sanctorum, 2 parts, Rome, 1656‑66; Ofcium feriale, Beirut, 1876. Historical sources are John of Damascus, in MPG, xciv. 485, 1432; the presbyter Timotheus, in MPG, lxxxv. 165; J. 8. Aseemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, i. 496 eqq., iii. 2, pp. 22 eqq., Rome, 1719; Faustus Nairon, Enoplia idei ca0roliccs Romance historvco‑dogmatica, ib. 1694; a collection of sources is in M. Le Quien, Origins Chrietianus, iii. 1‑100, Paris, 1740. An excellent religious orientation of Christian peoples in Syria is by H: H. Jessop, in History . . . of the sixth session of the Evangelical Alliance, ad. P. Schaf and 8. T. Prime, pp. 634‑642, New York, 1874. Consult further: Robinson, Researches, vol. iii.; G. Guy, Sbjour . . . h Beirout et dons Is Liban, 2 vole., Paris, 1847; H. Petermann, Reisen im Orient, vol. i., Leipeie, 1860; C. H. Churchill, Mount Lebanon, vol. iv., Druzes and Maronites, London, 1862; A. Pichler, Geschichte der kirdlichen Trennung, ii. 533‑557, Munich, 1865; AL, viii. 891‑902; A. de Piolant Au pays doe Maronites, Paris, 1882; F. J. Bliss, in PEF, Quarterly Statements for 1892 (valuable); J. Dabs, Perpituelle Orthodozie des Maronites, Arras, 1896; F. Nan, Opusculee Maronites. fEuvres in6dites de J. Moron, Paris, 1899; J. Parisot, Rapport our une mission acientiftque en Turquie d'A" ib. 1899; K. Beth, Orientalische Chrietenheit, Berlin, 1902; F. Tyan, Sous lee eidres du Liban; la nationalitM Maronits, La Chapelle‑Montligeon, 1905.
On the synod of 1736 consult: B. E. Assemani, Bibliothecat Mediced, pp. 118 eqq., Florence, 1742; Nouveaux m6noires des miesione de la compapnie de Jhua done de Levant, viii. 353 eqq., Paris, 1745; while a summary of the Acts was given by C. F. Schnurrer, in De ecclesia Maronitica, T6bingen, 1810‑11, cf. Archiv fit‑ Kirk geschiehte, i (1814), 32‑82. Consult also J. 8. Aasemani, Synodus pmvincialia a . . . patriarchs Antiochsno, archiepiscapas et opiacopis, necnon clero . . . Maronitarum, Rome, 1820.

MAROT, ma"ro', CUMERT: French poet and Protestant leader; b. at Cahors (60 m. n. of Toulouse) c. 1497; d. at Turin in Aug., 1544. In 1518 he entered the service of the Princess Margaret of Orl€ans‑AngoulAme, better known as Margaret of Navarre (q.v.), and thus came into contact with Protestant teachings. In 1525 he accompanied Francis I. to Italy, and was wounded and taken prisoner with him at Pavia. When he returned to France he began to attack the abuses of the Roman Catholic system, and was imprisoned. On his release in Nov., 1527, he openly declared his adhesion to Protestantism. In 1530 he published a collection of his early poems, some of which were by no means edifying, under the title L'Adoleacence clfentine. Accused of heresy, he escaped by the protection of the king and his sister. Believing that Francis was inclined to favor the Evangelical doctrines, he wrote for him a poem on the fundamental principles of the New Testament (Sermon du bon pasteur et du mauvais). At this time he also began to translate the Psalms into verse. But in Oct., 1534, when the a, ffaire des Placards brought on a severe persecution of the Protestants, he fled to Ferram, where he remained under the protection of Rends, daughter of Louis XII. of France (see RENf;E OF FRANcE). In 1536 he renounced Protestantism at Lyons, went back to the court, and worked at his poetical version

RELIGIOUS
of the Psalms from the Latin version of Vatable, thus rendering a valuable service to the French Protestant churches, which were in need of a hymn‑book. The first Calvinistic hymn‑book (Strasburg, 1539) contains eighteen psalms, twelve of which are Marot's. In 1542 he published thirty psalms with a dedication to the king; but the general adoption of them by the Protestants compelled him once more to seek safety in flight, reaching Geneva at the end of the year and remaining there a twelvemonth. Calvin induced him to translate twenty more psalms, which he published with the others in 1543, under the title Cinquante pseaumes. He was unable, however, to submit to the ecclesiastical discipline of Geneva, and went to Turin. His version of the Psahns is accurate and renders admirably the beauties of the Hebrew teat. Its success was remarkable. In 1562 the French Protestant hymn‑book was completed by the addition of 101 psalms translated by Beza to forty‑nine of Marot's. Between 1562 and 1565 not less than sixty‑two editions were printed; and it was ultimately translated into twenty‑two languages. EuGiENE CHoIBY.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The one edition of the tEuvres to be con‑
sulted is by G. Guiffrey, vols. ii.‑R, Paris, 1875‑81.
Consult: F. Bovet, Hist. du paautier des lplises rkforntiee,
Paris, 1872; O. Douen, Clkmenl Marot et Is psautier hu
guenot, 2 vols., ib.1878‑79 (cf. T. Dufour, in Revue critique,
Jan. 31 and Feb. 7, 1881); E. Doumergue, Jean Calvin,
i. 233 sqq., 585 aqq., Lausanne, 1899. Consult also:
Julian, Hymnology, p. 714; Lichtenberger, ESR, viii.
734‑737.

MARPRELATE TRACTS: A series of seven publications which appeared in England under the pseudonym of " Martin Marprelate, Gentleman," between Nov. or Dec., 1588, and July, 1589. They were violent attacks upon the Church, episcopacy, and certain bishops in particular, impudent, personal, and scurrilous in ,passages, so that they were not approved even by the Puritans; but their keen and apt if somewhat broad and vulgar wit, their logical argument, and their evident sincerity made them effective for the ends for which they were intended. Their success occasioned numerous .imitations and more numerous and ponderous replies, giving rise altogether to " the greatest religious controversy of Elizabeth's reign." The tracts were printed surreptitiously, at first at East Moulsey (opposite Hampton Court), Surrey, afterward at hiding‑places in Northamptonshire and Warwickshire. Extraordinary but unsuccessful efforts were made by the authorities to discover the author. It was suspected at the time, and has been generally believed since, that they were written by the Welshman John Penry (q.v.). Dr. Dexter's argument for Henry Barrow is not conclusive. It was Penry beyond question who superintended the printing and distribution. He had more or less help and encouragement from John Udall (q.v.); Job ThrockmOrton, a country gentleman of Hasely, Warwickshire; Robert Waldegrave, a London printer; Sir Richard Knightly, a Puritan squire of Fawsley, Northamptonshire; John Hales, of Coventry; and Robert Wigston, of Wolston, Warwickshire.
The titles of the tracts are very long; abridged they are: (1) An Epistle; (2) An Epitome; (3) Certain Mineral Conclusions; (4) Ha y' any Works for
ENCYCLOPEDIA
Maronites
Marq<uette
Cooperr (5) The Protestation; (6) Theses Martiniana; or Martin Junior; (7) The Censure of Martin Junior. Nos. 1, 2, and 4, with An Admonition to the People of England by Thomas Cooper, bishop of Winchester, prepared in reply to the Epistle, and two other anti‑Martin publications, were reprinted with introductions and notes by John Petheram under the title of Puritan Discipline Tracts (London, 1843‑17). Udall's Diotrephes, the Epistle, and Cooper's Admonition were reprinted with introductions by Edward Arber in the English Scholar's Inarary (London, 18~79‑$2).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. Ma6Wl, A History or the Afar(Xelat6 Controversy, London, 1845; M. Dexter, Congregationalism of as Last Three Hundred Years, pp. 131‑202, New York, 1880; E. Arber, An Introductory Sketch to the Martin Marprelate Controversy, English Scholar's Library, no. 8, London, 1879; W. Law, Defence of Church Principles, 2d ed., ib. 1894; idem, Wholly for God the Christian Life, with Introduction, ib. 1894; G. H. Curteis, Dissent in its Relation to the Church of England, p. 76, ib. 1897; J. H. Overton, The Church in England, i. 474‑478, ib. 1897; W. H. Frere, The English Church (1668‑Ie0), pp. 249254, ib. 1904; W. Pierce, An Historical Introduction to the Marpretats Tracts; a Chapter in the Evolution of religious and civil Liberty in England, New York, 1909.

MARQUARDT, JULIUS: German Roman Catholic; b. at Plasawich (37 m. s.w. of K6nigsberg), East Prussia, Mar. 24, 1849. He was educated at the Lyceum of Braunsberg and the universities of Munster (lie. theol., 1874), Wurzburg, and Munich. In 1874 he became privat‑docent at Braunsberg, where he was appointed associate professor of moral theology in 1878 and promoted to a full professorship of the same subject in 1882. He became a canon of Frauenburg in 1900 and since 1903 has been honorary professor of moral theology at Braunsberg. In addition to a number of briefer contributions, he has written Cyrillus Hierosolyrnitanu8 baptiami, chrismatis, eucharistim mysterimrum interprm (Leipsic, 1882).

MARQUETTE, JACQUES: Roman Catholic missionary and explorer and discoverer of the Mississippi; b. at Laon (87 m. n.e. of Paris), France, in 1637; d. in Michigan near the Marquette River May 18, 1675. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1654; became priest in .1666, and the same year went to Canada, taking up his residence among thp Algonquin and Huron Indians and studying their languages; in 1668 he went to Lake Superior to Sault Sainte Marie, renewing there the abandoned mission first established in 1641, where he built a church and made many converts; later he moved to La Pointe du St. Esprit, and then .in 1671 to Mackinaw, where he founded the mission of St. Ignatius; in 1673 he joined the expedition of Louis Joliet, keeping a diary which is of permanent interest (Voyage et d6couverte de quelques Pays et nations de l'Amusrique Septemtrionale, printed often, e.g., in M. Thevenot, Reoueil dq voyages, Paris, 1681; Eng. transl. in J. G. Shea, Discovery, and, Exploration of the Mississippi, New York, 1852); in 1674 he started to establish a mission, under orders, in Illinois, but was taken ill on the way, and did not reach Kaskaskia until the following spring, where he accomplished his object; the following year he set out for Mackinaw, being compelled by illness to leave Kae‑

Nexquis
JEarriage
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
kaskia, and died on the way. His grave was discovered at Point St. Ignace, Mich., in 1877.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: R. G. Thwaites, Father Marquette, New York, 1902; idem in Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, Cleveland, 1898 sqq.; J. Sparks, Library of American Biography, vol. a., Boston, 1838; H. H. Hurlbut, Father Marquette at Mackinaw and Chicago, Chicago, 1878; S. Hedges, Father Marquette, Discoverer of the Mississippi, New York, 1903.

MARQUIS, DAVID CALHOUN: Presbyterian; b. in Lawrence Co., Pa., Nov. 15, 1834. He was educated at Jefferson College, Cannonsburg, Pa. (A.B., 1857), and after teaching for three years
I. The History of Marriage.
Marriage in Primitive Society (§ 1).
Marriage among Greeks and Romans (§ 2).
New‑Testament View of Marriage (§ 3).
Marriage in the Primitive Church (§ 4).
Medieval Estimate of Marriage (§ 5).
Luther's Conception (¢ 8).
Kant, Fichte, and Schleiermacher (§ 7).
Ethical Basis of Marriage (¢ 8).
Practical Considerations (§ 9).
Misalliance and Morganatic Marriage (¢ 10).
Wedding Customs (§ 11). II. Marriage Law.
1. History of Marriage Law.
Development of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over Marriage (§ 1).
i. History of Marriage: In the general use of the term, marriage is a union between a man and a woman which is intended to be permanent and is recognized by society. The views concerning the number, rights, and duties of married persons and concerning the dissolubility of marriage have differed much and still differ in various places. The Christian view, based on Mark x. 6‑S, is that the
union of one man and one woman for z. Marriage life is the order intended by the cream Primitive for; but Gen. ii. 18‑24 has lost its
	Society.	authoritative force as a proof text
		since sociology shows that monogamy
is a result late in its development. According to
the researches of Bachofen, Morgan, McLennan and
others concerning the matriarchate, an extensive
community in women was the first stage; with the
origin of the patriarchate and of private property
woman took the position of a chattel, polygamy
was originated, after which the rights of private
property and of inheritance led to monogamy. It
is true, the conclusions concerning the evolution of
marriage on the basis of the researches of Bachofen
concerning the matriarchate and of Morgan con
cerning the system of affinity of the Indians have
been contested by Grosse, Westermarck, and others,
on the ground that occasional underlying facts,
which have been interpreted as remnants of older
periods, admit and even demand another interpre
tation, since such conceptions presuppose paternal
right and the view that the wife was the property
of the husband. But in spite of these modifica
tions, even the possibility that monogamy was the
(1857‑60), studied at Western Theological Seminary, Allegheny, Pa. (1860‑62), and the Theological Seminary of the Northwest (now McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago), from which he was graduated in 1863. He then held successive pastorates in his denomination at Decatur, Ill._ (1863‑1866), North Church, Chicago (1866‑70), Westminster Church, Baltimore, Md. (1870‑78), and Lafayette Park Church, St. Louis, Mo. (1878,83), and since 1883 has been professor of New‑Testament literature and exegesis at McCormick Theological Seminary. He was also moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church at Minneapolis, Minn., in 1886.
MARRIAGE.
Marriage Secularised by Protestantism (§ 2).
Minister and Materia Sacramenti in Marriage (§ 3).
Ratum and Legitimum Matrimonium
2. Theory and Contracting of Marriage.
Influence of Roman Law (§ 1).
Teutonic Elements (¢ 2).
Relation of Canon to Roman and Teutonic Law (§ 3).
Decline of the Importance of the Betrothal (§ 4),
Theory of Marriage in Early Lutheran Rituals (¢ 5).
Development of Civic Marriage (¢ 8).
3. Impediments to Marriage.
Classification of Impediments (§ 1).
Canonical Impediments (¢ 2).
Consanguinity (§ 3),
Affinity (§ 4).
Affinity in Canon Law and Early Protestantism (§ 5).
Spiritual Relationship and Difference of Religion (§ 6),
Impotence and Adultery (§ 7).
Error (§ 8).
Obstructing Impediments (§ 9).
The Removal of Impediments (§ 10),
4. Dissolution of Marriage.
Classes of Dissolution of Marriage 0 U.
In the Early Church (¢ 2).
In the Roman Catholic Church (§ 3),
Divorce in the Protestant Church

Remarriage of the Divorced (§ b),
5. Mined Marriages.
The Roman Catholic Position (§ 1),
Present Roman Catholic Usage (¢ 2).
Lutheran Usage (§ 3).
original form of marriage has not been shown. The conditions of monogamy, namely, a higher estimation of woman, the individualization of spiritual life, and consciousness of immorality of illegitimate intercourse, are the results of an extended historical development. Even in Israel the status in Gen. i. and ii. was preceded by a lower moral statue such as is involved in polygamy, purchase of the bride, and the slavery of women. But Christian judgment is not refuted by the fact that its idea of marriage has only gradually unfolded under the cooperation of economic and other factors in the development of culture, since the same is true of the individual. Its basis, however, must be different; instead of using tradition, it moat employ the idea of inner necessity. Since God has created nature for a moral purpose, the ethical gifts developed from the distinction of sex must be understood as the original purpose of God in creating man and woman just as they are independent of the economic conditions which cooperated in their origin. The same applies also to indissoluble monogamy if it be necessary for the conservation of those gifts. For Jewish conceptions and practise see FAMILY AND MARRIAfm RELATIONa, HEBREW.
Among the Greeks and Romans the dignity of marriage as an institution having divine sanction was based upon its importance for the family (which was a group of citizens with full civil and political rights, consisting of several generations and consolidated by its own cult) and for the. State. Its purpose was the birth of legitimate eons to continue the family cult and to form a body of citizens.

193	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Marriage was desired out of reverence for the family and the State, also because of the support during life and in old age thus secured and to proa. Marriage vide for the payment of the last honors
Among to the dead. Sons competent for these Greeks and duties could proceed only from a woman
	Romans.	who had been received into the family
		cult. The results were monogamy,
and the elevation of the position of woman. It is
true that family interests decided the husband's
choice and that the wife stood under the legal
guardianship of the husband; but in so far as she
brought a dowry, administered the affairs of the
household, and educated the children, she was rela
tively independent and highly esteemed. There
may have been possible a comprehensive and inti
mate communion of husband and wife as an ethical
gift resulting from marriage, especially in Rome,
where woman enjoyed freedom of movement out
side of the home and took an interest in the activity
of man, while in Athens her seclusion in the house
made this impossible for her; but such a commu
nion was impeded by the dissipations of sexual in
tercourse which was still estimated in a naturalistic
manner and might be indulged in by any man, so
that Demosthenes says significantly: " We keep
courtesans to be amused, concubines to be nursed,
wives for the bringing forth of legitimate children
and as faithful watchers of the house." Changes in
the manner of economic production and in the re
lations of the family brought about unfavorable
consequences. The principal duties of woman lost
their significance when degeneration of the family
cult and of economic production took place. As
the power of the head of the family was restricted,
woman became legally more independent. Thus
matrimony became merely a civil contract with no
higher purpose, and might be dissolved with the
consent of both parties and was frequently so dis
solved. The male's desire for legitimate sons van
ished with decay of reverence for the family and of
interest in the state. The sole incentive of marriage
remaining, namely, hope of increase in influence
and fortune, did not supply a permanent ethical
bond. On the other hand, marriage was bene
ficially influenced by the birth of the philosophic
idea of spiritual and ethical personality. Sexual in
tercourse, which for Neo‑Pythagorean spiritualism
was under any circumstance contamination of the
spirit, was, in consequence of the Stoic idea of con
trol of the sensual desires by rational purpose, de
clared admissible only in matrimony and for the
purpose of producing children. It was regarded as
incumbent on the husband to be faithful in mar
riage and the idea of a harmonious ethical life com
munion of husband and wife was developed, with
out accomplishing, however, any noteworthy change
either in theory or in actual life.
Christianity first brought about such a change by applying stronger motives than philosophy furnished, namely, such religious sentiments as reverence for God's commandments and fear of his punishment, to which the power of higher morals and the penitential discipline of the congregation contributed. It is true, expectation of the imminent end of the world obstructed the development of a VII.‑13
complete doctrinal system of marriage and hin
dered appreciation of the importance which it has in
		the evolution of history and in the uni
	t. New‑ versal mission of Christianity. Never
	Testament theless, the contrast of the funda
	View of mental conceptions of Christianity with
	Marriage. Jewish and pagan morals immediately
		brought about great progress. Christ
condemned the laxity of the Jewish laws of divorce;
he declared every separation as disobedience of
God's commandment (the addition " saving for the
cause of fornication," Matt. v. 32, is wanting in
I Cor. vii. 10, 11, and disagrees with the uncom
promising attitude of the Sermon on the Mount),
because a relation of communion which, on account
of its divinely created impulse, takes precedence
even over the relationship to father and mother can
not be dissolved by the arbitrary act of man. Paul
emphasizes the unconditional objectionableness of
fornication (which among the pagans, at least
among the men, was not considered an offense) upon
the basis of the idea of holiness, of the duty of the
man who has been called to be a member of God's
people and even elevated to be a temple of God
and a member of Christ to devote even the physical
life to the honor of God and to avoid self‑pollution
by indulging in the impulses of the flesh (I Cor. vi.
13, 20; I Thess. iv. 7, 8). It is owing to the em
phasis upon this factor, which was derived from
later Judaism and was intensified by the Hellenis
tic dualism ‑of spirit and flesh, and also to eschato
logical expectation that for Paul virginity was the
higher ideal and that matrimony was a means
conceded for the prevention of a worse evil, fornica
tion, though marriage was a state which, for per
sons not specially blessed with the grace of absti
nence, was not only permissible, but preferable
(I Cor. vii. 2, 36, 38). Furthermore, celibacy rec
ommends itself to him as more convenient in view
of the sufferings of the last days (ib. vii. 26 aqq.),
also because zeal for the Lord might easily be en
croached upon by worldly cares (32‑34). The
Pauline cast of thought reappears in Rev. xiv. 4;
I Tim. iii. 2, 12, iv. 3‑5. In view of the expecta
tion of the end of the world, the moral purposes
which had urged pagans and Jews to marry re
ceded, and the idea that the bringing forth of chil
dren is a means of accomplishing the purposes of
God had not yet arisen. This " low " view of mat
rimony, which nevertheless in connection with the
prohibition of all fornication signifies progress, did
not, however, hinder idealization of the mutual re.
lations of husband and wife through the Christian
view that husband and wife are of equal value in
Christ (Gal. iii. 28); hence conjugal union repro.
sented itself as an ethical union between persons of
equal position whose differences consisted only in
the distinctions of nature, although the Continua.
tion of the legal and social subordination of the
wife to the husband was demanded, not only out
of regard to unbelievers, but as the order of God
(Col. iii. 18; I Pet. iii. 16) and as proved from the
history of man (I Cor. xi. 3‑15; Eph. v. 22; I Tim.
ii. 11‑14). Man should use his superior position
not for the purpose of asserting legal claims but to
show due respect and love to woman (Eph. v. 25,

Marriage	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	194
33). The subordination of woman appears only as a special act of subordination under God and Christ and under the general duty of love (Col. iii. 18; Eph. v. 22‑24).
The ancient church spread these . views and customs into larger circles. Marriage received a greater sanctity in so far as it was transformed from a private and civil act into a religious and public ceremony. It took place under‑ the sanction of the Church with the accompaniments of bestowal of eucharistic oblations, congregational intercession, and priestly blessing. After the time 4. Marriage of Augustine it was regarded as a sacrain the ment, i.e., a sign of invisible gifts,
Primitive	namely, union of Christ with the con‑
	Church.	gregation, which furnishes a further
		reason for its indissolubility, even in
cases of unfaithfulness and lack of children. The
communion of faith, of religious exercises, of works
of charity on a footing of equality‑and the mar
riage tie was to be consummated only between
Christians‑brought about a closer union between
husband and wife (Tertullian, Ad uxorem, ii. 9).
Notwithstanding, a proper appreciation of the
ethical significance of marriage for the Christian
failed to develop. While the systematic condem
nation of marriage by the Gnosties as contamina
tion was refuted on the basis of faith in God as the
creator, there reigned a sentiment that the commu
nion of the sexes actually contaminated because it
involved sensual appetite. Augustine saw in this
appetite a consequence of sin. Thus abstinence
appeared to take higher rank. Conjugal inter
course, according to him; was not sin if its purpose
was the generation of. children; it was deadly sin
if its purpose was concupiscence. A second mar
riage was regarded as a sign of excess of sensuality.
The reason for regarding matrimony as simply a
protection against unchastity is to be found both
in the ascetic ideal and in the fact that the expec
tation of the imminent end of the world hampered
the appreciation of a positive ethical ideal. Ter
tullian considered it absurd for a Christian to de
sire children; for why should a man desire heirs or
rejoice in possession of them if he must wish their
speedy removal from this dangerous world? Ac
cording to Augustine the truly pious desires only
spiritual children. Whoever enters the state of
matrimony must, of course, look for children who are
to be born again (generare regenerandos) and upon
educating them accordingly. With a general ab
stinence humanity would die out, but the coming
of the kingdom of God would be only hastened.
In the course of time such arguments became merely
a dialectic means for the defense of the ascetic ideal
which praised abstinence as the anticipation of an
gelic life, as the spiritual and therefore superior
counterpart of marriage, and as communion in love
of God and of Christ, explicit expression of which
matrimony also tries to discover.
This conception, which is intelligible from the condition of primitive Christianity, persisted after the Church had learned .to endure the prospect of a long future upon earth and of the task of educating other peoples in the Christian religion, but it was used by Christianity in order to gain among the rep‑
resentatives of a higher perfection fit instruments for the accomplishment of its world dominion.
Thus the estimate of matrimony in g. Medieval comparison with the sanctity of the Estimate of monastical and priestly states remained
Marriage. low. The unehastity of many monas‑
tics and celibates and a low valuation of marriage induced in the laity a moral degeneracy which was intensified toward the end of the Middle Ages by the coarseness which literature took on, by habitual slander of woman, and by the humanistic renascence of pagan lasciviousness and contempt of matrimony.
In contrast with religious and secular contempt of marriage, Luther paid the institution due honor. He regards sexual appetite as a consequence of the fall of man which becomes defensible only through
the order of God. Therefore for him
6. Luther's also matrimony is an infirmary, and
Conception. also a state necessary to all to whom
has not been granted the rare gift of abstinence. From this point of view he praises the glory of matrimony. While the estimate of celibacy rests upon the illusion that God is pleased by self‑chosen achievements, the state of matrimony is an institution of God. Consequently a wife is a gift of God. Thus a good conscience is secured for him who uses matrimony and becomes a protection against temptations to infidelity. The hardships which marriage entails become precious through the assurance that God is pleased with them. Finally matrimony fosters a chaster spirit than celibacy. By thus paying due regard to matrimony as a divine order of nature, Luther opposed arbitrary ecclesiastical restrictions of natural impulse. From such motives are to be explained the blunders which he committed to alleviate the distress of those to whom matrimony through the fault of either husband or wife offered no protection against temptation. But he conceded to nature only its right, not its dominion, in matrimony. He demanded moderation of the sexual instinct, and this he looked for from a deepening of physical fidelity to love and harmony, and not from casuistic guidance in the confessional. The real glory of matrimony Luther found in the ethical purpose for which God created man and woman, and upon the ethical gifts the development of which is their " nature." Children are not only to be born but are to be brought up in the fear of God and for his service. Upon this fact Luther based his judgment that no state is better before God than that of matrimony, and it especially takes precedence of virginity. His reasoning proceeded from the belief that nothing pleases God more than the saving of souls, particularly as it is done by parents, who are the apostles and bishops of children. " Particularly in the state of matrimony children are educated in the fear of God and in honor and virtue; for the natural love of parents makes the task of education a pleasure, and in parental love, which is similar to the love of God, children find an image of the divine heart." Here finally dawned that knowledge which Christianity should have acquired previously along with the conception of its task in universal history‑the knowledge that the natural purpose

196	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Marriage
of marriage, the birth and education of children, is a valuable ethical task, especially for Christians. God still has for humanity a plan and needs for its fulfilment faithful servants in Church and State and in all conditions of life; he is, therefore, interested not only in the conversion of men who are now living, but also in the birth of ever new generations. Furthermore, the divine sanction of the marriage state rests for Luther upon the fact that it is a school of faith and love inasmuch as it calls for the constant exercise of sympathy, sacrifice, and patience. It is indeed this state which offers the best opportunity to obtain in faith and love what the contemplative life strives after, a life above the world. This estimate of marriage expresses the spirit of Christianity inasmuch as it unites the conviction that man has to live for the eternal purpose of the kingdom of God with the faith that God as creator has ordained nature to be a means of achieving his eternal ethical purpose.
In his valuation of marriage Luther had in mind the average state of matrimony which has its motives in sexual desire as well as in interests of economy and of the family. The ideal of matrimony was
heightened and the ethicality of pro‑
7. gant, hibition of fornication and divorce was Fichte, and enforced when the independent ideas
Schleier‑ of ethical personality and individuality
masher. were applied in the general sphere of
Protestantism. Kant and Fichte, starting from this notion of ethical personality and having in view the satisfaction of sexual appetite, reach the conclusion that the immoral degradation of woman is absent only when husband and wife yield up each to the other the entire personality, as in monogamous lifelong matrimony. Such a union, according to Fichte, removes from sexual communion its animal taint, gives it a character worthy of a rational being, and is a school of ethical ennoblement for which there is no substitute. To these ideas Schleiermacher gave clear and full expression. He thus formulated the ideal of chastity as applied to all sensual enjoyments. Sensual pleasure need not be lacking, but it must not be the impulsive force and must be under control of tke spirit. This conception is as far removed from the NeoPythagorean‑Augustinian view of lust as from the assertion of the right of esthetically sublimated sensuality which appeared in the Renaissance and developed into a cult of the flesh. It lies within the sphere of Christian judgment which not only does not deny the gifts of nature, but rather appreciates them in so far as they may be subordinated to the ethical spirit. A second idea is that of individuality. The individual must not only place himself under the general moral code, but must also develop his own personal gifts under the guidance of the universal norm of ethics so as to represent humanity within himself in a peculiar manner. This thought fits in well with the Christian judgment of the relation of nature to the moral spirit and with the Reformed estimate of man's worth. In accordance with this idea Schleiermacher opposed merely prudential matches. His notion of matrimony involved that two individualities should mutually supplement each other and by virtue of this fact
be mutually attracted, the result being that they foster each other's moral growth and by perfect communion of life become one will and even one being. In accordance with the individualistic character of the time he at first transferred the purpose of marriage entirely into the mutual ethical relation of husband and wife, abstracting its natural purpose of serving for the propagation of humanity, and he was in danger of applying his idea so absolutely that for the sake of realizing his ideal he would dissolve a marriage which did not correspond to that ideal. After the time of Friedrich Schlegel, this last idea became so dominant that not only was the annulment of marriages which did not fill these conditions declared moral, but the cooperation of society in promoting matrimony as the result of a feeling which is not under control was declared immoral. Divested of its esthetic nimbus, the illusion of the claim made by 'the individual's changing passion as against the objective order of society first appears with Bebel. During the turbulent times of war, Schleiermacher's eyes were opened to the moral importance of the community, so that he was led to correct himself, whereupon his ethical individualism lost its one‑sidedness. Accordingly, he regards the duties involved by marriage and the resulting domestic education as specific means for the cultivation of the heart. He rejects polygamy and the right of divorce because there would then be lacking the fundamental conditions of education, viz., the permanent spiritual communion of the parents. The significance of marriage under Christianity results for him from. the knowledge that the moral growth of the individual is conditioned by society. The Christian family is the most efficacious means for the expansion of Christianity.
Thus from the principle of distinction in sex there have developed in history two ethical possessions that can be realized only in monogamous and lifelong marriage, viz., family life as a pedagogic in morals and the mutual ethical advancement of two individualities which supplement each
& Ethical other. Both are independent of
Basis of changes in economic, social, and polit‑
	Marriage.	ical conditions. The socialistic pre
		diction of the disappearance of family
life as a consequence of the abolition of the house
hold and the incorporation of private property into
the State can not be fulfilled so long as there re.
mains a call for the individualization of the mate
rial conditions of life, for bodily and spiritual recre
ation and for family life, and while the superiority
of parental instruction over all public education is
so decided. Moreover, love itself, in its inception
and its disappearance, is not altogether independ
ent of will and may by the use of the opportunities
offered in marriage and family be elevated to the
rank of an ethical intercourse, of perpetual sym
pathy. Thus the two ethical possessions of matri
mony form the purpose of creation of male and
female, and monogamous, lifelong marriage is the
order of God's creation. Matrimony with its two
Possessions is a means for the coming of the king
dom of Christ on earth. The superior purpose is
the social; for the ethical purpose of matrimony

Xarriare	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	198
must be analogous to its natural purpose, and mutual ethical supplementing of two individualities can be realized only if both are perpetually united by their special ethical purposes. But owing to the different vocations of husband and wife such a union takes place as a rule only when the education of the children gives them a common purpose.
From the purpose of matrimony follow its basal principles. The individual purpose demands not only free choice but also a reverence for the families of husband and wife. The conditions for the realizar tion of the ideal marriage are mutual inclination,
relative equality of education and g. Practical rank, and possession of the highest
Considers‑ aims in life. An ideal marriage be
	tions.	tween Christians and non‑Christians is
		therefore impossible, as also between
Protestants and non‑Protestants. Since marriage
has to depend upon public recognition and in its ef
fects touches public life, it is a duty to submit to pub
lic regulations regarding it, while the Christian should
also seek the sanction of the Church. In theory,
marriage should be indissoluble, but owing to the
guilt of sin this ideal can not always be realized.
The Christian must always feel that separation from
a living husband or wife contradicts duty. Where
divergencies of temperament or moral defects in
either party hamper the realization of the ideal,
one must, according to Matt. v. 29‑30, save his soul,
even if in that way the individual life is shortened.
In case of unfaithfulness, Christian love must strive
to condone even such guilt. The statement that
adultery is de facto annulment of marriage, rests
upon a one‑sided emphasis upon the physical phase
of marriage. Adultery may be committed also
without the sin of the flesh (I Cor. vii. 2‑15). But
it may be right or even a duty for the married to
discontinue living together if the moral power is not
sufficient to bear the burden thus imposed by guilt
or if pardoning love sees no prospect of change in
the guilty party; and, in case of second marriage
on the part of the guilty person, one's own moral
danger may justify a new marriage. These ideal
ethical norms can not immediately be transformed
into legal norms for State and Church, for both
must take into consideration the weakness of their
members and must adjust their legal measures to
the greatest possible ethical effects. When the
death of husband or wife has intervened, a second
marriage should not be contested, since it does not
involve unfaithfulness to the deceased. The abi
ding relationship is by death transferred to the spir
itual world. 		(J. G0ITSCHIC% t.)
The development of class distinctions in Germany up to the sixteenth century shows, in addition to the serfs, the three sharply differentiated classes of nobles, knights (the lower nobility), and freemen. By the principle of equality of birth,
marriages between members of these io. Misal‑ classes were considered misalliances,
licence and and the wife of lower birth was not
Morganatic raised to her husband's rank, while the
Marriage. children belonged to their mother's
class. This condition of affairs was partly obviated by the introduction of the Roman law, except for the nobility, which, in virtue of its
autonomy, was able by family laws and agreements
to prevent the principles of Roman jurisprudence
from interfering with their family rights, and thus
to conserve the traditional theories of Teutonic law.
In the ancient German kingdom, as to‑day, the no
bility were able to restrict the concept of the misal
liance, so that the marriage of members of noble
families with those not belonging to the high nobil
ity was to be considered in conformity with class
requirements. The so‑called morganatic, Sahc,
or left‑hand, marriage (matrimonium ad morgcanc
ticam, ad legem Salicam) is normally a marriage be
tween persons of unequal rank, but differs from the
misalliance in the strict sense of the term in that
its effects are based on a special contract instead
of on law and custom. The term " morganatic "
is apparently derived from the morning‑gift (Germ.
Morgengabe) which was usually given at such mar
riages. The expression matrimonium ad legem Sa
licam, which is yet employed, is unexplained. The
phrase " morganatic marriage " is now the one in
common use, and such marriages still take place
only in ruling families and those of the high no
bility. 	(E. SEHLINQ.)
Under the head of wedding customs may be conveniently treated several details relating to betrothal or marriage. The preliminary examination is for the purpose of finding out whether any civil or ecclesiastical impediment to the marriage exists, and whether the parties undera. Wedding stand the duties of the married state;
	Customs.	the Roman ritual instructs the pastor
		to see whether they know the rudi
ments of the faith, so that they may teach them to
their children. Such an examination is prescribed
in some Evangelical churches. The modern usage
of having groomsmen and bridesmaids is a relic of
ancient usage (cf. John iii. 29; Matt. xxv. 1‑13).
The custom of having a paranymphus for the bride
groom and a paranymphd for the bride remained
usual in the East; they were compared to the spon
sors in baptism. In the West the custom is referred
to as regular by the Fourth Synod of Carthage (398).
It fell in with the old Teutonic law, which required
the bride to be handed over to her husband by her
former guardian.
The wedding‑ring is a symbol of great antiquity. Rings were used in Roman law for symbols of other mutual contracts, but especially of marriage (Puny, Hiat. naturalia, xxxiii. 1). The Christian Church early adopted the use, which is mentioned by Tertullian (Apol., vi.). That as late as the seventh or even the ninth century the ring was given at the first betrothal is attested by Isidore of Seville and by Pope Nicholas I. Later it was given at the wedding, and frequently two rings were exchanged. The ceremony of giving the ring varies in different places. According to the Roman ritual, it is blessed by the priest and placed by the bridegroom upon the bride's third finger. The reason for the selection of this finger is the ancient belief that a large vein led from it directly to the heart. The use of wreaths as part of the bridal attire was avoided by the early Christians in order to differ from the pagans and Jews (Justin, 1 Apol. ix.; Tertullian, De corona, v. 13). Later it not only came in but

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
acquired a special significance. In the Greek Church
it became customary for the priest to place wreaths
or " crowns " upon the heads of both bride and
groom, though the strict rule forbade this except
where the bride was a virgin. In the West the cus
tom never attained so much importance, because
the veil was early preferred, as is shown by Am
brose, Isidore, and Nicholas I. In Germany, how
ever, wreaths long remained very common, and the
restriction of their use to virgins was in many places
definitely laid down by both civil and ecclesiastical
law. At the present day such matters depend upon
local custom. 	(H. F. JACOSSONt.)
11. Marriage Law.‑1. History of Marriage Law; From the Christian doctrine of marriage, even in its ecclesiastical development, no new marriage law could be deduced because the relation of marriage is not a part of the plan of redemption. Nevertheless, it became necessary that, under its influence, both usage and marriage law itself should experience a partial renewal in Christendom. It 1. Develop‑ became incumbent upon the Church to ment of Ec‑ lay down principles; and gradually, toclesiastical gether with the development of the Juriedic‑ dogma that marriage among Christians tion over is a sacrament, the concept developed Marriage. in the Western Church that the Church has the exclusive right of making marriage laws for Christians. The Council of Trent confirmed this dogma with great firmness and precision (Sess. xxiv., Can. 1‑: " Whoever shall affirm that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the Evangelical law, instituted by Christ Our Lord, but that it is a human invention introduced into the Church, and does not confer grace, let him be anathema "; and also, as the inference [Canon 12]: " Whoever shall affirm that matrimonial causes do not belong to the ecclesiastical judges, let him be anathema "). Jurisdiction in matrimonial affairs is here expressly asserted by the Church, which also indirectly claims control of the laws, since, according to the Roman system, it is a matter of course that ecclesiastical judges can decide only according to ecclesiastical laws and not after secular legal norms, unless the latter are acknowledged by the Church. Long before the Reformation a complete ecclesiastical marriage law had developed and become a part of the canon law in the West, and had obtained exclusive authority, especially in Germany.
Luther controverted the sacramental character of matrimony and declared it to be a purely secular relation, subject to the laws of the civil authority ("Apology," xiii.). That marriage is 2. Narrises commanded of God and has divine secularized promises was decidedly asserted, as
by Protes‑ well as that Christian authorities are bound to be guided in making and executing marriage laws by the utterances of divine revelation. The supplement to the Schmalkald Articles, §§ 8p‑‑gl, declares the establishment of special courts for marriage affairs to be an ecclesiastical necessity. In accordance with these ideas in German Evangelical countries, Scriptural corrections of the canonical marriage laws were introduced into the church disciplines promulgated
by the rulers in accordance with the advice of theologians, and the consistories were charged with matrimonial jurisdiction. Marriage legislation and its execution were based entirely upon the harmonious cooperation of Church and State. Toward the middle of the eighteenth century, following the example of Prussia, a complete transformation of these relations was gradually brought about. In Prussia., by an edict dated may 10, 1749, the jurisdiction of the consistories in general, especially in marriage affairs, was abolished and transferred to the regular secular courts; while the laws were soon modified in such a way that marriage was contracted exclusively from a secular point of view without the aid of the Church. Nevertheless, though the religious significance of marriage was entirely disregarded, the religious ceremony of marriage was inadvertently retained.
The fundamental idea of this legislation, foreign to the Reformers and to the Evangelical Church, according to which civil legislation pays no regard to the religious meaning of marriage, s. Minister but leaves it entirely to the Church to and Nateria assert these relations of marriage by sacramenti influencing the conscience, had its in Xarrlage. origin in the Roman Catholic Church of France, where the debate arose concerning what in Christian marriage constitutes the materia. aacramenti and what the agent or minister sacramenti. A distinction should be made, according to the opinion which prevailed in France, between the cantractus naturalis and acramntalis. The contract made by the parties received its sap. ramental character from the priest (as the minister sacramenti) through his benediction (materia). The State must fix the conditions under which the civil marriage contract could be made and annulled. The priest could only bless the marriage (which was valid as a civil marriage contract), and this he need not do in case of ecclesiastical impediments; but his withholding the blessing must not prejudice the validity of the marriage, provided it was contracted in a form recognized by the law of the State (of. E. Friedberg, Recht der Eheschliessung, Leipsie,1865, pp. 546 sqq.). The popes always rejected this dootrine without plainly deciding what was to be regarded as materia and who as minister sacramenti in the marriage, though both by their rejection and by the enactments of the Council of Trent (see below) the Roman Catholic Church indirectly taught that the materia sacramenti was the intended union of man and wife in accordance with ecclesiastical law, and that the parties to the marriage were the ministri sacramenti. The French theory here set forth has been made the basis of civil legislation by the Roman Catholic states of Germany, with the addition of an obligatory civil marriage form, following the example of the French law of 1792.
Upon the theory that the Church has authority to make a partial marriage law is based the distinotion between ratum and legitimum matrimonium, i.e., between a marriage answering to the ecclesiastical demands and one meeting the requirements of secular legal provisions (ef. Corp‑ua jurie canonici, causa xxviii., quaestio 1, dictum of Gratian). According to canon law, a matrimonium ratum non gyp;..

Marriage	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	198
mum is conceivable among Christians, but not a
matrimanium legitimum peon. ratum; for a marriage
		answering only to secular and not to
	4. Rstum ecclesiastical law can not, by canon
and Legiti‑ law, be considered a marriage among
	mnm eat‑ believers, whereas to contract mar
	rimonium‑ riage in disregard of secular law does
		not diminish the sacramental charac
ter of matrimony, even when secular law does not
recognize such a union as marriage. Only by the
French theory can a matrimonium legitimum tears
ratum exist among believers. In the ecclesiastical
Protestant concept, this distinction is impossible,
since it does not regard the Church as having au
thorny to pass laws on marriage. A civilly valid
marriage, therefore, can no more be ecclesiastically
invalid than a civilly invalid marriage can be ecole
siastically valid, provided that the enactments of
the civil law are not absolutely inconsistent with
the divine Word. From a Protestant point of view
the question of a matrimonium legitimum non ratum
could exist only in the figurative sense of a marriage
not approved by the Church and hence not blessed.
	2. Theory and contracting of Marriage: Roman
law distinguished between betrothal and marriage,
defining the latter as " the union of a man and a
woman," which might also be contracted by a sim
ple informal agreement to enter at once upon the
wedded state; and considering betrothal as " a dec
laration and counter‑promise of future marriage."
The Church recognized the validity of the Roman
law on marriage, but never held that 1. Inguenoe a divine command defined the form of
of roman contracting marriage, though it always
	Law.	regarded it as a necessary expression
		of Christian piety not to marry with
out ecclesiastical approval and without " thanks
giving and sanctification through the word of God
and prayer." On the other hand, it never made
the legal status of marriage dependent on the ful
filment of these demands of Christian piety. Like
the Roman law, the Church regarded the consent
of the parties as the sole necessary condition for
marriage. Though the Roman practise was essen
tially adopted, the distinction between betrothal
and marriage was drawn less sharply, even while
betrothals were blessed, and while marriage after
betrothal was regarded as stronger than had been
the case among the Romans. Moreover, the Bible
terms the marriage of Mary and Joseph a betrothal,
and for these reasons the Fathers distinguished be
trothal and marriage less clearly. Necessity, how
ever, demanded a distinction. Betrothal was sol
uble, whereas marriage was regarded by the Church
as indissoluble; betrothal was no sacrament but
marriage was, though the precise reason was doubt
ful, since the existence of non‑sacramental marriages
was also acknowledged. The questions whether
marriage is a sacrament, and whether or for what
reasons marriage is indissoluble, were much dis
puted, and formed the basis of profound differences
of opinion.
To substantiate their views, the echoolmen and oanonists found themselves obliged to adduce citations, especially those passages of the Bible in which Joseph and Mary are called eponaus and eponsa.
The difficulties of the interpretation were overcome by distinctions. Gratian distinguished between the deapottsatione (i.e., consemu) initiatum and the copula perfedum coniugium (only the latter being sacramental and indissoluble); while the achoohnen, beginning with Hugo of St. Victor, distinguished two kinds of espousals, one having the effect of the Roman betrothal, and the other that of the Roman marriage, aponsalid de futuro and sponsalia de prcesenti (the latter being sacramental and indissoluble even without a copula). In Germany the Church likewise found a national law of marriage, and retained it like the Roman in the Roman Empire. Teutonic law did not everywhere answer to the general development of the Teu2. Tentonio tonic state and law, and it is a vain
Elements. effort to deduce a uniform picture from the many tribal laws. Nevertheless, certain general characteristics can be fixed. According to these, the marriage contract diminished from an actual purchase of the wife to a purchase of mend, or power (mundium), over the wife from him who had it. Thus the marriage normally followed in consequence of the surrender of the mund and the payment of the purchase money. The contract, or betrothal, preceding the marriage, as to the future surrender of the bride and the amount of the purchase money, indeed had its effect, which was greater than in the case of the Roman betrothal, so that the betrothal could not be dissolved without monetary damages, although it was not considered a real marriage. Whereas the marriage originally took place by the acquisition of the mund (normally by its transfer from its owner to the groom), while the will of the bride was a matter of no concern, her wishes became more and more important, until they, and not the acquisition of the mend, were the decisive factor. Thus the sotual purchase became fictitious. The Teutonic development accordingly came to coincide with the Roman principle that the consent of the parties brings about the marriage.
Canon law seriously interfered with this evolution, for, although it had hitherto acknowledged, and had been obliged to acknowledge, the validity of the laws of individual peoples, since the secular courts alone determined the validity of marriage, a change took place in the time of S. 8elstion Alexander IIl. The Church now acof ()anon to quired jurisdiction over marriage, and Roman and with it the power of carrying out her
Teutonic principles. As concerned the con‑
	Lsw.	tracting of marriage, the Church took
		her stand on the simple maxim of Ro
man law, consensus facit nuptiaa, and expressed this
maxim in the scholastic form of both espousals.
The consent with reference to the future (accipium
te) produced a betrothal in the Roman sense (sponr
salia de futuro); the consent with reference to the
present (e.g., accipio to in uxorem [or in maritum])
produced marriage (aponsalia de prcesenta). If the
copula carnis was conjoined with the eponaalia de
futuro, it was considered a prtesumptio iuria et de
iure for the conjugal consent, and required mar
riage. Nevertheless, all this was merely a new ter
minology for the simple principles of Roman law.

199	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Marriage
In the original Teutonic marriage law there was no place for the cooperation of a priest, but this now became possible. The German people adhered to the ancient formality of giving away; but since in reality nothing more was to be given away, a third person chosen by the parties, hence the priest, could perform the formality. As a matter of fact, it was the will of the parties which made the marriage. This church marriage, however, did not become general in Germany, nor indeed did the Church regard its cooperation as necessary to validity, since mere consent, however expressed, was sufficient. Herein lay the peril to ecclesiastical marriage law, nor was it until the Council of Trent that it was enacted that in future the declaration of consent to wed must be made before the proper priest in the presence of two or three witnesses if the marriage was to be valid.
In the Protestant Church the decided rejection of the validity of secret marriages by no means made their validity dependent on their solemnization by the Church, but resulted at first merely in the non‑recognition of clandestine betrothals looking toward immediate marriage, and later in the compulsory completion of public be‑
4. Decline trothals, whether unconditional or fol‑
	ofthe	lowed by cohabitation, by church mar
importance riages. It soon became a general
of the custom, however, to celebrate the marBetrothal. riage by a church wedding; while the decline of the custom of regarding an unconditional public betrothal as a marriage facilitated the prescriptive law which had become firmly established in Switzerland and Germany by the beginning of the eighteenth century, and which fixed the religious ceremony as the proper and necessary form. The movement inaugurated in Evangelical circles by Just Jenning B6hmer against the theory of betrothal in canon law naturally conditioned the importance of the marriage ceremony, which it considered the real marriage act. In England this was first established by the Hardwicke Act in 1753. In Scotland the pre‑Tridentine canonical marriage law is still in force, thus explaining the famous marriages in Gretna Green, which, following that law, take place by a mere sponsalia de prcraenti without a formal marriage.
	For the cooperation of the Church in contracting
marriage Protestantism retained essentially un
changed the church banns and marriage by the
Church. Luther's marriage ritual makes the cere
mony take place before the church, only the Scrip
ture lesson and the prayer of benediction being
given at the altar. In Luther's book and in most
		Protestant rituals the marriage form
6. Theory reads: " I pronounce you joined in of Marriage wedlock in the name of the Father,
in Early Son, and Holy Ghost." The Nbrd‑
Lutheran	limn agenda of 1676 has the fuller
	Rituals.	form: " I pronounce and give you
		joined in wedlock in like manner as
God joined our first parents in Paradise, and this
in the name," etc. Some rituals, especially in South
Germany, read like the Brandenburg‑Nuremberg
agenda: " The marriage vows which ye have pledged
one to the other in the presence of God and his holy
congregation, I here confirm at the command of the Christian congregation in the name," etc. In other rituals both forms are combined, as in the Eisleben manual of 1563: " This marriage, ordered and ordained by God Almighty between you, I confirm as a minister of the Church in his stead, and in the presence of this congregation I here pronounce you publicly joined in wedlock in the name," etc. From this it follows that the real and essential meaning of the " joining together " in the name of the Trinity represents the divine joining together in wedlock, but that it does not imply that the marriage is performed by the act of the minister. Marriage was originally held to be contracted by the engagement preceding the ceremony and the banns. In the introduction to the marriage ritual it is sometimes said (as in the Lower Saxon agenda of 1585)
" The persons here present have, in the customary manner, with the knowledge of their parents on both sides, etc., entered into the holy estate of matrimony." The wedded life already begun was merely completed by the church ceremony. When, at a later time, the distinction between inchoaium and consummatum matrinwnium was disregarded, and a sharp line was again drawn between betrothal and wedded life (marriage being deemed necessary for the latter), the " pronouncing together " in the name of God came to denote the declaration of marriage, which could be celebrated only by such a declaration. Nevertheless, this new development did not supersede the original and main significance of the " pronouncing together," for as a religious act it never lost this meaning, its declarative aspect arising from the legal character which it had now assumed in addition to its religious functions. The actual validity of the marriage contract was always held to reside in the mutual agreement of the parties concerned, as expressed in their assent to the questions in the marriage ceremony. They themselves thus contracted with each other the marriage which the minister merely confirmed solemnly by his declaration, although the latter ceremony was necessary for the validity of the marriage. Herein Protestant canon law finally differed from Tridentine Roman Catholic, the latter holding that a formal wedding was not necessary to the validity of marriage, if a declaration of mutual consent had previously been made.
Variousgrave difficulties arising from the requirement of a religious ceremony for the legal validity of marriage led to the development of a civil marriage service, which then became either sufficient for or necessary to its civil validity. This civil ceremony, as found in the sixteenth century in Holland, and in France in 1787, had for its
opment of object the protection of the liberty of
civil conscience of sectaries or members of Marriage. Protestant communities which were merely tolerated; since by observing a prescribed civil form of marriage they were enabled to obtain the same public recognition for it as could properly be obtained only by the cooperation of the State Church. A French law of 1792 made the civil ceremony obligatory upon all citizens on the principle that " the citizen belongs to the State, irrespective of religion," the legal basis

THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	200
being the distinction between contractus sacramerrt4lis and naturalis (see above). The obligatory civil ceremony thus introduced was adopted in the civil Code Napol6on, and remained authoritative in those parts of Germany where it had become naturalized under French rule. The same theory forms the basis of the obligatory civil ceremony in Holland, Italy, Chile, Mexico, Rumania, Hungary, and Japan [and in some parts of the United States]. In England, Scotland, and Ireland the civil ceremony was introduced in 1653 to free the Church from secular affairs. Abolished at the Restoration (1660), civil marriage was again introduced as optional into England for practical reasons in 1836. In Germany the obligatory civil ceremony, first introduced by the law of Feb. 6, 1875, was based on the principle of the separation of Church and State according to the Belgian precedent. In case the State permits a marriage when a religious ceremony is impossible, the civil ceremony is employed fn Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Portugal, and Russia. In North America, Where the principle prevails that consensus facit nuptias, both ministers of the different denominations and judicial officers have the right to perform marriages.
According to the law of the Roman Catholic Church, a marriage performed by a civil magistrate may become ratum and legitimum matrimonium only where the Tridentine Decree has not been promulgated; where it has been promulgated, or is practised without being promulgated, the civil ceremony becomes a ratum matrimonium only by a subsequent religious marriage according to the form prescribed by the Decree. The Protestant Church, on the contrary, must consider marriage as binding the conscience from the instant the civil ceremony is performed, and can not, therefore, regard a subsequent religious ceremony as a marriage.
The validity of marriage in the Roman Catholic Church underwent a very important development under Pius X. by the constitution " Provide " of 1906 (see below) and by the decree " Ne temere " of Aug. 2, 1907. By the decree " Ne temere " there was introduced a special form for betrothal (a written contract to be signed by the parties, the priest, or ordinary, or by at least two witnesses); the validity of the Tridentine form of consummating marriage (which, of course, is acknowledged everywhere) is made actual by the presentation of the decree " Ne temere " to the diocesan bishop and extends to all people baptized in the Roman Catholic Church and to those that have returned to her from heresy or schism. The declaration in contracting a marriage must take place before the priest whose presence has been requested, who officiates of his own will (these are innovations), and before two witnesses. The priest must be chosen from the proper diocese; but if that is not the case, marriage is not declared void as formerly, provided the priest officiates within his own official district.
8. Impediments to Marriage: Impediments to marriage, or those circumstances which impede the, proper or legal state of marriage, fall into certain general categories: (a) Public and private impediments (impedimenta publics and privata), according as the impediment has the character of the marriage
itself; or exists merely in the rights of individuals, so that the impediment concerns either the com‑

munity or only individuals. Thus, af 1. Classic‑ public impediment is too close consan‑
		gumity; a private impediment is coer
	ments. cion. (b) Diriment and obstructing im
		pediments (impedimenta dirtmentia and
tantum impedientia), according as the impediment
either renders void the legal status of the mar
riage, or, while it exists, merely delays the
proper conditions of its contraction. In case
of the latter, the marriage is simply to be
postponed till they are removed; but if this is
not done, the marriage does not therefore be
come invalid, but is at most punishable. In case
of diriment impediments, on the other hand, the
marriage may be annulled if the causes are private,
and must be annulled if the causes are public; but
such annulment must not be construed as divorce,
being merely a declaration of the invalidity or non
existence of the marriage. Diriment impediments
are, e.g., a previous marriage still existent, and the
impotence or sterility of one of the parties, the
former being a public, and the latter a private, diri
ment impediment. Obstructing impediments are
betrothal (sponsalia de futuro) and the times when
matrimony is forbidden. (c) Absolute or relative
impediments, according as the cause impedes the
legality of the marriage in general or only between
certain persons. Thus, an absolute impediment is
impuberty, and a relative one is difference in religion.
	The various canonical impediments are as fol
lows: (a) Impuberty, i.e., when the male is not yet
		fourteen years of age, and the female
2. Canoni‑ not yet twelve years old. The law
cal Impedi_ both of the Roman Catholic and the
	‑ants. Protestant Church considers this a
		public diriment impediment; but in
canon law this holds only when the marriage has
not been consummated because of the previous de
velopment of puberty. The civil law has every
where raised the age of marriage. (b) A previous
and still existing marriage of one of the contracting
parties (impedimentum ligaminis) is a public diri
ment impediment, since by its very nature mar
riage can exist only between one man and one
woman. Ignorance of the continuance of a former
marriage precludes only the crime of bigamy, but
not the necessary severance of the second marriage,
the latter being a sham marriage which can not be
legalized even by the consent of the injured party
or by a dispensation, since the impediment must be
considered as based upon divine law. (c) The im
pediment which exists in consequence of a still exist
ing marriage is found by canon law in the reception
of a higher consecration and in the solemn vow of
chastity taken when entering a religious order ap
proved by the Holy See. (d) On account of con
sanguinity the Mosaic law (Lev. xviii. 7 sqq., xx.
17 sqq.; Deut. xxvii. 20 sqq.) forbids a man to
marry his mother, sister (whether uterine or not),
granddaughter, and paternal or maternal aunt. In
Roman law marriages between relatives in the as
cending and descending lines are unrestricted, but
wedlock is forbidden between brothers and sisters
(whether uterine or not) and between all collat‑

201	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Xsrriaee
eral relatives who " stand to each other in the stead of parents and children," the one party being born of the common stock. According to H. Consan‑ earlier law, marriage among cousins
	gvinity.	was also prohibited, and this prohibi
		tion was temporarily renewed by Chris
tian emperors under the influence of the Church,
which rejected such marriages, so that it does not
exist in the Justinian code. In both Mosaic and
Roman law it was immaterial whether the relation
ship was legitimate or illegitimate. According to
the Decretals, which in this respect are still au
thoritative in the Roman Catholic Church, mar
riages among collateral relations to the fourth de
gree inclusive are prohibited, whereas formerly the
prohibition was extended to the seventh degree.
These relationships were computed by the Teu
tonic theory, which assumed as many degrees of
relationship as acts of procreation were required to
bring about the relations of the one relative to the
other, the more distant line being taken in case of
an inequality of the collateral relatives. The Re
formers rejected the canon law and went back to
the Mosaic and Roman law, adopting from the lat
ter the impediment of " regard to kinship." Al
though by no means uniform, the extension of the
impediment was generally made to the third degree
of canonical computation. With the theory pre
vailing in the eighteenth century that the Mosaic
law was not to be considered divine in this regard,
the sovereign's right of dispensation gained wide
scope; but even after the State had greatly limited
the impediment of relationship, the Evangelical
Church maintained a portion of the former law in
the form of an impediment to religious marriage.
The relation of one of a married pair to the kin of the other constitutes affinity. For this reason the Mosaic law expressly prohibits 4. Affinity. marriage with a stepmother, the wife of a paternal uncle, a daughter‑in‑law, the wife of a brother, a stepdaughter, and a atepgranddaughter. Marriage with the wife's sister was forbidden only during the lifetime of the wife, polygamy in itself still being permissible. Marriage with the widow of a childless brother, the levirate marriage, was required (Deut. xxv. 5). According to Roman law, affinity was an absolute impediment. Marriage with brothers and sisters of a deceased husband or wife was first prohibited by the laws of Christian emperors. Even in the older laws an impediment to marriage, based on a feeling of honor, was felt to exist in the quasi‑affinity between one betrothed and the kin of the party of the other part in a direct line, as well as between stepchildren and step‑parents, or between a man and his divorced wife's daughter by a second marriage. According to Roman law, legal marriage alone established real affinity, whether the marriage was consummated or not; and when marriage cased, affinity ceased, although it continued to be an impediment to marriage. Unlawful sexual intercourse generally formed no impediment for the marriage of the one party with the relatives of the other, only concubinage and marriage with slaves effecting an impedimental affinity similar to that of lawful marriage.
Canon law derived the impediment of affinity less from marriage than from the " union of flesh " effected by sexual intercourse, so that it made the impediment of affinity coincide with that of kinship, extending it even to marriages between the
kin of the husband and children by 5. Amnity the second wife. Even an afnitas se‑
in canon cundi generic, between one of the mar Law and ried pair and the afnes (primi generic) Early Prot‑ of the other, and, in certain cases, an
estaatism. afnitm tertii generiiis (the relation to
the aines secundi generis of the other party to the marriage) were considered an impediment. Through non‑matrimonial intercourse an affinity also originated, whence arose an impediment between the one guilty party and the kin of the other (afnitas illegitima). The opinion likewise prevailed that marriages should be annulled for an afnitas superveniens, arising from adultery on the part of one of the married pair with one of the kin of the other. By the law of 1215 Innocent III. entirely abolished the prohibitions of marriages in seeundo et tertio genere afnitas, and also permitted marriage between kindred of the husband and children by his wife's second marriage, besides limiting the prohibition of afnitas primi generic to the fourth degree. He likewise decided that the afnitas Xegitimw superveniens should entitle the injured party only to refuse marital rights. The Council of Trent limited the impediment of the afnitas illegaima (antecedens) to the second degree; while the Roman quasi‑affinity through betrothal was made coterminous, under the name impedimentum quasi afnitatis, with real affinity. The Council of Trent limited the impediment to the first degree, but without abolishing the extension of the impediment of affinity ex matrimonio rato non consummato to the fourth degree, although, as in the former case, it was only an impedimentum publics' honeskais. Early Protestant church legislation, doctrine, and practise appropriated the canonical concept of the impediment of affinity, and in general likewise so. cepted the resultant deductions of canon law, so that legitimate and illegitimate affinity acted as impediments to marriage within the same degrees as consanguinity. At the same time, the prohibitions of Roman law on account of quasi‑affinity were retained, and even sometimes extended, dospite their abolition by Innocent III. by the entire abrogation of the impediment of the afnitas socundi generic. After the regulation of the impedi ment by civil law (see below), the Evangelical Church went beyond it in establishing impediments to religious marriage.
Imitative or artificial relationship is connoted by legalis and spiritualis cognatio. The former was recognized as a public diriment impediment by canon law, which, however, laid down no new regu‑
lations defining its extent; and the 6. Spiritual canon law regarding this impediment
8,elation‑ has been retained by the Protestant ship and Church. The marriage impediment of Difference the spiritual relationship has its basis of Religion. .
in the code of Justinian (XXVI., v. 4), which prohibits marriage between a sponsor and the person to be baptized. In medieval

Narrlage	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	20$
canon law it was greatly extended. According to the decrees of the Council of Trent (less. xxiv., can. 2), spiritual kinship is an impediment only to marriage between the one who baptizes or confirms and the sponsors on the one hand, and the person baptized or confirmed and his parents on the other hand. Evangelical agenda have sometimes prohibited marriages between sponsor and godchild; but in later Protestant Church law a spiritual relationship is no longer a marriage impediment. Difference of religion (cultus disparitas) did not become a public diriment impediment through a church law, but through a general ecclesiastical right prescriptive, and as such was acknowledged in the Protestant Church, although Luther repeatedly disapproved of it, in part overlooking the difference between contracting and continuing a marriage between Christians and non‑Christians, and in part one‑sidedly emphasizing the secularity of marriage. While the law of the State nowhere recognizes difference of religion as a marriage impediment, it is always to be considered an impediment to a religious wedding. The Church can not bless and consecrate a marriage in which one of her members regards it. as quite immaterial for the closest union of life whether the other professes Christ or not. The mere difference of Christian confession, on the other hand, is considered even by the Roman Catholic Church merely as an obstructing impediment (see below on mixed marriages).
Physical incapacity to consummate the marriage by sexual union (impotentia cwuruta) is a diriment private impediment according to canon law since, in case it exists and is incurable at the beginning of the marriage (or can be cured only by an operation which would imperil life), it entitles the other party to have the marriage annulled. Sixtus V. (1587) prescribed s public impediment only for eunuchs. In the Roman Catholic Church the prevailing opinion, at present at least, is that the effect of this im‑
pediment is the same whether it was 7. Impo‑ known to the other party at contract‑
tenoe and ing the marriage, or not. Protestant
Adultery. doctrine and practise, on the other
hand, have always held that annulment of marriage on the ground of impotence (or sterility) can be demanded by the healthy party only on condition that he (or she) contracted the marriage without knowing of the defect of the other party. Adultery (i‑pedimentum criminis) is, according to the latest canon law, a public diriment impediment as regards marriage with the person accessory to adultery, in case either that the adulterers have promised to marry one another, or have actually contracted a marriage, or that one of the adulterers bas successfully attempted the life of the injured party. In case one of a married pair is killed by the other with the assistance of a third person to render possible the marriage of the latter two, such an act, as a matter of course, is an impediment to marriage, even though only one party intended to make it possible when perpetrating the deed. The latest canon law on this point became the law of the Protestant Church, although Luther had objected: " Vice and sin are to be punished by other punishments than by prohibiting marriage."
The impediment of error is recognized by canon law only as regards the person of the other part, but not as regards quality or condition (with the single exception of freedom). Here error as regards the person arises especially when the party
	S. Error.	believed to be the party of the second
		part is known to the party of the first
part, who here mak3s the error, only, by virtue of
quality or condition, provided this is distinctly char
acteristic of the party of the second part (error
qualitatis in personam redundam). Some Evangel
ical agenda of the sixteenth century consider the
absence of virginity, the actual pregnancy of the
bride by a third person (with reference to the Mosaic
12w), and incurable contagious diseases as conditions
justifying a claim for an annulment of marriage
on the plea of error. Later Protestant doctrine
and practise are inclined to attribute that effect
to every physical or moral defect which in a similar
degree affects the nature of the marital relation.
So far as the fact of error is considered impedimen
tal, it makes no difference whether it was caused
or used through fraud or not. The canon law does
not recognize fraud as an absolute impediment. In
the Evangelical Church the opposite opinion has
never become the general consensus, though it has
often been stated with very different bases and limi
tations, and has occasionally been enforced and
made the subject of special legislation.
Canon law allows marriage to be contracted under postponing conditions. The contracting parties are lawfully, but not conjugally, united. As soon as the conditions are complied with, the marriage takes place. The deficient condition 9. Obstruct‑forms an impedimentum defuientis carp iag Lmpedi‑ditionis appositce. Impossible or im‑
	ments.	moral conditions are not considered
		binding, but a secondary stipulation
nullifying one of the trio bores matrimonii (fides,
proles, sacramentum) makes the marriage illegal.
The permission of the bishop and notice to the of
ficiating priest are necessary. Lack of parental
consent is considered an impedimentum impediens
in canon law, since the conjugal sacrament is brought
about by the contracting parties themselves, and
since a third party should not be allowed to decide
on the validity of the sacrament. Protestant law,
however, referring to the Fifth Commandment,
and civil law differ here from canon law, although
both provide temporary limitations and afford pro
tection against arbitrariness on the part of the par
ents. A simple obstructing impediment is raised by
the tempus clausum, or the seasons of Advent and
Lent, in which, according to ancient ecclesiastical
custom, marriages were considered inadmissible,
though the Council of Trent (sess. xxiv., canon x.)
restricted this prohibition to marriage festivals.
The custom was retained among Protestants, but
with modifications in detail. An obstructing impedi
ment is given by the vetitum or interdictum ecclesice,
by which the provisional prohibition of marriage
issued by ecclesiastical authority because of the
suspected presence of a diriment impediment or ob
jection does not militate against the validity of a
marriage legal in itself, yet contracted in spite of
the prohibition; although, until this prohibition is

903	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA .	Marriage
removed, it naturally makes the marriage in.question unpermitted and subject to the punishment of the Church. The effect of an obstructing impediment is also possessed by betrothal in the narrower sense, and, in Roman Catholic canon law, by the simple vow of chastity. [In some countries the annul luaus, " year of mourning," is a period during which a widow may not contract marriage, unless she has born a child after the death of her husband. The object of this provision is to prevent ambiguity in the matter of paternity.]
The removal of impediments takes place of itself where they are based on transient reasons, although this does not validate a marriage contracted under conditions invalidated because of impediments.
Private impediments arising from lack 10. The of consent or faulty consent can be re‑
removal moved only by later full consent of the
of Imvedi‑ parties concerned. If, however, the ments. marriage is to become valid, Roman
Catholic practise requires a renovatio comenaus in the Tridentine form, where this has been introduced, unless the impediment has been kept secret. Public impediments which can not be removed of themselves can be removed only by dispensations; but this course is possible only in cases which are not considered to be based on divine law. Roman Catholic practise, therefore, absolutely denies the possibility of dispensation in the case of an impediment of an existing marriage, or of relationship in the direct line and the first like degree of the collateral line. On the other hand, the impediments of difference in religion of affinity proper in the direct line, and of crimen ex occiaione caniugis cumadultario later becoming publicly known are held to be only generally incapable of dispensation. By the third canon of the twenty‑fourth session of the Council of Trent it was expressly declared that the Church can grant dispensations in certain degrees of consanguinity and affinity mentioned in Leviticus. In the Evangelical Church all Mosaic prohibitions of affinity and relationship, usually with generalizing extensions, were formerly considered as incapable of dispensation, with the exception of marriage with a brother's widow, from which the law itself granted a certain degree of dispensation in the levirate marriage. In more recent times it has become the prevalent opinion in the Evangelical Church that only the impediments of rblationship and affinity in the direct line and of consanguinity in the first degree of the collateral line are absolutely debarred from dispensation. In the Roman Catholic Church the pope has the exclusive right of granting dispensations from all diriment impediments, as well as from the obstructing impediments of mixta religio and of the simple vows of perpetual chastity or of entrance into a religious order. All other dispensations are granted by the bishops, each in his own diocese, although the pope delegates to the bishops the exercise of varying portions of the power of dispensation reserved for him.
4. Dissolution of Marriage; Dissolution of marriage, according to canon law, which is followed by all modern civil legislations, takes place ipso jure only through death; during the lifetime of both parties a marriage, even though existing simply de
facto, can be dissolved only by legal decision or by dispensation, except in the case of the annulment
1. classes of an unconsummated marriage by a of Dissolu‑ vow, possible according to the laws of tion of the Roman Catholic Church. In
	e.	general a distinction must be drawn
		between a dissolution of the nuptial
tie (a viwulo matrimonii), thus permitting remar
riage, and mere separation from bed and board
(separatio n toro et mensa), which, according to the
law of the Roman Catholic Church, can be only for
life (perpetua), but according to Protestantism may
be merely temporary (temporaria). In the dissolu
tion of marriage distinction must be made between
dissolution on account of a marriage impediment
(annulment) and dissolution of legal matrimony
(divorce, q.v.). The bull Dei miaeratione of Bene.
dict XIV. (Nov. 3, 1741) contains strict rules for the
proceeding of the ecclesiastical courts with refer
ence to the annulment of marriage; and among
these regulations is the very pertinent principle, re
tained in later civil law, that in all procedure for
annulment of marriage there must be an official
" Defender of the marriage tie " (q.v.) to protect
the interests of the religious or civil community in
maintaining the marriage. It is characteristic of
Roman Catholic Church law that the entrance of
one of the parties into a monastery or a papal dis
pensation can annul a marriage not yet consum
mated, and hence not yet sacramental.
Real divorce, as an arbitrary deed of one party, legally permitted under certain conditions by Mosaic and Roman law, 4s referred to in the wellknown sayings of Christ, and is opposed by his words: "What God hath joined to‑
2. In the gether, let not man put asunder." The Early Church, therefore, has always regarded,
	Church.	and must ever regard, divorce as in
		compatible with true Christian senti
ment. From this the Roman Catholic Church has
drawn the inference that the law must treat a con
summated (and thus sacramentalized) marriage as
so absolutely indissoluble that all divorce, even for
adultery, is precluded, even though it may be
granted by the courts. Augustine (De fide et operi
bus, iv. 19) considered it at least doubtful whether
in that case sanction might be given to a simple
separation of the innocent party, who was not, how
ever, to be permitted to marry again until the death
of the guilty party. An African synod of 407 ex
pressly recognized the right of the Church to pre
vent the remarriage of the guilty party, though only
by means of church discipline; since to secure the
legal impossibility of such remarriage, the Church
could only request the passage of an imperial law.
Among the Germanic nations even the Roman Catho
lie Church allowed real divorces, at least by way of
" dissimulation," as late as the ninth century.
As soon as the Western Church obtained entire jurisdiction and legislation concerning marriage, however, every indulgence ceased; although it was clearly recognized that while real divorce was no longer possible, it was imperatively necessary that a separation should be allowed which should maintain the marriage and yet abrogate cohabitation, permanently in case of adultery. The consequences

Xarriage	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	904
of such a separation were the same as those of a real divorce so far as property‑rights were concerned;
and the separation, like the divorce, S. In the presupposed legal procedure and de‑
noman cree. If the words of Christ with re‑
Catholio gard to divorce were taken as a legal
Church. prohibition of it, the phrase " saving
for the cause of fornication " (Matt. v. 32; cf. xix. 9) must necessarily be interpreted as a legal permission of at least perpetua separatio in such a case. The law of the Roman Catholic Church is, accordingly, that upon motion a separation for a definite or indefinite time (temporaria aeparatio a toro et mensa) is to be granted in case of greater or lesser impairment of conjugal life, in case of temptation to immoral acts or crimes, in case of endangered safety, and the like. Perpetual separation (perpdua separatio), however, can be granted only for adultery or unnatural crimes, although in such cases the motion may be opposed by the plea of compensation (adultery practised by the plaintiff), pandering or connivance, and condonation.
Protestant divorce law had its beginning in the proposition laid down in the appendix to the Schmal‑
kald Articles: " Unjust also is the 4. Divorce tradition which forbids an innocent in the person to marry after divorce " (cf.
Protestant H. E. Jacobs, Book of Concord, i.
Ch‑Oh‑ 351, Philadelphia, 1893). The posi‑
tive rules which the magistrates were to lay down with the advice of the Church concerning divorce in the strict sense of the term (though the Church itself could make no independent legislation on the subject) were to be based on the relevant passages of the Bible submitted to a conscientious exegesis unhampered by ecclesiastical tradition. The result was to substantiate the words of Luther, in his exegesis of the Sermon on the Mount (Erlangen ed., xliii. 117): " Christ (and, of course, Paul as well) here makes no ruling or enactment like a jurist or regent in things external, but simply as a preacher who instructs the conscience so that the law of divorce may be rightly used." The question is, then, not one of "Scriptural grounds for divorce," as if the Bible assigned certain grounds which granted one married party a legal right to separate from the other and the liberty of marrying again; for even in this sense the adultery of the other party is not a Scriptural ground for divorce. The sole problem, on the contrary, is what forms of actual separation or guilt of the one party, in harmony with the Scripture, should be true grounds for the civil authorities to come to the aid of the innocent party by granting a dissolution of the legal bond of marriage. If, from this point of view, the grounds for divorce be considered those for which a petition for judicial separation would be entertained by the civil authorities for the protection of the sanctity of marriage and the defense of the innocent against the guilty, then the most undoubted Scriptural grounds for divorce are adultery and wilful desertion. These were generally expressly and exclusively recognized as such by the Evangelical agenda of the period of the Reformation. On the other hand, it can not be termed contrary to Scripture that the most recent Protestant law of divorce,
1. The
Roman
Catholic
Position.
developed with ecclesiastical sanction, permits judicial separation for other reasons, which, like adultery and wilful desertion, imply dolosa f de£ coniugahs violatio on the part of one of the married pair.
The remarriage of divorced persons can no longer be impeded by the refusal of the Church to perform the wedding ceremony, though she
5. 8emar‑ must disapprove such unions from the riage of the point of view of Christian ethics. Still
	Divorced.	less can she be prevented by the State
		from wishing to guard her conscience
and to lend active emphasis to her Scriptural teach
ings on divorce. She must be the more earnest in
this respect, since she no longer helps to contract
the nurrisge by the wedding ceremony, the latter
being [on the continent of Europe] simply a solemn
recognition and declaration that the marriage in
question is a union in conformity to the divine will,
not so much in virtue of the motives with which it is
contracted as with regard to objective requirements.
This must be the basis of judgment whether the cere
mony is to be granted or refused to the divorced;
and for this very reason general principles can and
must be established, their applicability to individual
cases in which differences arise between the officia
ting clergyman and those who desire the ceremony
being determined by the ruling of the Church.
5. Mixed Marriages: Mixed marriages are those contracted between persons of different Christian confessions, especially between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Since they render impossible that perfect harmony between husband and wife which is demanded by the ethical and religious concept of marriage, inasmuch as the family thus founded necessarily comes under the influence of two antagonistic churches, while almost insuperable difficulties arise regarding the religious training of the children, each Church must disapprove of them and dissuade its members from such marriages.
While this should be especially the case with the Roman Catholic Church, it has never regarded mixed marriages as illegal or as lacking sacramental character. Nevertheless, it fully applied the prohibitions of the early Church regarding marriages between Catholic Christians and here‑
tics to marriages between Roman Catholics and Protestants, despite the fact that the latter were recognized by the
State as members of churches on a par with the Roman Catholic Church, and
without regard to the circumstance that these Protestant churches were essentially different from the sects to which the prohibitions in question referred. The Roman Curia accordingly maintained that an obstructing impediment based on general Church laws existed for mixed marriages between Roman Catholics and Protestants. A dispensation for such a marriage could be granted by the pope alone; and by him, generally speaking, only on condition that Protestantism was abjured by the Protestant party to the marriage, with the promise that all children born of the union should be educated in the Roman Catholic faith. Moreover, the full applicability of Roman Catholic canon law to such marriages was asserted on the ground that Protestants belong by baptism to the Roman Catholic .Church and are

205	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	liarriage
lawfully subject to its statutes. Under certain circumstances a temporary exception was made from the strict execution of these principles by express papal favor or " dissimulation." The abjuration of Protestantism was the point least insisted upon, but special stress was laid on the assurance that the children should be educated in the Roman Catholic faith. On principle the Roman Catholic Church always endeavors to prevent mixed marriages altogether, and then at least to render them difficult; but in any case where it assists in their contraction, it expresses its disapproval of the desecration of the sacrament of marriage which it sees in every mixed union. Absolute prevention, however, even from the point of view of its own law, is possible only where the Tridentine Decree on the contraction of marriage has either been promulgated or is practised without formal promulgation. On the other hand, where the pre‑Tridentine canon law is authoritative in this respect, a ratum ntatrintonium may also be brought about by informal consent, even though the Church should refuse to cooperate. Difficulties may always be raised by the special conditions made in case a dispensation, either compulsory or voluntary, is asked. Disapproval may be expressed by refusing the banns and by withdrawing active assistance in declaring the consent of the parties to the marriage, the cooperation of tire Church thus being restricted to the so‑called possive assistance outside the Church and without priestly vestments, or at least by refusal to celebrate the nuptial mass with its benediction, or by omitting the simple benediction connected with the marriage ceremony. Where more or less sweeping exceptions to these principles are made, they are due to a desire to avoid greater evils to the Church. Toward the end of the eighteenth century mixed marriages were very mildly treated by the Roman Catholic Church; but in the nineteenth century she revived the full severity of her strict principles, the modifications conceded by Pius VIII. for the archdiocese of Cologne (1830) and for Bavaria (1832), or by Gregory XVI. for Austria (1841) being merely temporary.
According to the present legal status, the pope, or the bishop as his delegate, removes the impedimeeraunn mixtm religionis. The Roman Catholic ceremony is required, except in countries to which the declaration of Benedict XIV. (Nov. 4, 1741) for
Holland and Belgium has been ex‑
a. Present tended. The priest gives merely asgoman sistentia paasava. The grant of dis‑
Oatholio pensation presupposes the fulfilment
Usage. of certain conditions. The Roman
Catholic party promises to attempt the conversion of the Protestant, while the latter is pledged to make no such effort; both are bound to bring up all their children in the Roman Catholic faith and are required to waive an Evangelical marriage ceremony. By a decree of the Inquisition (June 17, 1864), the Roman Catholic ceremony in addition to the Protestant is inadmissible. If the Roman Catholic ceremony is desired after the Protestant, the priest is to perform it, but must impose some penance on the Roman Catholic party. Should the priest bear that the parties intend also to have
the Evangelical ceremony, he is to dissuade them, although emphasis is not to be laid so much on this point as upon the other conditions, especially the one referring to the education of the children. In the constitution " Provide " of January 18, 1908, Pope Pius X. decreed for Germany that mixed marriages of Catholics with non‑Catholics not consummated according to the Tridentine Decree are subject to penalty, but valid, also that marriages of non‑Catholics among each other in Germany are not subject to the Tridentine Decree for their validity. The State has repeatedly objected to the Roman Catholic regulation of mixed marriages; but through the introduction of the obligatory civil marriage the question has lost its acute character so far as the State is concerned, and has become primarily a controversy of the different confessions. The contmotion of a mixed marriage after the divorce of the Protestant party would necessarily be considered absolutely unlawful by the Roman Catholic Church, even did she not consider Protestants bound by her laws, since according to her dogma the marriage union existing between two who have been baptized can not be dissolved by a judicial separation. Even did she concede the legal right of divorced Protestants to contract a new marriage, she could never allow her members to contract a ‑marriage with those who, according to Roman Catholic belief, are still bound together by a former marriage. Only in case the divorce is found by a Roman Catholic ecclesiastical court to have affected a marriage which was null and void, can the Roman Catholic Church allow such a mixed marriage.
In the Protestant Church mere difference of religious Christian confession, at least in Germany,
has never been regarded as an actual S. Luther‑ impediment to marriage requiring a an Usase. formal dispensation, although in Sax‑
ony, as late as the seventeenth and the early eighteenth centuries, a marriage between Lutherans and Roman Catholics needed a special license of the higher consistory, which was granted only on certain conditions, especially that of bringing up all the children in the Lutheran faith. For many years, however, the church ceremony has been generally allowed for mixed marriages, except where the Protestant party has agreed to bring up all the children in the Roman Catholic faith.
	Legal statutes limiting the liberty of parents to
decide as to the religious education of children born
of a mixed marriage can be enacted only by the
State, since those made by ecclesiastical authority
can be binding only on the party to the marriage
subject to such authority. 	E. SEHLIN(1.
BIBwoaBAPHY: On primitive marriage consult: E. Weetermarelr, Hiet. of Human Marriage, new ed., London, 1901, Fr. tranel., Origins du mariape dine L'mpdce humaine, Paris, 1895; L. Dargum, Mutterroem and Raubda and ihre Reste, Breslau, 1883; A. Girard‑Teulon, Les Orwines du mar8ape, Geneva, 1884; J. F. McClellan. Studies in Ancient Hid., 2 series, London, 1888‑98; idem, The Origin of Ezopamy, in English Historical Review, Jan., 1888 (both the last are of high importance); C. Letourneau, The Evolution of Marriage and the Pamily, New York, 1891; L. Tiler, Le Martapa, sa penase, son Evolution, Paris, 1898; E. Crawley, The Mystic Rose; a Study q/ primitive Marriage, London, 1901; Smith, Kinship; L. H. Morgan, Ancient Society, reissue, New York, 1907; N. W. Thomas, Kinship Orpani:ationr and Group Mannape ifs Australia,

arriags lEarsh
New York, 1908; and the literature on totemism under C01IPAPATIVE RELIOIoN.
On the history of Christian marriage consult: Bingham, Oripines, passim (using the index); DCA, ii. 1092‑1115; G. E. Howard, A History of Matrimonial Institutions, chiefly in England and the United Stotts, 3 vole., Chicago, 1904; E. Saalfeld, Luthers Lehre von der Ehe Leipsic, 1882; W. Kawerau, Die Reformation and die Ehe, Halle, 1892; J. F. Bingham, Christian Marriage; the Ceremony, History and Significance, New York, 1900.
On the theory of marriage consult: W. Glock, Christliehe Ehe and ihre modernen Gegner, Carlsruhe, 1881 C. Th6nes, Die christliche Anschauunp der Ehe, Leyden, 1881; W. Humphrey, Christian Marriage, London, 1886 (Roman Catholic); A. H. Huth, Marriage of Near Kin, ib. 1887; A. Richard, Marriage and Divorce, ib. 1888 (religious, practical and political); H. A. Smith, in Is Marriage a Failure? ib. 1888 (a popular handbook); O. D. Watkins, Holy Matrimony, ib. 1895; A. M. Caird, The Morality of Marriage, ib. 1897; D. F. Wilcox, Ethical Marriage, Ann Arbor, 1900; M. W. Allen, Marriage, its Duties and Privileges, Chicago, 1901; P. A. Morrow, Social Diseases and Marriage, Philadelphia, 1904; L. F. Poet, Ethical Principles of Marriage and Divorce, Chicago, 1908; H. H. Henson, Christian Marriage, London, 1907.
On the law of marriage and its history consult: J. P. Bishop, Commentaries on As Law of Marriage and Divorce, 2 vols., Boston, 1881; G. Mansells, De impedimentis mat• rimonii dirimentibua, Rome, 1891; P. Brillaud, Traitk des emptchements de mariape, Paris, 1884; J. Freisen, Geeehichte des canonischen Eherechts, TQbingen, 1888; A. Esmein, Le Mariape en droit mnonique, 2 vole., Paris, 1891; F. Heiner, Grundriss des katholisden EherecJUa, Monster, 1892; F. H. Geffeken, Zur Geschichts der EhescJuidunp vor Gratian, Leipsic, 1894; G. Revess, Dos Trauerfahr der Witwe, Stuttgart, 1902; L. Gaueueeh, Dos Ehehindernis der h6heren Weihe, Vienna, 1902; M. Leitner, Lehrbuch des katholiachen Eherechts Paderborn, 1902.
For marriage law and the general status in different countries, consult for France: E. Kelly, The French Law of Marriage, London, 1885; G. Baidry‑Laeantinerie, Du contrat de mariape, 3 vole., Paris, 1901. For Germany: C. Barasetti, Das Eherecht, Hanover, 1895; C. Sartorius, Kommentar gum Personenatandpesets in der vom Jan. 1, 1800, an geUenden Faseunp, Munich, 1902. For England: W. Ernst, Treatise on Marriage and Divorce, London, 1879; J. T. Hammick, The Marriage Law of England, ib. 1887; D. M. Ford, Matrimonial Law, ib. 1888; C. Crawley, The Law of Husband and Wife, ib. 1892. For the United States: J. Fulton, The Laws of Marriage, New York, 1883; W. L. Snyder, The Geography cq/ Marriage, New York, 1889 (on the complexities of marriage law in the U. S.); C. D. Wright, Report on Marriage and Divorce in the U. S., Washington, 1889; L. J. Robinson, Law of Husband and Wife, Boston, 1890; J. P. Bishop, Commentaries on Marriage, Divorce and Separation, 2 vole., Chicago, 1891; F. Keeser. Law of Marriage and Divorce, Boston, 1908; J. M. Donovan, Law of Marriage, Annulment, Domicile, Divorce, Sioux Falls, 1908.

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

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

207	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Xarriare
		Xarsh
tion, the renewal of the " center," or the foundation
of his soul, through the spirit of God, although for
many years his spiritual life knew neither rest nor
constancy.
	Meantime serious controversies resulted from his
association with Pietists of like tendencies. In
1726 he conceived the plan of emigrating to Penn
sylvania, and in 1730 Zinzendorf sought to interest
him in forming the separatists in Schwarzenau and
Berleburg into a Moravian community, and also
wished to send him to France to win the scattered
and oppressed Reformed for his cause. For a time
De Marsay and his wife were favorably impressed,
but both later rejected the proposal. He now with
drew from mystic meetings and resumed a hermit's
life in Schwarzenau and Berleburg. After 1732 he
resided for some years at the castle of Hayn near
Berleburg as the spiritual adviser of the Von Fleisch
bein family. In this period fall a number of his
works. All these writings, of which the most im
portant are his Freimutige and ehristliche Diskurse
(3 parts, 1735‑39; Eng. tranal., Discourses on Sub
jects Relating to the Spiritual Life, Edinburgh, 1749),
Zeugnis eines Kindea roon der RwUagkezt der Wege
den Geistes (8 parts, 1736‑41), and Christliehe Ge
dartken fiber verschiedener Materien der Gottsehgkeit
(1750), show the influence both of French mysti
cism and of the theosophy of Jakob Bdhme and
Gottfried Arnold (qq. v.). After the death of his
wife in 1742, De Marsay lived for three years in
Schwarzenau, and then resided in various places.
Coming into contact with pietistic Evangelical
pastors, through their influence he abandoned sep
aratism, took part in public worship and the com
munion, and accepted the Evangelical doctrine of
justification by faith. His importance is due to the
fact that he introduced the quietistic mysticism
of French Roman Catholicism into Germany,
although he was one of the last representatives
of his school.	(K. HoLL.)
BisriooaAPH:: The main source for a life is the autobiog
	raphy, existing in MS. in the provincial ecclesiastical
	archives at Coblens, reproduced substantially in De Val
	enti, System der h6heren Heilkunde, ii. 153 eqq., Elberfeld,
	1827. Consult further: H. Corrod4 Kritiache Geschichts
	den Chiliaamw, iii. 456 sqq., Zurich, 1783; ZHT, 1855,
	pp. 349 sqq.; M. GSbel, Geschichte dn chrisaiehen Lebans
	in der rheinischwseatphelischen evangelisden Airche, iii.
	193 eqq., Coblens, 1860; G. Heppe, Geschichte der quiet
	istiachen Mystik in der katholiachen Kirde, pp. 506 eqq.,
	Berlin, 1875; A. Riteehl, Gearhichts den Pietismus, i. 425,
	ii. 379 eqq., Bonn, 188084; R. A. Vaughan, Hours uith
	the Mystics, ii. 291‑295, 8th ad., London, n.d.
	MARSDEN, SAMUEL: Church of England; b.
at Horsforth (5 m. n.w. of Leeds) July 28, 1764; d.
at Windsor (30 m. n.w. of Sydney), New South
Wales, May 12, 1838. He was educated at the
grammar‑school in Hull, and then assisted his father
in his shop in Leeds. He was converted and joined
at first the Methodist Church, but afterward united
himself to the Church of England, and entered St.
John's College, Cambridge. He was ordained in
1793, and in 1794 sailed to Australia as chaplain to
the penal colony at Paramatta, near Sydney. He
established a farm there which eventually became
one of the forest in Australia, and endeavored to
train the convicts to habits of industry. In 1807
he returned to England to make a report on the
condition of the colony, and tried to interest the Church Missionary Society in the Maoris of New Zealand, but in vain. He succeeded, however, in inducing W. Hall and J. King, two laymen, to return to Australia with him, and in 1814, after he bad fitted out a small vessel at his own expense, he and his two assistants sailed to New Zealand. The natives welcomed him gladly and he labored among them at intervals until his death, making in all seven visits to the islands, the last in 1837. He believed that civilization should precede the Gospel, and therefore his chief efforts were in that direction. In New South Wales also he was very influential in the cause of civilization, establishing schools and a seminary.
BIHwoGRAPH7: J. B. Marsden, Memoirs of the Life and
	Labours of . . . Samuel Mare den, London, 1858; J. L.
	Nicholas, Narrative of a Voyage to Nets Zealand . . . in
	. . . 1814‑15, . . with Rev, $. Marsden, ib. 1817; DNB,
	xxxvi. 205‑206.

MARSEILLES, BISHOPRIC OF: An ancient episcopal see in the south of France, said by tradition to have been founded by the Lazarus who was raised from the dead. He is supposed to have come hither with his sisters Mary and Martha in the year 63, to have been bishop here fifty years, and to have met a martyr's death. The first bishop known to authentic history is Oresius, who signed the decrees of the Synod of Arles in 314. Proculus (381428) attempted to claim metropolitan rights, which were conceded to him personally but not to his suocensors by the Synod of Turin in 401. During his episcopate Semipelagianism made such progress in southern Gaul that its adherents were sometimes known as Massilians. The see continued to be of considerable importance. During a part of the episcopate of Paul de Sade (1404‑34), the antipope, Peter de Luna (Benedict XIII.), resided here. The bishopric, which had remained a suffragan see of Arles, was suppressed in 1801, and restored in 1821, but is now under the metropolitan jurisdiction of Aix. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Game, Series epdaeoporum, pp. 573‑574, supplement, pp. 38, 42 (for list of bishops); Galtaa Christians, i. 631‑704, appendix, pp. 106‑118, Paris, 1715; F. X. de Belsance de Caetelmoron, L'AntiquiO de l'dpliss de Marseille et la succession de sea gvdquea, 3 vols., Marseilles, 1747‑51; A. Ricard, Lea 9v6ques do Marseille, Paris, 1872.

MARSH, HERBERT: Bishop of Peterborough; b. at Faversham (44 m. ex.e. of London), Kent, Dec. 10, 1757; d. at Peterborough May 1, 1839. He was educated at the King's School, Canterbury, and St. John's College, Cambridge (B.A., 1779; M.A., 1782; B.D., 1792; D.D., 1808). In 1779 he became a fellow of his college. In 1785 he traveled on the continent and studied at Leipsic for some years with interruptions. In 1807 he was appointed Lady Margaret professor of divinity at Cambridge, where he instituted an innovation by delivering his lectures in English instead of Latin. In Aug., 1816, he was made bishop of Llandaff, and in 1819 he was transferred to Peterborough. As bishop he introduced many reforms in the administration of his dioceses. Marsh was a zealous opponent both of Calvinism and of Roman Catholicism and wrote many controversial pamphlets. Some of his more important works are: The History of the Politieka of Great Britain aced France (2 vols., London, 1800);

xarahal Xart&ne
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
A Course of Lxdurea, containing a Description .
of Divinity (6 parts, 1809‑22); A Comparative View of the Churches of England and Rome (Cambridge, 1814); Hors Pelaagicts (only part 1 published, 1815); Ledurm on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible (1828); and Lectures on the Authenticity and Credibility of the New Testament, and on the Authority of the Old Testament (London, 1840). He also translated the Introduction to the New Testament of J. D. Michaelis (4 vols., Cambridge, 17931801).
Bmwoa6•rHT'. T. Baker, HiK of the College 4sF St. John, Cambridge, ed. J. E. B. Mayor, ii. 738‑898, Cambridge,
1889; L Milner, Strictures on Some of the Pubtycations of
Rev. H. Marsh, London, 1813; DNB, xv1. 2 •11‑218.

MARSHALL, JOHN TURNER: English Baptist; b. at Farsley (5 m. w. of Leeds), Yorkshire, May 13, 1850. He was educated at Rawdon College and Owens and Baptist Colleges, Manchester (B.A" London University, 1870). From 1877 to 1898 he was classical tutor in Manchester Baptist College, and since the latter year has been president of the same institution, while since 1904 he has also been lecturer on the history of Christian doctrine in Manchester University. He was president of the Baptist Union, 1909‑10. He is an able Aramaic scholar, and is applying this knowledge to the criticism of the Greek text of the Gospels in an interesting and instructive manner. In theology he is " Evangelical, with a frank outlook on all that is well grounded in Biblical criticism." He has written comments. ries on Job and Ecclesiastes (Philadelphia, 1903) and Job and his Comforters (London, 1905).

	MARSHALL, STEPHEN: Westminster divine; b.
at Godmanehester in Huntingdonshire; England,
at an unknown date; educated at Emmanuel Col
lege, Cambridge; became minister at Wethersfield,
and then at Finchingfield in Essex, where he was
silenced for non‑conformity. In 1640_ he was made
lecturer at St. Margaret's, Westminster. He was
one of the chiefs in the SMWtymnuan controversy
(see CALAMY, EDMUND) with Bishop Hall 'in 1641;
was made member of the Westminster Assembly
of Divines in 1643. He was the greatest preacher
of his times and the most popular speaker. ' He
was an active man, and a judicious adviser in all
ecclesiastical affairs. He preached before Parlia
ment, the Lord Mayor, and the Assembly, more
frequently than many others combined. He was
the most influential member of the Westminster
Assembly in ecclesiastical affairs. He represented
the English Parliament in Scotland in 1643;,. at
tended the commissioners sent to the king at New
castle for the accommodation of peace in 1646; At
tended the commissioners at the treaty of the Isle
of Wight in 1647. He was a moderate and judicious
Presbyterian under Cromwell's administration, and
as an acknowledged chief was appointed one of the
committee to draw up a catalogue of fundamentals
as a basis of toleration, to be presented to .the House
of Commons in 1654, and became one .of the Tryers.
He died in November, 1655 ; and his remains were
interred in Westminster Abbey, but were shame
fully dug up at the .Restoration.
Large numbers, of his sermons on special occa..
sions were published. These, notwithstanding the
faults in method and style characteristic of the
times, are models of eloquence and fervor. Among
these may be mentioned: A Peace‑Offering to God,
Sept. 7, 1641; Reformation and Desolation, Dec.
22, 1641; Meroz cursed, Feb. 23, 1641 (2); Song
of Moses the Servant of God, and the Song of the
Lamb, June 15, 1643; Sacred Panpgyricka, 1644;
Sermon of the Baptising of Infants, 1644; Right Un
derstanding of the Times, Dec. 30, 1646; Unity of
the Saints with Christ the Head, April, 1652. The
only systematic work he published was A Defence
of Infant Baptism against John Tombes, London,
1646, 4to, pp. 256. 	C. A. BRIGGS.

	MARSHMAN, JOSHUA: English Baptist mis
sionary; b. at Westbury Leigh (21 m. n.w. of Salis
bury), Wiltshire, Apr. 20, 1768; d. at Serampur
(12 m. n. of Calcutta), India, Dec. 5, 1837. He
had almost no schooling as a boy, but was a weaver
like his father till he was twenty‑six years old. By
diligent and persistent private study he fitted him
self to take in 1794 the position of master of a school
in Bristol, while he studied Latin, Greek, Hebrew,
and Syriac at the Bristol Academy. He was led
by reading about the labors of W. Carey in India
to offer himself for that work, and in May, 1799, he
sailed for India together with W. Ward, arriving
at Serampur Oct. 13, 1799, and was soon afterward
joined there by Carey. He was not allowed to enter
British territory, so he and his companions remained
in Serampur, which at that time. was under Da
nish rule, and established their mission there.
Marsbman and his. wife opened two boarding‑schools
for European children, which met with great suo
cues and with the income derived from them he
maintained his mission. , His. relations with the
Baptist, missionary Society in England soon became
much strained and in 1826 he returned to England
to settle matters, but not succeeding in his.purpose
in 1827 the Serampur mission was separated from
the others. In 1823 Ward died, and in 1834 when
Carey died Marshman was left alone.: In 1818 he
started a newspaper in Bengali; the Sumachar
Durpun or " Mirior of News." Marshman was
learned not only in Bengali and other Indian
tongues, but had also made a deep study of Chinese.
He not only, translated parts of, the Bible intp deYtMl
languages, including Bengali, Telinga, and Chinese, but also wrote much original matter. Among his chief works may be mentioned: A Dissertation on the Characters and Sounds of the Chinese Language (Serampur, 1809); and CZavis Sinica (1814).' He also translated the works of Confucius (1809) and
in connection.with Carey the Ramayana (1806).,
BIBLIOGRAPHY; J, C. Marehman Life and Times of Carry, Marehman, and Ward, Embracing the History of the SeramPore Mission, 2 vols., London, 1869 abridged ed., '1864, New York; 1870; DNB, zavi, 268‑26g.

	MARS ILIUS, mar‑sil'i‑us, OF PADUA: With
William of Occam, the most important of the
learned publicists who supported Louis the Ba
varian in his struggle with Rome. He was born at
Padua soon after 1270; d. between Oct. 28, 1336,
and Apr. 10, 1343. His family name was either De
Raimundinis, as his friend Albertus Mussatus .ca<lls

1409	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	IN= Nsrshell
him, or De Mainardinis, as official church documents and other contemporary sources have. In choice of a vocation he hesitated between law and medicine, apparently served the houses of dells Scala in Verona and Visconti in Milan for a while, and by 1312 was in Paris with a master's degree and priest's orders. Here he fell in with William of Occam and John of Jandun, and all three took an active share in the controversy which raged so fiercely under John XXII., especially after 1322, in the Franciscan order with reference to the poverty of Christ and the apostles, taking the side of the strict Observantists against the pope. Though Marsilius escaped the imprisonment that befell Occam and others, he was undoubtedly in some danger, and looked to the emperor, Louis IV. the Bavarian, for protection. Louis was at that time in conflict with the pope, and welcomed Marsilius and John of Jandun to his side. They were soon busy with the preparation of the great work which was to make the name of Marsilius remembered, the Defensor pacia, and in two months had it ready to take to Germany to the emperor. This was between 1324 and 1326, so that the date of a Vienna manuscript (June 24, 1324) may be the exact one. Louis took them into his suite, declaring later that he had welcomed them simply as accomplished scholars who might be useful to him, without committing himself to their theological subtleties. The influence of Marsilius was probably important in determining Louis to march toward Rome and to set up the Franciscan Peter of Corbara as antipope under the title of Nicholas V. Marsilius himself was named papal vicar of Rome, and is reported also to have been appointed archbishop of Milan. The failure of the imperial expedition ended the preponderant influence of Marsilius. Louis humbled himself to ask for a reconciliation with the pope whom he had deposed, and promised that Marsilius also should submit or forfeit the imperial protection. Fortunately for Marsilius, neither John nor his successors, Benedict XII. and Clement VI., accepted Louis' offer.
In his oration of Apr. 10, 1343, the pope declared that he had never read a more shockingly heretical book than the Defensar pacie, while Flacius, on‑ the other hand, in his Catalogue testium, says that among the older (i.e., pre‑Reformation) works there is no more sound, scholarly, bold and pious book against the papal power: The work as a whole may be divided into two parts, the first book developing, on an Aristotelian basis, the political theory, and the second dealing with the constitution of the Church, the relations of which to the State are finally discussed. For his age, Marsilius is strikingly bold and sharp‑sighted, far surpassing his forerunners Dante, Johannes Parisius, etc. In abstract politics he lays down the aphorism that the sovereignty of the people, or a majority of them; is the source of all power. In spiritual things he affirms the validity of the New Testament as law, but says that it is to be enforced only by internal means, not by temporal punishment. Speaking of dignities in the Church, he deduces from the New Testament and Jerome the assertion that bishops and presbyters were originally the same, and derives the later episcopal power from human convention, denying also VIL‑14
that one bishop surpasses another by any divine
right. He vehemently combats the claim of the
hierarchy to withdraw all its property and its fol
lowers from secular jurisdiction, and asserts the
right of the " human legislator " to use wholly or
in part such temporal possessions as are over what
the Church needs for divine worship, the support of
the clergy, and the necessities of the poor. He
looks for reformation of the ills of the time from
councils and synods consisting of bishops, priests,
and faithful laymen, and called by the secular
authority. These remarkable conclusions, though
proceeding rather from Aristotelian reasoning than,
as in Luther's case, from pious instinct, are impor
tant features of the preparation for the Reforma
tion. 	(F. SANDER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Apparently the editio princepe of the Defensor was Basel, 1522. Subsequent editions were Frankfort, 1592, 1892; Heidelberg, 1599, 1612; and also in M. Goldast, Monarchia, ii. 154‑312, 1'rankfort, 1614. An Eng. tranal. is by Wyllyam Marshall, London, 1553. Consult: P. E. Meyer , Etude sur Marsile de Padoue Paris, 1870; G. Lechler, Jc~ann von Wiclif and die Vorpeachwhte der Reformation Leipsic, 1873; S. Riezler, Die litterardechen Widersacher der Papste, ib. 1874; C. Miiller, Der Kampf Ludwig# des Baiern mit der rdmischen Kurie, 2 vols., Tiibingen, 18791880; B. Labanca, Marailio da Padova, Padua, 1882; Vatikaniache Akten zur deutechen Geechichte in der Zeit Kaiser Ludwig des Bayern, Innsbruck, 1891; Pastor, Popes, i. 76‑81, 86, 159, 178; Neander, Chriatian Church, v. 25‑35, 38, 93, 147, consult index for other references; AL, viii. 908‑911.

MARTENE, mdr"tkn', EDMOND: French Bene. dictine scholar; b. at Saint Jean de Lane (17 m. s.e. of Dijon) Dec. 22, 1654; d. in Paris June 20, 1739. He entered the Benedictine order Sept. 8, 1672, and was influenced by the work of Johannes Trithemius on the Benedictine, rule to write on the subject himself. The superiors of his abbey, St. Remi at Reims, sent him to Saint Germain des Pr6s at Paris, the headquarters of the literary activity of the congregation of Saint‑Maur, to assist in editing the Fathers. There he studied under D'Achery and Mabillon, and published his first book, g commentary on the rule of St. Benedict (1690). Almost simultaneously appeared his De antiquis monachorum ritibus (2 vols., Lyons, 1690), a mine of information on monastic antiquities. Next he spent some time in the monastery of Marmoutier, where he was influenced in an ascetic direction by Claude Martin, whose life he wrote. (Paris, 1697). Not long after he was sent to the house of Saint=Ouen at Rouen to help Dom de Saints‑Marthe in his edition of Gregory the Great. He now published his De antiquie mclesia ntibua (3 vols., Rouen, 1700‑02), an expansion of his earlier work; the cognate Tractatue de anxiqua ecclesi,ce disciplina in celebrandis ofciis (Lyons, 1706); and a completion of D'Achery's Spicilegium (Rouen, 1700). In 1708 he was chosen as a collaborator on the Gallia chrietiana, and spent six years in documentary research throughout France. The result of his investigations appeared in the Thesaurus novus anecdotorum (5 vols., Paris, 1717), as well as in, the celebrated Voyage littkraire de deuz religieuz UWdictins (ib. 1717): A further achievement of Mart6ne and his fellow‑worker Durand was the Veteru?n scriptorum et monumentorum . . . amplis‑
aima colledio (9 vole., Paris, 1724‑33). His last

Martensan
Martianay	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	210
published work was the sixth volume of his Annales
in 1739; his Histoire de la congMgatitm de Sairtt
Maur remained in manuscript until 1747. By his
death the order lost one of its most learned mem
bers and at the same time a saintly, humble, and
amiable man. 	(FRANZ G6HILEt3.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY; D. Tessin, Hint. litt&aire de la conpr6gation de S. Maur, pp. 542‑571, Brussels, 1770; C. G. JScher, Gelehrtenlexikon, iii. 218‑219, Leipsic, 1751, iv. 810‑814, Bremen, 1813; C. de Lama, Bibliothdque des 'Ecrivainr de S. Maur, pp 145‑147, Paris, 1882• K. schorn,
Bifia sacra, ii. 80‑82, 148 eqq., 340, Bonn, 1888; HL, viii. 911‑913; Lichtenberger, ESR, viii. 742‑743.

MARTENSER, HANS LAWEN.
Life (§ 1). Theological Development (§ 2). Character of His Theology ($ 3). Mystic and Theosophic Elements (§ 4). Polemic and Other Activities (1 5).
Hans Lassen Martensen, a Danish bishop and theologian, was born at Flensburg (41 m. n.w. of Kiel, Germany) Aug. 19, 1808; d. at Copenhagen Feb. 3, 1884. He was educated in Copenhagen, both in school and at the university,
	:. Life.	from which he took his degree in the
		ology in 1832. From 1834 to 1836 he
made further studies in Germany and Paris. Re
turning to Copenhagen, he became a licentiate and
privat‑docent in theology in 1837, and was appointed
reader in 1838 and professor of systematic theology
in 1840, and in 1845 became also court preacher.
On the death of the bishop of Zealand, J. P. Mynster
(q.v.), in 1854, Martensen was chosen by the govern
ment as his successor, and in this, the highest
ecclesiastical office of the country, he displayed
great zeal both for the performance of the
duties of his office and for the defense of the
faith by his pen. In the last year of his life,
conscious of failing strength, he resigned, and died
a few days afterwards.
As a theologian, he adhered without wavering to the philosophy which sees the spiritual explanation of all things in the light of the Christian revelation, and finds the person of Christ the cent. Theologi‑ terpoint of the universe and of all its cal Develop‑ thoughts. Under the influence of Sib‑
	ment.	bern's teaching at Copenhagen, he early
		came to the conclusion that Christian
ity was to be accepted because its truth appeals to
the reason as the one source of a comprehensive
philosophy of life. He sought the unity of faith
and knowledge, and could not be content with any
scheme which did not offer this. But he was even
more strongly influenced by the philosophy of
Schleiermacher and Hegel. Schleiermacher he met
personally in 1833, and was an enthusiagtie admirer
of his mystical depth and the structural complete
ness of his dogmatics‑, but he could not hold with
his subjective attitude, in contradistinction from
which he found himself powerfully attracted by the
objective, all‑embracing system of Hegel. Here,
on the other hand, he felt the lack of system and of
the recognition of religion as a higher sphere than
mere philosophy. These deficiencies he found sup
plied in the teaching of Franz Baader (q.v.) at
Munich, who strongly emphasized the principle that
philosophy must be religious, and that only one
who has a personal sense of religion can philosophize about it.
His dissertation of 1837, De autonomia conscientite sui humante, in theologiam dogmatieam nostri temporas introducta, lays down a definite series of prop‑
ositions, to which he always adhered. 3. Char‑ Philosophy is not outside of or above acter of His religion, but speculation needs religion
Theology. (revelation) as its principle; in matters
of conscience (the kernel of religion) man is conscious of himself not primarily as one who knows God but as one who is known of God. Human knowledge must remain in this dependence established by the conscience, and recognize that human powers will not avail to find the truth. Man can not place himself in the theocentric standpoint, for that would involve the denial of his qualities of a creature and a sinner. Regeneration and faith in revelation are prerequisites for a right insight into things both divine and human; faith is the condition of the entrance of the divine idea into the soul. Thus he rejected the autonomous standpoint of Kant and Schleiermacher on one side and of Hegel on the other. His system is more fully developed in his Christelige Dogmatik (Copenhagen, 1849), which Landerer calls " unquestionably the best reconstruction of ecclesiastical dogmatics from the standpoint of nineteenth‑century knowledge." The peculiarity of his speculative position lies in his determined adherence to the teaching of Scripture and the Church. Scripture is to him at once the critical and the organic norm. His aim was not to discover or establish new doctrines, but to put new life into the old.
To the speculative element which is the most characteristic of his theology the mystic and theosophic were added in increasing measure as time
went on. In his youth he had been a 4. Mystical diligent student of Eckart, on whom
and Theo‑ he wrote in 1840; but his studies along sophic these lines bore their ripest and best
Elements. fruit in his Christelage Ethik (3 vols.,
1871‑78), throughout which he assumes an intimate acquaintance with mystical experiences in relations with God. The theosophic element appears later and more gradually. It is found in his Dogmatik, not so much in the discussion of the being of God as in the passages which deal with the participation of nature and the universe in the renovation and perfecting of the Spirit. Jesus Christ is the second Adam, whose coming has not only a spiritual and a moral significance, but also a deep cosmological one; miracles are an inchoate, if not a continuing transfiguration of nature
the B10r9,I11ents are mysteries of nature, especially the Lord's Supper considered as nourishment for the future spiritual body. A still closer approximation to theosophical views is seen in the controversial treatise Vom Glauben and Wissen (1867), partly no doubt owing to Schelling's later philoso‑
phy which had in the mean time been published. His conception of the Deity reached its greatest fulness in his work on Jakob Bdhme (1881). This work closes his strictly theological production, which forms an unusually harmonious whole, allowing his genius full development on all its sides. His works

RELIGIOUS
ENCYCLOPEDIA
found wide‑spread approval wherever Protestant theology was studied, and even beyond those limits. Outside of this connected theological production, he took part in the discussion of many questions of his day. Thus he opposed the Baptists in Den christelige Daab (1843), where he laid down the prin‑
ciples more fully developed later in his g. Polemic Dogmatik. His conception of the relaand Other tion between faith and knowledge was Activities. strongly opposed by S. A. Kierkegaard
	(q.v.), who between 1843 and 1851
published a long series of writings, tending to show
that Christianity and speculation were things of
different orders, and to reduce Christianity to the
absurd and paradoxical which must be believed in
spite of reason. With the appearance of Marten
sen's Dogmatik, some of Kierkegaard's followers
opened a campaign against his views, under the
leadership of R. Nielsen; but to these attacks, last
ing for a generation, Martensen seldom replied.
When a young candidate for ordination set forth
the view that the operation of the sacraments de
pended on the faith of the minister, and Grundtvig
defended him, he published two small works (1856,
1857) against this position, and in 1863 subjected
the peculiarities of this view to a thorough criticism
in his Til Forsvar mod den saakaldte Grundtvigian
isme (1863). He broke a lance with the Roman
Catholics in Katholicisme og Protestantism (1874),
and published two treatises on constitutional ques
tions affecting the Danish national church. In his
episcopal duties he devoted himself principally to
preaching and visitation. Of his sermons eight
volumes were published, besides three more of or
dination addresses, and a number of occasional dis
courses. As bishop of Zealand he was the principal
adviser of the government in ecclesiastical affairs.
In 1849 the king divided his power in these matters
with the national assembly, and a minister of pub
lic worship was charged with its administration,
although he might be a man of no churchly affilia
tions. In the discussions which followed, Marten
sen decidedly opposed the abstract individualism
which would leave every man free to follow his own
conscience, but was not prepared to support alto
gether the proposal for a synodal form of govern
ment, preferring rather to follow traditional Lu
theran lines of consistorial organization, which in
Denmark amounted to placing the power in the
hands of bishops. At first his ideas met with little
success; but just before his death a step in that
direction was taken by the organization of an
episcopal council, which was to be later expanded
into a synod ‑ although this was abolished in
1901, and has not yet been replaced by any other
system. 		(P. MADSEN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY; Martensen'a works were widely circulated through translations in German, English and other languages. In English appeared his Christian Dogmatic,, Edinburgh, 1865; Christian Ethics, 3 vols., ib. 1873‑82; Jacob Btihme, London, 1885. On his life the principal authorities are his autobiography, Copenhagen, 1882‑83, Germ. tranel., 3 parts Carlsruhe 188384, and Briefwechsel zwiachen H. L. Mortensen and 1. A. Dorner, 2 vols., Berlin, 1888. Consult further: V. Nannestad, H. L. Mortensen. Copenhagen, 1897; London Quarterly Review, lxii (1883), 74 eqq.; Athenaum, 1884, i. 214 sqq.; British and Foreign Evangelical Review, xxxv (1886), 272 aqq.; Methodist Quarterly, xlvi (1886), 701 eqq.
Martenaen Martiaasy
	MARTI, KARL: Swiss Reformed; b. at Buben
dorf (10 m. s.e. of Basel) Apr. 25, 1855. He was
educated at the universities of Basel, Gbttingen, and
Leipsic from 1873 to 1878, after which he held Re
formed pastorates successively at Buns (1878‑Sb)
and Muttenz (1885‑95), both in Baselland. From
1881 to 1894 he was also privat‑docent for theology
at the University of Basel, where he was appointed
associate professor in the latter year. In 1895 he
left the ministry and accepted his present position
of full professor of theology at the University of
Bern, where he has also been professor of Semitic
philology since 1901. He has written: Der Prophet
Jeremia von Anatot (Basel, 1889); Der Prophet
Sacharja, der Zeitgenosse Serubbabels (Freiburg,
1892); Der Einf loss der Ergebnisse der neveren alt
testamentlichen Forschungen muf Religionsgeschichte
and Glaubenslehre (Brunswick, 1894); Kurzgefasste
Grammatik der btblisch‑aramdischen Sprache (Ber
lin, 1896); and Die Religion des Alten Testaments
unter den Religionen des vorderen Orients (T(ibingen,
1906; Eng. transl., The Religion of the Old Testa
ment, London, 1907). He likewise edited the second
edition of August Kayser's Theologie des Alten Tes
taments (Strasburg, 1894; the third, fourth, and
fifth editions, 1897‑1907, bearing the title Geschichte
der israelitischen Religion), and Kurzer Hand‑CO'rilr
mentar zum Alten Testament, in collaboration with
I. Benziger, A. Bertholet, K. Budde, B. Duhm, H.
Holzinger, and G. Wildeboer (20 vols., Tabingen,
1897‑1904), to which Marti himself contributed the
volumes on Isaiah (1900), Daniel (1901), and the
Minor Prophets (1904). He is also the editor of
Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wiasenschaft.

MARTIANAAY, mdr"tl"8"n6', JEAN: French Benedictine of St. Maur; b: at St. Sever‑Cap (75 m. a. of Bordeaux) Dec. 30, 1647; d. in Paris June 16, 1717. He entered the Benedictine order in 1668 and devoted himself to the study of Greek and Hebrew. In opposition to Paul Pezron, he defended the traditional Biblical chronology in his Defense du texts h6breu et de la chronologie de la vulgate (Paris, 1689; supplement, 1693); while in his Divi Hieronymi prodromus (Paris, 1690) he roused hopes of a new edition of Jerome which were not fulfilled in the edition itself (5 vols., 1693‑1706; the first volume in collaboration with A. Pouget). His work was sharply criticized by R. Simon in his Lettres critiques (Basel, 1699) and by J. Clericus in his Qumstiones Hieronymiante (Amsterdam, 1700), as well as by D. Vallarsi in his edition of Jerome (Verona, 1734‑42). Martianay also wrote a Vie de St. Jhr6nw (Paris, 1706), which, unfortunately, abounds in chronological errors. He likewise wrote on the Itala, not only in the preface to his edition of Jerome, but also in the introduction /to his Vulgata antiqua latina et itala versio evangelic aecundum Matthaum (Paris, 1695) and in his Remarques sur la version italique de l'tvangile de St. Matthieu (1695). His hermeneutic principles, based on Augustine and Jerome, are developed in his Traits m6thodique ou manure d'expliquer L'Ecriture par le secaurs de trois syntaxes, la propre, la figure et 1'harmorique (Paris, 1704), in which he subordinated the metaphorical interpretation to the literal, and

THE NEW , SCHAFF‑HERZOG	1318
urged a rigid observance both	of context and of
syntax. 	(G. LAUBMANN.)
Brawoa6APHT: D. Tessin, Hint. littiraire do la conprigation do Saint‑Maur, pp. 382‑397, Brussels, 1770; J. B. Vanel, Lea B&b"ns de Saint‑Maur IB3P‑1798, pp. 112‑115, Paris, 1896; Lichtenberger, ESR, viii. 743‑744; AL, viii. 914‑916.

MARTIGNY, mar"ti"nyi', JOSEPH ALEXANDRE: French Roman Catholic; b. at Sauverny (8 m. n. of Geneva) Apr. 22, 1808; d. at B5,g5‑1eChAtel (60 m. w. of Geneva) Aug. 18, 1880. Ordained priest in 1832, he served at a village near Belley, and was then archpriest of Bhg&le‑Cb&tel from 1849 to 1880, also titular canon of the cathedral of Belley. He was noted for his archeological researches, the results of which he embodied in his greatest work, the Dictionnaire des antiquities chretiennes (Paris, 1865; 2d ed., 1877), now undergoing reconstruction as Didionnaire d'archOologie chrhienne et liturgic (ed. F. Cabrol, 1903 sqq.).

MARTIN: The name of five popes.
	Martin L: Pope 64953. He came originally
from Tubertinum (Todi) in Umbria. Before as
cending the papal throne as successor to The
odore I., in July, 649, he was apocrisiary, or
papal envoy, in Constantinople. His ordination
was solemnized without the approval of Emperor
Constans II. Further, in Oct., 649, at the Lateran
Synod, Martin condemned the Monothelite doc
trine, together with the imperial edict (Typos) for
bidding further controversy on the subject (see
MONOTHEmTEs). The emperor now ordered Olym
pius, exarch of Ravenna, to proceed to Rome and
seize the pope; but for some reason or other Olym
pius failed to execute this commission. Probably
he hoped for support from the pope in connection
with his treasonable designs of founding an Italian
kingdom independent of Byzantium. On the death
of Olympius, the Exarch Ralliopa proceeded with
greater energy. In the night of June 17‑18, 653,
he caused the pope to be seized in the Church of the
Lateran, and carried captive to Constantinople.
According to the usual acceptation, he was first de
tained a year or so oh the Island of Naxos, and
reached Constantinople not before Sept. 17, 654.
But possibly (cf. E. Michael in ZKT, xvi. 1892, pp.
375‑380) he reached there in the autumn of 653.
In the face of a brutal arraignment Martin exhibited
an extraordinary firmness of character. It ap
pears that he escaped the penalty of quartering,
with which he was threatened, through the inter
cession of Patriarch Paul of Constantinople. On
Mar. 26, 655 (or 654), Martin was conveyed to
Cherson in the Crimea, where he died on Sept. 16
of the same year. The Greek Church venerates
him as confessor on Apr. 11, the Church of Rome
as martyr on Nov. 12. 	G. gRt10ER.
BISraosHAPHY: The letters are collected in Mansi, Concilia, x. 785‑853, 1170‑‑88 and in MPL, lxxxvii. 119‑204, cf. Jaffd, Repeats i. 230‑234. The CommemoruNo oorum qua . seta eunt . in . . . Martinum papaw, is also in Man® x. 853‑864. Consult: Lib., Ponti,/kalis, ed. L. Ducheene, i. 336‑340, Paris, 1886, ed. T. Mommsen, in MOH_ Oeat. Pont. Rom., i 1898), 181‑184; J. Langen, Geschichte der rsmiechen Kirche, vol. i., Bonn, 1885; F. Gregorovius. Hut. of de City of Rome, ii. 144‑149, London,
1$94; Mann, Pop‑, f, 385‑405;Hefele, Concilienpo‑
achichte, iii. 212‑239, Eng. tranel., v. 97 sqq.; Bower, Popes, i. 448‑450; Milrhan, Latin Christianity, ii. 278280; Platina, Popes, i. 153‑155; DCB, iii. 848‑857.

Martin II. See MARINUS I.
Martin III. See MARINUs II.
	Martin IV.: Pope 1281‑1285. Simon de Brion,
of a family in Touraine, had already held ecclesias
tical positions at Rouen, later at Tours, when he
was appointed chancellor of France by Louis IX.
in 1260 and created a cardinal by Urban IV. in
1261. As papal legatein France he conducted the
negotiations with Charles of Anjou concerning the
assumption of the Sicilian crown; and it was due
to the influence of Charles that the conclave at
Viterbo, after the death of Nicholas III., unani
mously elected Cardinal Simon pope on Feb. 22,
12$1. In honor of Saint Martin of Tours, Simon
adopted the name of Martin. His pontificate was
entirely subservient to the policy of France. After
his coronation at Orvieto Mar. 22, 1281 (for the
Romans would not receive him within their walls),
Martin bestowed on Charles of Anjou the office of
a Roman senator, and sought at the same time,
with the Sicilian king's assistance, to take posses
sion of the Romagna. The complete dependence
of Martin IV. on Charles of Anjou became evident
when the pope, in deference to the king's desires
and aims toward the sovereignty of Greece, ful
minated excommunication against Emperor Michael
Paheologus. In the strife that broke out between
the Greek emperor and the king of Sicily, the pope
supported the latter to the extent of a six years'
loan of the Church tithes accruing from Sardinia.
But scarcely had he taken this step when Charles
of Anjou's dominion over Sicily was terminated by
the Sicilian vespers, Mar. 31, 1282. The consequent
insurrection in Rome led to the deposition of
Charles of Anjou as senator, and to the election
of a tribune of the republic; and Martin, who
sojourned at Orvieto, was obliged to make prompt
acknowledgment of these decisions. Martin died
Mar. 28, 1285.7~ 	CARL MIRBT.
BmwoQRAPHY: Sources are: Lee Redo Martin IV., in Bibliothtque des &oiea franpaisee d'Ath&es et de Rome, 2 ser., vol. xvi., Paris, 1901 sqq.; F. F. BShmer, Repeats imperii, vi. 1, ed. O. Redlich, Innsbruck, 1898; A. Potthast, Regeeta ponti*um Romammm, pp. 1756‑95, Berlin, 1874; Mitteitunoen sue dew vatikaniechen Archive, vol. i., ed. F. Kaltenbrunner, vol. ii., ed. O. Redlich Vienna, 1889‑94; Martini OPpaviensie chronicon pontifcum d imyeMtorum, continuatio . . . , ed. L. W eiland in MOH, Script., xx (1888), 477 eqq.; and the early life to be found in L. A. Muratori, Rerum Italicarum acriptores, iii. 1, pp. 608‑610, 25 vole, Milan, 1723‑51. Consult: F. Gre. gorovius Hint of the City of Rome, v. 492‑501, London, 1897; H. C. Les, Hint. of the Inquisition, i. $9, 525, ii. 121, 248, iii. 190, 196, New York, 1906; Hefele, Conciliengsachichle, vi. 209 eqq.; Bower opes, iii. 29‑34; Milman, Latin Christianity, vi 143‑171; Platins, Popes, ii. 111114. A full list of scattered references is given in HauckHerzog, RE, xii. 381.
Martin V.: Pope 1417‑31. Oddo Colonna was born probably at Genazzano (26 m. e. of Romef in 1368. He was educated at the university of Perugia and became prothonotary under Urban VI. In 1405 Innocent VII. made him cardinal deacon of St. George in Velabro. Under Gregory XIII. he left his Roman obedience, took part in the Council of Pisa and became an adherent of John XXIII. On Nov. 11, 1417, at the Council of Constance (q.v.),

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
IN' Bras
he was unanimously elected pope, after the deposi
tion of John XXIII., Gregory XII. and Benedict
XIII. Thus the unity of the Church was restored
after the forty years' schism (see ScHism). Mar
tin was filled with the idea of a papal autocracy,
a regeneration of ancient Roman imperialism con
sistently applied to the papacy. There was no
means of harmonizing that autocratic ideal with the
ideas of the reformers of the council; 'but Martin
had the prudence to avoid an open conflict. He
never confessed hiss adherence to the decrees of the
council, and thwarted the plan of a uniform reform
of the Church by the innovation of national con
cordats. He left Constance May 16, 1418, but was
not able to enter Rome till Sept. 28, 1420. He
found the States of the Church in the most desolate
condition, but owing to his energy and tenacity
they were soon restored in their former extent. In
conformity with a decree of the Council of Con
stance that a new council be called within five years,
he called a council at Pavia in 1423, which was im
mediately transposed to Siena. Here, as at Con
stance, antipapal tendency began to spread, and
Martin found it advisable to dissolve the assembly,
using the small attendance and the dissension of
the powers as a pretext. He intended to satisfy
the reformers by a bull issued on May 16, 1425, but
the demand for a general council became more
urgent. The future council was to be held at Basel;
but Martin showed no indulgence, being a decided
opponent of conciliarism. He died suddenly at
Rome Feb. 20, 1431. 	(B. BEss.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The early sources for a life are collected in L. A. Muratori, Rerum Italicarum "ptores, iii. 2, pp. 857‑868, 1121‑22, 26 vole., Milan, 1723‑51: Martin's bulls are in Manei, Concilia, vol. xxviii. Consult A. von Reumont Geschichte der Stadt Rom, ii: 1162 eqq., iii. 56 eqq., Berlin, 1868‑70; B. Jungmann, Diaeertationea asleeta, vol. vi., Regensburg, 1886; Funk, in TQ, lxx (1888), 451‑465; F. Bernet, in Revue des questions hiatoriyues, G (1892), 373‑423; H. C: Lea, Hist. of the Inquisition of the Middle Apes, passim, vols. i.‑iii., New York, 1906; Pastor, Popes, i. 208‑282; Creighton, Papacy, ii. 10G‑163; Bower, Popes, iii. 201‑218; Milman, Latin Chnity, vii. 513‑535; Platinal,~ ~Popes, ii. 200‑213; and much of the literature under CON8TANcR, COONCIL or. A list of scattered notices may be consulted in Hauck‑Hersog, RE, xii. 3$2‑383.
MARTIN OF BRAGA: Spanish bishop of the sixth century; b. in Pannonia about 510; . d. about 580. Knowledge of his life is based on a few scattered notices in his own works and in those of his contemporaries Gregory of Tours and Venantius Fortunatus, with a little help from Isidore of Seville. He became a monk, acquired, for his time, great learning, especially in Greek, and visited the East, including the Holy Land. Falling in with some Spanish pilgrims, he was determined by them to go to Galicia and devote himself to the conversion of the partly Arian, partly half‑pagan population. He arrived in Spain about 550 and was soon made a bishop, according to Gregory, although he may have spent some time in founding monasteries, especially that of Dumio, over which he presided as abbot and later as bishop. In the latter capacity he was present at the Synod of Braga in May, 561. Later he became archbishop of Braga or Bracara, and presided as such over the second (incorrectly called third) synod there in 572. As a missionary,
an ecclesiastical organizer, and an intermediary of Christian culture between East and West, he was one of the most remarkable and influential men of the latter half of the sixth century. The position which he held is evidenced not only by the work done by him in the two synods of Bracara, but by the frequent requests of King Miro for his counsel and by the visits of Spanish and foreign bishops for the same end.
Martin's most important work is his Collectio orientalium canonum sine Capitula Martini (Mansi, Concilua, ix. 845 sqq.), a systematic arrangement of Eastern (and a few Western) canons, with a view to giving a more correct and intelligible version of the Greek canons, as a guide to the legislation of his own day and country. The Epwtola ad Bonifatium de trim mersione (Colledio maxima eonciliorum Hispania, ii. 506, Rome, 1693) answers the question of a Spanish bishop whether baptism was administered in his province with not only a threefold immersion but a threefold repetition of the formula, which would seem to carry a suspicion of Arianism, by saying that the formula was used only once, but asserting the orthodoxy of the threefold immersion. The small treatise De pascha (Gallandi, Babliotheca roeterum patrum, xii. 287 sqq., 14 vole., Venice, 1765‑51) defends the practise of making Easter a movable feast, and mentions it as an old custom of the Gallican Church to celebrate it on Mar. 25, the traditional date of the actual resurrection. Ethical treatises extant include Formula vita honeatce, De diferendis quatuor virtutum and De ira (all in Gallandi, xii. ut sup.), of which the first two enter the province of philosophic morality, with Seneca for their model; in fact, they have been more than once printed as works of Seneca. The Formula gives a picture of the Christian life, adapted especially for the laity, on the moderate lines of the four cardinal virtues. His ascetic works include a collection of Sentential patrum Egyptiorum (MPL, lxxiv. 381 sqq.), translated by Martin from the Greek, and a similar compilation from the old n1onastio traditions of the Egyptian desert, Verba seniorum (MPL, lxxiii. 1025 sqq.). Mention must also be made of a sermon, De corrections rueticorum (MPL, lxxii. 21‑52; first complete ed. by Caspari, ut inf.), which has considerable historical interest. It was written to correct the tendency of the rural population to pagan superstitions. The gods of the heathen, he says, are but demons,. of whom there are a number in rivers, and fountains, and forests, venerated by ignorant rustics, who also employ superstitious practises like augury and magic. God sent his Son " to lead them back from the error of the devil to the worship of the true God; and after he had taught, he was pleased to die for the human race." The Christian is to win the kingdom of God by good works;, otherwise .he will fall into damnation by evil works. In baptism he has renounced the devil and promised faith in God. Superstition is the abandonment of this faith and the breach of this compact. No sign is permitted to the Christian except the sign of the cross, no incantation except the creed and the Lord's Prayer. No one should doubt the mercy of God, but do penance; and true penance is 11 that a man

xsrtineau
Martin of Toum	TIM NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	214
shall do no more the evils that he has done, but
seek remission of his past sins." There are also
interesting remarks on baptism and its ceremonies,
and on the observance of Sunday. Gregory men
tions veules written by this Martin on his namesake
of Tours, which are extant in the three short poet
ical inscriptions published by Sirmond, Migne, and
others. 	(R. SEEBEBIi).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. P. CSeparl, Martin von Bracaras Srhrift De corrections raaticornm, Christi‑*‑, 1883; ASR, March, iii. 88‑90; P. B. Game, KirchenysechicAts von Spanisn, ii. 471 eqq., Regensburg, 1874; O. Bardenbewer, Patrolopie, pp. 579 .qq., Freiburg, 1901; Ceillier, Auteurs sacr&, si. 350‑352, 406, 885‑886, 891‑892; DCB, iii. 845848.

MARTIN OF TOURS, SAINT: Bishop of Tours; b. at Sabaria (perhaps the modern 86,rvtir in Hungary, 80 m. s. of Vienna) in 316 or 317; d. at Candes in Gaul Nov. 11 of one of the years 397‑401. He came of a Roman family of pagan faith, and was educated at Pavia; he early came under the influence of Christianity, was a catechumen at ten years of age, and was baptized at eighteen. From his fifteenth to his twentieth year he served as a soldier in Gaul. Within a few years after leaving military service, Martin went to Hilary of Poitiers and was made an exorcist. Soon after, on returning home, he suffered scourging at the hands of the Arians on account of his orthodoxy and thus gained the title of confessor. His orthodoxy resulted later (356) in his expulsion from Milan. After living as a hermit for a time, he returned to Hilary in Gaul, and about 370 gathered a company of monks near Poitiers, probably the first monastic establishment of the West. In 371 or 372, he was elected bishop of Tours, and established a second convent at what is now Marmoutier, where he built a church and gathered eighty monks around him. Martin acquired renown as a miracle‑worker, and his zealous Evangelical activity met great success in spreading the Christian faith into the surrounding country.
On the occasion of an interview about 384 with the Emperor Maximus, Martin interceded unsuccessfully in behalf of the followers of Priscillian (q.v.), not out of sympathy with them but because of his strong sense of justice. Martin was professedly a man of practical life and held a simple faith resting upon trinitarian symbolism, the worship of relics and the revelations of good and evil spirits. While his predilections for monastic asceticism blinded him to the requirements of the commonly accepted rules of life, he at the same time advocated a gospel of service, in sharp Con. trast with the quiet life of contemplation followed by the Oriental hermits. As the molder of the popular faith of the Frankish people, Martin has become their patron saint and has made Tours a popular goal of pilgrimage. To his name was given a prominent place in the saint worship of the Middle Ages and it entered largely into the epic and legendary lore of both the French and the German language‑ [The most famous story concerning him is that while yet a catechumen and a young soldier he was stationed at Amiens, and there on an uncommonly severe day of midwinter encountered a poor man without clothes. Martin himself had 012 only
his single military cloak and his arms. He cut his
cloak in two with his sword and gave half
to the beggar. In recognition of this deed
Christ appeared to him the next night clad in
the half cloak he had given, and he heard Christ
say to the attendant angels, " Martin gave me
this cloakl "] 	(C. A. BERNOULLI.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The early life by Sulpicius Severna, ed. Harm, is in CSEL, vol. i.; a later account, dating from about 475 A.D., is vol. xvi. of CSEL, and is also in MGR, Auct. ant., iv. 1 (1881), 293‑370; the working over of these by Gregory‑of Tours, ed B. Kruech, is in MGR., Script. rer. Merov., i (1885), 584‑662. A large list of literature is given in Potthast, Wepuoeiser, pp. 1459‑61. Among the more recent accounts may be named: A. Dupuy, Hsatoirs de S. Martin . . . de Tours, Schaffhausen, 1855; J. H. Reinkens, Martin von Tours, Breslau, 1866• F. Chamsrd, Saint Martin et eon monaat~rs de Lipupe, Poitiers, 1873; J. Rabory, Vie de S. Martin, ap6tre des Gaul". Abbeville, 1894; the lives by A. Lecoy de la Marche, Paris, 1895, and H. Bas, ib., 1897; DCB, iii. 838845. To these are to be added the notices in J. H. Newman, Historical Sketches, vol. iii,, ".Martin and Maximus. " 185‑210, London, 1873; A. angnan, 2tudes our la civilisation franpaiss, vol. i., Paris, 1899; and C. A. Bernoulli, Die Heilipen der Merovinper, Tiibingen, 1900; also J. G. Bulliot and F. Thiollier, La Mission et is cults de S. Martin d'apr& l" 1€pendea populairea, Paris, 1892.

MARTIN, ALEXANDER: Free Church of Scotland; b. at Panbride (11 m. n.e. of Dundee), Forfarshire, Nov. 25, 1857. He was educated at Watson's College, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University (M.A., 1880), and New College (the theological hall of the same institution), from which he was graduated in 1883. He was assistant to the professor of moral philosophy at Edinburgh University from 1880 to 1883 and examiner in mental philosophy at the same university from 1886 to 1888, while from 1884 to 1897 he was minister of Morningside Free Church, Edinburgh. Since 1897 he has been professor of apologetics and practical theology in New College. In theology he belongs to the modern Evangelical school. He has written Winning the Soul (Edinburgh, 1897) and The Present Position of Apologetics (1897).

MARTIN, CHALMERS: Presbyterian; b. at Ashland, Ky., Sept. 7, 1859. He was educated at Princeton College (A.B., 1879) and Princeton Theological Seminary, from which he was graduated in 1882, and where he was fellow in Hebrew in 18821883. He was a missionary in Laos, northern Siam, in 188386, after which he held successive pastorates at Moorestown, N. J. (1888‑91) and Port Henry, N. Y. (1891‑92). He was then Eliott F. Shepard instructor in Old Testament in Princeton Theological Seminary and instructor in J4ob1tW in Princeton University from 1892 to 1900, and president of Pennsylvania College for Women, Pittsburg, Pa., from 1900 to 1903. Since 1903 he has been professor of Old‑Testament history and literature in the University of Wooster, Wooster, O., and was also students' lecturer on missions in Princeton Theological Seminary in 1895 and 1901. He has been a member of the General Assembly's Permanent Committee on Systematic Beneficence since 1903, and in the same year became a member of the Religious Education Society. In theology he is a Calvinist of the conservative type, and a firm believer in the traditional view of Biblical criticism. Besides a

2115	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Martin of Tours
		Martineau
number of briefer contributions, he has written
Apostolic and Modern. Missions (New York, 1898).
	MARTIN, mdr"tan', DAVID: French Protes
tant; b. at Revel (167 m. w. of Marseilles) Sept. 7,
1639; d. at Utrecht Sept. 9, 1721. He was edu
cated at Montauban and NIiIes, and at the Protes
tant academy at Puy‑Laurens. Ordained in 1663,
he was a pastor at Esptsrausses and Lacaune, but
on the revocation of the Edict of Nantes he fled
to Utrecht, where he spent the remainder of his
life, declining many honorable calls to other charges.
Martin wrote a Traitk de la religion naturelle (Am
sterdam, 1713; Eng. transl., 1720), but his chief
reputation was won by his Biblical studies, which
comprised Le Nouveau Testament expliW par des
notes courtes et claires (Utrecht, 1696); Histoire du
Vieux et du Nouveau Testament (2 vols., Amster
dam, 1700); and especially by his revision of the
Geneva translation under the title La Sainte Bible
expliqu6e (2 vols., 1707), the latter serving as the
standard French version until recent years (see
BIBLE VEBBIONs, B, VI., § 3). (JOHN VIPNOT.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Petavel, La Bible en France, Paris, 1864;
	O. Douen, Hiet de la eoeiW biblique yrotestante de Paris,
	ib. 1868; idem, in Lichtenberger, ESR, viii. 750‑751.
	MARTIN, mdr'tin, GEORGE CURRIE: English
Congregationalist; b. at Portobello (3 m. e. of Edin
burgh), Scotland, July 9, 1865. He was educated
at the University of Edinburgh (M.A., 1888), New
College, London, and the University of Marburg.
He held successive Congregational pastorates at
Nairn, Scotland (1890‑95), and Reigate, Surrey
(1895‑1903), and since 1903 has been professor of
New‑Testament exegesis and patristics in the
United College, Bradford, Yorkshire, and the Lan
cashire Independent College, Manchester. He was
examiner in Old‑Testament and New‑Testament
languages and literature in the Congregational The
ological Hall, Edinburgh, in 1894‑95 and has held
similar positions in other institutions. He was an
honorary organizer of the Young People's Union
of the Congregational Union of England and Wales
in 1901‑03 and president in 1904, as well as hon
orary secretary of the Congregational Historical
Society in 1900‑03. In theology he holds that " the
fullest revelation of God comes to us in the person
of Jesus. God, however, reveals himself in many
ways, and therefore the judgments of pure reason
are in no way to be rejected, and the universe can
be rationally interpreted. In dealing with the Old
and New Testaments the greatest liberty of criti
cism must be permitted, since neither they nor the
Church are the final seats of authority, but only the
word of Jesus Christ through his Spirit." He has
written Catechism on the Teaching of Jesus (London,
1897); Great Mottoes with Great Lessons (1901); and
Foreign Missions (1905); besides editing Ephesians,
Colossians, Philemon, Philippians, and Proverbs in
The Century Bible (1902 sqq.).
	MARTIN, WILLIAM ALEXANDER PARSONS:
Presbyterian; b. at Livonia, Ind., Apr. 10, 1827.
He was educated at Indiana State University (B.A.,
1846) and the Theological Seminary at New Al
bany, Ind., from which he was graduated in 1849.
In 1850 he went to China, where he was a missionary at Ning‑po (1850‑59) and Peking (1863‑67). He was captured by Chinese pirates in 1855. In 1858 he acted as interpreter to the United States minister, William B. Reed, in negotiating the treaty of Tientsin, and in the following year accompanied John E. Ward, United States minister, to Peking and Yeddo, Japan. In 1866 he also visited the colony of Chinese Jews at Ho‑nan. From 1867 to 1894 he was president and professor of international law in Tung Wen College, Peking, and during this period was adviser in international law to the Chinese government in several disputes, notably in the conflict with France in 1884‑85. He was president of the Imperial University of China from 1897 to 1902 and was in Peking during the siege of the city by the foreign allies (1900). From 1902 to 1905 he was president of the University of Wu‑chang, and since 1905 has been engaged in literary work. Theologically he is progressively orthodox. In addition to numerous independent works in Chinese and Chinese translations of standard works on international law, his standard work on Christian apologetics, in Chinese, and besides his activity as editor of the Chinese " Peking Scientific Magazine" (1875‑78) and "Science Monthly" (1897‑98), he has written: The Chinese: Their Education, Philosophy, and Letters (London, 1881); Essays on the History, Philosophy, and Religion of the Chinese (Shanghai, 1894); Chinese Legends and other Poems (1894); A Cycle of Cathay; or, China South and North, with personal Reminiscences (Chicago, 1896); The Lore of Cathay; or, Intellect of China (1901); The Analytical Reader: A short Method for Learning to Read and Write Chinese (Shanghai, 1897); The Siege in Peking (Chicago, 1900) ; and Awakening of China (New York, 1907). He has likewise contributed extensively on Chinese subjects to various learned and literary periodicals.

MARTINEAU, mer"ti‑n5', JAMES: English Unitarian philosopher and educator; b. at Norwich Apr. 21, 1805; d. in London Jan. 11, 1900. He was educated at the Norwich grammar‑school, at
Dr. Lant Carpenter's private school His Life. at Bristol, and at Manchester College, then at York (1827). He taught for a year in the school at Bristol; became in 1828 junior minister in the Eustace Street " Presbyterian " Church in Dublin; at the death of his colleague, in 1831, Martineau would have succeeded to the sole pastorate had he not entertained conscientious scruples concerning the regium donum (a bounty originating in a gift of Charles II. amounting to £100 a year) on account of which he resigned; he was immediately called as co‑pastor to the Paradise Street Chapel, Liverpool, and was sole pastor 1835‑57, with an interval of study in Germany (1848‑49); and was minister of Little Portland Street Chapel, London, 1859‑72. Meanwhile he had become professor of mental and moral philosophy in Manchester New College in 1840, and principal in 1869, resigning both posts in 1885, though during 1886‑87 he was again principal. During all this time his literary activity had been great, a remarkable series of essays, criticisms and reviews

E;artineau Xartyn
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
from his pen appearing in several of the periodicals devoted to literary. and philosophical themes.
Martineau's intellectual and spiritual development began in his contact at school with the stimulating Lant Carpenter (q.v.). His youth was spent in close connection with Unitarian institutions and
amid the contest for full civil and reHis Phi‑ ligious rights waged by dissenters in losophy and Englaqd during the first third of the
Theology. nineteenth century, to the settlement
of which he contributed. He went to his first pastorate an ardent disciple of Joseph Priestley (q.v.), holding the normal doctrines of Unitarianism, believing in Christ as the' mediator between God and man who had opened by his life and death a new and living way of salvation. The doctrines of the Trinity and the Atonement were not rejected merely as contrary to reason but as unscriptural. Revelation was a communication of faith certified by miracles. At this time Martineau's view of the universe was necemarian and his test of character utilitarian. From this position, normal to the Unitarian, Martineau first dissented in his Rationale of Religious Enquiry (London, 1836), in which he insisted on the supremacy of reason in judging any statement: " No seeing inspiration can establish anything contrary to reason, . . . against whose judgments Scripture can not have any authority." In 1839, in lectures delivered at Liverpool, he placed the Fourth Gospel above the Synoptics in historic worth; in other lectures delivered in 1845 he gave up the apostolic authorship of this Gospel, holding it to be later in composition than the. time of Justin Martyr. By 1840, he had placed the power of Christ as a revealer of the divine character not in his precepts but in his person. His matured philosophy is expressed in: A Study of Spinoza (1882); Types of Ethical Theory (2 vols., Oxford, 1885); Study of Religion (2. vols., 1888); Seat of Authority in Religion (London, 1890); and Essays, Reviews and Addresses (4 vols., London, 1890‑91). In these works he made large contributions to epistemology, exposed the weak points of sensational idealism, laid a firm basis for a philosophical theism, offered a thoroughgoing criticism of agnosticism and materialism as represented by Herbert Spencer and Professor Tyndall, and assailed with equal force irrational dogmatism in theology and antitheistic assumptions in science. His theism was built upon the idea that God is most intimately revealed in man's rational, moral, and spiritual nature, emphasis being laid upon the ethical. God is the eternal will on whom the natural world depends for its existence, and the sole causes in the universe are God and rational beings‑unconscious second causes are excluded. In his opposition to pantheism (Study of Spinoza) Martineau admits the Immanence of God, but insists strongly that the divine Being transcends his manifestation in the universe. His philosophy involved an adequate spiritual cause for the cosmos and the ethical experience of a superhuman presence and authority in the conscience. Thus he wrought
between the relig out the statement Of the h‑..n, ion of nature and the religion of conscience‑both are expressions of an activity directed to cons
affairs of life, he said, morality is not always choice of a moral good over a natural good or between an absolute good and an absolute bad; it is often between better and not so good. The absolute depravity of man and his moral helplessness were held by him to be dogmas absolutely incompatible with man's intuitional nature.
The intense literary activity which he displayed, carried into his ninth decade, tells but,a part of his life story. He was intensely interested in the development of knowledge on the scien‑
General tific as well as the philosophic side. Activities. His interest in total abstinence was vital and active, and he worked ardently in the early campaigns for international peace. He is a fine example of a man forced against his inclination into the leadership of thought by the virility of his mental processes; o£ a faithful pastor, giving to his congregation ungrudgingly his best efforts; of an inspiring teacher, kindly in his methods; withal so humble and sincere as to be surprised beyond measure yet sweetly proud when on his eighty‑third birthday the leaders in the literary, academic, and even political circles of England, Europe, and America united in paying tribute to the services which he had rendered to religion and to the spirit of fellowship with all Christians exemplified in his personal life. Not the least memorable of his accomplishments are his contributions to hymnody in the two choice hymns " Thy way is in the deep, O Lord I " and " A voice upon the midnight air." Besides the works named above, he published three hymnals, one for his Dublin church (1831), Hymns for the Christian Church and Home (1840), and Hymns of Praise and Prayer (1874). In addition he wrote the larger part of Unitarianism Defended (Liverpool, 1839), s controversial work in reply to attacks on Unitarianism by clergymen of the Church of England; Endeavours after the Christian Life (2 vole., London, 1843‑47), sermons; Miscellanies (ed. T. S. King, Boston, 1852); Essays, Philosophical and Theological (1866); and Hours of Thought on Sacred Themes (2 vole., 1876‑80). GEA. W. GILMORE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Drummond, Life and Letters of James Martineau, Survey of his Philosophical Work by C. B. Upton. 2 vole., New York, 1902; A. W. Jackson, Dr. James Martineau, a Biography and a Study, London, 1900; A. H. Craufurd, Recollections of James Martineau, with an Essay on his Religion, Edinburgh, 1903; C. B. Upton, Dr. James Martineau's Philosophy, a Survey, London 1905• J. E. Carpenter, James Martineau, Thealopian and Teacher, ib. 1905; A. Hall, James Martineau, ib. 1908.
MARTINELLI, SEBASTIANO: Cardinal; b. at Luc‑ Aug. 20, 1848. He was educated at Genazzano and Rome and was ordained to the priesthood in 1871, after having entered the Augustinian order while in Genazzano. In 1889 he was elected general of the order, and in 1896 was consecrated titular
archbishop of Ephesus and sent as apostolic delegate to Washington, D. C. There he remained five years,
until, in 1901, he W88 created CgfdIrilll_ppregt of San Agostino, Rome.
MARTINIST ORDER, THE: "A spiritualized freemasonry." The order was founded by Martinez de Pasqualis, a Portuguese emigrant to France at

RELIGIOUS
ENCYCLOPEDIA
Martineau Martyn
the end of the eighteenth century, who selected individuals, some of them of prominent position, who seemed to him adapted to the purpose and taught them by a severe, systematic, and persistent discipline to develop their inner and hidden powers. To his initiates Pasqualis applied the name " elect priests." As he left the system it had seven degrees. After his death two of his pupils, Jean Baptiste Willermoz and Louis Claude de Saint‑Martin (q.v.), assumed direction of the order and reduced the degrees to three. Willermoz devoted his energies to founding lodges; Saint‑Martin applied himself to personal development, and gave to the ritual the name of the rectified rite of St. Martin. There are two parts in the order: the inner or spiritual, open to those who become adepts; and the exterior or practical and scientific, open to " men of desire." The government is in five degrees: the supreme council (located at Paris, France; president, Dr. Geront Encausse); inspectors, appointed by the supreme council; delegates, appointed by the inspectors; lodges, and groups. It differs from freemasonry in that it admits men and women on equal footing; does not require fees for initiations, dues, or instruction; aims to bring man into pristine relations with God; and it receives orders from the unknown philosopher and thus depends from the invisible world. It was introduced into America in the year 1894, the government there being by an inspector‑ (inapectress‑) general.
MARGARET B. PEEBEt.

MARTINIUS (MARTINI), MATTHIAS: German Reformed theologian and philologist; b. at Freienhagen (a village in Waldeck) 1572; d. at Kirchtimke, near Bremen, June 21, 1630. He was educated at Herborn, and at the age of twenty‑two was chaplain to the court of Nassau‑Dillenburg, going in the following year to Herborn as professor and pastor. In 1607 he went to Embden as pastor, but after three years accepted a call to Bremen as professor of theology and rector of the Gymnasium Illustre. There he officiated for the remainder of his life, attracting pupils not only from the Reformed portions of Germany but also from Switzerland, Hungary, Denmark, Norway, Scotland, France, Spain, and especially from the nobility of Bohemia and Moravia. As a mild predestinarian he took part in the Synod of Dort in 1618‑19, and it was largely through his influence that infralapsarianism gained the victory over supralapsarianism. After his return he resumed `his professorial activities, and continued them until his sudden death from apoplexy. Martinius was a prolific writer in philology and theology, the latter category including dogmatics, exegesis, and polemics against the Lutherans, although he esteemed Luther highly. His chief works were his Christianm doctrine summa capita (1603), and his Lexicon philologico‑tymologicum (Bremen, 1623, Utrecht, 1697‑98). (J. F. IxExt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A Vita was printed in the Utrecht ed. of the Lexicon; cf. J. F. Iken, in Bremiackes Jarhburh, xii. 11 eqq. Earlier literature is indicated in Hauck‑Hersog, RE, xii. 391.
MARTINMAS: A festival celebrated on Nov. 11, in honor of St. Martin of Tours. In Germany the
festival is called Martinalia. In England and Scotland in olden days a cow or ox fattened to be killed about Martinmas was called a " mart."
MARTYN, HENRY: English missionary; b. at Truro (10 m. n.e. of Falmouth), Cornwall, Feb. 18, 1781; d. at Tokat (58 m. n.w. of Sivas), Asia Minor, Oct. 16, 1812. His father, who had been a miner, rose to a place of comparative ease as chief clerk in a store, and was able to send his son to the grammar‑school, which he attended from 1‑788 till 1797, when he entered St. John's College, Cambridge (B.A., 1801; M.A., 1804; B.D., 1805), and became senior wrangler in 1801. In 1802 he was chosen fellow of St. John's College, taking the first prize in Latin prose composition. His college subsequently elected him twice public examiner. In 1802 Martyn formed the resolution of devoting his life to missionary labors. To this state of mind he had been brought, in past, by the perusal of the biography and diary of David Brainerd. He offered himself to the Society for Missions to Africa and the East; but, suffering from pecuniary losses which gave him some anxiety about the support of a sister, he ultimately went to India as a chaplain of the East India Company. He had served from 1803 as the curate of Charles Simeon at Cambridge; and July 17, 1805, he sailed for his new home.
He arrived at Calcutta in April, 1806. The impression made upon his mind by idolatry was most painful. He wrote of seeing natives bow before a hideous image: " I shivered as if standing, as it were, in the neighborhood of hell." He did not go to his station, Dinapur, till October, remaining in the mean time at Calcutta. His tolerant Christian spirit was displayed in the cordial friendship which sprang up between himself and the Serampore missionaries. In 1806 Carey wrote, " A young clergyman, Mr. Martyn, is lately arrived, who is possessed of a truly missionary spirit . . . . We take sweet counsel together, and go to the house of God as friends" (Marshman's Life of Corey, i. p. 246). In Apr., 1809, Marlyn was transferred to Cawnpur. In addition to his labors among the soldiers and English residents, he preached to the natives, and prepared translations in the vernacular. Endowed with rare linguistic talents, he speedily became fluent in the Hindustani; and his preaching was so attractive that, at the time failing health obliged him to quit Cawnpur, he had as many as eight hundred in his audiences.
Martyn's most permanent influence was exerted through his translations. He had by Feb. 24, 1807, completed a translation of a part of the Book of Common Prayer into the vernacular (Calcutta, 1814), and in March, 1808, he completed a Hindustani version of the New Testament (Serampore, 1814). At the urgency of his friends, he also undertook the supervision of a Persian version.of the New Testament. In this task he was less successful, and his version was referred back to him for revision. Never strong, his health gave way in 1810; so that he determined to take a trip to England in the hope of restoring it, when the rejection of his Persian version induced him to take a journey to Persia, for recreation and the revision of the version. Starting

Martya	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
		218
Xartithas
in Jan. 1811, Martyn reached Shiraz, where he not only finished the Persian New Testament (St. Petersburg, 1815; revision, Calcutta, 1816), but made a Persian version of the Psalms (London, 1824). His learning and skill in disputing with the Mohammedans awakened a sensation in the city and aroused the professor of Mohammedan law to engage in a public dispute with him. The professor followed the discussion up with a tract in defense of Mohammedanism, to which Martyn replied in defense of Christianity. Anxious to present a copy of the New Testament to the Shah of Persia, Martyn directed his steps to Tabriz to secure a letter of introduction from the British minister, Sir Gore Ouseley. On this journey his body was racked with fever and chills, and he barely escaped with his life. In Tabriz he likewise engaged in animated discussion with the Mohammedans, risking his life by the fearless confession of Christ as the Son of God. He failed to put his Testament into the hands of the Persian monarch, but left it with Sir Gore, who did it for him, and afterward saw it through the press. Martyn then turned his horse's head toward Constantinople, fifteen hundred miles away. Fever and ague were racking his system, but with unflagging patience the sufferer pushed on. He got no further than Tokat. His body rests in the Armenian cemetery there. In addition to the translations mentioned above there have appeared: Sermons of Henry Martyn (Calcutta, 1822); Controversial Tracts on Mohammedanism and Christianity (Cambridge, 1824); and his Journals and Letters (ed. S. Wilberforce, 2 vols., London, 1837). D. S. ScnnlrF.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lives have been written by J. Sargent (Life and Letters), London, 1819, new ed., 1885; Mary Seeley (in Later Evangelical Fathers), ib. 1879; C. D. Bell, ib. 1880; J. Page, New York, 1890; G. Smith, London, 1892.
MARTYN, WILLIAM CARLOS: Presbyterian; b. in New York City Dec. 15, 1841. He was educated at Union Theological Seminary, from which he was graduated in 1869. He was ordained to the ministry of his denomination in the same year, and held successive pastorates at the Pilgrim Church, St. Louis, Mo. (1869‑71), Portsmouth, N. H. (18711876), Thirty‑fourth Street Reformed Dutch Church, New York City (1876,83); Bloomingdale Reformed Dutch Church, New York City (1883‑90); First Reformed Dutch Church, Newark, N. J. (1890‑92); and Sixth Presbyterian Church, Chicago, Ill. (18921894). Since 1894 he has been engaged in literature and lecturing, and from 1897 to 1903 was director of the Abbey Press, New York City. In addition to editing The American Reformers Series (New York, 1890‑96), he has written John Milton (New York, 1866); Life of Martin Luther (1866); History of the English Puritans (1867); History of the Huguenots (1868); The Dutch Reformation. (1869); The Pilgrim Fathers of New England (1870); Wendell Phillips (1890); William E. Dodge (1891); John. B. Gough, the Apostle of Cold Water (1893); Christian Citizenship (1897); and Sour Saints and Sweet Sinners (1898).
MARTYRARIUS: The cleric who had charge of a martyrium, that is a church containing the grave of a martyr. Deacons, presbyters, and even abbots have been martyrarii. During the Middle
Ages there were such clerics in various countries;
at Rome they were tatted custodes martyrum; the
name martymrius occurs, as far as is known, only
in France. 	(H. ACHF.LI6.)

MARTYRIANS. See MESSeL1eNS.
MARTYRS AND CONFESSORS: Names applied in the early Church to those who gave up their lives for their Christian faith, or underwent great sufferings short of death for the same cause. The name " martyr " (Gk. martyr, " witness") is applied in the New Testament both to those who were eye‑witnesses of the life and resurrection of Jesus and to those who sealed their testimony with their blood (Acts xxii. 20; Rev. ii. 13, xvii. 6, cf. vi. 9, xx. 4). Such witnesses under persecution were never lacking from the time of the atoning of Stephen and the slaying of James; and down to the middle of the third century there was not a decade, scarcely a year, without its martyrs. Throughout the early literature rune the scarlet thread; numerous passages might be cited to show how joyfully the disciples met their death, although it was expressly forbidden to seek it. The full account of the martyrs of Lyons given in Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V., i.‑iii.) shows the attitude of the Church. God gives the martyrs strength, suffers in them, and by them overcomes the adversary; in them, the athletes of Christ and of his beauteous bride, is a sweet savor as of ointment. As a proof of their humility it is mentioned that they did not claim the name of martyrs, but called themselves only confessors, still needing the grace of perfection. The right of intercession for sinners is thus early recognized, here and elsewhere (cf. Eusebius, Hiat. eccl., V., xviii. 7; Tertullian, Ad martyres, i.). Tertullian speaks of it as their prerogative to attain glorification immediately after death. The number of the martyrs has been disputed; Dodwell was the first to work out a smaller total than that previously deduced from the legends and the early acts (see ACTA MARTYRUM). By degrees the treatment of those who had fallen away under the fear of torture became an urgent question (see LAPSED), with which was connected that of the intercessory privilege of the confessors; Cyprian's letters (Epist., xv. 22, ii. 23, 27) show how strongly this claim was urged, and he was obliged to oppose the extension of the practise. The origin of the Donatist schism was the uncompromising procedure of Castilian against the party which exaggerated tile duty of aufferyng martyrdom and the honor paid to the Carthaginian martyrs. Evidences begin to appear of superstitious veneration paid to the martyrs (Optatus, i. 16; Euaebius, Hiss eccl., VIII., vi.); the possession of their relics was a cause of eager rivalry, and these assumed the position almost of tutelary deities in the eyes even of such men as Basil and Gregory Nazianzen. Martyrdom was from the beginning designated as a " baptism of blood," supplying the place of that by water, and even, according to Cyprian (Ad Fortunatum, iv.), " greater in grace, more exalted in power, more precious in honor." On the anniversaries of the martyrs' deaths, considered as their birthdays into a higher life, special oblations were brought as early as Tertullian's day (De coronas

219	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
iii.), and Cyprian prescribes the special observances to be practised (Epist., xii. 2, xxxix. 3).
When, with the proclamation of Christianity as the State religion, martyrdom became a thing of the past, and at the same time the influence of pagan superstition was felt in the Church, the honor paid to the martyrs increased greatly. Prudentius and Fortunatus celebrated their deeds in verse; altars were erected over their places of sepulture, and great confidence was placed in their intercession with God‑though even now a Jovinian was found to protest against exaggerated devotion to them and a Vigilantius to oppose the veneration of their relics (Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum, II., xx.; Adversus Vigilantium, i.).
	Martyrs were not lacking, however, in the later
ages of the Church. In Persia, Armenia, Arabia,
and elsewhere the Christians were the objects of
pagan persecution shortly after Constantine's con
version, and later in other parts of the world they
suffered at the hands of the Arian Germans and of
the followers of Mohammed, while the dominant
Church learned to apply the same treatment to
heretics. The Donatists had already used this as a
proof that the Catholic was not the true Church.
The persecuting spirit pervades the Middle Ages and
marks with blood the story of the Waldenses, the
strict Franciscans, the Apostolic Brethren, the
Lollards, and the disciples of the martyred Huss.
After the Reformation Luther soon had occasion to
write hymns in celebration of its martyrs, and the
Anabaptists have left us a number of theirs to attest
the joy with which they endured persecution. The
Reformed Church of France was a martyr‑church.
In the mission fields, especially in Japan and China,
many Christians of the Roman obedience sealed
their testimony with their blood; and on the
Evangelical side the blood of the martyrs has
proved, in Tertullian's phrase, " the seed of the
Church " in Madagascar and more recently in
Uganda, China, and elsewhere. The Evangelical
church canonizes no martyrs, and believes it to
be as great a thing to live for Christ as to die
for him; but it, too, cherishes the examples of
those who have been, in the literal sense, "faithful
unto death." 	(N. BONWETBCH.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Quite adequate literature is given under ACrA MARTYROM, ACrA SANCTORDM; SAINTS, AND THE VENERATION OP SAINTS. The customs and early literature are well indicated in Bingham, Oripinea, XIII., iii. 2‑3, ix. 5, XIV., iii. 14, XVI., iii. 4, XVIII., iv. 10, XX., vii. Consult further: Analecta BoUandiana, Paris, Brussels, and Geneva, 1882 aqq.; Gass, in ZHT, 1859; H. Delehaye, L'AmphitU8tre Plaoien et ass environs dans lee textes hagiographiquea, Brussels, 1897; E. Am€linesu, Lee Actea des martyrea de l'4!gliae copte, Paris, 1900; H. Aehelie, in AbhandlunpenderGSttingerGeseddachaft, 1900; F.Kattenbusch, in ZNTW, iv (1903), 111 eqq.; F. Augar, in TU, xxvui (1905); A. Linsenmayer, Die Bekampfunp des Christentums durch den rdmiachen Stoat, Munich, 1905.

MARTYRS, THE FORTY: Forty soldiers who suffered martyrdom at Sebaste (the modern Sivas, 165 m. s.w. of Trebizond) in the beginning of the Licinian persecution, probably in 320. Remaining true to their faith, as is stated by Basil the Great, Ephraem, Gregory of Nyasa, and Gaudentius of Brescia, they were exposed naked on the ice throughout a night in the coldest winter, All froze to death
except one who recanted, and he died from a warm
bath given him to counteract the effects of his
exposure. When the pagan guard learned of this,
he became a convert to Christianity, and suffered
martyrdom by freezing, thus completing the num
ber forty. The corpses were burned and the ashes
thrown into the water. The later Acta (ASB., Mar.,
ii. 19‑21) records the names of the forty martyrs and
gives the details of their sufferings with many
embellishments, but the essential portion of the
account, including the names, is undoubtedly
historically true. Their day is appointed for
Mar. 9 or 10. 	(O. Z6C%LERt.)

MARUTHAS, ma‑ru'thas: The name of two bishops. 1. Bishop of Maipherkat; d. about 420. Maruthas was sent twice by the Emperor Theodosius II. as ambassador to Jezdegerd I. Ebedjesu mentions among his works a book on martyrdoms, church poetry, and a .translation of the canons of Nicwa (on which of. Synodicon Orientale, ed. J. B. Chabot, Paris, 1903, p. 259) and has his name among the members of that synod. The " Martyrs' Anthem " has been translated by Maclean (East Syrian. Daily Offices, London, 1894, pp. 12‑23). His most important work, if it be his, is the " History of the Persian Martyrs " under Sapor II., Jezdegerd I., and perhaps Behnam V., 341‑379 A.D. (ed. S. E. Assemani, Acta Sanctorum Martyrum, Rome, 1748; and by P. Bedjan, Ads Martyrum et Sanctorum, ii., Paris, 1891, 57‑396, Germ. transl. P. P. Zingerle, Monumentm Syriaca, Vol. i., Innsbruck, 1836). Kmosko doubts whether the work is his; he ascribes to him only the Greek translation, which was used already by Sozomen (Hilt. ecel., II., ix.‑xiii.; Eng. transl., NPNF, 2 ser., ii. 264‑267) for the lives of Simeon bar Saba, Pusai (Pusices), Tarbula and Akebsima (Acepsimas). There are also ascribed to him the " Acts of the Council of Seleucia " of the year 410 (ed. J. Lamy, Louvain, 1868). His commemoration is on the sixth Friday of Moses. His brother Julian is said to have surrounded with a wall the cloister of Mar Babai on Mount Izla, which contained one thousand monks. E. NESTLE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are Socrates, Hiat. Seek, vi. 15, vii. 8, Eng. tranal., NPNP, 2 ser., ii. 148‑149, 156‑157; Sozomen, Hilt. ecc6., viii. 16, Eng. transl., NPNP, 2 ser., ii. 409; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon, ii. 45. Consult: J. S. Aswmani, Bibliotheca orientalia, ii. 45, 3 vole., Rome, 17191728; W. Wright, Short Hint. of Syriac Literature, p. 44, London, 1894; R. Duval, La Littkratura evriaque, Paris, 1899, 2d ed., pp. 132‑133, 428; A. Harnack, in TU, xix., part 2, 1899.
	2. Bishop of Takrit; d. 649.	He is not to be
confounded with Maruthas of Maipherkat (ut sup.).
He was born in the diocese of Beth Nuhadre, Persia,
studied for some time at Edessa, became bishop of
Takrit and the first maphrian, or primate, of the
Jacobites (see JACOBITES). His life has been written
by his successor Deneha. He composed a liturgy
(in the Missale of the Maronites, Rome, 1594, p.
172; E. Renaudot, Liturgiarum Orientalium col
lectio, ii., Paris, 1716, 261); a commentary on the
Gospels (two extracts in G. M6singer, Monumenta
Syriaaa, ii., Innsbruck, 1878, 32), homilies and
hymns. 	E. NESTLE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Consult the literature under 1, noting is Wright, p. 137, and in Duval. p. 374.

Xary, Mother of Teens Christ THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
I. Mary in the New Testament.
Family Relations (¢ 1).
Her Character (¢ 2).
II. Early Growth of Devotion to Her.
Causes of Increased Veneration (¢ 1).
Apocryphal Legends (§ 2).
MARY, MOTHER OF JESUS CHRIST.
Theotokoe and Iconoclastic Controversies (¢ 3).
The Middle Ages (¢ 4). III. Feasts of Mary. IV. Devotion to Mary erase the Reformation.
In Protestant Churches (¢ 1).
L Mary in the New Testament: The question which naturally arises first in regard to the history of Mary is that concerning her ancestry, which has been much discussed and cannot yet be decisively settled. Both of the genealogies of
:. Family Jesus at the opening of the Gospels,
	Relations.	those of Matthew and Luke, demon
		strate the descent of Joseph, not Mary,
from David; but the very incompleteness of the
lists lends support to the theory that Mary's descent
from David was presupposed as an accepted fact
by the evangelists. Her descent from the priestly
tribe of Levi may be supported by the fact that
Elisabeth, wife of the priest Zacharias, is called her
cousin in Luke i. 36, though this need not refer to
any closer connection than one arising from a mar
riage between a priestly ancestor of Elisabeth's
with a descendant of David. Thus a double gene
alogy of Jesus, from David through Joseph, and
from the sacerdotal family through his mother,
might be shown. The question of ~ her maternal
relationship.to Jesus on the one hand and to the
" brethren of the Lord " on the other is a less
difficult one. The designation of Jesus as her
" first‑born son " (Luke ii. 7) and the statement as
to her relations with Joseph (Matt. i. 25, of. i. 13)
seem to point to the conclusion that the persons
called in the Gospels and in Acts i. 14 the brethren
of the Lord were the younger sons of Joseph and
Mary. For various reasons the theory of Jerome
that they were cousins, and that of Epiphanius that
they were children of Joseph by a former marriage,
are untenable. The unprejudiced reader of the
New Testament can not avoid the view represented
in antiquity by Helvidius and stamped as heresy
after Jerome and Ambrose, that they were the
children of Joseph and Mary, while Jesus was the
son of Mary in a miraculous manner, by the Holy
Ghost. The latter assertion rests upon distinct
passages of Scripture (Matt. i. 18‑25; Luke i: 26
38, ii. 7‑l4), whereas the rationalist and Ebionite
view that he also was the son of Joseph and Mary
finds no support either in the Gospels or elsewhere
in the New Testament. The fundamental fact of
a supernatural birth was evidently unquestioned
by Paul. This is plain from passages like I Cor. xv.
47; II Cor. viii. 9; Phil. ii. 9, l0,and especially Gal.
iv. 4, where the mention of Christ's birth simply
" of a woman " is explained by the fact that Paul
had no thought of an earthly father.
But while the witness of the New Testament is clear in favor of a supernatural birth, it is equally free from the decorative traits with which later legend loved to adorn the story of the birth and childhood of Jesus and the history of his mother. The Gospels neither tell anything of the birth and childhood of Mary, nor place her noticeably in the foreground in his earthly ministry. She is
Growth of Roman Catholic Devotion (§ 2).
Pilgrimage Places (§ 3).
V. The Glorification of Mary in Art.
Early Stages (1 1).
Development of Types in Painting
depicted as a pure maiden, full of childlike innocence and humble piety. It is noteworthy that she understands as little as Joseph her son's profound saying at the age of twelve. At the marriage of
Cans she presses him in loving impaa. Her tience for the anticipation of the time
Character. to reveal his power, and has to be re‑
buked by him. She is apparently, at least, passive when his brethren show their unbelief in him, and is included in his reproof of them (Matt. xii. 46‑50). Her bearing at the cross is human and motherly, and Jesus commends her to John as an evidence of his filial love and reverence for her (John xix. 25‑27). After the ascension she appears in the circle of the apostles (Acts i. 14), but without any specially prominent position. Thus the New Testament affords no ground for the undue exaltation of Mary which was later so common; in fact, Jesus utters a warning (Luke xi. 27, 28) against it which ought to be sufficient.
II. Early Growth of Devotion to Her: The first tendency toward this exaggeration of her importance was the outgrowth of the Christologicsl development. The more the awe and reverence of the early Church for the God‑Man attempted to
find adequate expression, the more x. Causes of natural it was that a portion of it
Increased should be transferred to his. mother, Veneration. the vehicle of his redeeming incarna‑
tion. As early as the middle of the second century; she appears as the antitype of Eve, bringing life into the world as Eve brought death (Justin, Dialogue, c.; Irenaeus, III., iii. 4, V., xix. 1; Tertullian, De carne Christi, vii.); and later the Western Chui•ch applied Gen. iii. 15 to her (in the Vulgate version with the feminine pronoun, ipsa conteret ca;vut tuurra). A further impulse was given to the devotion to Mary by the exaggerated reverence for the ascetic life and for celibacy, as spread by monasticism from the fourth century. She became the type.and ideal of virginity. Tertullian had admitted her marriage (De monogamia, viii.), and Basil had recognized (Hemilia in Christi genersctionem, v.) that the natural sense of Matt. i. 25 favored this view. But Epiphanius (Hcer., Lyxviii.) controverted as heretics (under the name of Antidicomarianites, q.v.) those who said that she had married Joseph and had children by him. From this time on the title of 11 Virgin ll became an inseparable predicate of hers. Pope Siriciua (c. 392) confirmed the sentence of the' Illyrian bishops against Bonosua on the charge of sharing the‑heresy of Helvidiua. The theory of a merely nominal marriage was generally accepted; Origen accounts for it by the necessity of concealing the mystery of the virgin birth from the princes of this world (Homilia in Lucam, vi.).
These developing views took shape as legends in

881	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	diary, Xother of ‑Toms Christ
a long series of Apocryphal narratives. The most important of these is the Protevangdium JowN, some features of which were known to
s. Apoc‑ Justin and Tertullian. According to ryphal it, Joachim and Ann&, long childless,
	Legends.	prayed fervently for offspring, and
		vowed their child, if they should have
one, to the service of the Lord. Mary was born and
solemnly dedicated. When she was twelve, all the
widowers were assembled and their staves blessed
in the temple. Out of that of Joseph emerged a
dove which settled on his head, designating him as
the destined guardian of the maiden. Miraculous
signs accompanied the birth of her child; the visit
of the Magi and the massacre of the Innocents came
in their proper places, but instead of the flight into
Egypt the concealment of the child in a corner of
the inn, followed by the miraculous rescue of
Elisabeth and John the Baptist and the murder of
Zacharias by command of Herod. Although the
Apocryphal literature was officially repudiated, not
a few features of it crept into the tradition of the
Church, such as the'names of Mary's parents, her
education in the Temple, and the nominal marriage
with Joseph, already an aged man. A further series
of legends deal with the life of Mary after the
Ascension, especially in the Apocryphal narrative
De trmnadu Mario', dating from the middle of the
fourth century. In the differing versions the dura
tion of her life after the Ascension is variously given
as from two to twenty‑four years. A tradition
assigning her later life (under the care of the apostle
John) and death to Ephesus was known to Epi
phanius, (Her., Ixxviii. 11); other ancient tradi
tions give Jerusalem for both (for the legend of her
assumption see below, III.). Yet in spite of all this
development of glorifying tradition, there was no
tendency, before the end of the fourth century to
promote a regular cultus of the Virgin, or even to
address prayers to her. The change which took
place about that time may have been partly due
to the great influx of pagans into the Church.
Their old religions, largely growing out of nature
worship, and emphasizing the opposition of the
sexes, passed by an easy transition to the Gnostic
ayxygiai, and thus to the idea of the cooperation of
a created principle in the work of redemption. This
principle was naturally found in Mary, the second
Eve. Epiphanius (Hevr., lxxix.) condemns the
Collyridians (q.v.), a sect of fanatical women calling
themselves priestesses of Mary, who on festival
days solemnly offered cakes to her and then feasted
upon them, as in the pagan Thesmophoria and in
Jer. vii. 18, xliv. 59.
The Nestorian controversy (see Nasmoxros) marked the most important turning‑point in the development of devotion to Mary. Although in essence Christological, it centered around
3. Theoto‑ the question debated. between the
kos and Alexandrian and Antichian schools,
Iconoclastic on the basis of their differing views
Controver‑ as to the relations of the two natures lies. in Christ and the communicability of the divine attributes to humanity, as to whether Mary was to be called the mother of God (Theotokm) or merely the mother of Christ.
The former was officially adopted at the council of Ephesus in 431, and the devotion became increasingly fervent throughout the whole Church with each succeeding century. The veneration of the martyrs had already spread to such an extent that it was a simple completion to place Mary at their head as queen of the heavenly hosts. Prayer to her became a universal custom. Churches and altars were erected in her honor, and her picture was exposed for veneration. When, in spite of the dogma of Chalcedon, the humanity of Christ had been, in the popular mind, swallowed up in the divinity, the need was felt of further human mediation through which the divine Majesty might be approached and the severity of the awful Judge mitigated. From the lowly recipient of grace, she became a source and giver of grass. The Iconoclastic controversy served still further to enhance the veneration of her (see IMAUBS AND IMAOaWoRsHir, II.). The second Council of Niesea (787) declared that veneration paid to her image passed on to her, and that he who adored (ho proakunan) the image adored the original. A regular tradition grew up as to her appearance: the most celebrated picture of her was that attributed to St. Luke, which existed in numerous copies, each with its own tradition; others in Italy and Spain were believed to have been painted by angels.
The reverence for woman mentioned as early as Tacitus among the traits of the Germanic peoples developed into the romantic service of medieval chivalry, and Mary was still further exalted as the crowning glory of womanhood,
4. The enthroned even above the angels.
Middle	Among ecclesiastical writers, Ildo‑
	Ages.	phonsus (q.v.; d. 887) demonstrated
		her perpetual virginity once more
against the long‑departed Jovinian and Helvidius
and against the Jews in his book De illibata beats
virginia virginitate. Ratramnus wrote c. 845
against those who asserted that Jesus was born in
some miraculous manner different from the ordinary;
but this view was supported by Paschasius Radbert.
A still higher level of Marian devotion was reached
in the eleventh century. Peter Damiani sings the
praises of .Mary as the perfect creature,'asaerte that
nothing is impossible to her, and says that she
restores hope to the despairing. Bernard of Clair
vaux (Sermo in xativitatem, iv.) asks: " Dost thou
fear the divine Majesty in the.Son? . Wilt thou find
an advocate before him? Flee to Mary; in her
humanity is pure. The Son will listen to the mother,
and the Father to the Son." Many more equally
strong expressions might be collected from medi
eval theologians; and liturgical formulas kept
pans with theological teaching. Scholasticism at
tempted to satisfy scrupulous consciences by making
a distinction between labia, the worship due to God
alone, and dulia, the veneration which might be
lawfully paid to saints and sacred objects;. the
highest form of the latter, or hyperdulia, was as.
signed to Mary. From the eleventh century a
special office of the Blessed Virgin was recited in the
monasteries, which the Synod of Clermont (1095)
extended to the ‑clergy in general. Nothing, how
ever, contributed so largely to the spread of daily

Mary, Mother of Jesus Christ THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
devotion to her as the introduction of the Ave Maria or angelic salutation as a normal supplement to the Lord's Prayer in popular devotions. After the middle of the twelfth century it spread from France, where St. Bernard aided its diffusion, to Germany, England, Spain, and other countries, and by the end of the thirteenth was practically universal in western Christendom. The introduction of the recitation of the Angelus (q.v.) three times a day and of the Rosary (q.v.), with its ten Aves for one Pater noster, tended to increase the influence of this short and easily remembered form of prayer. Devotion to Mary was promoted zealously by the religious orders. The Teutonic Knights chose her for their patroness; the Dominicans aided with the rosary from 1270; the Franciscans were ardent advocates of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; the Carmelites boasted of her special favor, asserting that their sixth general, St. Simon Stock, had seen a vision (1246) in which she gave him a scapular with the promise that he who died wearing it should be delivered from the eternal fire.
III. Feasts of Mary: The development of the cultus of the Virgin is marked all along its course by the multiplication of festivals in her honor. The feast of the Annunciation, the annual commemoration of the Incarnation, was probably observed as early as the fourth century (see ANNUNCIATION, FEAST OF THE). The feast of the Purification of the Virgin Mary, or of the Presentation of Christ in the Temple (known in old English usage as Candlemas), based on Luke ii. 22 aqq., and thus reckoned also among the feasts of Christ, occurs forty days after Christmas (Feb. 2), according to Lev. xii. 2‑7. It is said by Georgius Hamartolus and Cedrenus to have been instituted under Justin I. (c. 526), by Nicephorus under Justinian in 541. Western writers (Ildephonsus, and later Durand) connect it with the ancient Roman lustrations which Numa is said to have instituted in February in honor of Februus, the purifying god, and to take the place of which the Christian festival was established. In the West, its celebration was specially referred to the Virgin. In Bede's time it was usual to go in procession through the towns with burning candles. The feast of the Nativity was unknown in the time of Augustine. Early evidences for its existence are Andrew of Crete (c. 650), for Rome the Galendatlurn Frontonis, for Spain Ildephonsus, for France Paschasius Radbert. The reason for its assignment to Sept‑ 8 is unknown. The feast of the Assumption commemorates the assumption or corporal translation of Mary into heaven after her death. The festival in its later signification is based on Apocryphal sources, dating from about 400. The legend contained in these writings (whose ecclesiastical use was forbidden by Gelasius I.) ryas accepted as true by the pseudo‑Dionysius and by Gregory of Tours, the latter of whom gives it in the following form. All the apostles were assembled in the house of Mary to watch by her death‑bed, when Jesus appeared with his angels, received her soul, and gave it over to the archangel Michael. When on the following day they were about to carry her body to the grave he appeared again and took it up in a cloud to paradise, there to be reunited with the soul. The legend
appears in a more extended form in John of Damascus; not only the angels but the patriarchs stand around the death‑bed with the apostles, and even Adam and Eve are there, calling their descendant blessed for removing the curse which through them came into the world (see AssunIPTIoN, FEAST Oh THE). The feast of the Presentation, attested in the ninth century by the homilies of George of Nicomedia, was ordained in the twelfth for the whole Eastern Empire by Manuel Comnenus. In 1372, at the request of King Charles IV., it was sanctioned by Gregory XI. for France, and fixed on Nov. 21. It commemorates, following the Apocryphal gospels, the presentation of Mary in the Temple at the age of three, in pursuance of a vow of her parents. The Visitation, found only in the Western Church, commemorates the visit of Mary to Elisabeth, and is first found in the list of festivals drawn up by the Synod of Mans in 1247. After the Franciscans had adopted it as a feast of the order in the general chapter at Pisa in 1263, Urban VI. extended it to the whole of Christendom in 1389. The feast of the Espousal of Mary with Joseph has apparently been celebrated on Feb. 23 since the fourteenth century. It was extended to the whole of Christendom by Benedict XIII. in 1725. The Seven Dolors are celebrated on the Friday before Palm Sunday. These are variously enumerated as beginning either with the prophecy of Simeon and the flight into Egypt, or with the parting between Jesus and his mother at the commencement of the Passion, ending in both cases with the crucifixion and burial. Among the numerous hymns written for this festival from the thirteenth century, in which it seems to have originated in the Servite order, the most famous is the Stabat Mater of the Franciscan Jacopone da Todi (q.v.). The feast of the joys of Mary (Sept. 24) is a parallel commemoration suggested by the " joyful mysteries " of the rosary. The festival of St. Mary of the Snows is a local Roman feast celebrated on Aug. 5 in memory of the foundation of the church of Santa Maria Maggiore. The legend relates that the patrician John and his wife were directed by a vision to build the church in a certain spot on the Esquiline, designated by a miraculous fall of snow in mid‑summer. Other festivals, such as the Expectation of Mary (Dec. 18), the Holy Name of Mary (Sunday after her Nativity), Our Lady of Mt Camel or of the Scapular (July 16), Our Lady of Ransom (Sept. 24), the Patronage o`f Our Lady (third Sunday in November), are of minor importance. The feast of the Immaculate Conception, which has assumed great importance since the Reformation, is purely western (see IMMACULATE CONCEPTION).
IV. Devotion to Mary since the Reformation: The Reformation churches returned in this regard to the standpoint of primitive Christianity. While Luther in 1516 was still so much under the influence of the Scotist tradition as to call Mary :. In (with a play on one interpretation of Protestant her name) " the only pure drop in the Churches, ocean of human perdition," in 1521, in his exposition of the Magnifubi, he dwelt on the humility of this handmaiden of God, " who is no helping goddess, who gives us nothing,

in whom rather God as the only giver of all things is to be praised." The fact that he held to the traditional belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary did not lessen his decided opposition to the practise of asking for her intercession.. The same position was taken by the other principal leaders of the German Reformation.
In the Roman Catholic countries, however, devotion to Mary received scarcely even a temporary check. The Jesuit order put a new enthusiasm into this as into all other medieval institutions; and the same tendency was furthered by the foundation of a number of female religious orders s. Growth bearing her name or specially devoted
of Roman to her during the sixteenth and eeven‑
Catholic teenth centuries. A certain reaction
	Devotion. against this attitude was the result of the
		freer spirit of Jansenism and similar
movements, and of literary undertakings after the
middle of the seventeenth century, such as those of
ThSophile Raynaud (Diptycha Mariana, Grenoble,
1843), J. de Launoy (1878), and A. Baillet (1693).
This opposition was carried still further by the re
form movement of the Emperor Joseph. By his
orders in 1784, the gold and silver hearts, hands and
feet, and other votive offerings were removed from
the shrines of Mary and from the churches, and
the further distribution of scapulars, medals, and
amulets forbidden. After the Congress of Ems
(q.v.) and the Synod of Pistoja in 1788, however,
Pius VI. defeated the anti‑ultramontane opposition,
and brought to nothing the hopes of those who had
looked for thorough and permanent expulsion of
the Jesuit spirit from the Church. Especially in
Southern Italy, a more exaggerated devotion than
ever surpassed the moat extreme assertions of
medieval theologians. In the Gloria di Maria of
Liguori (q.v.), which found a wide circulation out
side of Italy, Mary's mediatorial power was cele
brated. as even greater than that of her Son. All
this prepared the way for the complete triumph of
the upholders of the Immaculate Conception theory
CONCEPTION). decree of Pius IX. in 1854 .(see IMMA LATE
CONCBIPTION). The increasing enthusiasm of the
Roman Catholics in devotion to Mary was not,
however, so strongly promoted by this decision on
a technical point as by other factors, especially the
institution of the Feast of the Rosary, on the first
Sunday in October (a Dominican institution, ex
tended to the whole Church by, Gregory XIII. in
1583), and the introduction by the Jesuits of the
May Devotions, by which the entire month of May
acquired the character of a season consecrated to
the special honor of the Virgin. These latter arose
at the end of the eighteenth century in Italy as an
ecclesiastical antithesis to the irreligious spring
festivals introduced by the French Revolution, and
gradually spread to France, Belgium, Austria, and
Germany. Pies VII. commended the custom by a
brief of Mar. 21, 1815, and attached numerous
indulgences to it. A further help to the promotion
of Marian devotion has been found in the sodalities
or congregations of the blessed Virgin, originating
is the sixteenth century but flourishing especially
in the later epoch of Jesuit influence (see CoN
YasaXarnazas, RmLiciiovs).
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Xsry, >'Iother of deans Christ
It is impossible to enumerate the pilgrimageplacee which serve as local centers of the cult, on account of miraculous pictures or relics. Every century since the beginning of the Middle Ages has seen new places of this sort arise; and
3. Pil‑ the nineteenth has not been behind the
grimage‑	others. France has had La Salette
	Places.	(1848) and Lourdes (1851), Italy New
		Pompeii (1880), and Germany Marpin
gen near Treves (1878) and Dietrichswalde in
Eastern Prussia (1877). As long ago as .1872,
Gumppenberg's Atlas Marian= could describe
more than twelve hundred miraculous pictures or
images, of which about half were in Germany.
Many of these, of course, have long since fallen into
decay; but others, especially the newer ones, retain
their attraction in spite of all criticism. The mir
aculous picture of the Madonna di Pompeii, orig
inally bought from an antiquary for four francs,
now reposes on a throne valued at one hundred and
fifty thousand franca; the image was solemnly
crowned by Cardinal Valletta in 1887 before a
throng of devotees numbering many thousands.
In Russian Poland the miraculous Madonna of
Czenetochap is venerated as " Queen of Poland "
and protectress of the Polish rate. In France the
famous miraculous spring at Lourdes (q.v.), desig
nated to the fourteen‑year‑old Bernadette Soubirous
by a vision on Feb. 11, 1858, attracts thousands of
pilgrims every year, and the cures wrought there
have been so remarkable as to engage the serious
attention of men of science. Among the more
ancient which have preserved their fame undimin
ished through centuries, mention should be made
of those of Assisi (the Portiunculs) and Loreto
(q.v.) in central Italy, of Maria Einsiedeln and
Maria Stein in Switzerland, of Moneerrat dal Pilar
and Guadalupe in Spain, of Hall in Belgium, and in
Germany of Kevelaer, with its miraculous picture
much visited since 1842, and Aachen, where for
nearly a thousand years the alleged garment of the
Virgin and swaddling‑clothes of the infant Jesus have
been preserved and occasionally exhibited.
V. The Glorification of Mary in Art: The date of .the earliest arriatio representations of the Virgin. has been a subject of controversy between Roman Catholic and Protestant writers. The latter usually ascribe to the period of the Theotokos
:. Early controversy, the fifth century, those
	Stages	which may properly be called Ma
		donna‑pictures, while the former date
them earlier than the Nestorian heresy, some even
tracing their origin to the sub‑apostolic age. The
true solution of this difference of opinion is probably
found in the view that the pre‑Nestorian period
produced a number of pictures in which Mary
appeared as part of a group, but. that the origin of
separate pictures of, her intended to be used as
objects of religious veneration can not be placed se
early. In the oldest Christian works of art, Mary
appears invariably as a member of the composition
‑connected, that is, with scenes from the life of
Jesus, especially the Annunciation, the Adoration
of the Magi, or the Presentation in the Temple: The
oldest representations of the Annunciation, ;inclu
ding the famous one from the catacomb of Priscilla

Nary, Xother of Jesus Christ Xason, John Xitohell
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
(certainly before the time of Constantine), keep close to scriptural lines; and the same is true of the numerous representations of the Adoration of the Magi, such as those in the catacomb of Domitilla and in SS. Pietro a Marcellino. Not even where Mary appears simply with her Child or in the Holy Family are there any traces in these early days of her elevation to a supernatural dignity; and the influence of Apocryphal legends enters comparatively late into art. The commemoration of Mary by architectural monuments dedicated to her cannot be clearly shown before the fifth century, especially the time of the triumph of the Theotokos‑doctrine at Ephesus in 431. The church in which the council met received at that time its dedication to " the Holy Mother of God." The first church with this dedication at Rome, Santa Maria Maggiore, was built soon after 432 by Sixtus III. on the site of a basilica erected a century earlier by Liberius and dedicated for the first time to the Virgin by Sixtus. It is at least half a century earlier than Santa Maria in Trastevere, of which the first written record dates from 499. Not till the eighth or ninth century does the legend of the Assumption begin to influence the imagination of artists. About the same time were made some extant representations of the figure of Mary enthroned in heaven holding her Child, such as the mosaics put up about 816 by Paschal I. in the churches of St. Cecilia and Santa Maria dells, Navicella. But the attribution of actually regal attributes to her does not yet occur in this period of transition to the Middle Ages.
After the iconoclastic controversy there is a marked separation between Eastern and Western artistic traditions on this subject. The Byzantine type of the Madonna shows no further development after the termination of this contro2. Develop‑ versy in the middle of the ninth century.
	meat of	In the Western Church, however, there
	Types in	was a constant progression following
	Painting.	the lines of ecclesiastical architecture,
		as they passed through the various
periods of Byzantine, Romanesque, Gothic, and
Renaissance. In painted representations of the
Madonna it is possible to trace quite distinctly the
same four periods as named above‑only that the
duration of the first or partially Byzantine type
extends somewhat later into the Middle Ages than
is the case with architecture, occurring as late as the
end of the crusades. The second, with its tendency
to humanize the ideal Madonna, coincides closely
with the fourteenth century; the third, whose
principal characteristic is the emphasis laid on the
spotless virginity of the Queen of Heaven, is con
temporary with the late Gothic, practically covering
the fifteenth century; while the fourth, distin
guished by an almost wholly naturalist type of
Madonna, corresponds both in conception and in
date to the period of the Renaissance. For the first
period scarcely any names of artists have been
preserved. In the second, the leading names are
those of Giotto and the two Sienese painters Guido
and Simone Martini. Fra Angelico shows a transi
tion to the next period, marked by the names of
Masaccio, Mantegna, Perugino, Pinturiochio, and
Filippi Lippi in Italy, Master Stephen, the un‑
2744
known painter of the great picture in Cologne
cathedral, and Hans Memling in Germany. ‑With
all the varieties of artistic invention in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries, there is a constant
tendency to subordinate the religious factor to the
realistic. Raphael, Correggio, and Titian endow
their Italian beauties with the fulness of human
charm, and in the two latter at least religious devo
tion is almost lacking. In the Madonnas of Diirer
and Holbein the fervor of devotion is less prominent
than the chaste and pious feeling of their German
ideals of family life. Murillo, in ardent subjection
to the Franciscan and Jesuit type of devotion,
succeeds in transfiguring the delicate features of his
Spanish beauties so far as to approach, with the use
of apocalyptic symbols, the realization of the mys
tery of the Immaculate Conception. It is impossible
to estimate the effect upon modern Protestant
feeling of the splendors which art has consecrated
to this subject; but, while the Evangelical Christian
may perfectly well admire these as works of art,
it does not follow that he must approve the insidi
ous attempts made by some of recent years to bring
back something scarcely to be distinguished from
the doctrinal basis which inspired such painting in
bygone years. 	(O. Zt1CKLEat.)

BIswoonAPHr: The Biblical side of the subject is treated with more or less completeness in the works on the life of Christ. An extensive bibliography, particularly of the earlier works on the entire subject, appears in HauekHersog, RE, xii. 309, 314, 323‑324. Among the sources should be included the Apocryphal gospels which deal with the life of Mary, especially those which are translated in ANP, viii. 381‑415. For Mary in the Bible, in early patristica and in the Apocrypha of the N. T., consult: F. W. Genthe, Die Junyfrau Maria, ihre Evanpelien and ihre Wunder, Halle, 1852; K. Benrath, in TSK, lix (1888), 1‑28 (cf. the reply to Benrath by F. Linsenmann, in TQ, 1888, pp. 285‑299); F. A. von Lehner, Die Marienverehruny in den ereten Jahrhundertan, Stuttgart, 1886 (Roman Catholic); J. B. Lightfoot, in his commentary on Galatians, London, 1890; T. Livius, Mary in the Epaetks. ib. 1891; idem, The Blessed Virgin in the Packers of the Pirst Century, ib. 1893 (also Roman Catholic); O• Bardenhewer, Der Name Maria, in Biblieehs Studien, i., part 1, Freiburg, 1895; J. Nirnchl, Dos Grab der heiligen Junpfrau Maria, Mains, 1898; A. Schifer, Die Gottesmutter in den heiligen Schrift, Monster, 1900; J. Richard, La Maternit4 de Marie ches lea plrea du t. si&le, Lyons, 1901; DD, iii. 286‑293; BB, iii. 2952‑89; DCG, ii. 140‑142.
	On the history of various phases of development of the
cult consult: J. C. W. Auguet~ Handbuch der christlichen
Archdolopie, i. 559‑665, Leipsio, 1838; Review of Maiol
atry, Liturgical, Devotional, Doctrinal, London, 1869;
K. Benrath, in TSK, lix (1886), 197‑267 (on the Middle
Ages); F. G. Holweck, Pasti Mariani, Freiburg, 1892;
J. C. L. Dubose de Pesquidoux, L'Immaculle Conception.
Hist. d'un Dogma, 2 vols., Tours, 1898; B. Saint John,
The Blessed Virgin in the 19th Century, London, 1903;
E. Bishop, Origins of the Peast of the Conception of the
Virgin Mary, ib. 1904; J. Lemann, La Vierpe Marie dens
Mist. de l'orient chritien, Paris, 1904 S. Beissel, Geschichte
der Verehruny Marsas in Deutschland w4hrend des Mittel
alters, Freiburg, 1909; Schaff, Christian Church, ii. 281‑284,
iii. 409 sqq., 425 sqq., 716 sqq., 807, v. 1, pp. 831 sqq.;
idem, Creeds, i. 108‑128; Neander, Christian Church, vole.
ii; v. passim; Harnack, Dogma, vole. ii.‑vii. passim; KL,
viii. 711‑727, 802‑.826, 831‑859.
Controversial or dogmatic presentations are: J. E. Tyler, Worship of the Blessed Virgin Mary . . . Contrary to Holy Scripture, London, 1847; E. B. Pussy, Eirenicon, pp. 101‑190, Oxford, 1865 (cf. J. H. Newman, Letter to Pussy on his Eirenicon, pp. 28‑159, London, 1866); E. Preuss. The Romish Doctrine of as Immaculate Conception Traced from its Source, Edinburgh, 1867; A. Kurz, Mariolopia odor Ldra der katnolieAen Kirche fiber die

225
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Mary. Mother of Jesus Christ
	Mason, John Mitchell
Jungfrau Maria, Regensburg, 1881; H. Lasserre, Our Lady of Lourdes, Leamington, 1886; idem, Miraculous Episodes of Lourdes, ib. 1884; R. Montague, The Sower and the Virgin, ib. 1887 (against the Immaculate Conception); J. B. Terrien, La Mere de Dieu, 2 vols., Paris, 1900 (Roman Catholic); J. J. T. von Dbllinger, Do# Papstthum, pp. 282 sqq., 533‑534,, Munich, 1892; J. Wilhelm and T. B. Scannell, Manual of Catholic Theology, ii. 122‑126, 208‑224, London, 1898; J. S. Mulholland, The World's Madonna; a Hist. of the Blessed Virgin Mary, ib. 1909.
On Mary in literature and art consult: W. B. M&rriott, The Catacombs,. pp. 1‑63, London, 1870; J. S. Northcote and W. S. Brownlow, Rome; Sotteranea, ii. 133 sqq., ib. 1879; V. Schultze, Archdologische Studien ilber altchri8tliche Monuments, Vienna 1880; idem, Die Katakomben, pp. 150 sqq., Leipsic, 1882; B. Eckl, Die Madonna ale Gegenatand christlicher Kunatmalerei, Brixen,' 1883; J. Liell, Daratetlungen der . . . Jungfrau auf den KunZ~ m81em der Katakomben, Freiburg, 1887; A. Mussafis, in Sitzungaberichte der Wiener Akademie, vole. cxiii., cxv., cxix., 1887‑89 (on medieval legends); H. A. Guerber, Legends of the Virgin with Special Reference to Art, London, 1896; E. M. Hurll, The Madonna in Art, ib. 1898; A. Venturi, The Madonna. A pictorial Representation of the Mother of Christ, London, 1902; E. L. Taunton, The Little Ofce of our Lady, ib. 1903; Mrs. A. B. Jameson, Legends of the Madonna, ib. 1904; A. Bartle, The Mrdonna of the Poets, ib. 1906; M. Siebert, Die Madonnendar.tellung in der altniederlandischen Kunst von Jan van Eyck bis su den Manieristen, Stmaburg, 1906.

	MARY MAGDALENE (Mary of Magdala): The
most devoted of the female followers of Jesus. She
has been confused with two other persons mentioned
in the New Testament; with the " woman . . .
which was a sinner" of Luke vii. 36 aqq., by
reason of which she has been supposed to have been
of profligate character, and with Mary of Bethany.
The first of these identifications is probably due to
the mention of Mary in Luke viii. 2, but is made
unlikely by the statement in Luke viii. 1, while it
appears from verse 2 and Mark xvi. 1, that Mary
Magdalene had been healed by Jesus of a mental
disease. The second identification is shown un
likely by the total difference appearing in the so
counts of the two. Mary of Bethany belonged to a
highly respected family living near Jerusalem, and
remained in the immediate circle of her family,
while, according to her name, Mary of Magdala
belonged to a place in Galilee (Matt. xv. 39), and
devoted herself wholly to the service of the Master.
She was the first visitor to the grave on Easter
morning and was the first to see Jesus after his
resurrection (John xx.). She has a considerable part
in the legend and art of the Church. One legend
takes her to France and makes her an ascetic there.
The eastern story carries her to Ephesus and makes
her a companion of John. The paintings which
depict her as a penitent are many and well known.
The mystery plays of the Middle Ages also por
trayed her as in league with Lucifer until Jesus
appeared and effected her conversion. It is time
that her name be dissevered from the associations
with which it has so long been connected and
that she be given her due as a devoted disciple
of Jesus. 	(KARL BURGERt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: DB, iii. 214‑216; EB, iii. 2970‑71; KL, viii. 735‑739 (identifies Mary of Magdala, Mary of Bethany, and the sinner of Luke vii.). On Mary in art: J. E. Wessely, Iconographic Gottes and der heiligen, pp. 288 sqq., Leipsic, 1874; Mrs. Jameson, Sacred and Legendary Art, i. 363‑404, Boston, 1893, On the mystery plays, H. Kurz, Geschichte der deutachen Literntur, i. 722 eqq., Leipsic, 1853.
VIL‑15
MASON, FRANCIS: Baptist missionary; b. at York, England, Apr. 2, 1799; d. at Rangoon, Burma, Mar. 3, 1874. He was educated at home by a retired naval officer and in 1818 came to the United States, where he worked at the shoemaker's trade until 1824. In 1827 he entered the Newton Theological Seminary and in 1830 was sent to Burma by the Baptist Missionary Union. There he became the successor of G. D. Boardman in his work among the Karens. He learned not only the Karen language in all its dialects, but also many other Eastern tongues. He translated the Bible into two of the Karen dialects, the New Testament into a third, also several religious works, and edited the Morning Star, a Karen monthly. He wrote: The Karens or Memoir of Ko Thah‑Byu (Tavoy, 1842); Synopsis of the Grammar of the Karen Language (1846); Natural Productions of Burmah (Mauhnsin, 1850); Flora Burmanica (Tavoy, 1851); Tenasserim, or the Fauna, Flora, Minerals, and Nations of British Burmah and Pegu (1852; 2d edition, enlarged, Rangoon, 1860); Pali Grammar (Toungoo, 1868); and Story of a Working Man's Life (an autobiography; New York, 1870); he also translated Kachchayano's Pali Grammar (Calcutta, 1848).

MASON, JOHN MITCHELL: Associate Reformed divine and educator; b. in New York Mar. 19, 1770; d. there Dec. 26, 1829. He was graduated from Columbia College in 1789; studied theology with his father for two years, then went to Edinburgh for further study in 1791; was pastor of the Cedar St. Church, New York (his father's), 1793‑1810; founded a new church, subsequently located in Murray St., New York, 1810; was provost of Columbia College, 1811‑16; president of Dickinson College, Carlisle, Pa., 1821‑24. In 1822 he transferred his ecclesiastical relations to the Presbyterian Church. He became eminent in his denomination through his services to the cause of education of the ministry and by his advocacy of a more froquent communion service. In the latter connection his pamphlet Letters on Frequent Communion (New York, 1798) was noteworthy; in the former his services in calling the attention of his coworkers to the necessity of providing a supply of ministers educated in America for the American churches led to his being appointed in 1802 on a commission to draft a plan for a theological seminary, and finally to his appointment as first professor of the institution in 1804. It was opened, apparently in his home in New York city, November 1,1805. The course of study lasted five years. He established The Christian's Magazine in 1807 and himself wrote most of what appeared in its pages, the substance being a friendly controversy with Bishop Hobart on episcopacy. He was also one of the founders of the American Bible Society. Dr. Mason was eminent as a preacher, speaking without notes and with great eloquence; and he was often called upon as orator on national and patriotic occasions. His writings were collected by his son Ebenezer (4 vols., New York, 1832, new ed. enlarged, 1849).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Van Vechten, Memoirs of John Mitchell Mason, 2 vols., New York, 1856; W. B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, iv. 1‑26, ib. 1858.

THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	226
MASON, LOWELL: Musical composer and educator; b. in Medfield, Mass., Jan. 8, 1792; d. in Orange, N. J., Aug. 11, 1872. He early developed a remarkable talent in musical matters, and in 1812 began to give public instruction in that branch in Savannah, Ga.; in 1827 he removed to Boston, Mass., whence his activities spread through all New England, exciting popular interest and educating taste for music. By his instrumentality the Boston Academy of Music was established, and an enormous impetus given to musical education. In 1837 he visited Europe for purposes of study. He was especially devoted to the bettering of the musical services of the churches, and to that end paid attention to the training of church choirs. He was indefatigable also in the preparation of handbooks and manuals for use in churches, Sunday‑schools and singing‑classes. His collections, from his first (Boston Handel and Haydn Society's Collection of Church Music, Boston, 1821) to his last (The Song Garden, 1866), number more than forty. He also composed many hymn tunes which are still in use. In 1855 the University of the City of New York made him a " doctor in music," the first degree of the kind given in the United States.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: American Annual Eneyclopadia, Xtii, 495500, New York, 1873 (contains a very full list of Mason's works); G. Grove, Dictionary o1 Music and Musicians, ii. 225, London, 1880; J. D. Champlin and W. F. Apthorp, Cyclopedia of Music and Musicians, ii. 532‑533, New York, 1893.

MASORAH~ maYo‑rd: The Jewish tradition regarding the textual readings of the Pentateuch in particular and of the Old Testament in general, meaning by this the consonantal text. Content After the return from the Exile the of the Law of Moses was the central point of Masorah. the common life of the people, and an absorbing care for the textual basis was the natural consequence. Instruction in the Law began in early youth, and in the synagogues passages were read from this part of Scripture, to which there came to be added also selections from the prophets. Very early there were formulated exact directions regarding the copying of the Scriptures; especially for the making of synagogue rolls. Soon there were devised also checks in order to control in the matter of accuracy. The verses, words, and letters of the entire Old Testament and also of parts of it were counted, and note was taken of the number of times single words occurred in the whole or in parts of the volume. Thus the tradition that there are in the Old Testament 23,203 verses is as old as the persecution under Hadrian. Moreover, peculiarities were noted and arranged in groups, as in cases where marginal readings were preferred (see KERI AND KETHIHH). In cases where these singularities were supposed to have particular significance, note was made of them so that omission or change became difficult or impossible, and sometimes an explanation of the phenomenon was given. Examples of these are the suspended " nun " in the name " Manasseh," Judges xviii. 30, aLd the two methods (scriptio plena and defectiroa) of spelling the proper name Ephron in Gen. xxiif. 16, of which fanciful explanations were given.
There is no indication in the Talmuds or in the older Midrashim that materials of this sort were committed to writing, but it is presumed that they were transmitted orally, at least until the seventh century. The division of the Law into paragraphs (in Palestine so as to be read through in three years, in Babylonia in one year) and into Oral Trans‑ verses was known at this early date,
mission;	indicated by the 290 open and 379
Textual closed sections. It appears that after Variations. the pronunciation handed down by tradition was indicated in the manuscripts, the notes of peculiarities and the results of the examination of the text began to be written on the margin of the manuscripts or at the end of the volume or of the individual books, sometimes, however, on separate manuscripts. The different development which Judaism underwent at home and abroad (in Palestine and Babylonia) produced variations and diversities in the texts, and thus a diversity of " authority " has been produced. Concerning these the Masorah is not wholly consistent, and the older manuscripts show great varieties of reading. The general agreement among most codices of the Old Testament is due to a leveling process under the influence of the Masoretes. The origin of the three systems of punctuation known to exist has not with certainty been discovered.
	Masoretic	studies were long prosecuted in Ti
berias, a fact that is registered in marginal refer
ences on the codioes to the " men of Tiberias,"
where in particular the family of Aaron ben Moses
ben Asher was active from the end of the eighth
century; and the Masoretie punctuation must have
taken shape there, at least in its essentials. Many
		names of noted Masoretes are known,
Eminent among them the contemporary of Masoretes Aaron ben Moses ben Asher, Moses and Texts. ben David ben Naphthali, and something more than the name of Moses Mobeb and Rabbi Pinbas. A manuscript of singular notoriety is also known by name‑the Mabazora rabba, cited as early as Ben Naphthali; and of other codices citations are extant which are still of value. The points in which Ben Naphthali differed from Ben Asher are preserved in lists and in numerous marginal notes. But the most celebrated of all the Masoretes is Aaron ben Moses ben Asher (flourished at Tiberias early in the tenth century), who is quoted as the highest authority upon the text; and it has been claimed that a codex from his hand, supplied with punctuation and Masorah, is extant at Aleppo. Modern textual criticism seeks particularly to employ the means left by Aaron ben Asher. After him come the so‑called Nakdanim or punctuators, eminent among whom are Moses, Samson (both called Nakdan), and Jekuthiel ben Judah ha‑Kohen. Later copyists and grammarians cite them and their model codices with frequency. Of the Masoretic handbooks named and cited since the middle of the twelfth century the most important is that called Oklah weoklah (Ocklahh weochlah), though an older work is the tract Sopherim. Mention should also be made of the codices from Yemen which combine grammar with masorah.
Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah undertook to

827	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Alto
collect and arrange all the material accessible to him in manuscripts, the complexity of which task only the most expert can appreciate.
Masorah The results are employed in the second Parva, of Daniel Bomberg's Bibles (4 vols.,
Magna, and Venice, 1524‑25), and the text of the
Marginalia. Masorah given there, practically reproduced as it is in the later rabbinic Bibles, must in spite of its incompleteness and gaps be considered the textus receptus of the Masorah. The Masorah is distinguished into Masorah perm and magna (together called Masorah marginalia). In rabbinic Bibles text and Targum are printed in parallel columns, between which stands the Masorah parva, which concerns the Keri and gives the number of occurrences of a form. Above and below the text stands the Masomh magna, which contains references to the parva and general matters such as concordances of words which have certain peculiarities. At the end of the fourth volume is the Masorah finalia, a kind of lexicon in alphabetical order containing also references to the Masorah marginalia and statements of differences between Ben Asher and Ben Naphthali and between Oriental and Occidental readings. This is practically the arrangement of the manuscripts, though there are differences both of content and of order. That the eastern or Babylonian Jews differed in their text from the western or Palestinian Jews was known in early times only through Jacob bon Iiayyim's list of 216 variants. It is now known that variations exist in the Pentateuch and concern vowels and accents, that they show differences from the Masoretic tradition, and that the Orientals were not in entire agreement with each other. See BIBLE
TExT, I., 1‑2. 	(H. L. STRACg.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: References to the earlier literature are
	given in Hauck‑Herzog, RE, xii. 393 sqq. On the intro
	duction to the Maeorah the best single work is C. D.
	Ginsburg, Introduction to the Maasoretico‑Critical Editiog
L The Doctrine.
1. The Name " Mom." Etymology and Meaning (§ 1).
2. New Testament and Early Catholic Ideas.
The New Testament (11). Further Development (§ 2). The Sources U 3). 3. Patristic Teachings.
Cyprisn and Origen (§ 1).
Ambrose and Augustine 0 2).
Gregory the Great (§ 3).
The East (¢ 4).
Chrysoetom (§ b), 4. Medieval Theorise.
I. The Doctrine.‑I. The Name "Mass": The subject of consideration is the history of the idea of sacrifice as an element of Christian worship‑an idea connected specially with the name "mass," given to the ceremony which the Roman Church in other connection calls "communion "and the Greek Church calls leitourgitc (earlier koinbnia and ayrwxie). The Greek Church also imports the idea of sacrifice, but less absolutely than the Roman. Neither Church has forgotten the name " Eucharist," but it serves more as a dogmatic than as the cultic
of the Hebrew Bible, pp. 1‑488, London, 1897. Helpful studies are: A. Geiger, in Jt;diache Zsitechrift far Wiaaenachaft and Leban, iii (1884‑86), 78‑118; E. Is $avouteux, kudea hietoriquea et exEpEtiqusa our l'A. T., pp. 191224, Paris, 1887; I. Harris, in JQR, i (1889), 128‑142, 223‑2b7; W. Bscher, in Winter and WiSnaehe, Dice jUdiache Litteratur, ii. 121‑132, Troves, 1894; idem, in JQR, iii (1891), 788‑790. Elise Levits'e work, Sepher masaoreth hawnaeeorefh was published, Venice, 1536, Basel, 1539, cf. C. D. Ginsburg, The Maaeoreth a‑maaaorsth of Elias Lauita, . . in Hebrew with Enp, tranal. and . . . Notes, London, 1887; idem, The Masaorah Compiled from MSS. alphabetically and lexically Arranged, vole, i.‑iii., London, 1880‑‑8b. On the Syrian punctuation consult: J. P. Martin, Hiatoire do la ponduation ou de la Masaors chew lee Syrians, Paris, 1875; A. Max, Hitt artia grammaCico: aped Syron, LeiPaio, 1882; G. Diettrich, Die Maasorah der caUiclun and weetlichan Syrar, London, 1899. On punctuation in general consult M. Schwab, Des pointerooysliea dons lea longues aEmitiquee, Paris, 1879. On the euprslinear system consult: F. Prsatorius, in ZDMG, liii (1899), 181‑198; G. Margoliouth, in PSBA, 1893, pp. 184‑205. On s third system read: C. Levies, is American Journal for Semitic Language and Literature, xv (1898‑99), 1b7‑184; and P. Kahle, in ZATW 1901, p6. 273‑317. On the accents: A. BUehler, UnTertachung xur Entetehunp and Entwickelunp der hebroidchen Accents, Vienna, 1891; W. Wickes, Treatise on the Accentuation of the . . . Poetical Books of the O. T.. . ~ . grad of the . Prose Books, 2 vole., Oxford, 1881‑87; F, Preetoriue, Ueber die Herkunjt der hsbrlliechen Accents, Berlin, 1901; P. Kahle, in ZDMG, 1901 pp. 187‑194.
For discussion of points touched on in the text consult: Zuns, Zur Geschichta and Litteratur, pp. 105‑122, Berlin, 1845 (on the punctuators); 8. Pinsker, Einleitunp in don babyToniaeh‑hebrdiecke Punktationseystom, Vienna, 1883, and H. L. Straek in G. A. Kohut, Semitic Studies, pp. b80‑572, Berlin, 1897 (on the eastern Maeorah): 8. FrenedorH, Daa Bush Ochlah W'ochlah, Hanover‑, C. D. Ginsburg, Jacob ban Chajim On Adonijah'a Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible, Hebrew and English, with Explanatory Notes, London, 1887; L. Law, Graphisehs Requiaitsn and Erzsupnisse bei don Juden, p. 71, Leipaic, 1870 (on the care exercised on the text); the tract Sopherim was edited by Joel MOller, Leipaio, 1878; H. T, de Grsaf, De Joadechewetgelaerdenin Tiberias 70‑.§00 A.D., Groningen, 1802 (on Jewish learning in Tibeliso); P, KahlO, DGf maaoretiachs Text doe A. T.'s nosh der Ueberliefsrunp der babylon‑Men Juden, Leipaic, 1902,

MASORETIC TEXT. See BIBLE TEXT, I.
MASS.
Practical Factors (¢ 1).
Scholastic Dogmstioisne. Thomas Aquinas (¢ 2).
6. The Council of Trent and Neosoholaetio sad Modern Speculations. The Council of Trent (§ I). Bellsrmine (¢ 2). Neoecholastieiem (¢ 3) Later and Present Theories (§ 4).
II. The Liturgy.
1. Development of the Roman Maw to Gregory I. The First Three Centuries (¢ I). The Fourth and Fifth Centuries (§ 2).
The Sources (; 3),
2. Liturgies Outside of Rome.
General Character and Relations (§1).
The Sources (§ 2).
8. The Supplanting of the non‑Roman Liturgies by the Roman.
Africa, Spain, Milan sad Great Brit sin (¢ 1).
France and Germany (§ 2).
4. The Development of the Roman Mace after Gregory I.
Certain Additions (§ 1).
The Roman Missal (¢ 2).
b. The Withholding of the Cup.
8. Kinds of Masses.
7. Modern Procedure in the Mean.
designation of the mystery. Roman Catholic theology distinguishes between the " Eucharist as sacrament " and the " Eucharist as sacrifice." The following discussion of the doctrine of the mass should be compared with the articles LORD'S SUPPER Bad TRANSUBSTANTIATION; Special articles like EPIBLESIS, HISS OF PEACE, etc., may also be consulted.
The English " mass " comes from the Latin minas. How early the latter was used to designate the eucharistic sacrifice is uncertain. The first to re‑

brass	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	228
mark on the expression is Isidore of Seville (d. 636), who says that " missa is the time of sacrifice, when the catechumens are dismissed
1. Etymol. and for this reason is it called missa,
osy end because those who are not yet regen‑
	Xeaning.	crated can not be present at the sacri
		fice of the altar " (Etymologice vi. 19).
He clearly understands missa as equivalent to
missio with the meaning " dismissal," and he is
right in so far as he conceives of missa as a noun.
Explanations which make it a participle, connecting
it with the formula of dismissal (Ite, missa eat) and
completing the latter by supplying oratio or hostia
(" the prayer or the sacrifice has been sent [to God,
by an angel] ") or condo (" the assembly is dis
missed ") are to be rejected. Isidore's interpreta
tion, however, may be called in question. Probably
missa as a by‑form of missio has two meanings, one
in which it signifies the rite of dismissal and another
in which it serves as translation of the Greek
leitourgia, and only in the latter sense is missa the
mass. It is used from the fourth century and prob
ably earlier for all sorts of divine service, especially
for ritual ceremonies in the church, therein corre
sponding exactly to leitourgia, which meant first a
public service at Athens performed by the richer
citizens for the community, then any public service
or work and specially the public service of the gods,
whence it was transferred in Christian usage to
the service or ministry of priests (Septuagint) and
public worship generally, more particularly to the
Eucharist. It thus approximates to the English
"mission," which is the duty or service on which
one is sent. Against the interpretation "dismissal"
and the connection with Ite, missa eat is the fol
lowing consideration. The Greek Church had its
apolysis, corresponding to the Ite, mina eat, but it
did not transfer the name to the entire service,
as would be expected if the Latin Church did so,
since the liturgical terminology of the two Churches
is essentially parallel. If the Latin missa is not the
translation of the Greek leitourgia, the Latin Church
has no parallel expression for leitourgia. Silvia of
Aquitaine (later fourth century) repeatedly uses
missa for the dismissal (=apolysis), but also in
connections where it clearly means the entire service
(=leitourgia; cf. Peregrinatio Silvice, ed. G. F.
Gamurrini, pp. 82, 87, 99, 101, Rome, 1888). Proof
of a like use of the word after 400 is given by Rott
manner. The distinction between the missa
catechumexorum and missa fidelium in the sense of a
twofold " mass " was first made probably in the
twelfth century (Ivo of Chartres); missa in these
phrases, at any rate in the passages thus far cited,
means simply " dismissal."
2. New Testament and Early Catholic Ideas
The Lord, when he founded the Supper, neither performed nor instituted a sacrificial act. All that he did with the bread and the wine was directed to the disciples; in the later terminology it indicated a sacrament, not a sacrifice. But it had
1. The New reference to his death as a sacrifice, and Testament. was intended to impress upon the disciples that he in his death was the sacrifice of the new covenant,wherein the new covenant was made perfect. It was in connection with
the cup that the thought of sacrifice first entered, this act having a somewhat different significance from that with the bread (cf. C. von Weimacker, Apostolisches Zeitalter, pp. 576‑577, Freiburg, 1890). Paul, the oldest witness (cf. Luke xxii. 19‑20; Matt. xxvi. 26, sqq. and Mark xiv. 22 sqq., represent a later tradition), applies the bread or the "body" to the congregation, the church, the members of which represent their communion (kaindnia) with one another and with their Head when they break it together, and prove themselves the "body of Christ " (cf. the course of thought in I Cor. xi. 20 sqq.; also xii. 13, 27; Col. i. 18, ii. 19; Eph. i. 23). The thought of Jesus may have been that even in the future, when his followers broke the bread in his memory, he would be with them, would himself "nourish" them as if he were present "in the body." His own have his "body," that is, himself, always with them like bread for their nourishment. His act corresponded in ritual form to the promise of Matt. xviii. 20. The counterpart to the " body " in the second transaction is not the " blood," but the " new covenant." The Lord did not offer his " flesh," but his " body "‑it was a change of far‑reaching consequences when the Church began to talk of the " flesh "instead of the " body "‑and he did not offer his " blood " but the " new covenant." Paul speaks nowhere of drinking the " blood," but always of the " cup." So far as he sets the acts with the bread and the cup parallel, he seems to bring the latter into relation with the " one spirit " of the congregation (I Cor. xii. 13, which really proves only that Paul did not have a " dogma " about the Supper). If the thought of Jesus were as just stated, this in connection with the " cup of the covenant," which was made by the " blood," by a sacrifice, could lead to the notion that the Supper of the Lord had some, though a limited, resemblance to a sacrificial meal. Paul drew a parallel between the " table of the Lord " and the sacrificial meals of both Jews and Gentiles (I Cor. x. 18 sqq.); but this must not be pressed. Paul has in mind here only the close relationship of the participants to one another‑ in case of the Jews, the relationship with their gods in case of the heathen. In the Epistle to the Hebrews (xiii. 10 sqq.) the combination between the celebration of the Supper and the sacrificial meal is developed further. The conception that " we [the Christians] have an altar," from which others may not eat, is not expressed by Paul, though he may have suggested it. Just how far the idea of the writer went is not made plain. His thought may have been that the congregation of Jesus " ate " directly from the cross as its altar, that it continually renewed a " sacrificial meal " in addition to the " offering once for all." But he may have meant that in the Lord's Supper the congregation renewed the " sacrifice " in cultio‑commemorative manner, that the eucharistic ceremony was a repetition of what had taken place on Calvary. In any case the Epistle to the Hebrews shows how easily the conception of the Lord's Supper passed over into that of a sacrificial meal, even of a sacrificial act. That it eventually became only a sort of dramatic memorial of the sacrificial death of Jesus is easily comprehended.

229	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	mass
	In the Didache the ceremony in all its relations is
called uniformly his thuaia (xiv. 1, 2)‑a real " offer
ing," but it is not made plain whether anything
more than prayers and alms is meant, unless, pos
sibly, xiv. 3 gives a hint by citing Mal. i. 11. Justin
		applies this passage to the bread and
	2. Further the cup (Trypho, xxviii.‑xxix., xli.,
	Develop‑ cxvi.‑cxvii.). If the Didache is by one
	meat. writer, it must belong to the time when
		the agape and the Lord's Supper had
been separated (see AGApI,). How early and where
this first happened is not certain. The Epistle to
the Hebrews may presuppose the separation. Jus
tin attests it for Rome (1 APol. lxv.). It can hardly
have been due to purely practical considerations; a
tendency to idealization must have given the first
impulse. Most probably, in course of time, perhaps
under Paul's influence in the first instance, the
ceremony in reference to the " body of Christ " and
the " new covenant in his blood " took on such a
character that " one bread " (I Cor. x. 17) and
" one cup " were set apart and came to be regarded
as so superior to all other bread and wine, which
served merely to satisfy natural needs, that it was
found necessary to separate the agape and the
Supper. When the tendency to such a separation
had once developed, a new conception of the " this
do " (touts poieite) was made easy. Neither Jesus
nor Paul thought of the words as a command to
" offer" anything. But as early as the second
century the pomte was interpreted as " offer." Of
course " to do something " can acquire the meaning
" to offer " only from the connection (as when the
thought is to " do something to God," expressed or
implied; cf. Ex. xii. 47 sqq., Septuagint, where
poiein is used to render the Hebrew 'asah), and the
use of " eat " before and after the " this do " may
have suggested the idea of sacrifice. But the most
effective impulse came from the effort to accommo
date early Christian concepts to Greco‑Roman
thought. The " new covenant " was wholly un
familiar to non‑Jews. The Latins translated it
novum te8tamerdum, not novum feedus, and the
Greeks too, for the most part, understood the
diatheke as a last will and testament prescribing
doctrines and ordinances, of which the chief was the
Eucharist. The contents of the cup now come to the
foreground. Neither Jesus nor Paul had spoken of
the wine, and there is nothing to indicate that the
former thought Of the wine as representing his
blood. But the notion of sacrifice called up the
thought of his blood, and it was an intelligible idea
that he sealed the covenant by a holy drink. The
blood thus came to take the place of the new cove
nant in the second part of the Supper. The notion
of the " wine‑blood " brought with it that of the
"bread‑flesh." To be sure, people still said "body"
(s&ma), but they thought "flesh." The twofold
conception of Jesus that his followers would always
have, and commemorate both his living presence
among them and the new covenant with God, be
came transformed into the thought that the Lord
was present in twofold manner, viz., that one saw
his flesh in the bread and his blood in the cup. It
was then almost inevitable that the ancient mind
should conceive of the Lord's Supper as a myste‑
rious sacrificial institution. It is possible that even in the second century the development had not gone beyond the conception of a sacrificial meal. But the association of ideas must soon have led farther. That in the second century and perhaps from the beginning the Eucharist had in a certain sense the character of a sacrificial act is not contested. It was called " Eucharist " because of the prayers of thanksgiving, and early Christianity designated prayer as " offering." Also the agape was held with gifts of the rich, which were brought as " offerings " (prosphorai) before God and consecrated to God. For a long time after the " Lord's Supper " was separated from the " common meal " (the agape), the " elements " were furnished by the congregation in such profusion that a considerable surplus remained for the poor and the clergy. Such gifts of the congregation were consecrated by prayer and passed as " offerings." Hdfling and others maintain that " offering " in connection with the Supper means no more than prayers and alma till the third century. But once the ideas of the " body and covenant " were displaced by the " flesh and blood," the thoughts that the Eucharist was a representation of the sacrifice on Calvary and was essentially a sacrifice must have entered. A time when sacrifice was everywhere a living institution of the cult, while it noted the symbolism and spirituality of all Christian worship in the eucharistic service, could not fail to discern also in it the thought of an offer‑
ing of Christ beside the offerings of prayer and alms.
	The important sources after the Didache are Justin,
Ignatius, Ireneeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian.
For Justin, taking all in all, the Eucharist was a " sacri
fice " (Trypho, xxviii.‑xxix., ALI exvi,‑axvii.; I ApoL, lxv.
		lxvi.). Ignatius speaks of the Eucharist
	8 The and prayer (eacharietia and proaeucha) as two
	Sources. things (" Smyrnarang," vii. 1), and the former
		" is the flesh which suffered [aarx pathousal
of our Savior Jesus Christ." He does not directly call the
Eucharist a sacrifice. But he knows an altar of the congre
gation (" Philadelphians," iv.; " Trallians," vii. 2), the con
gregation itself is the temple and altar of God, and the true
priest in it is Jesus (" Magnesians," vii. 2; " Philadelphians,"
ix. 1). His thought is that Jesus, in that he is present at
the Eucharist as the " flesh which suffered," presents him
self here in the name of the congregation, living, as a sacri
fice to God. Irenieus in the passage which needs chiefly
to be considered (Hwr., iv. 29‑32) is writing from the apo
logetic side and makes no attempt to set forth the real char
acter of the Eucharist. But he applies the prophecy of
Mal. i. 10‑11 to the Lord's Supper and oalla the " hWy "
and "blood of Christ" the "offering of the New Testa
ment " and, later, the " pure sacrifice," Clement of, Alex
andria and Tertullian had little occasion to speak of the
Lord's Supper except as a meal; in so far as they refer to
it as sacrifice at all, they set forth no theory. Clement often
speaks of the " offerings " of Christians, meaning prayer
and alms. But he calls the Eucharist the "offering,,
(Proaphora; Strom., i. 19), meaning the entire ceremony col
lectively. Tertullian, when he speaks of the " sacrifices "
or " offerings " of the Christians, generally means prayers.
But there are passages where he applies to the Supper as a
whole the expressions " sacrifice," " offering," or " to offer "
(De cuttujeminarwm, ii. 11; Ad uxorem, ii. 8; and elsewhere).
Only De orations, xix., however, can be adduced as direct
proof that he does not restrict " offering " to prayers, alms,
and the like. This passage assumes that the ceremony of
the Eucharist is a unit, and that it necessarily closes with
the " reception " of the body of the Lord. Its significance
lies in a distinction between the " prayers of the sacri
fices " (plural) and " participation in the sacrifice " (singu
lar). To be sure it proves in itself no more than that Ter
tullian knew of the view of the Supper as a sacrificial meal.
But taking it with the expressions of earlier writers, it is

Mass	THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG	230
probable that he had also in mind a sacrificial offering of the body of the Lord. Tertullian is the first to speak of " offerings " or ' sacrifices " for the dead (Ds corona, iii.; De monopamia. i.; De exhortations aastitatis, a). 7t is uncertain just how they were carried out; bur the thought here can not be merely that of giving thanks.
S. Patrlstio Tesohiags• By the time of Cyprian (d. 258) and Origen (d. 251) the apostolic congregation had been organized into a single Church, and the elaboration of " dogmas " was soon making rapid strides. Not manynew ideas were propounded, however; the chief characteristic was a fixing and systematizing process exercised upon concepts already at hand. It should be remembered that the history of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper is nowhere a logical progress of thought, but was conditioned by fixed rites and absolutely binding words, with which a multitude of individual opinions was interwoven. The ceremony early became a mystery. From about 200 also the notion of a privileged priesthood stood in the background. Furthermore, it must not be overlooked that till the end of the fourth century sacrifice was everywhere a vital institution of public life. Everybody knew what a " sacrifice " was. But when the " Christian sacrifice " was the only one remaining, there arose need of explanations and " doctrines." At this very time, however, other dogmatic problems claimed attention. Thus different factors worked together to' the detriment of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper.
It has been usual to date an epoch in the development of the doctrine of the sacrificial character of the Eucharist from Cyprian‑probably because he has left a much fuller exposition of his views on the subject than earlier writers. The occasion was furnished by the spread of the custom of celebrating
the Supper with water instead of wine, 1. Cyprian which Cyprian treats at great length and Origen. in his sixty‑third letter (Ad Ccec'ilium).
He sets forth here a theory of the Supper as sacrifice, with certain limitations, which was probably widely held. In the most varied terms he designates the transaction with the cup and the entire ceremony as a " sacrifice " and an " offering." When Jesus poured the wine into the cup he fulfilled a whole cycle of prophecies which all looked forward to his suffering and redemption through his blood (chaps. iii. sqq.). Jesus offered the Supper as " sacrifice " to God (chap. xiv.). The wine "expresses the blood of Christ" (chap. xi.), and the Supper is the " offering of the blood of Christ " (chaps. ix., xv.). The mixing of wine and water in the cup is interpreted mystically, the water representing the congregation (chaps. xii., xiii.). Cyprian is still able to define the import of the sacrifice as " thanks," but the thought prevails with him that the petition is promoted by the " memorial of the passion of Christ " (i. e., the Supper), although he nowhere speaks directly 'of a " propitiatory "effect of the eucharistic offering. Nor does he express the thought that the " offering of the body and blood of Christ " is a " sacrifice " in an independent sense; it is such only in relation to the " representative sacrifice" in the Lord's Supper. Origen was less of a hierarch than Cyprian. The latter apparently thought a " priest " necessary. Origen does not
deny the importance of the priest, but he bases it on the need of " order" and the priest's personal gifts. He believes that " everyone " can sacrifice. He has gone a step beyond any extant expression of Cyprian'a in that he attributes " atoning " efficacy to the Lord's Supper: As theologian he was dominated by the idea of a " higher " sense, the allegorical interpretation, which he sought in the Eucharist and sacrifice as everywhere else. All sacrifice has the aim of cleansing from sin (Ham. in Num., a. 2; Hom. xxiv. 1). What the Old‑Testament sacrifices merely prefigured became truth in Christ's death. But Origen regarded Christ's sacrifice and high‑priesthood, not as a thing of the past, but as continuing. Christ continually sacrifices and intercedes for the faithful in heaven, at the altar of heaven; and Origen inferred from the Old‑Testament type that Christ sacrifices in heaven with the coals from our altar and with the incense from our hands (cf. Hom. in Lev., ix. 8). It is hardly credible that Origen did not have in mind here the " body and blood of Christ " in the Eucharist. Elsewhere (Contra Celmm, viii. 33) he says that the bread of the Eucharist is not mere bread, but also a"body . .
a holy thing which sanctifies those who use it with right intention." It is true that Origen nowhere actually sets forth a theory of the Lord's Supper as an offering of the body of Christ; but' he shows clearly enough that it had such significance for him (cf. Ham. in Lev., xiii. 3). He sometimes alludes to an offering of the blood of Christ in the Eucharist. According to his whole mode of thinking, Origen could have conceived only of a symbolic " offering " of Christ in the Eucharist. But there was nothing, to hinder his seeing in it a " commemorative " renewal of the atoning work of Christ.
Ambrose and Augustine brought together two ideas which before them had been current separately; that is, they connected the thought of the " body of Christ," which is sacrificed, with Christians themselves individually and collectively,
Augustine directly combining the !d. Ambrose former with the conception of the and Church as the " body of Christ." dn8‑tine. Thereby the sense of the duty of
Christians to present themselves, their thoughts and works, and their whole life to God as the weightiest sacrifice, came into close connection with the idea of the Lord's Supper as sacrifice. What Origen was able to connect with the Supper only by the medium of allegory, these two Western Fathers regarded as the content and import of the sacred act. Thus they gave the church ceremony a practical significance which tended to counteract the superstitious notions of mere sacramental magic. Of course the thought of the " blood of Christ " received their attention. Ambrose says that the " flesh of the Savior " has its significance "for the welfare of the body," his blood was poured out " for our soul." Augustine interprets the pouring of the wine into the mouth of the communicant as a figure of the " shedding " of the blood. But the most important thing with each is that he brings closely together the two acts, of priest and of congregation, since this lessened the danger that the Supper as a sacrifice should be set apart and become

231	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
a purely hierurgic transaction. For Ambrose it will suffice to cite merely the Enarratio in Pad= axxuii., nor. 2$, 26. He says that the " priests " offer the " body of Christ," i. e., the elements with their true content perceived by faith, viz., " Christ himself." But the truth of the matter is for Ambrose this, that Christ continually offers to God in heaven the " perfect man," i. e., the Christian who has actually received Christ at the hands of the priest. Ambrose regards the eucharistic bread and wine as " medicine "; the conception of a " sacrificial meal " has quite disappeared. With Augustine (De civitate Dei, a. 4 sqq.) a sacrifice is something which is addressed to God that we may have close connection with God. Every "visible sacrifice" is only a "sacrament of an invisible sacrifice." The sacrifice of the death of Christ makes it possible that " the congregation of saints be presented a general sacrifice to God by the great high priest, who also in his passion sacrificed himself for us that we might be the body of so great a head." The thought that the " body of Christ " in the Lord's Supper is the Church‑" in a sacrament "‑and the question, whether merely bread and wine or a wonder in reference to tie real body of Christ constituted the sacrament, are discussed further in Sermon cclxxii. In Contra Faustum Manichwum, xx. 15 sqq., all of Augustine's thoughts on the Christian sacrifices are summed up. The influence of both Ambrose and Augustine on the interpretation of the eucharistic sacrifice has always been great. And the rich subjective passionmysticism which Roman Catholicism connects with the sacrifice of the mass is derived chiefly from the Ambrosian‑Augustinian tradition.
Passing over the theologians of the neat two centuries, at the boundary between the patristic and the medieval time stands Gregory the Great, theologically without originality, yet by his position one of the greatest of teachers, and even more so be‑
cause of the popular, pastoral manner 8. Gregory in which, with citation of many eathe Great. ampler preferably from his own knowl‑

what seemed him of ed and ~ practical importance.
The official dogmas are not prominent in his works.
But questions of the cult and of the spiritual dis.
cipline interested him both as preacher and writer.
He considers it fully settled how one should think
about sacrifice. In the Hom. in Evangelia (II.,
xxxvii. 7) he treats of the significance of the sac
rifice of the mass for "absolution," for release from
the effects of any fault. A " legation " must be
sent to God and works of mercy shown to him,
but before all " let us offer on his altar the sac
rifices [hoetiaa] of propitiation; for the sacrifice of
the sacred altar, offered with tears and benevo
lence of mind, pleads especially for our absolution,
because he who, having risen from the dead, now no
longer dies, still in this dies again for us in his mya
tery. For as often as we offer to him the sacrifice of
his passion, so often do we renew for ourselves his
passion for our absolution." Especially celebrated
in the Middle Ages were certain remarks of Greg
ory's in the " Dialogues " (iv. 58, 59). He has been
speaking of the efficacy of the sacrifice of the mass
for departed souls, prisoners, etc., and says it is
better " to die free than to seek freedom after chains." So he commends " the daily sacrifice of tears to God and to offer daily the sacrifice of his flesh and blood. For that victim especially saves the soul from everlasting death which by a mystery renews for us that death of the only begotten, who . . . in himself living immortal and incorruptible is sacrificed again for us in this mystery of the sacred offering. For his body is taken there, his flesh is broken for the salvation of the people, his blood is poured not on the hands of unbelievers but in the mouths of the faithful. So let us appreciate what this sacrifice for us is, which imitates for our absolution the passion of the only begotten son. For who of the faithful can doubt that in the very hour of the sacrifice the heavens are opened to the voice of the priest, that a choir of ‑angels attends that mystery of Jesus Christ, that the lowest are joined with the highest, the earth with the heavens, and that one thing is done by those visible and invisible ?"
The ideas of the East do not differ essentially from those of the West between 300 and 600. Eusebius of Ceesarea (Demwnatratio evuangelica, i. 10) conceives of the Eucharist as self‑evidently a propitiatory sacrificial act. If Christ on the cross was
,the predicted atoning sacrifice for Jews 4. The and Gentiles, then both as Christians
East.	attain forgiveness of their sins " by
daily making mention of his body and blood." Christ's sacrifice was made once for all, but he has commanded us to " offer a memorial of it to God perpetually:" Eusebius's idea of the ceremony as a sacrifice was purely representative. He considers the ritual part as exclusively hierurgie and interprets only the incensing as a saErifice of Christians. In the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 25) the " gifts " are fixed requirements for the Eucharist and the support of clergy and widows. The " offering of the Eucharist " (ii. 57) depends on the "gifts," since the "sacrifice" follows after they have been made. Book viii. 12 gives the first complete liturgy. As in Justin, the entire ceremony is thought of as " sacrifice," in which the " offering " has a special place. The offering of the body and blood signifies also " thanks." Cyril of Jerusalem. calls the elements a " spiritual sacrifice " and a " sacrifice of propitiation " (" Catechetical Mysteries," v. 8). When" the holy and most awful sacrifice has been made," we offer to God, in prayers for the de. parted, " Christ slain for our sins, propitiating the benevolent God for them and for us), (v. 9). A definite theory of the manner of the sacrifice is sought in vain in Cyril, Eusebius, and the other Fathers of the time. Evidently the thought of the Supper as a meal counted for more in the speculation of the East than of the West, but perhaps not in popular interest. The recollection of the sacrificial meal seems to have lasted longer than in the West. Little attempt was made to explain what a sacrifice is or what there is sacrificial in the Lord's Supper. The Alexandrian and Antiochian schools are in accord when they come to treat of the doctrine of sacrifice as an act.
Apart from sermons and the productions of the mystagogical literature (see MYBTAflOaIC TaMorr

star.	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERaoG	ggg
oGy) neither East nor West produced a special
treatise on the Eucharist. Even Chrysostom, who
is called doctor eucharistice, did not write one. His
exposition both of sacrifice and the Eucharist is
		found in his homiletical and exegetical
	a. Ohrys. works. He is more occupied with the
	ostom. thought of a "mystery" in general and
		with that of a "meal" (trophe) than
with that of sacrifice. His language is baldly realis
tia‑the blood " reddens " the altar or the tongue
(cf. Hom. xxiv., in 1 Cor., no. 1, MPG, ba. 2oo;
Hom. tzzxai., in Matt., no. 5, MPG, lviii. 743; De
socerdotio, iii. 4, MPG, xlviii. 642; Ad alluminandm
catecheses, ii. 2, MPG, xlix. 234)‑and he uses the
epithets " awful" and " fearful " much more often
than his predecessors. He feels fully the horror of
the thought that a real body and real blood are
present instead of the apparent bread and wine.
Reflection on the" horror of the blood "appears first
in the East in the pseudo‑Ambrosian De sacramentis
(vi. 3) belonging to the early fifth century (see be
low, II., 2, § 2). But while here emphasis is put on
the supposed benefit to us when the blood is offered
in a "similitude," Chrysostom remarks that Christ
was the first to drink his blood (Ham. lzxxii., in
Matt., no. 1, MPG, hiii. 739). Compared with later
theories of the " killing " or " destruction " of
Christ in the eucharistic sacrifice (see below, 5, § 3)
Chrysostom's words are very mild. They express
rhetorical pathos more than dogmatic theories. In
so far as he considers the sacrifice on Calvary, he
makes the eucharistic sacrifice only a "symbol" of
it. The " sacrificial act " has only spiritual refer
ence to Calvary. Chrysostom, furthermore, is the
first distinct witness to the custom which ultimately
led almost to a separation of the " mass " and the
"communion." He makes .it plain that many came
to the service, but went away before the communion,
and he condemns the practise in strong terms (Hom.
iii., in Eph., no. 4, MPG, lxii. 29; De incomprehen
stZilitate Dei natures, iii. 6, MPG, xlviii. 725‑726).
That he regarded the " sacrifice " and the com
munion (metalepais) as two separable acts and the
former as a purely " priestly " function is clear.
4. Xedieval Theories: In the West the theological treatment of the mass underwent no essential change during the Middle Ages. Scholasticism merely systematized the earlier conceptions. But certain practical factors had a greater influence in
the West than in the East. It must 1. Practical have lowered the sacrament in the
Factors. popular estimation when it began to
be offered for personal ends. As early as the sacramentary named after Gregory the Great and certainly containing material from him (see below, II., 1, § 3) there are masses for cattle pestilence, droughts and floods, storms, times of war, and sickness. Masses were said for the king, for monasteries, for priests, for travelers, and for the oppressed and troubled. As the number of occasions was multiplied the belief sprang up that there was efficacy in the number of masses. A single mass no longer counted for much. In the ancient Church the Lord's Supper was generally celebrated on Sundays and the anniversaries of martyrs; only in particular places, as North Africa,
did the communion take place daily. But the latter custom soon spread. In the fifth century w meet with several masses on the same day. The umber increased especially in the eighth and ninth centuries, and chapels and oratories and altars were multiplied indefinitely. At the same time the participation of the people steadily grew less. The private masses of the Roman Church (see below, II., 6) are purely hierurgic. The Greek Church has no private mass, allows only one mass on the same day, and has only one altar in each church. After the twelfth century the Roman Church restricted each priest to one mass a day, except under fixed conditions, and forbade masses after noon. The custom of hearing mass without communicating, however, has continued, and there has even grown up a communion without mass (cf. KL, iii. 722). Theological discussion during the Middle Ages always treats sacrifice and communion together and lays stress on the latter, because it is based on the ritual, which has never separated the two notions.
Peter Lombard treats of the sacrifice of the Eucharist only in barest outline (Sententim, book iv., dist. 12 and 13). He says that the " sacrament of the Eucharist" is a " sacrifice " and that Christ " is offered repeatedly." The " daily offering " is a
" reminiscence [recordatio] of the sacri2. Scholas‑ fice which was made " and as such is a tic Dogma‑ " memorial and representation of the
tieians. true sacrifice." It is difficult to realize
Thomas what the Scholastics and the Fathers
Aquinas‑ before them mean by " representa‑
tion " and " memorial." Sometimes they contrast the " representation " and the " truth," sometimes they understand the " representation " as a special part of the " truth." As concerns the efficacy of the sacrifice of the mass, Peter says that it brings about the " remission of venial sins" and the "perfection of virtue." Albertus Magnus follows Peter, but far surpasses him in the subtilty of his questions and answers. Thomas Aquinas assumes that the distinction between sacrifice and sacrament is settled and known to everybody, but in the sense that the Eucharist has two sides, not two parts. He sometimes refers to the distinction to remove difficulties, and when he finds it difficult to distinguish the two sides of the Eucharist he says that they are separated, not actually, but logically.
Thomas attempts no systematic exposition of the Eucharist, but in part iii. of the Summa theotogiea, questions 7383 (Parma ed., vol. iv. 332‑403), he considers all queries concerning it, ritual and disciplinary as well as dogmatic, which arose in his own mind, and gives definitions of terms and concepts. He propounds, in question 73, the fundamental question whether the Eucharist is a sacrament. In art. 1 he defines a sacrament as that which contains something sacred. A thing can be sacred either absolutely or in relation to something. The Eucharist contains something sacred absolutely, that is, the body of Christ. Consequently the sign (res) of a sacrament is given in its very matter (moreover, that which is the sign merely is in the recipient, that is, the grace which is conferred). In art. 4 the different names of the sacrament are explained. It is called a sacrifice, communion, and viaticum; the first with respect to the past, in that it is commemorative of the Lord's passion, which was a true sacrifice; the second with respect to the present, that is, the unity of the Church, into which men are gathered and united by this sacrament; the third signification has respect to the future, in that it is prefigura,

233	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
tive of the enjoyment of God which shall be. He comes to the distinction between sacrament and sacrifice in quest. 79, art. 5. To the query whether all punishment for sin is remitted by this sacrament, he answers: it must be said that this sacrament is both a sacrifice and a sacrament, but it has the character of a sacrifice in that it is offered, the character of a sacrament in that it is received. In art. 7 he adds: in that the passion of Christ, in which Christ offered himself a sacrifice (hostiam) to God, is represented in this sacrament, it has the character of a sacrifice, but in that an invisible grace is imparted in this sacrament under a visible form (species), it has the character of a sacrament. Clearly the concept of sacrament is the more comprehensive. In part ii. 2, quest. 85, Thomas considers sacrifice. He says (art. 3, end) that things are properly called sacrifices when something is done about things offered to God, as when animals are killed, etc. And the name shows this; for it is called " sacrifice " because man makes something sacred (sacrum facit). It is not clear how Thomas applies this thought to the eucharistic sacrifice. Th III., Ixxvii. 7, he comes to the question of the breaking in the Lord's Supper, and finds it a problem, because only the form of the bread is present and the thought may arise that the breaking of the bread is only according to appearance, not according to real truth. Then the question may arise whether Christ's body itself is not broken. Thomas rejects this as unthinkable, because this body is incorruptible and impassible socording to its essence and it is present entire in every part (cf. quest. 73, art. 3, "by concomitance"1). So he shows rather that the form can be really broken, and then it follows for him that the breaking of the form is a sacrament of the Lord's passion, which was truly in the body of Christ. Accordingly the sacrifice of the mass is really a sacrifice, something is done in it about Christ, but to the form. Quest. 83, art. 1, whether Christ is sacrificed in this sacrament, confirms this. Most certainly he is sacrificed, in that belcbration of this escrament is a representative image of the passion of Christ, which is the true sacrifice of him. Quest. 76, art. 2, considers the two forms, bread and wine. Since each of the forms after transubstantiation contains Christ entire, the sacrament in one form would not represent the passion of Christ; the body and the blood would be separated. Therefore the image must present both the body and the blood. Accordingly only the double form, or rather the twofold consecration, presents the passion to VieW With the separation of body and blood in the true sacrifice. The consecration completes the image of the passion, it is the act of the representation of the passion. In quest. 79 Thomas treats of the effects of the sacrament. He distinguishes between what it effects as sacrifice and what it effects as food. He had already remarked (quest. 74, art. 1) that the body of Christ is offered for the salvation of the body, the blood for that of the soul (cf. the teaching of Ambrose, 3, § 2 above). He recurs to this in 79, 1, to add the qualification that such a distinction is valid only by a sort of assimilation, in reality each effects the salvation of both since Christ is present entire in each. He then explains in detail the effect of the sacrament for the attainment of glory (art. 2), the remission of mortal sin (art 3), and the remission of venial sins (art. 4). In art. 5 he doBlares that the sacrament, in that it is a sacrifice, has " satisfactive " power, but only according to the quantity of devotion and not in place of all punishment, because, if the latter were true, there would be a defect of human devotion. In art. 7 he asks whether this sacrament profits others than those participating, and answers " yes," but only objectively; whoever is not joined to the passion of Christ by faith and love does not attain the benefits. One mass, socording to Thomas, has only one effect. But in many masses the offering of the sacrifice is multiplied and therefore the effect of the sacrifice is multiplied. In quest. 79, art. 1, it is stated incidentally that the effect which the passion of Christ produces in the world, this sacrament produces in man.
b. The Council of Trent and Neoecholaetic and Modern Speculations: Luther attacked the doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass on two grounds: because Jesus neither performed nor instituted a sacrifice, and because he thought that it savored of salvation by works. He was preeminently successful in the circles which he influenced directly, and he jncited the Roman Church to a new defense and j
approbation of the doctrine. No earlier synodal gathering had accorded it the consideration which it received from the Council of Trent.
1. The The " most holy sacrament of the
Council	Eucharist " was treated here in the
	of Trent.	thirteenth session, Oct. 11, 1551,
		and the "sacrifice of the mass," as
though it were a wholly different thing, in the
twenty‑second session, more than a decade later,
Sept. 17, 1562. The thirteenth session sanctioned a
conception which had long prevailed, that the sacri
fice was not an act of the congregation, but of the
priests for the congregation. In the decree of the
twenty‑second session it was declared that Christ
had performed and instituted a sacrifice to " repre
sent " the sacrifice of the cross, so that the " mem
ory " of the latter should endure " to the end of the
world " and its " salutary effect might be applied
to the remission of the sins which we commit
daily" (canon i.; the thought is explained further
in canon ii.). The expressions "sacrifice," "offer,"
and " represent " are used as equivalent. The
sacrifice is not a new suffering of Christ, the " sacri
ficing " is not renewed, but Christ once sacrificed is
daily brought before God as such in his real essence.
The " victim " (hostia) is " one and the same " on
the cross and in the mass, and the "one who offers"
is the same, only the " manner " is different, there
bloody, here in the form of bread and wine, formerly
by Christ without a mediary, now by the mediation
of the " ministry of priests." The effect is also the
same and the sacrifice of the mass is " truly pro
pitiatory "; those who participate under the neces
sary conditions (faith, reverence, etc.) draw near
to God, receive " mercy and grace," and " great
crimes and sins" are remitted to them. A quali
fication, which has in view the sacrament of pen
ance, is noteworthy here‑in giving grace God
grants only " the gift of penitence." The necessity
for the sacrifice of the mass is based on two prin
ciples: first that Christ would not have his " priest
hood " terminated " by death " but would " re
main " in function what he was, and secondly that
the " nature of man " requires a " visible " memorial
of the sacrifice on the cross. The catechism ordered
by the council and issued by Pius V. in 1566 follows
(questions 53 sqq.) the decisions of the Council, but
with grosser forms of expression. The sacrifice in
the mass appears here less representative of that on
the cross than repetitive of it. There were two
tendencies at work‑one which strove not to obscure
the cross; another (Jesuitical) which WIlyed only
to exalt the mass.
The last theologian whose doctrine of the mass merits detailed examination is the Jesuit cardinal, Robert Bellarmine (d. 1621). In his exposition (Bisputationes de wntroversiis Christian,, fide?.', vol. iii., Cologne, 1628) he bases the distinction between sacrament and sacrifice on transub.
2. Dal‑ stantiation. The sacrifice is propiti‑
	larn"ne.	story, " for the remission of sins," but
		is also effective for "all sorts of
benefits." It has efficacy ex opera operato, that is,
"in itself"; and the opus operawis, that is, "any
goodness or devotion in him who works," at the
most only strengthens the efficacy of the act. Three

1otass	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	284
classes of persons " work " or " offer " in the massChrist, the priest, and the Church or the " Christian people," the last‑named in very restricted manner. The sacrament benefits only the recipient, the sacrifice all " for whom it is offered "; it benefits by the mere fact of being offered, wherein it is like prayer, and, indeed, it is a " kind of prayer." It has efficacy only from the sacrifice of the cross; but the latter exists now no longer " in fact " but only " in the mind of God," and so can no longer produce effects " immediately." But if it is the sacrifice of the mass which now " effects " what the sacrifice of the cross founded or " earned," then there is a great difference between its "value" and that of the sacrifice of the cross. For " the value of the sacrifice of the mass is finite . . . . If its value were infinite, it would be vain to offer many masses." Bellarmine has no doubt about the fact, but " the reason is not so certain." He thinks it strange that the "value " of the sacrifice of the mass is " finite," and the reasons which he adduces therefor he offers only "with deference to better judgment."
After the Council of Trent followed the period of Neoscholasticism, in which speculation about the sacrifice of the mass was active, especially in Spain, and stated problems of which the older Scholasticism had not dreamed. The literature increased enormously. A well‑ordered survey of it
8. Neo‑ is given by Renz, who thinks its spirit
seholasti‑ and tendency were neither progressive cis=. nor beneficial. Discussion centered about the thought that there was a renewal of the suffering of Christ in the mass. The older Scholasticism had stood rigidly for merely a " memorial of the passion." The new conception maintained that Christ was actually present suffering and dying, at least " in some sort of manner." The way was prepared for the new idea by Hosius, the Dominican Melchior Cano (professor in Salamanca; d. 1560), and others. Cuesta, bishop of Leon and a member of the Council of Trent (d. 1562), and Gaspar do Casal, bishop of Coimbra (d. 1587), first made it a definite theory. Renz designates the doctrine of Cuesta as the "mactation" theory and that of Caaal as the " mortification " theory. The former speaks of a " true separation " of the blood from the body of Christ in the Eucharist. " The mass is a sacrifice for this reason, because Christ in a certain way dies and is sacrificed [macWur] by the priest." He is actually " slaughtered " after the manner of animal sacrifice " by virtue of the sacrament," so far as the consecration of the bread has to do " only " with his body and that of the wine " only " with his blood and thus separates one from the other. According to Casal, Christ is in the bread not in his " natural " form and being. He can exercise spiritual functions in the sacramental form, but not the " bodily" ones of seeing, hearing, etc. In entering the sacrament he destines his body " for consumption." Could he die again he would be killed through being consumed. It is a sort of " killing " that he now, when exalted, subjects himself in the sacrament to limitations of space, which are opposed to his real existence. Cuesta's theory was carried farther by the English Cardinal William Allen (q.v.), and the Jesuits Lessius (d. in Lou‑
vain 1623), Hurtado (a member of the Collegium Complutense in the 17th cent.), and Cornelius a Lapide (q.v.; d. in Rome 1637). The Dominicans adopted it, and among them Gonet (d. in Bordeaux 1681), Natalis Alexander (d. in Paris 1724), and Gotti (d. in Faenza 1742) were noteworthy advocates of it. On the other hand it found opponents, like Mattha'us Galenus (van der Galen), one of the early teachers in Douai, who declared both Cuesta's and Casal's theories absurdities. For him the chief point was that the bread and the wine are so changed in the consecration that they are better adapted to honor God and express our thanks in the offering. He voices a reaction of the idea of communion against that of sacrifice and represents a tendency which has never wholly died out. Bellarmine brought forward a modification of the mortification (Canal's) theory, which has been called the "destruction " theory. Its essential idea is that the communion of the priest is the real " completion" of the sacrifice. The Carmelites, especially the so‑called Salamancans (the authors of a Cursus theologucus in fourteen volumes published at long intervals at Salamanca, Lyons, and Madrid from 1631 on), advocated this theory, as did also, with some modifications, Malderus (van Malderen), bishop of Antwerp (d. 1633), and the Jesuit John of Lugo, professor in Valladolid and Rome (d. 1660). No form of destruction‑mortification theory, however, attained general acceptance, nor did the mactation theory fare better.
Neoscholasticism flourished at the end of the sixteenth century and in the first half of the seventeenth. Then the Jesuits sought to reconcile the conflicting ideas. Representative theologians of the time and tendency were Jacobus Platel, professor in Douai (d. 1681); Thomas Holzklau,
4. Later professor at Wiirzburg (d. 1783); and and Present Honor6 Tournely, professor at the
	Theories.	Sorbonne (d. 1729). St. Alfonso
		Liguori (d. 1781) held essentially with
Bellarmine. No one attempted an independent
theory in the eighteenth century except the Spanish
Jesuit, Cardinal Alvarez Cienfuegos (d. 1739), who
developed the mortification theory to its most ex
treme form. The nineteenth century witnessed a
revival of the older scholastic ideas, while at the
same time the later Scholasticism continued influ
ential. The Roman Church had its period of "en
lightenment" and a noteworthy tendency of it is
what Renz calls the " theory of the continuance
of the sacrificial act on the cross." The " school "
which advocates this theory was founded by Jakob
Frint, professor in Vienna, afterward bishop of St.
Polten (d. 1834). Its best‑known representative
was J. A. Mohler (d.1838), who expounds the theory
in his Symbolik, § 34 (Eng. transl., pp. 235‑249).
The Church may be regarded figuratively as the
ever living Christ, whose atoning and redemptive
work it repeats. Christ himself acts in all sacra
ments. " If then Christ, hidden behind an earthly
veil, develops further to the end of the world his
entire activity begun on earth, he necessarily pre
sents himself constantly to the Father as sacri
fice for men; and the abiding real representation
hereof can not fail in the Church, if the complete

1385	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
historic Christ is to celebrate in it his constant presence." The Church " substituted " the euoharistic Christ for the historic at his own command; " the former is now taken for the latter, because the latter is also the former." So " the eucharistic Savior " too " is to be regarded as the sacrifice for the sins of the world," and all the more because the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, rightly and exactly expressed, is only a part of an organic whole. It was only one form of his love. " And who will venture the assertion that the eucharistic humiliation of the Son of God is not also a part of the sum total of his merit which is imputed to us?" To the liturgical form of the sacrifice M6hler attached no importance. " Faith in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the foundation of the entire conception of the mass; without that presence the Lord's Supper is a mere memorial of the selfimmolating Christ . . . . With faith in the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, on the other hand, the past becomes the present." Christ is *present then as " what he actually is and in the full comprehension of his services‑in a word, as a real sacrifice." The theory of Frint and M61Iler has been accepted, more or less completely, by many eminent Roman Catholic theologians‑among others by Hirscher, Klee, Veith, Probst, D611inger, and especially Professor Thalhofer of Munich. On the other hand, the Jesuits J. Perrone (d. 1878) and J. B. Franzelin follow respectively Vasquez and John of Lugo. Gihr now inclines to the latter, although earlier he preferred Vasquez. The Redemptorist J. Herrmann advocates Bellarmine's theory. M. J. Scheeben, professor in Cologne (d. 1888), revived the Augustinian view of the body of Christ. Schwane, Schell, and Schanz attempt restatements of the M6hler‑Thalhofer theory. F. S. Renz, professor at Breslau, the most learned historian of the subject and the latest writer upon it, declares that " the presence of the res externs, which represents Christ's death, suffices for the mass, and there is no proper actio aacrificialis, because it is not an independent sacrifice, but a function pointing to an independent sacrifice." In the spirit.of the Fathers he aims, on the one hand, to simplify the doctrine of the mass, on the other hand, to render it more profound, and in summing up. results he ascribes to the thoughts of Augustine an abiding value and truth which he finds elsewhere only in the doctrinal decisions of the Council of Trent. (F. KATTENSuscm)
	II. The Liturgy.‑1. Development of the Roman
Mass to Gregory I.: The oldest notices of Christian
worship in Rome are found in the First Epistle of
Clement. It shows that the service followed the Old
Testament model in having a certain fixed order
		(xl., xli.), and that the Trisagion from
	1. The Isa. vi. 3, with introductory formula
First Three from Dan. vii. 10, was used in the
	Centuries. Eucharist in Rome at the end of the
		first century (xxxiv.). It may be in
ferred that a prayer like that known later as the
"preface prayer" preceded the act of communica
ting. The long prayer in chaps. lix.‑ha. is gener
ally assumed to have been the common " church
prayer" of Rome, and, in any case, gives a clear
conception of the manner of prayer in the Roman
" Word‑service " (the morning assembly to hear the Word in distinction from the Eucharist, which took place in the evening; see EUCHARIST, § 1). Both epistles of Clement give substantial hints of the preaching of the time (of. E. von Dobschfitz, Die urchristlichen Geemeinden, Leipsie, 1902, p. 147); there is a certain fixation and tendency to formalism, the spirit of order having taken the place of the earlier enthusiasm. Prayers and addresses are ascribed to definite officials. At what point in the service the long prayer was inserted is not known; very possibly it followed the homily. Scripture‑reading can not have been lacking. In general the Christian service was alike in the East and the West about 100, and that Rome did not differ from the East fifty years later may, perhaps, be shown by the fact that the Roman Bishop Anicetus allowed Polyoarp of Smyrna, who was in Rome in 155, to celebrate the Eucharist. The Shepherd of Hermas witnesses to an evening service about 150 (Simil. IX., xi. 7), and seems to know of another in which charismatic revelations were tolerated (cf. Von Dobschiltz, ut sup., 23 sqq., 235). It says nothing of the Eucharist. The most important step in the development of the Christian service into the mass had certainly been taken by 150; the Word‑service and the celebration of the Eucharist had been combined in Rome at any rate on Sundays (Justin, 1 APol., lxv.‑lxvii.; see EUCHARIST, § 1). According to Justin this combined service was opened with reading of the Gospels and the Prophets by the lector, lasting while the congregation was assembling. Then the proestas made an address, and the church prayer mentioned above followed, including a petition for the authorities, for enemies, and for all men (1 APol., xiv., xvii.; Trypho, cxcxiii., xcvi., xxxv.). The kiss of peace came next, and then bread, wine, and water were brought. The proestas offered a long, free prayer of praise and thanks. giving, which probably included the Trisagion and words of institution, the congregation responded " amen,'; and the deacon administered the sacra. ment. The next witness (the Canons of Hippolytus, provided they are genuine), two generations later, shows another step in the development of the mass in that the sermon has been omitted from the intro. ductory Word‑service in the combined service (xxxvii., xxvi.). The order of a eucharistic service in the time of Hippolytus may be reconstructed as follows: Scripture‑reading by the lectors " till the whole congregation is assembled"; the long church prayer by the bishop (xxxvii., cf. xix.), probably beginning with a general confession (ii.); the kiss of peace (xviii.) and the offertory, the givers being probably named. After the offerings have been blessed the preface begins, introduced by responsory formulas between bishop and congregation, The. succeeding prayer probably included the Trissagion and the words of institution, and the Epiklesis (q.v.) can not have been lacking. The presbyter or bishop administered the sacrament, the deacon only exceptionally. The congregation advanced to the " table of the body and blood of the Lord," and the formula of distribution was " this is the body, the blood, of Christ." The recipient answered "amen." The conclusion was doubtless a prayer of

mass	THE NEW SCHAFF‑IIERZOG	238
thanksgiving for the reception of the holy elements and a blessing of the people. Canon xix. mentions a noteworthy custom, old heathen in character, viz., that at the communion of the neophytes, after the bread and wine, they received a cup containing milk and honey mixed. Later sources and Justin (see above) speak also of a cup of water. The milk and honey disappear about 600. When the water went out of use is not known; the Canons of Hippolytus make no mention of it (for further details concerning the custom of the primitive Church, see EUCHARIST).
The first factor in the development of the mass in the centuries immediately following is the dominance of the Latin tongue in divine service. Opinions differ as to when the Latin displaced the Greek (cf. P. Kleinert, Zur Kultus‑ and Kulturgeschichte,
p. 30, Berlin, 1889; F. Probst, Abend2. The ldndische Messe vom 6. bis zum S. JahrFourth and hunderte, pp. 5‑6, Munster, 1896; J.
	Fifth	Watterieh, Konsekrationsmement, pp.
Centuries. 131‑132, 267 sqq., Heidelberg, 1896;
F. Kattenbusch, Symbol, ii. 131, Leipsic, 1897; G. Rietschel, Liturgik, i. pp. 337‑38, Berlin, 1900; Steinacker in Festschrift Theodor Gomperz dargebracht, pp. 324 sqq., Vienna, 1902). But the Greek certainly lasted into the fourth century, and no doubt there was a time when Greek and Latin services were held side by side in Rome and the two tongues were even employed in the same service. With the use of Latin came a shortening of the prayers corresponding to the more concise character of the Latin language. A second factor was the disappearance of the arcani discipline (q.v.), whereby the fusion of the two forms of service became complete, and a third was the influence of the bishops of Rome. It was they who gave the mass its form. Little is known of the details of their changes in the liturgy, but it is certain that they brought foreign usages to Rome and gave to the prayers of the service a local and incidental character under the influence of the church year. The adaptation of the mass to the church year‑‑‑& vital deviation from the Eastern liturgy‑must have been completed in Rome in the fourth century, although Probst (Liturgic des 4. Jahrhunderts, pp. 445 sqq., Munster, 1893) goes too far when he ascribes it to Pope Damasus I. (366‑384). A famous letter of Innocent I. to Bishop Decentius of Eugubium (Gubbio) shows that by 416 the kiss of peace had been transposed to the end of the canon, and that the present rubrics xxxiii.‑xxxvii. were lacking in the time of Innocent. The same letter also shows that the " names " were now read in Rome in the canon, contrary to the usage of Milan, Spain, Gaul, almost the entire East, and earlier Roman custom. The mass in Rome in the time of Innocent I. (beginning of 5th cent.) may be reconstructed as follows: I. Mass of the catechumens: (1) epistle (rubric viii.); (2) gradual and hallelujah (ix.); (3) gospel (x.); (4) sermon; (5) dismissal; (6) mediatory prayer. II. Mass of the faithful: (1) offertory (rubric xii.); (2) secret (offertory prayer, xvii.); (3) preface with sanctus (xviii.); (4) prayer introductory to the words of institution (xxii. and xxiii.); (5) words of institution (xxiv.); (6) anamnesis (xxv.); (7) epildesis
(in place of xxvi., xxvii., and xixa.); (8) prayer of
intercession with reading of the diptychs (xixb, xx.,
xxi., xxviii., xxix.); (9) kiss of peace; (10) commu
nion (xxxvii.); (11) Lord's prayer (xxxi.); (12)
postcommunion (xxxix.); (13) blessing; (14) dis
missal (Its, missa est, xxxix.). This mass, differing
materially from the present (cf. P. Drews, Zur
Entstehungsgeschichte des Kanons in der romischen
Messe, T(ibingen, 1902), is that of the Syrian liturgy
(latter part of the fourth century) as it can be recon
structed from Cyril of Jerusalem and Chrysostom
(cf. F. E. Brightman, Liturgies, Eastern. and Western,
i., Oxford, 1896, pp. 464 sqq., 470 sqq.), somewhat
shortened and slightly transposed. In the fifth
century greater changes were made. According to
the L‑tber pontif calls (ed. Duchesne, i. 230, 239, 263),
Celestine I. (422‑432) made the service begin with
psalm‑singing antiphonally by two choirs, Leo I.
(440‑61) added the closing words sanctum sacri
f cium, immaculatam hostiam to the prayer in the
canon supra qua; (rubric xxvi.), and Symmachus
(498‑514) ordered the daily use of the " Gloria in'
excelsis." It was certainly in this period that the
canon received essentially its present form, probably
from Gelasius I. (492‑496; cf. Drews, ut sup., 34 sqq.)
and perhaps after a Milanese model. After Gelasius
the formulas of dismissal were omitted, also the
mediatory prayer in the mass of the catechumens,
the epiklesis was dropped, and the great prayer of
intercession was shortened so that the present
rubrics xix.‑xxi., xxviii., and xxix. are but remnants.
Gregory I. (d. 604) undertook no very important
changes apart from his revision and restoration of
certain prayers and his reform of the music. The
order of the mass in his time was substantially as
follows: I. Introduction: (1) introit (rubric ii. in
the Sacramentarium Gregorianum, iv. of the present
mass); (2) kyrie (iii., v.); (3) gloria (iv., vi.); (4)
collect (v., viii.). II. Mass of the catechumens: (5)
epistle (vi., viii.); (6) psalm with hallelujah (vii., ix.);
(7) gospel (viii., x.); (8) exclusion of penitents
(Dialogus ii., 23); (9) offertory (ix.‑x., xii.); (10)
secret (xi., xvii.). III. Mass of the faithful: (11)
preface with sanctus (xi.=xii., xviii.); (12) canon
(xii.‑xxiii., xix.‑xxx.); (13) Lord's prayer (xxiv.,
xxxi.); (14) embolism (xxv: xxvi., xxxvi.); (15) kiss
of peace (xxxiv.); (16) communion (xxxviii.); (17)
posteommunion and Oratio super populum (xxxix.);
(18) Its, missa est (xaxix.).
The history of the Roman mass shows that the popes felt themselves in no way bound to the traditional liturgical forma and altered them with great freedom. The changes made in the mass in Rome during the first five or six centuries have no parallel in ancient church history unless it be in similar alterations of the ritual of baptism. The reasons for these changes, unfortunately, are not known.

	The oldest Roman sacramentaries and ordinaries are:
(1) The Sacramentarium Leonianum (so called because some
of its prayers are evidently modeled after sermons of Leo
1.), preserved in a single Veronese manuscript of the seventh
		century. It appears to be a private colleo
	S. The tion, made by a layman, not an official or
	Sources. semi‑official book. Feltoe (Sacr. Leon.,
		Cambridge, 1896, pp. xv.‑xvi.) thinks that
it is an original manuscript; Duehesne (Ordpinee. P. 132,
Paris, 1898) that it is a copy, the original dating between
538 and 590. It certainly contains very old prayers.

287	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	lass
(2) The so‑called Sacramentarium Gelaaianum, preserved in several manuscripts, of which the oldest, in the Vatican, belongs to the first half of the eighth century or perhaps to the seventh (of. A. Ebner, Mimale Romanum, Freiburg 1896, pp. 238, 374 sqq.). It contains Gregorian and postGregorian elements, hence can not, in its present form, derive from Pope Gelasius I. (d. 496). It was written in Gaul, but, apart from later and Frankish insertions, presents the prayers of the Roman mass of the sixth century. (3) The so‑called Sacramentarlum Gregorianum, extant in many widely variant manuscripts (cf. Ebner, ut sup., 380 eqq.), none of which is older than the ninth century; nevertheless the book contains much material which goes back to Gregory I. (4) Varidus ordines (i.e., complete and exact directions for the conduct of a religious service), of which the most important are: (a) the Ordo 1. published by Mabillon in his Museum ltalicum (Paris, 1689; reprinted MPL, lxxviii.). Grisar (ZKT, ix. 1885, pp. 389 sqq.) and Probst (Sakramentarien and Ordinea, pp. 386‑387, Mfinster, 1892) assign it to Gregory I.; Duchesne (ut sup., 139‑140) denies its pure Roman character and dates it in the ninth century. (b) The first of the ordines published by Duchesne (ut sup., 439 sqq.), of the ninth century, from the abbey of St. Amend, and partly Roman. (5) A collection of seventeen collects published by Merced in the seventh part of his Studi e.Testi (Antiche reliquie liturgiiche Ambrosiane a Romans, pp.35‑44, Rome, 1902). It is from Bobbio (now in Milan), the manuscript belongs to the sixth or seventh century, and the prayers were inserted one hundred years later. Thirteen of them are also found in other sacramentaries, four were previously unknown.
	2. Liturgies Outside of Rome: Besides the Ro
man liturgy, those of Africa, South Italy, Milan,
Gaul, Spain, and the Celtic‑Anglo‑Saxon are to be
considered. Space forbids here to describe each
in detail (cf. the Hauck‑Herzog RE, xii. 708‑712);
		but a comparison of them with one
	1. General another and with the liturgy of Rome
	Character establishes the following facts: (1) Be
	and Relay fore Rome began in the third or fourth
	tions. century to make important changes
		in the liturgy, all western Churches
had substantially one and the same structure of di
vine service, and, furthermore, it was the same as
the East had. (2) So far as is known, the African
Church was the only one to keep pace with the
Roman development, so that there came to be
two types: the Roman‑African and that of the
other Churches. (3) The latter type in all its
changes kept much closer to the original scheme
than did Rome. On comparing the two western
types with the eastern liturgy, it appears that
Rome in the fourth century adopted the Syrian
scheme, while the remainder of the West followed
the Byzantine development. The point at which
this becomes evident is the position of the diptychs.
Originally, and in the Byzantine liturgy as late as
the seventh century, these had their place in con
nection with the oblation and before the preface,
but the Syrian‑Palestinian liturgy put them after
the epiklesis as early as the fourth century (Bright
man, ut sup., pp. 528, 535‑536, 466, 474). Rome and
Africa adopted the latter position, while elsewhere
in the West the old and Byzantine custom was re
tained. These facts give, in broad outline, the de
velopment of the Western mass‑liturgy until about
the seventh century. Up to that time a strong in
fluence from the East is evident, which even Rome
was not able wholly to withstand. After that, how
ever, this influence ceases and Rome begins to im
pose its liturgy upon the West. The development
here set forth is not in accord with views which
have been held up to the present. Some, as Neale, distinguish between a Roman and a Gallic‑Spanish type, and regard the liturgy of Milan as a mixed form of these two. Ceriani and Magistretti think that the Roman and Milanese forms belong together. Duchesne accepts the division given in the preceding paragraph, but holds that the eastern liturgy first found entrance in the fourth century through the influence of Bishop Auxentius of Milan (355‑374), a Cappadocian, and that from Milan especially under the authority of Ambrose, it spread over Gaul, Spain, and Britain. English liturgists have asserted that the Gallican liturgy was that of Ephesus, brought to Gaul by the founders of the church of Lyons, whence it spread over the entire transalpine West. All these hypotheses are reconciled if it be admitted that originally everywhere in the West and in the East there was one and the same liturgy, which suffered change more rapidly and radically in Rome than elsewhere.
	For Africa the important witnesses are Tertullian (Apol.,
xxll., xxx., xxxi., xxxii., xxxix.; De corona, iii.; De exhar
tatione castitatis, xi.; De fupa in persecutions, ii.; De jejunio,
xv.; De monogamia, x., xii.; De prmecriptione hteretieorum,
		xxxvi., xli.; Ad Scapulam, iv.; De orations,
	2. The iii., xi., . xviii., xxix.; Ad uxorem, ii. 9),
	Sources. Cyprian (Epiat., xii. 2, xxxiv. 1; Ad De
		medium, xx.; De oratione domini, viii., xxxi.),
and‑150 years later‑Augustine (Confesaiones, ix. 13; Ser
monee, clix., clxxii., eexxvii.; cf. G. Rietschel, Liturpik, i.
299‑300, Berlin, 1900). The early mass of Milan may be
reconstructed from notices in Ambrose (for the passages
collected, cf. J. Pamelius, Liturgica Latinorum, i. 266 sqq.,
Cologne, 1571), supplemented by the works mentioned be
low in the bibliography. The value of the De eacramentie,
ascribed to Ambrose, is impaired by grave doubts as to its
genuineness. Probst (Liturpie, pp. 232 sqq., Monster, 1893)
and Morin (Revue b6n6dietine, xi. 344 aqq., 1894) think it is
a secondary writing based on Ambrose, Rietschel (ut sup.,
p. 305, note 5) that it is Roman, Ceriani (Notitia, pp. 62‑63,
65, Milan, 1897) and Magistretti (Liturgic, p. 85, Milan,
1899) that it is Gallican, Duchesne (Oripinm, p. 169, Paris,
1898) that it was composed in a North Italian city, per
haps Ravenna, about 400. For Gaul, besides scanty notices
in Irenaua (Hdr., iv. 2, 18) and a little fuller information in
Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367; Ad Conatantium, i. 2; Fragmenta,
viii.; Contra Conatantium, xxvii.; De trinitate, iii. 7) and
Sulpicius Severus (d. 410 or 420; Vita S. Martini, ix.;
CAron., ii. 39), the chief sources are: (1) Eleven masses
published by Mons (see bibliography); the manuscript is
probably of the seventh century, but the masses are older;
Roman influence is not evident. (2) Two letters doubt.
fully ascribed to Germanus of Paris (d. 576; in MPL, lxxii.
89 sqq.); the first, which is purely Gallican and belongs to
the sixth century, permits reconstruction of the mass in its
essential features (cf. the Hauck‑Herzog RE, xii. 709‑710).
(3) The so‑called Missale Gothicum, probably from Autun;
the manuscript is of the late seventh, or early eighth cen
tury; apart from inserted Roman prayers, the structure of
the mass is Gallican and the book gives the liturgy of the
sixth or seventh century. (4) The so‑called Mimale Gal
licanum roetua, of the seventh or early eighth century, be
longing perhaps to the diocese of Besangon; it is probably
a composite of two different mass‑books (cf. Delisle in Me
moires de 1'Inatituti de France, 1886, i. 73 sqq.; F. Katten
busch, Apoatoliaches Symbol, ii. 774, 776, note 28, Leipsic,
1900); Roman influences are very strong. (5) The so
called Sacramentarium Gallicanum (Mimale Veaontienae or
Bobbiense), of the seventh century; it has been assigned to
Bobbio and Luxeuil, probably belongs to Gaul, and Roman
influence is strong. (6) The Lectionary of Luxeuil (MPL,
Ixxii. 171 sqq.), purely Gallican, and containing the lemons
for the entire year; it is doubtful if it was used in Luxeuil.
(7) The so‑called Miasale Fmncorum, of the early eighth
century or end of the seventh; Roman influence is so strong
that Duchesne (ut sup., 128) and Ebner (Mieaale Romanum,
p. 364, Freiburg, 1896) class it among Roman mass‑books,
but it originated and was used in the Frankish realm. (8j

	a	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	gas
The Saoraanentary of the abbey of St. Remigiue at Reims, written 798‑800; the original was burned in 1774, but an incomplete copy is in the Bibliothbque Nationale in Paris (published by Chevalier in the seventh part of the Biblio&bqw liturpiqus, pp. 305‑357, Paris, 1900); it is essentially Roman. The earliest sources for the liturgy in Spain are the sets of certain councils (Gerundia, 517, canon i., of. H. T. Bruns, Canon" apostolomm et conciliorum, ii. 18, Berlin, 1839; Valencia, 524, i., in Bruns, ii. 24, of. the First Toledo, 398, ii., iv., in Bruns, i. 204; Braga, 583, in Bruns, ii. 33; Third Toledo, 589, ii., in Bruns, i. 213; Fourth Toledo, 833, x., xii., xiv., in Bruns, i. 22S‑228, 227, 228), Mdore of Seville (d. 836; De qfdis.oocleeiandcis, i. 8, 13‑18, ii. 5, 7‑on the genuineness of the chapter De awluthis, of. T. Kliefoth, Liturpiede Abhandlunpen, ii. 289, Schwerin, 1859;‑‑Etyreolopica, VT., xix. 4; Epist., i. ad Leudefridum, ii. ad Redemptum), and the so‑called Misaale mixtum, Goticum, or Mosarabicum. The liturgy published at the instance of Cardinal Ximenee in 1500 (see MOZARABIC L]LT• uaoy) contains, it is true, much that is Roman and Gallican, but the original Spanish basis can be separated with some certainty; there are unpublished old Spanish masses still extant in manuscript (cf. Riotechel, ut sup., i. 320). For the sources of the Celtic‑Anglo‑Saxon and Neapolitan liturgies, see the bibliography below; they are scanty and the Roman coloring is so strong that the original forms can not be recovered.
	8. The Supplantiaa of the non‑Roman Lituraiee
by the Roman; Two factors worked together to
bring about general conformity to the Roman rit
ual‑the repute and .might of Rome in all things
ecclesiastical, and, even more strongly, the desire
		to make an end of the infinite variety
	1. Africa, in cultic forms. The popes did not
	Spain, set themselves strenuously to impose
	Milan, Roman usages on other districts, least
	and Great of all Gregory I.; and the impulse to
		introduce the cult and order of Rome
		came from the extra‑Roman lands
themselves. The process doubtless began spon
taneously and proceeded at first unnoticed. Africa
as a matter of course went with Rome. Elsewhere
the first definite fact in the history appears in 538,
when Bishop Profuturus of Braga, metropolitan of
the kingdom of the Suevi, asked Pope Silverius for
advice concerning liturgical questions. Vigilius,
successor of Silverius, sent the baptismal liturgy,
the canon of the mass, and the Easter prayers to
show how things were done in Rome. At a coun
cil in Braga in 563 this papal letter was read and
it was ordered to conduct the mass after the Ro
man model (cf. H. T. Bruns, Carwnm apoatolorum
et conciliorum, ii. 34, Berlin, 1839). But the West
Goths established their church in the Spanish pen
insula and jealously guarded its independence
against Rome, and synods and other assemblies
still tried to effect uniformity, in worship (e.g., the
Fourth Synod of Toledo, 633, canon ii.; Eleventh
Provincial Synod of Toledo, 675, iii.; cf. Bruns,
ut sup., i. 221, 309). The canon of the Misaale
mixxtum (see above, 2, § 2) shows that Rome did
not remain wholly without influence, and the
Frankish‑Germanic Church also made itself felt.
Alexander II. introduced the Roman ritual into
Aragon (1068), and Gregory VII. induced a synod
at Burgos in 1085 to declare the Roman liturgy
valid for all Spain. Only Toledo, the former center
of the West Gothic Church, retained the old Span
ish liturgy till 1285, and Cardinal Ximenes obtained
for six churches of Toledo (to which a chapel in
Salamanca was afterward added) papal permis
sion to use the old native liturgy, though with many
Roman modifications (see MOZARABIC LITITRGY); the permission is still valid. Milan probably admitted Roman influence early and all known Milanese liturgies have only the Roman canon. It still had its own (though much romanized) mass as late as the ninth century, which passed for Ambrosian (Walafrid Strabo in MPL, caiv. 944, cslvii. 583), and it still retains certain peculiarities. The Roman liturgy was doubtless carried to England by Augustine; but the Iro‑Seottish missionaries who converted the greater number of the Anglo‑Saxons (see ANGLO‑SAXONS, CONVERSION of THE) naturally brought with them their own ritual. Theodore of Tarsus (q.v.), a Greek, appointed archbishop of Canterbury in 668 and the real founder of the English Church, was not strenuous for Roman forms; but others about him were differently minded, and the Council of Clovesho in 747 prescribed the Roman ritual for all England (Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, iii. 367). Nevertheless mass‑books up to the Norman Conquest (the Leofrio Missal, Missal of Robert of Junlibgea, Missal of St. Augustine's Abbey of Canterbury, ed. M. L. Rule, Cambridge, 1896) show many non‑Roman features, and usage was not uniform. The like is true for Ireland. Adamnan (q.v.) induced the Synod of Tam in 692 to decree that the native usages should be given up, but not until the twelfth century were Roman forms energetically introduced by Malachy of Armagh (see MALACRY O'MORGAIR, SAINT) and Gilbert of Limerick, and, finally, by the Synod of Cashel in 1172. In Scotland the break with the old liturgy was made in the eleventh century (see CELTIC CRffHCH IN BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
It is probable that Roman mass‑books were brought to Gaul in the time of Csesarius of Arles (q.v.) and through him (cf. F. J. Mons, Lateinische urtd Griechiache Messen, pp. 112 sqq., Frankfort, 1850; BS,umer in Hiatoriachea Jahrbuch, xiv.
1893, p. 205); but the result at first 2. France was merely the substitution of certain and prayers for those formerly in use. The
Gerniany• structure of the mass was not altered
thereby, although the new prayers often did not fit the places in which they were inserted and thus prepared the way for more fundamental changes, which first become evident about the middle of the seventh century. In the time of Gregory I. (d. 604) there was a very manifest difference between the Gallican and the Roman masses (Epist., lvi.a, in MGH, Epiat., ii. 1895, p. 331) and Gregory does not appear as a zealous partizan of the latter. During the sixth century the Roman sacramentary made its way to Gaul and was often copied, and its influence comes to light in the Gallican missals and sacramentaries of the seventh or eighth century‑an influence which reached much farther in some places than in others (cf. the Sacramentarfum Gelaaianum, which presents certain Gallican peculiarities with the Roman structure, and the Sacramentarium Gallicanum, in which the preface and the mass of the catechumens are essentially Gallican in structure, with some prayers wholly Roman, and the mass of the faithful entirely Roman).' The monasteries were probably the chief promoters of changes. In the seventh century they

239	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Mass
were steadily adopting the Benedictine rule, which had a minute ordering of the hours after Roman models. Thereby the interest of the monks was directed to the Roman mass‑liturgy, and the mixed services may have been held first in the monastery chapels. Boniface (q.v.) stood strongly for the Roman liturgy without being able to carry his reforms through in details. What Pepin did for the Roman ritual in his realm (apart from the introduction of the music) is uncertain, but Charlemagne held the Roman forms in the highest esteem and accounted it a sacred duty to introduce them and thereby to make an end of the prevailing confusion in the liturgy. At his request Pope Adrian I. sent him between 784 and 791 a copy of the sacramentary then in use in Rome; but it proved disappointing because of the many departures from the pre‑Gregorian form. A compromise was attempted by providing a new mass‑book with select prayers and other liturgical forms taken mostly from the pre‑Gregorian mass‑book (manuscripts of this sort enumerated in A. Ebner, Missale Romanum, pp. 383‑384, Freiburg, 1896). The selection was probably made by Alcuin, and Amalarius of Metz advocated the Roman liturgy (cf. his De ecclesiasticis ofciis, MPL, cv. 986 aqq.). In time the Roman canon attained general acceptance; but the entire Roman ritual did not become established in either France or Germany during the Middle Ages, nor was a general uniformity reached. During the entire period the mass‑liturgy in Frankish‑German territory was constantly changing, and, whatever the theory may have been, the practise was far removed from a slavish following of Rome. There was a vigorous liturgical life north of the Alps, having its center in the monasteries, which even reacted on the later Roman development.
	4. The Development of the Roman mass after
Gregory I.: The mass of Rome in the time of In
nocent III. (d. 1216) is known from that pope's
writing De sacro altaris mysterio (MPL, ccxvii. 773
sqq.). No great changes have taken place in the
		six hundred years since Gregory I.;
1. Certain certain additions have been made,
Additions. some of them brought in from outside and some devised in Rome. The most noteworthy are a rather elaborate preparation of the priest in the sacristy, the insertion of the credo after the Gospel in what was formerly the mass of the catechumens, and ceremonial amplificationswashing of hands, burning of incense, etc.‑to fill the gap left by the transposition of the kiss of peace and the commemoration into the canon. The most striking characteristic is the endeavor to treat the holy elements as something superearthly. That the doctrine of the sacrificial character of the mass influenced the development can not be asserted; but the tendency to restrict the active participation of the congregation is much stronger than it is north of the Alps. After Innocent the preparation was simplified, and the old offertory prayers in shorter form and the epiklesis were restored after the offertory‑a conformity to German usage. A superstitious practise, the reading of the prologue to John's Gospel, found entrance. This prologue was much used as an amulet during the Middle
Ages, and a synod at Seligenstadt in 1022 condemned the reading of it in the mass. Nevertheless the custom spread and Pope Pius V. in 1570 officially sanctioned it in the conclusion after the last salutation. It thus appears that the development after the year 600 brought far fewer and much less important changes than did the first five centuries. Moreover, the changes for the most part were a concession on the part of Rome to extraRoman usage. That the result is an artistic unity, a well‑ordered liturgical structure, can hardly be asserted.
The present Roman missal dates from 1634, all earlier efforts to secure uniformity in the mass of the Church having proved fruitless. The Council of Trent in its session of Dec. 4, 1563, left the issuing of a common mass‑book to the pope, a commis‑
sion entrusted with the task not 2. The having completed its work. In con‑
Roman sequence the missal of Pius V. appeared
missal‑ on July 14, 1570, with the decree that
it alone should be used wherever the Roman rite was followed and there was no local mass‑book 200 years old. But differences crept in, and in 1604 Clement VIII. issued a new book thoroughly revised by a commission. Urban VIII. did j the like, and the final revision appeared Sept. 2, 1634. This pope made the present division of the entire mass into forty‑one rubrics, the first eighteen being counted to the ordinary and the last twentythree to the canon. The Congregation of Rites, established by Sixtus V. in 1587, safeguards the purity of the ritual (see CURIA). The missal falls into three main divisions: (1) The " Proper of Masses of the Season " (Proprium missarum de tempore) contains (a) the services for each day from the First Sunday in Advent to Holy Saturday; (b) the "Ordinary of the Mass" (Ordo misace); (c) the prefaces for the entire year; (d) the " Canon of the Mass" (Canon missca); and (e) the services from Easter to the end of the church year. (2) The " Proper of Masses of the Saints " (Proprium misscarum de sanctis) gives the services for saints' days and for festivals of mysteries and important events (such as the Transfiguration, the Invention and Elevation of the Cross, etc.), arranged according to months of the civil year. (3) The " Common of Saints " (Commune sanctorum) contains the masses for those saints' days which have no mass of their own; it is divided into masses of the apostles, martyrs, confessors, virgins, and women. A sort of supplement gives the mass for church consecrations and their anniversaries, the votive masses in honor of mysteries and for various occasions, the orationes diverace, i.e., prayers for different occasions, and finally the masses for the dead.
[The modern missal begins with a table of movable feasts and the calendar. Then follow the " General Rubrics of the Mass," the " Rite to be Followed in the Celebration of the Mass," and " Defects which may Occur in the Celebration of the Mass," explaining the various kinds of masses, the component parts, the hours of celebration, the kind and color of vestments, the conduct of the priest, and the like. The " Preparation for the Mass," a brief devotional manual, and a collection of prayers and

NEDAM	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	240
thanksgiving, to be used as occasion offers, come next. Then follow the " Proper of the Season," the " Proper of Saints," the " Common of Saints," etc., as above. An appendix adds " Masses for Certain Places in the United States of America.]
8. The Withholding of the Cup: The Council of Constance in its thirteenth session (June 15, 1415) declared it the law of the Church that the laity should partake of but one element in the communion. The Council of Trent in its twenty‑first session (chap. iii., canons i.‑iii.) approved the earlier decree. The practise was no innovation and the action at Constance merely gave official sanction to a custom of long standing, which had its roots in the earliest times. The belief that the bread was the more important of the two elements may appear even in the New Testament, where bread is mentioned more frequently than the cup (cf. Luke xxiv. 30). It is more clearly evident in the ancient custom of celebrating the Supper with bread and water instead of wine (Chrysostom, Hom. in Matt., lxxxiii. 4; Hom. in Gen., xxix. 3). To this was added the horror which believers felt if a crumb of the consecrated bread or a drop of the blessed wine fell on the floor (Tertullian, De corona, iii.; Canones Hippolyti, ccix.; Origen, Hom. in Exod., xiii. 3; Trullan Council of 692, canon ci.; Caesarius of Arles, MPL, xxxix. 2319). Consequently very early the Supper was celebrated with bread alone (Acts Joannis, ed. T. Zahn, p. 244, Erlangen, 1880). Pope Gelasius I. (492‑496) declared against the practise in Calabria (MPL, lix. 141). When it became customary for the communicant to receive the host, not in his own hand, but in open mouth from the hand of the priest, he was freed from all responsibility so far as the one element was concerned. It was natural to seek for a like immunity in case of the other. A means to the end desired was found by dipping the host in the wine and using a spoon (intinction). The custom originated in the East, where it is still followed (see EASTERN CHURCH, III., 1 5); the earliest evidence of it in the West belongs to the seventh century. That it originated from the laity is probable, and it is certain that the clergy did not always approve of it (synods at Braga, 675, canon i.; Clermont, 1095, xxviii.; London, 1175, xvi.). Paschal II. calls it a " human and newfangled institution " (Epist. ccelv., MPL, ebuii. 442). It spread rapidly in England. Another means to the same end was the use of tubes (fistulce, canna, etc.; see FISTULA) which appear from the ninth century. It was not a very far step for the people to renounce the wine altogether, which happened first in the twelfth century and, so far as is known, in England. It is thus a misuse of terms to speak of " withholding " or " wiyhdrawing" the cup; there was a voluntary renunciation, though scarcity of wine in some places may have helped to establish the practise. Later the priests interpreted their partaking of both elements as a prerogative and privilege of their order, though the scholastic theology developed the doctrine that Christ is received whole and entire in each of the elements.
6. 8iads of 1Dlasses. The Roman Church classifies masses according to two systems, depending
on the time of celebration and the degree of solem
nity. From the first point of view masses are
either (1) masses of the season (de tempore), i.e.,
masses on Sundays and festivals; (2) masses on
saints' days (missm de sdndis); (3) votive masses
(missw votivce, i.e., said by choice‑‑votum‑of the
priest); or (4) masses for the dead (missm pro de
functis) or requiem masses. The votive masses
subdivide into (a) those connected with a special
exigency or wish concerning the entire Church,
single dioceses or congregations (e.g., in times of
war and pestilence, in droughts, at church conse
crations, for the king, for the sick, at coronations,
conclaves, etc.), or individuals (at weddings, birth
days, anniversaries, etc.); and (b) those in honor
of certain mysteries (the Trinity, the Holy Spirit,
angels, etc.). The proper character of a mass ap
pears in the collects, the antiphons, the lessons, the
secrets, etc. This feature is old; the Sacramen
tarium Leonianum contains the most varied kind
of collects, secrets, and prefaces and postcommu
nions. From the second point of view masses are
either (1) public or solemn (missm publicca vel
eolemnes; high masses) or (2) private (missm prir
vato:). A public or solemn mass is characterized
by a larger number (frequentia) of ministrants;
that is, deacon, subdeacon, and certain subordinate
attendants are present. Incense is burned, the
number of altar‑lights is greater than on other oc
casions, and the mass is sung. Such masses are
held in parish churches on Sundays and festivals,
in collegiate and cathedral churches daily. But
since in smaller churches the necessary number of
clergy is lacking, a substitute for the missa solemnis
is provided in the missa cantata [or media, which is
sung without deacon or subdeacon and the cere
monies proper to high mass]; it is, however, often
designated as high mass. A congregation must
attend either a missa solemnis or cantata, as both
are " public." The private mass, on the contrary,
may be held without the congregation and there
fore dispenses with the singing and larger number
of ministrants. Only the celebrant and one minis
trant are required and the latter in certain cases
may be a layman. Since the mass is read it is also
called missa lecta. Evidently any particular mass
may belong to both of the main classifications. A
missa de tempore may also be solemnis publica or
cantata publioa; a missa votiva may be private;
and a requiem mass may be either solemn or pri
vate. 	(P. DREws.)
Other names which are given to masses are: pontifical, designating a solemn mass celebrated by a bishop with his insignia; papal, celebrated by the pope on certain great feasts with special rites; low, a mass without music the priest saying and not singing the mass; eapitular, the high mass on Sundays or festivals in collegiate churches; conventual or canonical, the daily mass of cathedral and collegiate churches celebrated solemnly and with music after tierce in memory of the founders. A missa advenxitia or manualis (a " chance " mass, one which " comes to hand ") is a mass said for the intention of a person who gives an alms, opposed to a missa legata, said for a special intention in oonsequenoe of a legacy or foundation. The so‑called

241	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
mass of the presanetified is an office with a communion,. but is not a mass in the strict sense of the word, the elements used having been eonsecrated at a previous occasion (whence the name, miasa prcesanctificatomm [elemeytorum]). It is said in the Greek Church throughout Lent, except Saturdays, Sundays, and the Feast of the Annunciation, and in the Roman Church on Good Friday (see HOLY WEE%). What was known as a dry mass (missa aicca), without consecration or communion, was common in the Middle Ages in pre&enee of the sick, at sea, and on other occasions when a real mass could not be said.
7. Xodern Prooeduxe in the Mass: The high mass on Sundays is usually preceded by a rite called the Aspergm; the celebrant goes down the middle aisle, or at least to the sanctuary gates, sprinkling the people with holy water while the choir sings the anthem A&Perges me hyssopo (Ps. li. 7). The celebrant then changes his cope for the sacrificial vestment, the chasuble (see VESTMENTS AND INsiaNle, EceLEsusTicAL), and recites the introductory prayers of the mass proper while the choir sings the ninefold Kyrie eleiaon, followed (except in Advent and Lent and at requiem masses) by the Gloria in excelsia. Next come the collect, epistle, and gospel, changing with each day; the epistle is sung by the subdeacon at the south end of the altar, as being addressed originally to the faithful, while the deacon sings the gospel, originally proclaimed to an unbelieving world, toward the north, synm bolically the quarter of darkness. Lights are carried at the gospel to typify Christ, the light of the world; and the priest kisses the book at the end in token of reverence for the words of the master. The sermon usually comes next, being in most instances an exposition of the gospel for the day. The Nicene creed is then sung, all kneeling at the words " And was incarnate . . . and was made man," in honor of the incarnation. The following section is called the offertory; the priest solemnly offers on the altar first the bread to be consecrated, then the wine mixed with a little water as representing the twofold nature of Christ. Next comes the preface, varying with the feast or mystery commemorated, and leading up to the Sanctus. By the time the choir has finished this, the celebrant has already begun the most solemn part of the mass, which he recites in a low, almost inaudible voice‑a relic of the days of persecution when the moat sacred mysteries had to be kept secret from the heathen world. The bell, which has already been rung three times at the Sanctus, is rung once at the beginning of this part (called the canon or prayer of consecration) and three times at the consecration of each of the elements. After the canon the priest sings the Lord's Prayer to a very ancient melody, the final clause coming in as a response by the choir and congregation. The next noticeable ceremony is the " kiss of peace " which in modern usage is reduced to the celebrant's placing his hands on the deacon's shoulders and inclining the head slightly toward him; this ceremonial embrace of Christian brotherhood is then conveyed by the deacon to the subdeacon and by him to any other clergy who happen to be present. Presently follows the conVIl.‑18
summation of the sacrifice in the priest's communion, preceded by a prayer of humility at which the bell is again rung. As a rule the priest communicates alone at a high mass, the time for general communion, owing to the strict requirement of fasting, being early in the morning. After the ablutions, or cleansing of the sacred vessels, the postcommunion prayers are said, and the priest gives the blessing (omitted in masses for the dead). Then, at the north end of the altar, he recites the second gospel, usually John i. 14, while the choir sings a prayer for the state (in monarchical countries for the sovereign) or for the pope. Incense is used at the introit or beginning of the mass, at the gospel, at the Sanctus, and at the consecration. The color of the vestments differs with the day or season. White is used on feasts of Christ, the Virgin Mary and other virgins not martyrs, and confessors; red in Whitsuntide and on feasts of martyrs, typifying the fire of the Holy Spirit or the blood of the martyrs; violet in Advent and Lent; black on Good Friday and at masses for the dead; and on ordinary days green, the color of nature or of hope.
BIBwOGSA.PH7: On I.: F. S. Rens, Die Gesskichie des How opfer‑Bepri$e, 2 vole., Freising, 1901‑02; Bingham. Oripines, XIII., i. 4‑8, XV., iv. 4; J. J. I. von Dbllinger, Die Ruokariatie in den ereten drei Jahrhunderten, Mains, 1826; J. W. F. s6sing, Die Lehre der altceen Kir,he nom Opfer im Lebsn and Cultus der Christen, Erlangen, 1851; J. N. Diepolder, Daa Wesen des eachariatiachsn Opfers and der . . . Theolopen der drei letzten Jahrhundertan, Augsburg, 1877; J. M. Ragon, La Messe, Paris, 1882; C. Rohault de Fleury. La Mete; Rudeo archbolopiqua our see monuments, 8 vole., ib. 1883‑89; J. Sehwane, Die eudw ristische Opferhandlunp. Freiburg, 1889; F. Kattenbuscb, Verpleirhende Confessionskunds, i. 414 sqq, Freiburg, 1892; D. Rock, Hierurpia; or the Holy Sacroea of the Mass, 2 vole., London, 1892; J. M. A. Vacant. Hilt. do la conception du sacrifice de la mass dans l'Iplise tatine, Paris, 1894: O. J. Reiehel, Solemn Mass at Rome in the Ninth Century, London, 1895; N. Gihr, Die heiligen Sakramente der katholischen,Kirche, 2 vole., Freiburg, 1897; idem, Das heiiipe Mesoopfer, dopmatiaek liturpiecd and askstiacA erkldrt, 8th ed., lb. 1907, Bag. trans]. of sixth ed., The Holy $acroos of the Mass, dogmatically, liter, picaUy and asati‑liy explained, St. Luie, 1908; C. H. H. Wright, The Service of the Maw in the Greek and Roman Churches, London, 1898; A. Franc, Die Meese in dsutschen Mittelalter, Freiburg, 1902; W. GStsmann, Das suchariahedhe Opfer naeh der Lehre der allffen SrlholastiiE, Freiburg, 1902; A. Baumetark, Die Mom in Morpenland, Kempten, 1908; A. Devine, The Ordinary of the Mass, hietarieauy, liturgically and ezesatieagy esptained, New York, 1907; The Roman Breviary. A Trangationby John Marpuese qj Bute, Edinburgh, 1908. Incidental topics are discoed in J. H. Matthews, The Mass and its Folklore, London, 1903; J. Hunkey, Troo Leading Doctrine of the Catholic Church; Analysis of the Mass, Atchison, 1904; S. D. Headlam, The Meaning of the Mass, London, 1905. On the name consult: Rottmanner, in TQ, 1889, pp. 531 eqq.; Kellner, in TQ, 1901, pp. 427 aqq.
II. On the liturgical side an immense literature is opened up in the three sections of the British Museum Catalogue devoted tar Liturgies. Information upon the manuscripts and the earliest printed editions is found is J. Weals, Bibliopnaphia liturpica. Catalogues missalium rites Latiini, London, 1888; and in A. Ebner, Quellen and Foreehunpen sur Geschiahte and Kunstpeschichts des Mis. sale Romanom im MittelaUer. Freiburg, 1896 The most important collections are: J. Pamelius, Liturgies Latin, 2 parts, Cologne, 1571, reissued under the title Rituals pabum Latinorum live liturpioon Latinum, ib. 1675; L. Muratori, Liturpia Romans vetue, 2 vols., Venice, 1748, Naples, 1776; J. Mabillon, Museum ltaliown, Paris 1687‑89. 2d ed., 1724; E. Marthne, De antiquis sodaio ritibua, 3 vole., Rouen, 1700‑02 and often; Cabrol and Lealervq, Monuments eocleeia liturpiea, vel. i., part 1.

Xaes
Xateer	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	242
Paris, 1902. Special editions of the different sacramentaries are: of the Sacramentartum Leonianum, by C. L. Feltoe, Cambridge, 1896; of the Sacramentarium Golaaianum, by H. A. Wilson, Oxford, 1894; the Saeramentarium Gregorianum is in MPL lxxvw. 25 sqq. For Callican liturgies consult: J. M. Thomasius (G. M. Tomasi), Codices sacrament. nongentia annia vetuatiorea, Rome, 1880 (first to contain the Miasale Gothicum, Prancorum, and Gallicanum vetua); F. J. Mone, Lateiniache and grin rhiarhe Afeasen aus dem g.6. Jahrhundert, Frankfort, 1850; J. M. Neale, and G. H. Forbes, The Ancient Liturgies of the Gallican Church now first Collected, Buratisland, 1855 (contains the Missals Gothicum and Galliaanum and the Sacramentardum Gallicanum, also the Miaaale Riahenoroenae); U. Chevalier, Sacramentaire et martyrolope de 1'abbaye de S. Remy, Paris, 1900. Spanish liturgies: the Miaaale mi:ctum (Moearabicum), ed. P. Hagenbach, first appeared Toledo, 1500, new ed. by Azevedo, Rome, 1755, MPL, Ixxxv., latest ed., Toledo 1875. The Milan liturgy was printed Milan, 1499; other editions are: J. Pamelius, Liturgica Latina, i. 293‑308, Cologne, 1571, reproduced in F. Probst, Abendlandiache Mesas, pp. 14 aqq., Mfinster, 1896; ed. of C. Borromeo, Milan, 1560, and often; cf. E. Martbne, De antiquia eccleai® ritibue, i. 173‑176, Bassano, 1787; M. Gerbert, Monumenta vetera liturgica Alemannia!, vol. i., St. Blas, 1777; Berold, Ecclesias Ambroeiana Afediolanenaia kalendarium, ed. M. Magistretti, Milan, 1894; A. Ceriani, Notitia: literaria Ambroeianar ante aeeulum xi. medium, pp. 2 sqq., Milan, 1895; M. Magistretti, Pontificate in uaum eccleaiat Mediolani, ib. 1897. The Neapolitan and Capuan lectionary was edited by Morin in his Anecdotes Maredaolana, i (1893), 426435, 436 144. On the Celtic and Anglo‑Saxon Liturgy cansult: F. E. Warren, The Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church, Oxford, 1881; on the Stowe Missal, MacCarthy, in Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, xxvii. 7 (1886); M. L. Rule, The Missal of St. Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury, 1896.
For the medieval explanations of the liturgy, important historically, MPL is the great source. Individual expositions are found as follows: Isidor of Seville, MPL, lxxxiii. 738 aqq.; Rabanus Maurus, ib, cvii. 321 eqq.; Walafrid Strabo, ib., exiv. 919 sqq.; Amalarius of Metes, ib., ev. 986; Berno of Reichenau, ib., exlii. 1055 aqq.; Pseudo‑Alcuin, ib., ci. 1173 aqq.; Micrologus, ib., cli. 974 sqq. (for a detailed description of the celebration of the mass north of the Alps in the 11th century drawn from the Micrologua, cf. Hauck‑Herzog, RE, xii. 717‑718); Hildebert of Tours, ib., clxxi. 1158; Rupert of Deuts, ib., clxx. 13 aqq.; Honorius of Autun, ib., clxxii. 543 aqq., 737 aqq.; Innocent III., ib., ecxvii. 763 sqq. A collection of expositions was made by M. Hittorpius, De divinia eatholied eccleaiaa ofeiis et myateriia, Cologne, 1568, ed. G. Ferrarius,, Rome, 1591, 3d ed., Paris, 1610.
Noteworthy investigations are: T. Kliefoth, Liturgiache Abhandlungen, vols. ii., iii., v., vi., Schwerin, 1859; H. A. KSatlin, Geachichte des chriatlichen Gotieadienatea, pp. 91 eqq., Freiburg, 1887; F. Probst, Liturgic des 4. Jahrhundert8 and deren Reform, Miinater, 1893; M. Magistretti, La Liturgia delta chiesa Milanese net aecolo iv., Milan, 1899; L. Ducheene, Oragenea du cults chrWen, Paris, 1902. The literature on the subject treated in II., 5, is collected in J. Smend, Kelchveraagung and Kelchayendung in der abendlandiachen Kirche, GSttingen, 1898; of. Funk, in Kirchenpeachichtlichen Abhandlungen and Untersuchungen, i (1897), 293‑308, and Zeitachrift f41r praktiache Theologie, xxi (1899), 82 sqq. Much of the material cited under Lrroaorcs will be found pertinent and.helpful.
MASSALIANS. See MESSAIAANs.
MASSILIANS. See SEMI‑PEL&GIANISM.
MASSILLON, mds"si"lyon', JEAN BAPTISTE: French prelate and famous preacher; b. at Hy&es (12 m. e. of Toulon) June 24, 1663; d. at Clermont Sept. 18, 1742. He was the son of a notary. In 1681 he entered the Congregation of the Oratory. At first he believed himself fitted rather for the life of a student and teacher than for the pulpit, and taught for some time at P6zenas and then in 1689 at Montbrison. But his superiors divined his tal‑
ent for preaching, and commissioned him to deliver the funeral orations for Villars, archbishop of Vienne, and Villeroy, archbishop of Lyons (1693); and his Lenten sermons at Montpellier in 1698 attracted general attention. His success drew illwill upon him, and he was obliged for a time to go into retirement; but the dignity and purity of his life silenced those who were envious of him. In 1696 he was called to Paris as superior of the seminary of Saint‑Magloire. The Lenten sermons which he preached in 1699 in the church of Saint‑Honor made a deep impression. In the following Advent he was summoned to preach before the king at Versailles, and delivered the Lenten sermons there also in 1701 and 1704. Bourdaloue (q.v.), whose reputation as a preacher then stood highest, is said to have remarked on hearing him, in the words of John the Baptist, " He must increase and I must decrease." Louis XIV. showed him the greatest respect, saying to him, " I have heard more than one great orator in my chapel, and was very well satisfied with them; but whenever I hear you, I am always dissatisfied with myself." Among his funeral orations, besides those mentioned above, special note should be made of those on the Prince de Conti in 1709, on the Dauphin in 1711, and on Louis himself. The simple and impressive beginning of the last is celebrated. Looking over the vast audience in silence, then down at the coffin which held all that was left of the mightiest monarch of his day, he broke the solemn stillness with the words Dieu seul est grand, mss fr~res ("God alone is great, my brethren! "). In 1717 he was named bishop of Clermont, and preached in the following year before the young Louis XV. a course of ten sermons in Lent (commonly known as Le petit Car&me, and considered as his most finished work), in which he urged upon the youthful monarch and his court the obligations of morality and just government. He became a member of the French Academy in 1719, but from 1720 confined himself to the duties of his episcopate, leaving his diocese only once, to deliver the funeral sermon over Charlotte‑Elisabeth, the duchess of Orldans.
Among his contemporaries he was as much regarded as Bossuet (q.v.), whose equal in the pulpit, however, he was not; and his funeral orations mark the point at which this branch of sacred eloquence began to decline. His name was highly honored in the last half of the eighteenth century, thanks to the eulogies of Voltaire and the Encyclopedists, who approved of him because he was more of a moralist than a theologian. In more recent times it has been less prominent, partly owing to the influence of the Jesuits, to whom he was never friendly. His style is not so lofty as that of the brilliant and courtly Bossuet, whom, however, he must be admitted to surpass in sympathy and unction. According to the usage of his time, he takes a text as a matter of form, only to depart from it as freely as he chooses. His structure is lacking in logic and strict order; he loses himself in moral digressions, and has at command an inexhaustible fund of applications to set forth the thoughtlessness of the courtiers, the vices of the great, or the horrors of war. Yet his sermons are

243	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Xats
Xatee
characterized by a depth of Christian experience
and vital piety which are sometimes absent from
the more showy efforts of Bossuet and Bourdaloue.
He himself published none of his discourses except
that on the Prince de Conti, and the collections
which appeared in 1705, 1706, and 1714 were un
authorized and not always correct reports by
others. After his death his nephew brought out
an edition of his works in 15 vols., Paris, 1745.
The most recent collected edition is that of Blam
pignon, 4 vols., Bar‑le‑Due, 1886. English trans
lations of sermons are by Dodd, Sermons on the
Duties of the Great, London, 1776; Sermons, with a
Life, by D'Alembert, ib. 1839; a volume of Ser
mons, with Life, .ib. 1849; and two volumes in the
Ancient and Modern Library of Theological Litera
ture, London, 1889‑90. 	(J. VIf;NOT.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The best work on the subject is L. F. F. Therennin, Demoagenes and Massillon, Berlin, 1845. Consult the studies by L. Doumergue, Montauban, 1841; R. Labeille, Strasburg, 1857; A. Bayle, Paris, 1867; A. Laurent, Tours, 1870; E. A. Blampignon, Massillon d'apri'a des documents in6dits, Paris, 1879; idem, L'Epiacopal do Massillon d'aprta des documents inldite, ib. 1884; idem, Supplement h son hilt. et a sa correspondanee, ib. 1891; G. Chabert, Th6olopie pastorale de Massillon, Montauban, 1890; E. Chasel, La Pr6dication de Massillon, Paris, 1894; Lichtenberger, ESR, viii. 771‑774.
MASSUET, RENE: French Benedictine of Saint Maur (q.v.); b. at St. Quen, near Bernay (83 m. n.w. of Paris), Aug: 13, 1665 (or 16667); d. at Paris Jan. 19, 1716. He became a professed on Oct. 20, 1682, and began his literary career by his anonymous Lettre dun ecdUsiastique au R. P. E. L. J. sur cells qu'il a 4crite nux RR. PP. Belttkdictins de la Congregation de St. Maur (Osnabriiek, 1699), in which he defended the Maurists against the Jesuit charges that their edition of Augustine was designed to propagate Jansenism. In 1703 he was called to St. Germain des Pr6s, where he prepared an admirable edition of the Contra h&,retres of Ireneeus (Paris, 1710). In 1713 he edited the fifth volume of the Annales ordinis S. Benedidi, which had almost been completed by J. Mabillon, prefixing biographies of Mabillon and T. Ruinart. Five interesting letters of Massuet to B. Pez are contained in J. G. Schelhorn's Amaenitates literarice, xiii. 278310 (Frankfort, 1725‑31); twelve to M. Miller in St. Gall in the Archives des missions scientiftques et litWairea, vi. 448‑474 (Paris, 1857); a few in E. Gigas' LettreB iMdifes de divers savants, ii. 2 (Copenhagen, 1893); and one to the monastery of St. Emmeran in J. A. Endres' Rorreepondenz der mauriner (Stuttgart, 1899, p. 41). His Memoire our l'histoire des patriarcats still exists in manuscript in the Biblioth6que Nationale, Paris. (G. LAUBMANN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: D. Tessin, Hist. litt*aire de la oongrr<sgatlon de Saint Maur, pp 304‑305 375‑379, Brussels, 1770; J. B. venal, Lee BhnMicline de Saint Maur. pp. 108‑111, Paris, 1898; Lichtenberger, ESR, viii. 788‑787; EL, viii. 978‑979; Herbst, in TQ, 1833, pp. 452 sqq.
MATAMOROS, mat"a‑m5'rcs, MANUEL: Spanish Protestant; b. at Lepe (70 m. w. of Seville) Oct. 8, 1835; d. at Lausanne July 31, 1866. He passed his early youth in Malaga, and at the age of fifteen entered the military school at Toledo, but left before the completion of the course and returned to his home. A trip to Gibraltar marked
the turning‑point of his life, for he there met a Catalan named Francisco de Paula Ruet, who had become a convert to Protestantism, through whose preaching Matamoros abandoned his former faith. He was recalled to Spain to serve his term in the army, and during service in Seville endeavored to make a Protestant propaganda among his comrades. This conduct was brought to the attention of the chaplain of the regiment, and Matamoros found his position so uncomfortable that he was glad to have his mother purchase his discharge. In the service of a Protestant society of Paris Matamoros visited Granada, Seville, and Barcelona. The discovery of letters addressed by him to a Protestant convert caused him to be arrested and brought for trial to Barcelona, where he was imprisoned with some of his coreligionista for more than two years. The efforts of the Evangelical Alliance to secure the release of the prisoners in 1863 were fruitless, but the intervention of the Prussian government resulted in the commutation of the sentence of nine years' labor in the galleys to banishment for an equal length of time. On May 28, 1863, the prisoners were accordingly released and Matamoros went to England, where he was received as a martyr to the Gospel. His stay there was brief, however, and he went to Lausanne to attend the theological lectures of the university. His health soon obliged him to make a long residence in southern France, and at Pau he was instrumental in the foundation of a short‑lived Spanish school. In May, 1866, he returned to Lausanne to die. (FRITz FLIEDNERf.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. Dalton, Die esanpelische Beioepunp in Spanien Wiesbaden, 1872; F. Pressel, Das Evanpelium in ~panien. Freienwa(de, 1877.
MATEER, CALVIN WMSOft: Presbyterian missionary; b. in Cumberland Co., near Mechanicsburg, Pa., Jan. 9, 1836; d. at Tsingtau, Shantung Province, China, Sept. 28, 1908. He was graduated at the head of his class in Jefferson College, 1857; was principal of Beaver, Pa., Academy, 1857‑59; studied in the Western Theological Seminary (Presbyterian), Allegheny, Pa., in 1859‑61, and was graduated with the class of 1861. He had already been accepted as a missionary by the Old School Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions, but lack of funds preventing the board from sending him out at once he was stated supply of the Presbyterian church at Delaware, O., from 1861 till 1863, when, in company with Hunter Corbett (b. at Leatherwood, Pa., December 8, 1835; graduated at Jefferson College, 1860; studied in Western Theological Seminary 1860‑62, graduated at Princeton Theological Seminary 18$3, since 1866 missionary at Chefoo, moderator of the General Assembly in 1906), he sailed for China. The voyage was long and the bearing of the captain insulting. He exchanged the ship at Shanghai for a steamer and got into a storm and was wrecked near Chefoo, which happily was their destination, and after a night of suffering they safely arrived there. He was settled at Teng Chow, the port of Shantung, a province as large as the State of Pennsylvania, and remained there till 1904, when he went to live at Wei‑Hsien. In 1864 he laid the foundation of a school out of which there was formally organized in 1878 a col‑

Xa teteerrialiam	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	244
lege, known as The Shantung Union College, which was removed to Wei‑Hsien in 1904. He was its president till 1895. He also had a church at Teng Chow down to 1906.
He was a missionary of the grand type, devoted to his work, a master of the language of the people he lived among and for whom he lived, and willing to be spent in their service, for he was home on furlough only three times. He was an extraordinarily versatile man, learning easily whatever he studied and able to impart his knowledge or turn it to practical account. Thus he was very skilful in the use of tools, understood machinery, even the latest application of electricity, and made much of the apparatus used in the college. In 1870 he was superintendent of the American Presbyterian Mission Press in Shanghai. At the same time he was a born teacher, writing text‑books in mathematics and the famous " Lessons in Mandarin " which are widely used. Besides administering a college and preaching regularly and eloquently both in Chinese and English he was chairman of the committee for the revision of the Mandarin translation of the Bible, Mandarin being the dialect of Shantung. The New Testament was taken in hand in 1890 and finished in 1906, when the Old Testament was at once taken up but only the book of Genesis and part of the Psalms had been revised at his death. This labor was his last. He had been doing it at Chefoo, where he was spending the summer. As he had been suffering from dysentery he concluded that it would be better on his way back to Wei‑Hsien to stop at the German hospital at Tsingtau for treatment. This he did, but his disease had passed beyond cure.
He was twice married, but had no children. His first wife was Miss Julia A. Brown of Delaware, O., whom he married in 1863 and who died in 1898. She was a most efficient coadjutor in educational work. His second wife was Miss Ada Haven, at the time of her marriage in 1900 a missionary of the American Board at Peking. She was equally helpful in his literary work.
MATERIALISM.
Origin in Greek Philosophy ($ I). Monistic Materialism ($ 2). Dualistic Materialism ($ 3). Mechanical and Organic Materialism (¢ 4). Mechanical View in Modern Philosophy (¢ 5). Weakness of the Theory (§ 6).
	By the term materialism is usually meant the
metaphysical view that the basis of everything that
exists is matter, or that nothing except matter
exists. Materialism seems to have been histor
		ically earlier than its opposite, spirit
	:.Origin ualism (see IDEALISM), or than the
	in Greek dualism which recognizes both matter
	Philosophy. and spirit (see DEBCARTEs, RENk).
		Thus, in the oldest Greek philosophy
is found the assumption that everything originated
from a primary matter, and that all phenomena are
but transformations of this, and shall one day re
turn to it again, after which new changes will begin,
and so on ad infinitum. The concept of spirit, as
an object of interior perception, and still more of
spirit as a cosmic principle, came later. And even
where, as with Anasagoras, spirit appears as the
creator of the world, it may be taken as materially conceived. Plato is the first to reach the concept of an absolutely immaterial cosmic principle. With him the spiritual or intelligible world is of a higher order than the world of phenomena cognizable by the senses, which comes into being through the operation of the former. While all true materialism is in a sense monistic, recognizing but a single principle as the essence of the world, this essence may differentiate itself into a finer and a coarser matter, and one of these may influence the other. Greek philosophy begins with a strictly monistic materialism; Thales recognizes water, Anaximenes fire, as the source of all things. But in Heraclitus, although all phenomena are transformations of the principle of fire, and although the Logos which brings harmony out of all is not a second principle but immanent in matter, yet fire itself is opposed, as a finer and more spiritual element, to two coarser ones, water and earth, developed indeed out of itself. This dualistic view was more fully worked out later by the Stoics.
Speaking generally, the materialism of modern times, descending from Hobbes and winning adherents at first more in France than in England or Germany, has been monistic, in so far as all spiritual processes are conceived merely as 2. Monistic functions of matter. This view was Materialism. set forth by Lamettrie (1709‑51), whose best‑known work is L'Homme machine (Leyden, 1748; new ed., Paris, 1865), and by Holbach in the SysOme de la nature (see DEIsM, If., § 3). The great Encyclopedie (see ENCYCLOPEDIST6) was to a large extent a product of materialism, although Positivism (q.v.), which is often confused with it, contributes its share. Germany produced many monistic materialists in the nine. teenth century. The most heated controversy broke out about the middle of that century owing to the publication of a lecture by the physiologist Rudolf Wagncr, Ueber Menachensch6pfung and Seelensubstanz (G6ttingen, 1854), to which Karl Voigt replied in his once famous satirical pamphlet KBhlerglaube and Wiasenschaft (ib. 1854). To the further spread of materialistic views the principal contributors were Jakob Moleschott, especially in his Der Kreislauf des Lebens (5th ed., Mainz, 18761885), and Ludwig Biichner with his popular treatise Kraft and Stof (1855; 21st ed., Leipsic, 1904; Eng. transl., Force and Matter, London,. 1864). Buchner did more for the spread of this view than Ludwig Feuerbach (q.v.), who is often classed as a materialist, or than David Friedrich Strauss (q.v.), who in Der alts and der neue Glaube (Leipsie, 1872; Eng. transl., The Old Faith and the New, London and New York, 1873) leans strongly toward materialism without being able wholly to free himself from Hegelian pantheism. Systems more or less akin to materialism have been set forth in more recent times by Heinrich Czolbe and Eugen Diihring, without winning any wide following; and a comparatively moderate essay in the same direction is found in Du Bois‑Reymond's well‑known lecture Ueber die Grenzen des Naturerkennens (Leipsie, 1872) and his book Die sieben Weltralsel (ib. 1882). Less moderate is the. much‑discussed work of Ernst

246
RELIGIOUS
H#tekel, Die Weltrduel (Bonn, 1899). All these recent materialistic theories are monistic, and usually more or less connected with the doctrine of evolution. Monistic also is the atomistic materialism, however much its supporters have attempted to give it a dualistic coloring, as may be seen in the teaching of Democritus and of his successors the Epicureans.
In the seventeenth century the Epicurean atomism was revived by Pierre Gassendi (q.v.), who led the way to a mechanical‑physical conception of the world and thus to modern materialism.
3. Dualistic But whereas Gassendi was unable to
Materialism. include the Deity in his materialistic conception of the universe, placing God rather above this world of phenomena in which only secondary causes are operative, long before his day the Stoics had made their noteworthy attempt to include God as a factor in the material world, thus leading up to a dualistic materialism. Because they emphasized so strongly an ethical idealism which amounts to rigorism, they have been a good deal neglected by historians of materialism; and yet they were thorough‑going and logical materialists. All reality to them is corporeal; the Godhead exists, therefore it must be corporeal, ie., material, and so must the soul, and even the virtues.and affections of the soul. It is true they often speak of two principles, thus apparently following Plato or Aristotle; but a closer scrutiny of their views shows that the active formative principle is considered as definitely material. The four elements are not eternal, nor do they spring from different sources, but all come from the one primal matter, which the Stoics, here following Heraclitus, regard as fire. This fire, the artificer of the world, pervades the whole universe and is called God. They also call the Deity anima mundi, the worldsoul, or Logos; but their Logos is material, not spiritual. In the evolution of the world, the Logos, as spermatikos, seminal, is contrasted with the other two coarser elements. It comprehends the single logoi spennahkoi, which are also thought of as material substances. But the kind of materialism which commended itself to the Stoics by its logical character found no adherents after the last real Stoic had occupied the imperial throne (see SToicisnr). Christian philosophy gave a certain place to rahonea aeminalea, but regarded them as rather spiritual than material; there are traces of Stoic materialism in some of the Fathers, but Platonic metaphysics gained the upper hand, as being more in harmony with Christian spiritual ideas. In the Renaissance and later times Stoic philosophy has had more influence than is generally supposed; but its natural system has had but few and unimportant followers, and monism has generally triumphed in the region of materialism.
But besides the distinction already treated between monistic and dualistic materialism, there is another of still deeper significance between organic and mechanical materialism. The latter rejects all teleological considerations, while the former is at least patient of them. The oldest Greek philosopbers, materialists as they were, regarded matter as possessing life, if not a soul. Heraclitus may be taken as a type of the older organic materialism,
ENCYCLOPEDIA
ltateer
Xaterialiam
regarding matter as eternally in motion, and moved by certain laws, not from without but according to reason. But his Logos is not a con;. Mechan‑ scions, still less a self‑conscious agent,
	ical and	and is thus distinguished from the all
	organic	knowing, intelligent noun of Anax
Materialism. agoras, which had no slight influence
		on the Platonic and Aristotelian doc
trine of God. The principal representatives of
organic as of dualistic materialism were the Stoics,
with their decided teleological tendency. In their
view the end of all things, of course, is the return
into the primary fire; but in the existing world the
formative principle is rational. Everything is
logically ordained by a provident intelligence. The
mechanical materialism of the present day is still
based upon the atomistic theory, as laid down by
Leucippus and Democritus. The eternal move
ment of the atoms is not conditioned by any defi
nite cause, and proceeds in no definite order; casu
ally, yet still by necessity, atoms came together
from various sides, from one part and another of
infinite space, and this brought about a rotary mo
tion out of which the universe ultimately came into
being. Since the soul is composed of atoms, its
processes also must be purely mechanical. Demoo
ritus even considered the perception of the senses
to be mechanical, emanations of atoms detaching
themselves from objects and affecting the senses.
His atomistic system is a strictly logical and scien
tific one, not depending upon any invisible powers
such as the none of Anaxagoras or the love and
hate of Empedocles. Sense‑perception, indeed,
with him is deceptive‑a dim knowledge, contrasted
with the true, which is to be gained by reason; al
though according to his whole teaching thought
must be based upon sense‑perception and can not
be independent of it. _ Epicurus, while as a rule
following Democritus, introduced a peculiar varia
tion in teaching, not a primary motion or rotation
of atoms, but a mode of motion by which they fell
through their own weight and declined a little from
a straight line through a sort of self‑determination.
This declension explains their meeting and perma
nent combinations, as well as the upward and side.
long motions through which worlds came into be
ing. This element of arbitrary determination helps
Epicurus to explain the freedom of the will, which
he accepts in a certain sense, but it damages the
strict logical consequence of a materialism that
denies any freedom or arbitrary determination.
In modern times, without knowing anything of Epicurus, Galileo revived the Democritean mechanical conception of the universe, denying, in opposition to the scholastio‑AristoS. Mechan‑ telian philosophy, any real coming ical View is into existence or perishing, and re‑
Modern ferring all changes to shifting of parts, Philosophy. to quantitative not qualitative relations. The mechanical view of nature, if not of the universe, was dominant at the beginning of modern philosophy with the most apparently opposite thinkers, with Rent Descartes (q.v.) as well as with Thomas Hobbes (q.v.), who, regarding philosophy as the science of bodies, considered an incorporeal substance as an absurdity

Materialism	THE, NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	948
Mather
and explained mental processes in a purely mechan
ical manner. According to Descartes matter con
sists of corpuscles‑not the absolutely indivisible
atoms of Democritus, but parts indivisible by us.
The mass of matter and motion originally estab
lished by God is as a whole incapable of increase or
diminution. Equally with Hobbes, Descartes ex
plained mental processes, e.g., the association of
ideas, in a purely mechanical way by particular
material changes in the brain arising from affection
through the senses, and by the generation of new
concepts as a result of these changes. Descartes is
thus one of the founders of the mechanical‑mate
rialistic school as far as anthropology is concerned.
It was only necessary to leave out the thinking soul
to reach the view of Lamettrie, who believed that
the thing to do was not, with Leibnitz (q.v.), to
spiritualize matter, but to materialize the soul.
For him the soul is the material consciousness; he
finds the principle of life not in it but in all the
separate parts, since each smallest particle of the
organized body is forced to move by an innate
principle. Similar views are held by most physi
ologists and biologists of the present day.
The most obvious justification of materialism lies
in the fact that the basis of our knowledge is sense
perception, which shows us the real as having three
		dimensions; and this leads us to con
6. Weakness sider these three dimensions as exist
	of the	ing outside ourselves and constituting
	Theory. the objects of the intuitive world.
		There is also the experience that men
tal processes do not occur without a material base.
While it may be admitted that as far as our expe
rience goes the material (especially the nerves, and
in higher animals the brain) is a sine qua non for
mental phenomena, no one has ever succeeded in
deducing the latter from the former or explaining
them by it. In spite of the progress recently made
in cerebral anatomy and the success attained in the
localization of mental activities, the question is still
unanswered, how out of what is visible and tangi
ble, cognizable by the external senses, that which
is invisible and intangible, cognizable only by the
inner sense, can originate. Moreover, the whole
conception of matter is a vague and indeterminate
one, resisting exact analysis. What we first get
is	not matter‑that is secondary‑but sensations
or perceptions. If we try to find external causes
for these, we still do not reach matter, as is usually
assumed, but forces that work upon us. We are
thus driven into a sort of dynamism, according to
which matter is a generally operative force, its
whole essence being found in operation. This ex
treme dynamism is represented by Leibnitz and
many of his adherents. Another objection to the
ordinary materialism is that as far as our percep
tions go they present themselves to us as something
immanent and spiritual, which is to us the datum,
the known, from which we must proceed in all our
philosophizing, even to the acceptance of an ex
ternal world; and it is a complete inversion for
materialism to set before us first the external world
which is unknown to us and explain what is known
to us from that. These and other objections are
so conclusive that thoroughgoing materialism may
now be considered as philosophically untenable, in spite of the number of physicists who still accept it because it harmonizes with their tendencies or preconceptions.
Theoretical materialism is not, however, inconsistent with strict moral views, and does not necessarily lead to absorption in purely material, i.e., sensual, things. Not only the Stoics but also Democritus and Epicurus may be cited to prove this, as may also Tertullian on the Christian side. And in the most decided materialists of modern times, such as Lamettrie, Holbach, and others, a by no means despicable inculcation is to be found of a virtue which is, indeed, primarily self‑love but gives the public interests the preference over the individual. Even Hbckel acknowledges as a golden rule " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Altruism is so deeply implanted in the mind of humanity that the most extreme theoretical tendencies, even those which assert the most extreme egoism in the region of morals, are forced to give it a predominant place in their practical counsels; and there is scarcely an absolutely egoistic work to be cited, except Max Stimer's Der Einzige and sein Eigerdum (Leipsic, 1845); but he is not to be classed as a theoretical materialist. (M. HEINZEt.)
BIBLIoanAPHY: An extensive list of works on the subject, including periodical literature, is given in J. M. Baldwin, Dictionary o,/ Philosophy and Psychology, iii. 820‑828, New York, 1905. The beet history of Materialism is still F. A. Lange, Geaehichte des Materialismua and Kritik seiner Bedeutung in der Geyenwart, 6th ad., Leipsic, 1896, Eng. tranel. of earlier ad., London, 1877. Consult further: T. Hobbes, Works, ad. W. Molesworth, 11 vols., London, 1839‑45; N. S. Bergier, Examen du materialinne,Paris, 1854; Herbert Spencer, System of Synthetic Philosophy, London, 1860‑97; P. Janet, Le Materialisme contamporain, Paris, 1864, Eng transl., London, 1865; F. Westhoff, Sto$, Kraft and Gadanks, Miinater, 1865; E. Caro, Le Mat6rialiame at la science, Paris, 1868; H. B. Jones, Croonian Lecturea on Matter and Force, London, 1868; W. Maccall, The Neweet Materialism, ib. 1873; J. A. Piston, The Mystery of Matter, ib. 1873; J. Martineau, Modern Materialism, ib. 1876; P. Zimmermann, Do& Rdthsel des Lebena and die Rathloe%pkeit des Materialismua, Leipsic, 1877; t. Syffert, Le Mat6rialisme, Paris, 1878; R. Flint, Antitheiatic Theories, lectures ii. iv., London, 1879‑80; L. Weis, Idealrealismus and Materaali8mua, Berlin, 1879; A. Lefhvre, La Renaissance du maMrialiame, Paris, 1881; J. Dourif, Le Maurialiame at Z'ath6roahne, ib. 1882; G. A. Him, R6JUxiona critiques our la thiorde cinhmatique de l'univera, ib. 1882; M. Berger. Der Materialism= in Kampfe mit dem Spiritualismus and Idealismua, Triest, 1883; A. Stadler, Kant's Theorie der Materie, Leipsic, 1883; w. F. Wilkinson, Modern Materialism, London, 1883; H. Stiiven, Daratellunp and Kritik der Grunda&u des Materialiamua, Hamburg, 1885; J. A. Kilb, Plato's Lehre roan der Materie, Marburg, 1887; P. Ribot, Spirilualiame et maMrialiame, Paris, 1887; R. Abendroth, Dae Problem der Materie, 2 vols., Leipsie, 1889‑90; W. Strecker, Welt and Menarhheit room Standpunkta des Materaaliamue, ib. 1891• L. Stephen, An Agnostic's Apology, London, 1893; G. Plechanow, Beitrege cur Geechichte des ASaterialiemue, Stuttgart, 1896; T. Manzi, Der Materialiemua vor dem Riehteratuhl der Wisaenachaft, Zurich, 1897; R. C. Shettle, The Origin of Matter and Force, London, 1897; L. Biichner, Kraft and Stof, Frankfort, 1898, Eng. tranel. of earlier ed., London, 1870; E. Du Bois‑Reymond, Ueber die Grenzen der Na• turerkenntnia, Leipsia, 1898; C. Barbagallo, Del Matsrialiamo atorico, Rome, 1899; E. Gaynor, The New Materialism, Dublin, 1899; W. A. Preuss, Geist and Stof Oldenburg, 1900; J. Royce, The World and the Individual, New York, 1900‑01; 1. W. Riley, American Philosophy; the early Schools, New York, 1907; the works on the history of philosophy; and the literature under InaALie9.

247	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	xaterla,lism
Mather
MATERNUUS, ma‑ter'nus, JULIUS FIRMICUS: Latin apologist of the fourth century. To him is ascribed the authorship of the De errors profanarum religionum, a work written between 343 and 348, possibly in 346. Nothing is known concerning Maternus, but in the fourth century a pagan astrological work entitled LArii octo matheseoa was composed by a certain Julius Firmicus Maternus Junior Siculus, and the identity of name and time, a similarity of style, the Sicilian home of the pagan author and the familiarity with Sicily evinced by the Christian writer give foundation to the supposition that the two are the same. On the other hand, the pagan Maternus is a cosmopolitan and moralistic neo‑Platonist, while the Christian author is a fanatic. But since the Ltbri mathesem was composed between Dec. 30, 335, and May 22, 337, it becomes probable that the two books were by the same author and that the neo‑Platonist became a Christian.
As the descendant of a senatorial family, Maternus received the customary training in literature and philosophy, while as a Christian he studied the works of Christian authors. Although he cites only Homer and Porphyry, he shows an acquaintance with Plutarch, Cicero, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Tertullian, and the writings of Cyprian. The De errors profanarum religionum, of which only a single manuscript, that in the Vatican, is known, is incomplete, four folios of the codex being lost. The general plan of the work, however, is clear. It falls into two parts. The first part (chaps. i.‑xvii.) treats of the false objects of religious worship, and contains a polemic against the deities of the Greco‑Roman state religion and against Oriental cults. The second part (chaps. xviii.‑xxix.) seeks to show that the pagan mysteries were a caricature of the words of the Bible and the mystery of salvation. The work closes with an urgent appeal to the emperors to destroy all idols and
temples. 	(A. Heucg.)
BIHLIOn&APnT: The latest ed, of the De enrore is by C. Helm in C$EL vol. ii., 1887. It was previously edited by MGnter at Copenhagen, 1828, with commentary, reproduced in MPL, xii. Consult: Moors, Julius Pirmicua Maternua, der Heide and der Christ, Munich, 1897; w. 8. Teuffel, Geachichte der rbmsachen Litteratur, ed. L. Schwabe, ii. 1028 eqq., Leipsic, 1888; A. Ebert, Geachichte der chriatlich‑Iateiniachen Litteratur, pp. 129 sqq., ih. 1889; O. Bardenhewer, Patrolopie, p. 8b4, Freiburg, 1901; DCB, iii. 862‑883.

MATRA, JEAN DE. See TxINI2eaIeNS.

	MAT	HER: The name of a family of much
prominence in the early history of New England.
1. Richard Mather, the ancestor of the family in America, was born at Lowton (14 m. w. of Manchester), pariah of Winwick, Lancashire, 1596; d. at Dorchester, Mass., Apr. 22, 1669. He was sent to the Winwick grammar‑school, and at fifteen was chosen teacher of a school at ToxtethPark. Here he became acquainted with a branch of the Aapinwall family, by whom he was led to devote himself to the ministry, and went to Brasenose, Oxford, to prepare for the same. But the people at Toxteth were so unwilling to wait for him, that he left the university before taking his degrees, and late in 1618,
when only twenty‑two, preached his first sermon at Toxteth Park. The Bishop of Chester ordained him; and in Sept., 1624, he married Katherine, daughter of Edmond Holt of Bury. Becoming an earnest Puritan and being for a time suspended, he left‑traveling in disguise to Bristol‑for New England, May 23, 1635, landing at Boston, after being very nearly shipwrecked, Aug. 17 following. The First Church at Dorchester having emigrated with its pastor, Warham, to Connecticut, Mr. Mather gathered a new (the present First) church there Aug. 23, 1636; he was chosen its teacher and so remained until his death. For his second wife he married the widow of John Cotton (q.v.). By his first wife he left six sons, of whom four‑Samuel, Nathaniel, Eleazer, and Increase‑followed their father's profession.
Richard Mather was one of the ablest and most influential among the early ministers of New England, a powerful preacher, and a specially wise counselor; he was seized with his mortal illness while moderating that ecclesiastical council in Boston out of whose deliberations the Old South Church was born. He was skilled in the New England plan of church government, wrote three or four of the best early tracts in its exposition and defense, and was the chief composer of the "Cambridge Platform."
2. Samuel Mather, eldest son of Richard Mather, was born at Much Woolton (4 m. s.e. of Liverpool), Lancashire, May 13, 1626; d. in Dublin Oct. 29, 1671. He came to New England with his father in 1635, was graduated at Harvard in 1643, and became fellow; he is said to have been the first fellow who was a Harvard graduate. He returned to England in 1650 and was made a chaplain of Magdalen College, Oxford. He resigned in 1653 to attend the parliamentary commissioners to Scotland. He became an M.A. of Trinity College, Dublin, in 1654, and was one of its senior fellows. He was ordained at Dublin Dec. 5, 1656. At the Restoration he was suspended (Oct., 1660) and then became perpetual curate of Burtonwood, Warrington, Lancashire, whence he was ejected by the Act of Uniformity of 1662. Returning to Dublin he preached there for several years, at first in his own house. He was imprisoned Sept. 20, 1664, for preaching at a private conventicle but was soon released. He declined a call to return to Boston, U. S. A.
S. Nathaniel Mather, third son of Richard Mather, was born at Much `Voolton, Lancashire, Mar. 20, 1630; d. in London July 26, 1697. He came to New England with his father in 1635 and was graduated M.A. at Harvard in 1647. He then returned to England and preached at Harberton and at Barnstaple, Devonshire, until ejected by the Act of 1662, when he went to Rotterdam. Here he remained as minister of the English Church until the death of his brother Samuel, when he succeeded him in Dublin. In 1688 he took charge of the Lime Street Church, London, and in 1694 became one of the Merchants' Lecturers at Pinner's Hall. He is interred in Bunhill Fields, London.
4. Eleazer Mather, fifth son of Richard Mather, was born at Dorchester, Mass., May 13, 1637; d. at Northampton, Mass., July 24, 1669. He was
graduated at Harvard in 1656. In 1658 he went to

Bather
8atheoon
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Northampton, gathered the first church there, was ordained in June, 1661, and labored successfully as pastor till his early. death.
6. Increase Mather, sixth and youngest son of Richard Mather, was born at Dorchester, Mass., June 21, 1639; d. in Boston Aug. 23, 1723. He was graduated at Harvard in 1656 in the same class with his brother Eleazer, though on account of physical weakness for a time he was a pupil of John Norton. On his nineteenth birthday he preached at Dorchester, and, twelve days later, sailed for England. He took his M.A. at Trinity College, Dublin, and, after preaching in various places, returned to New England in 1661, intending to go back to England when times should be more favorable. He was ordained in New England, however, May 27, 1664, over the Second Church of Boston and remained there till his death. For seventeen years (1685‑1701) of this pastorate he was also president of Harvard College; and in 1688 he went to England as special agent of the Massachusetts Colony, where‑" his expenses in the mean time greatly exceeding his compensation, and he pledging all his property for money which he borrowed to support himself while he was working for his country "‑he remained in this public ec:‑vioe about four years.
It is related of Increase Mather that it was his habit to study sixteen hours out of the twentyfour. It is matter of record that he was not merely acceptable, but highly honored, for nearly sixty years, in one of the two most important pulpits on this aide of the sea; and he left behind him publications of various sorts to the number of 160. It is in no way strange, therefore, that he should have been almost unanimously held to be the foremost minister of his day in this new country, and that he should have exercised an influence as vast as, in the main, it was salutary. In 1662 he married Maria, daughter of John Cotton, by whom he had three sons and seven daughters. His sons‑‑Cotton, Nathaniel, and Samuel‑were graduated at Harvard in 1678, 1685, and 1690 respectively.
6. Cotton Mather, eldest son of Increase Mather, was born in Boston Feb. 12, 1663; d. there Feb. 13, 1728. He became the most renowned of the lineage, although, conceding his omnivorous scholarship and exceptional labors, it may be doubted whether he were even the peer of his father or grandfather in intellectual ability. He took his B.A. at Harvard (1678) when less than fifteen years and six months old; taught for a time; overcame an impediment of speech which had threatened to interfere with his success in the family profession; acted as his father's assistant at the Second Church, Boston; and was ordained, as joint pastor with him, May 13, 1685‑a place which he surrendered only at his death. During nearly three and forty years he was indefatigable as a preacher, systematic and thorough as a pastor, eminent as a philanthropist‑at great personal risk successfully introducing and defending the inoculative prevention of smallpax‑and amazing as an author; being known to have printed 382 separate works, of which several were elaborate volumes, and one a stately folio of 800 pages; while, to his sore and amazed grief, the
848
great work of his life (in his own esteem), his Biblia Americana, failed of publication. It remains in manuscript to this day.
It was Cotton Mather's misfortune that the weak and whimsical aide of his multiform greatness most impressed itself on many of his generation, and that, for sharing with other good and eminent men of his day in the witchcraft delusion, he has most unfairly been singled out for a specialty of censure and contumely which in no degree fairly belongs to him. He was no more guilty for not being, as to that, in advance of his age, than were Richard Baxter and Sir Matthew Hale in England, or Judge Sewall, or Gov. Stoughton, or Sir William Phips, or scores of others in New England. He married three times.
7. Samuel Mather, fourth son of Cotton Mather (by his second wife) and the only one of his sons who lived to manhood, was born in Boston Oct. 30, 1706; d. there June 27, 1785. He was graduated at Harvard in 1723, before he was seventeen; and four years after his father's death, June 21, 1732, was ordained colleague with Rev. Joshua Gee over that same Boston church which his father and grandfather had served for sixty‑four years before him. Of considerable learning and fair abilities, he did not, however, fill the ancient place; and in less than ten years was dismissed, and, with a not very large following, labored with a new church (which did not survive him) until his death. He, too, was an author, of less than a score of books, however, only one of which, An Apology for the Liberties of the Churches of New England (Boston, 1738), deserves, or has, remembrance. None of his three sons studied for the ministry.

this family, f which eleven members were trained for the sacred office in four generations, of whom the seven who wrought in New England expended about 250 years of ministerial labor upon it, besides publishing more than 500 different works, and some of them exerting a popular influence never surpassed, and seldom equalled. For its distinguished services in each of its four generations, in reducing to rigid system, illustrating, defending, and chronicling the way of the churches of New England, if it had done nothing else, this Mather group would deserve, as it will receive, perpetual remembrance.
(HENRY M. DEXTERt.) MORTON DExTER.

BxBwoGaAP8r: An excellent edition of Cotton Mather's Mapnalia Christi Americana (a source for the earlier members of the family), with memoir and tranel. of Hebr., Grk. and Lat. quotations, appeared 2 vole., Hartford, 1855. Other early sources are indicated in the series of notices in DNB, xxxviii. 27‑31. Consult: John Mather, Genealogy of the Maths‑ Family, Hartford, 1848; C. Robbine, Hist. of old North Church in Boston, Boston, 1852; W. B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, i 75‑80, 151‑160 189‑195, 371‑375, New York, 1859; B. Wendell, Cotton Mather, in Makers of America Series ib. 1891; A. P. Marvin Life and Times of Cotton Mather, Boston, 1892; W. Walker, Influence of the Mathers in New England Religious Development, New York, 1892; idem, Hist. of the Congregational Churches in the U. S., passim, ib. 1894 (cf. Index); idem, New England Leaders, ib. 1901; A. E. Dunning, Congregationalists in America ib. 1894; L. W. Bacon, The Congregationalists, ib. 1904; J. P. Quinsy, Cotton Mather and the Supernormal in New England Hist., in Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, 2d ser, vol. xx., 1907.

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
249
	MATHESIUS, JOHANNES: German Reformer;
b. at Rochlitz (16 m. n.n.w. of Chemnitz) June 24,
1504; d. at Joachimsthal (14 m. n.n.e. of Elbogen),
Bohemia, Oct. 7, 1565. He was the first biographer
of Luther, the Reformer of Joachimathal, and one
of the most powerful preachers among the Reformers
of the second period (1504‑65). He studied at Wit
	tenberg, which he gratefully praised as his spiritual
home, always regarding himself as a member of the
	church and school there. In 1532 he became the
seventh rector of the Latin school at Joachimsthal,
	the then new city of northwestern Bohemia which
	had achieved prosperity by its silver mines and had
	adopted Lutheranism. In 1540 Mathesiua went
	again to Wittenberg, where he became Luther's
	table‑companion and made notes of his table‑talk.
	In 1542 he was ordained by Luther. In the church
	at Joachimsthal he labored for nearly a quarter of
	a century, first as preacher, then as pastor. He
	was the most famous preacher of that place and of
	German Bohemia, being distinguished for learning
	and for spirited and genial eloquence. Under him
	church affairs became firmly established and pro
	tected against disturbances from without and with
	in. Mathesius was so closely bound to his office
	and position that he refused all offers from abroad,
	including a call to the University of Leipsic. Against
	his desire he went to Prague (1546) together with
	the magistrate and thirty delegates to defend them
	selves before King Ferdinand I. for their attitude
	in the Schmalkald war. After that affair, there
	followed some years of relief, of successful work, of
	literary activity, and of beneficial intercourse with
	colleagues in school and church, at home and abroad.
	But domestic troubles, new political storms, relig
	ious persecutions, and physical ailments brought
	him, prematurely aged, to an early grave. For
	snore than one hundred years the effects of his work
	remained. The memory of the joachimathal " ° angel
	of the church," disturbed by the rage of the Jesuits,
	was renewed there even by Catholics through a me
	morial tablet. His sermons have been circulated
	in numerous editions and revisions; some were
	translated into foreign languages. Best known are
	two collections of popular yet scientific, instructive
	yet devotional, lectures delivered in the carnival
	season, when something amusing was expected.
	The " Sarepta " was intended to explain sayings,
	stories, and examples from the Scriptures which
	mention mining, in order that the Joachimsthal
	people might have their,, mining‑book of homilies "
	as farmers and viticulturists had theirs. In the
	" Lutherhistorien " Mathesiua proved himself a pio
	neer in the kind of homilies for the church of the
	Reformation which the Roman Church had given
	in her °` sermons on the saints." They constitute
	the first real biography of Luther (Nuremberg, 1W6).
	These more than any others carried through the
	centuries the memory of the joachimstbal preacher,
	and in spite of deficiencies, inaccuracies, and mis
	takes they are still a source of information (last
	critical edition, Prague, 1906). In Mathesiua' ser
	mons seriousness and humor, bluntness and tender
ness, go hand in band. 	(GEOBG LoxsaalL.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Auegsm8htte Werke, 4 vols., are ed. by G, Loesche, with introduction and commentary, Prague,
Mather
Matheson
1896‑1908. Extracts are by K. F. Ledderhose, Heidel. berg, 1849, in French by L. Schweitzer, 1871. The chief biographical work is by G. Loeeche, 2 vole., Goths, 1895; cf. his Matheeiana, in Jahrbrueh far die Geachiehte des Proteatanti8mua Ca Oeaterreich, Vienna, 1904; idem, in ZeifedaVl fur deutsche WoWorschunp, i (1900), 235‑238. Consult also the works by: Balthazar Mathesius, Dresden, 1705; J. Abraham, Wittenberg, 1883; K. Amelung, GQtereloh, 1894; G. F. Fuchs, in Halts was du had, uv (1902), 386‑373.

MATHESON, GEORGE: Church of Scotland; . in Glasgow Mar. 27, 1842; d. at North Berwick (19 m. e.s.e. of Edinburgh) Aug. 28, 1906. Although his eyesight gradually failed him until in his eighteenth year he had become blind, he finished his school and university course at Glasgow with high honors (B.A., 1861; M.A., 1862; B.D., 1866) and was licensed to preach in 1866. During the next year he was assistant to John Ross Maoduff (q.v.) of the Sandyford Church, Glasgow; from 1868 till 1886 minister of Innellan.(35 m. down the Clyde from Glasgow); and from 1886 till his retirement in 1899 minister of St. Bernard's, Edinburgh. Being in easy circumstances he was always able to employ secretaries who read to him and wrote for him, and having an extraordinarily retentive memory and strong literary bent he produced many books which display much reflection and, considering his restrictions, no little learning. He was very broad‑minded and saw good in creeds which he rejected. His preaching was of a high order. In consequence of his standing as preacher and author he was the recipient of many honors‑D.D. of Edinburgh University, 1879; call to succeed John Gumming (q.v.) as pastor of Gown Court Church, London, 1880; Baird lecturer, 1881; preacher before the queen at Bahnoral Oct. 25, 1885; Gifford lecturer, 1899 (declined); fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1890; LL.D., Aberdeen, 1902. His books may be divided into three classes: first, those of a philosophical character: Aids to the Study of German Theology (Edinburgh, 1874; 3d ed., 1876), issued at first anonymously, a sympathetic study of German theology from .Kant to Dorner with a view to relieving it of the charge of "atheism"; Growth of the Spirit of Christianity from the First Century to the Dawn of the Lutheran Era (2 vola., 1877), in which he showed his reading in comparative religion, a favorite study, and his acceptance of Hegelian principles as guiding lines in the presentation of church history, but it is not a church history in the ordinary sense; Natural Elements of Revealed Theology (1881), his Baird lectures, in which he again utilized his attainments in comparative religion to commend Christianity; Can the old Faith Live with the New t or, the Problem of Evolution and Revelation (1885; 3d ed., 1889), an attempt to show that even if evolution be true, and he was non‑committal on that point (though afterward he came to the conclusion that it was not true), belief in it is compatible with belief in Christian doctrines; he presented the same idea in more popular form in The Psalmist and the Scientist, or, Modern. Value of the Religious Sentiment (London, 1886; 3d ed., 1892); The Distinctive Messages of the Old Religions (1892; 2d ed., 1893), an attempt to state that for which each of these religions stood. The second class of books was those which are more directly

Mathew
Matilda
and avowedly preachers' expositions: The Spiritual Development of St. Paul (1890; 4th ed., 1897), a study of the thirteen epistles of Paul, but not of the literature on them; The Lady Ecclesia, an Autobiography (1896; 2d ed., 1896), an allegory; Sidelights from Patmos (1897; 3d ed., 1903); Studies of the Portrait of Christ (2 vols., 1899‑1900; vol. I., 10th ed., 1907, vol. IL, 6th ed., 1907), a very interesting study of the life of Christ as an aid to faith and not as a contribution to scholarship, generally considered his best piece of work; The Representative Men of the Bible (2 series, 1902‑03; first series, Adam to Job, 6th ed., 1907; second series, Ishmael to Daniel, 3d ed., 1907); The Representative Men of the New Testament (1905); and The Representative Women of the Bible (1906). But it is likely that he will be longer useful as author of a third class of books, the devotional, for these have had a very wide sale and reached many who were not attracted by his other books: My Aspirations (1882); Moments on the Mount (1884); Voices of the Spirit (1888); Searchings in the Silence (1895); Words by the Wayside (1896); Times of Retirement (1901); Leaves for Quiet Hours (1904); Rests by the River (1906); Messages of Hope (1908); Thoughts far Life's Journey (1908); and. Day unto Day (1908), prayers. He wrote also poetry: Sacred Songs (1890; 3d ed., 1904); and one hymn (not in this collection), "O Love that wilt not let me go," will be sung long after all his other compositions are forgotten. It was written at the Innellan manse in five minutes on the evening of June 6, 1882, and only changed in a single word, "trace"for"climbed" in the third stanza. But four other hymns which are in this colleotion have been incorporated into several hymn‑books. BIBLIOGRAPHY: D. Macmillan, The Life of George Matheson, London, 1907.

MATHEW, THEOBALD ("Father Mathew"):
Irish temperance advocate; b. at Thomastown (5 m. w. of Cashel), Tipperary, Oct. 10, .1790; d. At Queenstown Dec. 8, 1856. He studied for a year at Maynooth, 1807‑08; passed through the novitiate of the Capuchin order and was ordained in 1814. He was then sent to Cork to take charge of a chapel in the destitute portion of the city, where his high personal character and gentle spirit won confidence and affection. He aided in philanthropic and educational enterprises for the uplift of the poorer classes. In 1838 he was impressed with the evils of intemperance and was asked to conduct the totalabatinence crusade. On Apr. 10 of that year, Father Mathew, who was then in his forty‑eighth year, definitely committed himself to the work. His success was phenomenal. By January of the next year, two hundred thousand persons, most of whom lived in Cork and its vicinity, had embraced the new gospel. Father Mathew extended his labors over all Ireland, visited Scotland and England (18421843), and spent two years in America (1849‑51), going as far west as St. Louis, everywhere making converts by the hundreds. His success was due to his exhaustless flow of animal spirits, his humor and wit, his downright earnestness, and above all, to his ability, courage, and high character.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The principal life is by J. F. Maguire, Lon‑
don, 1864, abridged ed., 1890. Others are S. R. Wells,
THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG
New York, 1867; F. J. Mathew, London, 1890; and Katharine Tynan, ib, 1908. Consult also S. H. Burke, Rise and Progress of Father Mathew's Temperance Mission, ib. 1885.

MATHEWS, GEORGE DUNCAN: Irish Presbyterian; b. at Kilkenny (73 m. s.s.e. of Dublin), County Kilkenny, Apr. 25, 1828. He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin (B.A., 1848), after which he held successive pastorates at the United Presbyterian Church in Stranraer, Scotland (18541868), Westminster Presbyterian Church, New York City (1868‑78), and at the Canadian Presbyterian Church, Quebec (1878,88). He was also professor of dogmatic theology in Morrin College, Quebec, from 1880 to his retirement from active life in 1888. He was American secretary of the General Presbyterian Alliance in New York in 1873‑88, and since the latter year has been general secretary of the General Presbyterian Alliance at London. He was also a member of the Council of Public Instruction for the Province of Quebec from 1880 to 1888, and in theological position is a liberal conservative. In addition to minor contributions, he was editor of The Christian Worker in 1870‑74, and associate editor of Catholic Presbyterianism in 1879‑83 and of The Quarterly Register (the official organ of the General Presbyterian Alliance) in 1880‑88, of which he has been general editor since the latter year. He likewise edited the Proceedings of the General Presbyterian Alliance for 1884, 1892, 1896, 1899, 1904, and 1909.
MATHEWS, SHAILER: Baptist; b. at Portland, Me., May 26, 1863. He was educated at Colby University, Waterville, Me. (A.B., 1884), Newton Theological Institution, from which he was graduated in 1887, and the University of Berlin (1890‑91). He was associate professor of rhetoric at Colby University in 1887‑89 and professor of history and political economy in the same institution in 1889‑94, as well as lecturer in New‑Testament literature in Newton Theological Institution in 1888,89, after which he was associate professor of New‑Testament history and interpretation at the divinity school of the University of Chicago from 1894 to 1897 and professor from 1897 to 1904. Since the latter year he has been professor of systematic theology in the same seminary, was junior dean of the divinity school 1894‑1907, and dean since 1907. In addition to his work as editor of The World Today since 1903 and of the series of New Testament Handbooks, as well as associate editor of The Biblical World and The American Journal of Theology, he has written: Select Mediwval Documents (New York, 1891); The Social Teaching of Jesus (1897); A History of New Testament Times in Palestine (1899); Constructive Studies in the Life of Christ (in collaboration with E. D. Burton, Chicago, 1901); The French Revolution (New York, 1901); Principles aced Ideals for the Sunday School (in collaboration with E. D. Burton, Chicago, 1903); The Messianic Hope in the New Testament (1905) ; and The Church and the Changing Order (New York, 1907).

MATHIEU, and"tt"O', FRAY OIS DESIRE: Cardinal; b. at Einville (41 m. n. ~ Lun6ville), France, May 28, 1839; d. in London Oct. 26, 1908. He was ordained to the priesthood in 1863, after hav‑

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
ing been professor at the Petit S6minaire of Pont‑&Mousson from 1859, and for ten years was confessor of the Dominican nuns at Nancy. In 1894 he was consecrated bishop of Angers, and two years later was enthroned archbishop of Toulouse. He was created cardinal priest of Santa Sabina in 1899. He wrote L'Aneien regime dana la province de Lorraine et Barrois d'apre?s des documents in6dits (Paris, 1879) and Le Concordat de 1801, sea origines, son histoire (1903).
MATHURINS. See TRINITARIANS.
	MATILDA (MECHTILDIS), SAINT, OF HACBE
BORR: Benedictine nun of Helfta (Hdpede),
near Eisleben; b. 1241; d. about 1310. She be
longed to the family of the lords of Hackeborn, and
was the younger sister of Gertrude, who for forty
years stood at the head of the monastery of Helfta.
(see GERTRUDE). The revelations which bhe
claimed to have here were written down by her
sister nuns. The contents of these revelations are
visions in which questions were put to Christ and
Mary, to which answers ware received. For the
most part they are questions of the inner life and
are sometimes fine and profound. In keeping with
the time the holy virgin is worshiped to excess, yet
there is a remarkable passage (i. 18, pp. 54 sqq.) in
which Mary with all creatures accuse Matilda, but
Christ alone has mercy upon her and absolves her.
Another passage (ii. 14, p. 148) has secured her a
place in the Catalogue testium veretatis of Flacius
(p. 923 of the editio princeps) because it is shown
there. how all her imperfection is made perfect by
the perfection of the Son of God. It is an undenied
truth, though often practically obscured, that in
the theology of the Western Church of the Middle
Ages all salvation comes finally through the di
vine mercy in Christ, and in mysticism this is
often expressed in the most vivid manner; of this
Matilda is a witness. 	(S. M. DEuTso$.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sanc&e Mechthildis liber apeeialis gratis', in Revelationes Gertrudianw ac Mechfhiidianw, cura . . . SoWmenaium O. S. M. monachorum, ii. 1‑421, Paris, 1877; J. Ml1ller, Leben and Ofenbarunpen der heaigen Mechthild and der Schwester Mechthad, Regensburg, 1881; W. Preger, Geschichte der deutachen A(yatik in MitteWter, i. 79 eqq., 116 sqq., Leipsic, 1874.
MATILDA (MECHTILDIS) OF MAGDEBURG: Beguine, afterward nun at Helfta (Helpede), near Eisleben; b. 1212 or a year or two later; d. at Helfta c. 1280. In her twelfth year she was " saluted by the Holy Spirit," and thenceforth her spiritual life developed uninterruptedly (Morel, iv. 2, p. 91). At the age of twenty‑three she went to Magdeburg and lived there thirty years as Begume. In her lonely life she had extraordinary experiences which she later wrote down in Low German and thus originated the first six parts of her book; the seventh part she added afterward at Helfta, whither she retired when advanced in years and where she lived for twelve years, highly revered (cf. Lib. spec. grat., ii. 42, v. 7). Her work was translated into High German by Henry of Nordlingen (q.v.) about 1345 (cf. P. Strauch, Heinrich von N6rdlingen, pp. 246‑247, Freiburg, 1882). The first six parts had already been translated into Latin with a wholly different arrangement and in this form are found
Xathew
in the Revelationes Gertrudinte ac Meehthildianw.
Matilda is distinguished from most female mystics
by her pronounced individuality. Her spiritual
experiences were remarkable and she stands in a
firm position from which she can dearly distin
guish between the external and internal. Further
more, she is a real poetess, a true spiritual minne
singer. Her description of Mary and the birth of
Jesus (Morel, v. 23) is beautiful, her prayers (v. 35,
vii. 41‑46) are devout and solemn, and she knows
well how to express her thoughts in short sentences.
As a faithful daughter of the Church she feels its
shortcomings and is not sparing with her censure.
To her censures she adds predictions, in which the
influence of the writings of Joachim of Fiore (q.v.)
is perceptible. But the greater part of her book
deals with the inner life, and here Matilda betrays
a depth and fulness of understanding which makes
its study both attractive and fruitful. On the
whole it is one of the most interesting works of
mysticism, and a true treasure of medieval German
literature. 	(S. M. DEuTscm)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Die Ofenbarungen der Schweder Mechtdild von Magdeburg, oder das fiessende Licht der Gottheit, ed. G. Morel, Regensburg, 1861; Sandw Mechthildis liber epecialis gratin and Sororia Mechthildis lux divinitmtie fluena in cords veritatis, in Revelatianea Gerdrudian® ac Mechthildianw, cura . . . Soleemenaium O. S. M. monachorum, ii. 1‑421 and 435‑707, Paris and Poitiers, 1877; W. Preger, Geschichte der deutachen Myatik im Mittelatter, i. 70‑71, 91 aqq., Leipsie, 1874; C. Greith, Die deutsche Mystik im Predige'orden, pp. 207‑277, Freiburg, 1881; J. Muller, Leben and Ofenbarungen der heiligen MeeANild and der SeWeater Mechthild, Regensburg, 1881.

MATILDA, COUNTESS OF TUSCANY: Supporter of the papacy; b. 1046; d. in the monastery of Bondeno de' Roncori July 24, 1115. A daughter of Count Boniface of Tuscany and Beatrice of Lorraine, she inherited from her parents, while still a mere child, very extensive possessions in northern and central Italy, through which lay the roads from Germany and France to Rome. They were therefore strategically important in the wars between emperor and pope. Her parentage was German, and her ancestors were adherents of the German emperors; but the treacherous manner in which Henry III. treated her father induced the latter to support the papal position; and during the reigns of Nicholas II., Alexander II., Gregory VIL, Viofor III., Urban II., and Paschalis II., the Countess Matilda followed their course and was the mainstay of the papacy. Specially intimate were her relations with Gregory VII., whom she sheltered more than once against Henry IV. She continued the war against the emperor, even after Gregory's death. She was twice married, first to Godfrey of Lorraine, then to Duke Guelf of Bavaria; but her first marriage seems never to have been completed, and from her second husband she was divorced. Her enormous wealth, bequeathed to the papal chair, formed part of the so‑called " Patrimonium Petri " (see PAPAL STATES).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Vita by the monk Doniaone (Domnisone) is in best form ed., with two Epitomes, L. C. Bethmann in MGH, Script., xii (1856), 348‑408; or separately, ed. F. Davoli, Reggio‑Emilis, 1888. An exoellent list of literature is found in Potthast, Wepweiaer, p. 1468. Consult: L. Tosti, La Contrma Matilde, Florence, 1859, new ed., Rome, 1886; A. P&Bnenborg, Studian our

Xatins	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	252
Matthew
	Geaehichte der Herzopin MaWde von Canoaea, GSttingen,
	1872; the biographies by Mrs. M. E. Huddy, London,
	1905, and Misas Nora Duff, ib., 1909; and the literature
	under PAPAL STATES, and under the articles on the popes
	named in the teat.
	MATINS: The office which, with its comple
ment Lauds (q.v.), forms the nocturnal part of the
Breviary (q.v.), and in length amounts to about
one‑half of that for the whole day. On ordinary
week‑days and simple feasts it ha§ only one divi
sion or nocturn; on Sundays and all feasts above
the rank of simple, it has three, corresponding to
the ancient Roman division of the night into three
watches. After the silent recitation of the Lord's
Prayer, Hail Mary, and Creed, it begins with the
introductory versicles and responses, and Ps. xcv.,
interspersed with repetitions of the invitatory, a
versicle referring to the day or season; then a
hymn, varying with the day, and the psalms, twelve
on ordinary week‑days, on festivals three to each
nocturn. Each psalm or group of psalms has its
Antiphon (q.v.) to bring out a special meaning for
the day. The psalms are followed by the lessons,
each with a short responsory. Those of the first
(or on week‑days the only) nocturn are taken from
the Old Testament; those of the second from the
lives of the saints or the writings of the Fathers;
those of the third from some patristic exposition of
'the Gospel for the day. After the last lesson the
place of the responsory is taken on Sundays (ex
cept in Advent and from Septuagesima to Easter),
festivals, and week‑days in the Paschal season, by
the Te Deum.
	Before the Reformation, matins, like vespers,
was frequently a public service attended by the
laity, so that some account was early taken of it
in the reorganization of worship.	In the Deutacher
Kirchenamt, probably as early as 1523, there is a
reformed vernacular office based upon it. Luther
wished to retain matins and vespers, and saw no
need of making radical changes in them, since they
were mainly taken from Scripture. He wished to
shorten matins, and to read the whole Psalter and
the rest of the Bible consecutively, adding exposi
tion on Sundays. In the Formula Misea; of 1523
and the Deutsche Meese of 1526, he sets forth his
arrangement at some length. It was not at all uni
versally followed, especially in South Germany. The
Reformed Churches knew nothing of it, and even
where it was retained among the Lutherans there
was no uniformity. In some places it was recited
daily, in others on Sundays, and in others again
only on great festivals; and the order of the serv
ice varied. In the nature of the case it was to be
expected that this ancient service should gradually
disappear; the last tram of it in Germany were
retained on the three great festivals, especially
Christmas; but none of the modern Agenda make
any attempt to reproduce it. [In the Church of
England Prayer‑book (see ComesoN PRAYER, Boos
ox) the vernacular office entitled " Morning
Prayer," and colloquially designated as matins to
this day, is a fusion of various features of the an
cient matins, lauds, and prime.]	(P. Ditaws.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bingham, Ortgines, %=, i=. 10; A. J.
	Binterim, Denkwardipkeibrh iv. 1, pp. 357 aqq, Mains.
1827; W. Palmer, Origines liturpicw, f. 213, Oxford, 1832;
F. Armknecht, Die alts Matuein‑ and Vmperondnung in
der eoangelinch‑lutheriaden Kirche, G3ttingen, 1856;
T. Kliefoth, Liturgvsche Abhandlungen, vi. 185 eqq., vii.
438 sqq., 489 eqq., viii. 164 sqq., Halle, 1859‑61; F. %.
Kmu& Real‑Encyk1opddie den chnselichen Altertume, ii.
530 eqq., Freiburg, 1886; V. Thalhofer, Handbuch der katholinchen Lisurpik, ii. 358, 434 sqq., 450, Freiburg, 1893; KL, viii. 1042 eqq.; and much of the literature under BaEVmB7.
MATTHEW.
7. The Apostle. IT. The Gospel.
External Testimony (§ 1).
The Sources (§ 8).
Content, Structure, and Purpose (§ 4).
Criticism versus Tradition (§ 2). Date and Value (§ 6).
I. The Apostle: In all the lists of the apostles in the New Testament Matthew appears as one of the Twelve, in Mark and Luke occupying the seventh place, in Matthew and the Acts the eighth. By the appellative " publican " (Matt. x. 3) he is to be identified with the Matthew of ix. 9 sqq. and doubtless with the Levi of Mark ii. 14 and Luke v. 27 sqq., Mark adding that his father was Alpheus; possibly Mark and Luke used his earlier name, Matthew being his name after he became a disciple. He was doubtless a Jew, as his name indicates, contrary to the statement of Julius Africanus. Nothing further regarding his life is told in Matthew or the Acts. In tradition his story developed. Thus Clement of Alexandria calls him a vegetarian (" The Instructor," IL, i.; ANF, ii. 241) and place him in the list of those saints who did not suffer martyrdom; later tradition made him a martyr by fire, beheading, or stoning; he is said to have preached first to his own people, afterward in foreign leads (Eusebius, Hilt. eccl., III., axiv. 6; NPNF, 2 eer., i. 152). The stories concerning his grave and his relics may be found in R. A. Lipsius, Die aPokryphen Agwatelgesehichtera, p. 217, Brunswick, 1890.
II. The Gospel: In the early Church the authorship of the first Gospel was universally ascribed to Matthew. The tradition of apostolical authorship arose very early, and that Gospel was the chief source used by the Apostolic Fathers,
:. External while Papias is expressly quoted as
Testimony. asserting the Matthean origin (" So then Matthew wrote the logic in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able," Eusebius, Hilt. eccl., III., xxxix. 16; NPNF, 2 ser., i. 173). By the assertion that the logic were in the Hebrew was meant not the classical Hebrew of the Old Testament, but the dialect of Syriac which was the mother tongue of Matthew and of Jesus, and he implies that the transler tions (into Greek) are more numerous than could be desired because inaccurate. With this sentence of Papias, then, begins the external testimony to the authorship of the first Gospel. Later writers never contradict Papias but rather copy or corroborate him (Eusebius, Hint, eccl., III., asv. 8, V., viii. 2, VI., w. 4). The fact of a Hebrew Matthew receives confirmation from still another source. And by this is meant neither what is related in the Apocryphal Acts of Barnabss (Lipsius, Die aPokryphen Apostelgeachichten, ii. 2, pp. 270 sqq., 291 eqq.) concerning the finding of an auto‑

253	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Xatina
Matthew
graph copy of Matthew with the remains of Barnabas, nor a suggestion that eastern Gospels have been thought, contrary to fact, to build upon a Hebrew original. Eusebius reports (Hiat. Md., V., a. 3) that Panta'nus, an early apostle to India, found among the Christians a copy of Matthew in Hebrew which had been left by the Apostle Bartholomew and preserved for about a century. Jerome reports (De vir. ill., iii.) that in 392‑393 A.D. in the library of Pamphilus at Ctesarea there was a copy of the original Hebrew teat, and that he had a rescript of another copy which the Nazarenes of Berea had lent him. But this can be pressed no further than that P8ataenus is a witness for the existence of a Gospel in Hebrew letters held to be the Hebrew Matthew, while the Gospel referred to by Jerome is doubtless the Gospel according to the Hebrews so often mentioned by him, reported by Eusebius as used by Hegesippus (Hint. wcl., IV., xxii. 8) and referred to by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Epiphanius (cf. Zahn, Kanon, ii. 2, pp. 842‑723), which diverged widely from the canonical Matthew. Jerome describes this as written " in the Chaldaic and Syriac language but in Hebrew letters," and as the only Gospel used by the Christians of Palestine who. spoke Hebrew. It is probable that the Gospel used by the Nazarenes was that by Matthew, that they used this alone and not the fourfold Gospel was due to poverty, and that in accordance with the naivetk of the times they " corrected " it to suit their own lootrinal tendencies. But as a sure witness to the original Hebrew Matthew the Gospel of the Hebrews is not available.
Since the Reformation belief in a Hebrew Matthew has been badly shaken. The originality of the Greek was a fundamental proposition with the Reformers. A reaction against this dogmatic assertion came in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when emphasis was laid 3. Criticism upon indications of translation in the
versus Greek and attempts were made to reTradition., construct the Aramaic basis. These attempts were destined to failure .for two reasons: (1) the canonical Gospel in its present form can not be the work of an apostle like Matthew who was an eye and ear witness of Jesus, since legend, misunderstanding, and irrelevancy are too prominent; (2) it is too closely dependent upon Mark not merely in choice of matter and arrangement but in verbal detail. Conservative criticism has sought to minimize the weight of these two sets of facts by supposing that the translator of the Hebrew Matthew had the Gospel of Mark before him and was influenced by it in him translation. But the identity of the present Matthew with the assumed Hebrew is no longer maintained, a " relationship " simply is asserted, and this, unfortunately, is no easier to establish than identity. Truly, many foolish arguments against the apostolicity of Matthew have been advanced which it is not neoessary to refute, particularly those drawn from comparison with the Fourth Gospel and from the first two chapters and the story of the temptation. But many of the additions to the Synoptic story of the passion bear the marks of invention which
in some cases can be traced to a tendency to shift the weight of blame for Christ's death, and other episodes are suspicious, such as the opening of the graves (xxvii. 52‑53). Similarly, such passages as xii. 40 are hardly to be attributed to a disciple, and a clear exposition of the consciousness of Jesus might be looked for from an apostle.
	The relation between Matthew and Mark is to
tally destructive of tradition. Under the TUbingen
hypothesis that Mark was a condensation from
Matthew and Luke, both sources of Mark were
carried back to apostolic origination. Since that
hypothesis has been given up, those who hold the
priority of Matthew over Mark do it at the expense
		of the tradition respecting both, while
	3. The	Zahn supposes that Mark, the disciple
	Sources.	of Peter, writing in Greek slavishly
		used the Hebrew Matthew, while the
translator of the latter in turn used the Greek Mark.
But comparison of Matthew and Mark and of Luke
and, Mark show that Mark is the earlier, since Mat
thew and Luke introduce corrections and explana
tions. On the other hand, passages show inde
pendent treatment by Matthew, as in chap. xiii.,
where Matthew, though following the thread of the
Marcan chain of parables, makes additions. If
Matthew, therefore, appears as the work of an author
comparatively distant from the events he narrates
and also dependent upon Mark for form and content,
it can no longer be ascribed to the Apostle Matthew
writing in Hebrew. Still, the Papias tradition may
have a kernel of fact. For while Matthew is in
great part parallel to Mark, it contains large and
important portions not derived from the second
Gospel. Such are chaps. i.‑ii., v.‑vii., x., parts of
xxiii.‑xxv., many of the parables, and bits of
history like viii. 5‑13; and in these matters Matthew
is often in company with Luke. But since this
close relationship between Matthew and Luke is
limited to definite sections while in other parts the
relation of dependence is out of the question, the
solution can not be reached by the hypothesis of
combination between Matthew and Luke, and
there is left the supposition that these two Gospels
employed another source besides Mark. It is the
misfortune of the two‑document theory that it has
been bound up with a perverted explanation of
Papias and with the supposed tradition that Matthew
wrote only the words (logfa) of Jesus. In fact, it is
one of the surest results of a criticism unencumbered
by tradition and using internal evidences that it
brings into use a lost writing which deals with the
words of Jesus. That there were in existence col
lections of logia is shown by the Oxyrhynchus
fragments (cf. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, Logaa
Jesu, London, 1897). The usage of Paul (I Tbess.
iv. 15) and of the Gospels themselves in not always
giving the historical framework of individual say
ings or in differing in the historical setting supports
the hypothesis of a logia source, and it is clear from
comparison of Matthew and Luke that this source
had formulas of introduction which both Gospels
have employed. This document may have con
tained many things which it is now impossible to
prove were in it. It can not be decided whether
Mark employed it; it is improbable, however, that

Matthew	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	254
Matthew of Westminster
	it was a complete Gospel or that it purposed more
	than to give an introduction to the teaching of
	Jesus. Indications do not suggest its attribution
	to the Apostle Matthew, yet as one of the two sources
	of the present Matthew Gospel there is the highest
	probability that an Aramaic collection of the words
	of Jesus was used, and Matthew's name may have
	been attached to it. It would be no surprise that
	such a collection, attributed to this apostle, should
	bestow its supposed author's name upon the com
	pleted Gospel, though this was written by one who
	was neither an apostle nor the disciple of one. In
	other words, Matthew is based upon Mark and
	other sources, one of which was also employed in
	the Gospel of the Hebrews on other soil, with other
helps, and with a different purpose.
	An examination of the material does not permit
	the assertion that the compiler had in mind a
	sharply defined plan which included division into
	six or five or three parts, only that he gathered
	similar materials into great groups and left it.to be
	discovered what was his point of view in the arrange
	ment. The time idea is dominant in chaps. i. ii.,
	xxvi.‑xxviii., and in part also in iii.
;. Content, xxv.	The connectives also give an
	Structure, impression of attention to chronology.
	and Purpose. But all this is only the employment of
	a literary form which is merely external.
	Thus, after a painting of Jesus' deeds (iv. 17‑25)
	the Gospel illustrates his method of teaching (v.1‑7,
	27), and then exhibits him as a helper in every kind
	of need by adducing ten examples of his instruction.
	It is more difficult to expound the difference between
	ix. 35 and xx. 34. The apostle shows first how
	Jesus educated the disciples to assist in his work of
	evangelization by showing the necessity of help
	(ix. 35‑38), and sketched the plan of operations
	(x. 5‑42), though elsewhere in the Gospel, in spite
	of these earlier lessons, he is engaged in showing
	how to do the work; second, Jesus finds himself
	hindered by the dulness of the masses, for whom he
	adopts the method of teaching by parables (chaps.
	ai., xiii., xv‑, xxi., sqq.); third, he combats Phari
	saic obtuseness and prejudice (xii. 1‑14, xii. 22 sqq.,
	xv‑ 1‑20). One may say that ix. 35‑xviii. 35 (or
	sx. 34) contains the transition from the first period
	of success to the turning away of Jesus from the
	crude people and the fanatical Pharisees to the
	little flock of devoted and true disciples. Of the
	purpose of this Gospel two opposing views have
	been held. One regards it as expressing a narrow
	type of Jewish Christianity, interested in the
	Davidic descent of Jesus, in the eternal worth of
	the law, and in prophecy (v. 17‑20, x. 6, Md. 2‑7);
	the other sees in Matthew an anti‑Jewish and anti
	Judaistic tendency, especially in viii. 10‑12, xii.
	41‑42, xv. 28, xxvii. 22‑23, 25. Zahn thinks that
	Matthew wished his book to be read especially by
Jews as yet unconverted.	But this book was
	intended rather for the faithful, to whom it was
	meant to prove that in Jesus were realized the
	prophecies and promises of the Old Testament. It is
	not a narrative produced for the delights of author
	ship, nor a polemic writing against unbelieving
	Israel; it is a positive justification of the Gospel of
	Christ, the strong apologetics of which is directed
less against antagonistic reproach than against particular doubts, and least of all against heretical parties. Thus, the genealogy, arranged in three parts of fourteen steps each, from Abraham to David and then to Jechonias, is intended to prove that with the birth of Jesus a new era had begun. Moreover, in its closing words it is distinctively universalistic; and it recognizes that outside of Christ there is no salvation (xxv. 1‑13).
While nothing further can be said of the author than that he was a Jewish Christian, acquainted with both Hebrew and Greek, a resident of Palestine and acquainted with numerous written and oral sources, there yet remains the task of setting his date. If Matthew was the author, g. Date the date would be not far from 70 A.D.
and Value. Passages like x. 23, xvi. 28 echo the
	earliest period of Christianity, and
x. 18 does not contradict this impression. For a
time later than 70 A.D. speaks xxii. 7, but how
much later? The reign of Trajan (98‑117 A.D.)
is the latest date allowable because of the testimony
of Papias. If Luke is dependent upon Matthew,
the date must be put prior to 100 A.D. The trini
tarian formula (xxviii. 19) does not presume a very
early date;	xxiv. 25 does not seem to express
immediate expectation of the parousia; the impres
sion of development of the Church is quite marked,
suggesting a date later than 75 A.D.; and there is
no trace of a conflict such as Paul waged with the
idea of the Jewish law as a principle of salvation.
Argument as to the date derived from the amount
of textual corruption as compared with the other
Gospels is inconclusive, because the wide diffusion
of the Matthew Gospel in the early Church gave
larger opportunities for corruption. Distinction
between a proto‑ and a deutero‑Matthew does
not seem justified in view of the unity of the book
in its dogmatic, literary, and religious character
istics. The regard in which the book was held in
the early Church as compared with the popularity
of Mark and Luke (the Gospel of John is so different
in genius as not to come into comparison) is due to
the fact that it expresses the spirit of the early
Catholic Church, while the other Synoptics are more
individualistic in character. The material is rich,
derived from good sources, effectively and strongly
presented, and the literary method preserves the mean
between inartistic hardness and artificial plainness.
And in neither of the other Synoptics does the figure
of Jesus so stand out as teacher and helper as in this
of Matthew. For the Gospel of Pseudo‑Matthew
see Apocrypha, B, I., 2. 	(A. J$LICHER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: On the apostle the articles in the dictionaries, eg., DB, ii. 295‑296; EB, iii. 2986‑87; E. C. A. Riehm, Handw6rterbuch des bibliachen Al&rtuma, pp. 976977, Leipsic, 1894; F. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, Paris, 1905.
Questions of introduction are treated in the commentaries (below), in the works on New‑Testament introduction (see BIBLICAL INTRODucnoN), especially those of Godet, Holtzmann, Jiilicher, and Zahn; much of the literature on the life of Christ discusses the subject; the
literature on the Synoptic relations is given under GoePRLs. Note may be made here of the following special
works: J. H. Scholten Das dlteate Evamelium, Elberfeld, 1869; P. Schanz, in TQ, lxiv (1882), 517‑560; E. Massebieau, Examen dee cifations de l'Araeien Tmament Wang . . . 3. MaMieu, Paris, 1885; A, B, Bruce, With Open Fax.

855	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	X°tH`°w
		Xatthew of Westminster
	pp. 1‑24, London, 1890; F. P. Badbam, Bt. Mark's In
	debtedness to St. Matthew, ib. 1897; E. Roehrich, La Com
	position des eoanpiles, Paris, 1897; P. Wernle, Die synoPti
	sde Drape, Tibingen, 1899; A. Harnack, Bprache and
	Rode Jesu. Die xroeite Quells des Matthdus and Lukas,
	Leipsic, 1907; DB, iii. 296‑305. On the original language
	consult: D. Gla, Oripinalspraehe dos MaaMus, Pader
	born, 1887; G. Dal‑, Die Worts Jesu, vol. i., Leipsic,
	1898. On the relation to the Gospel of the Hebrews
	consult: S. Bering‑Gould, Lost and Hostile Gospels, Lon
	don, 1874; E. B. Nicholson, The Gospel according to the
	Hebmos, ib. 1879; A. Hilgenfeld, N. T. extra canonem
	reuptum, part iv., Leipei0. 1884; R. Handmann. in TU,
	v. 3, 1889; J. A. Robinson, in Expositor, 5 ser., v (1897),
	194‑200; E. Hennecke, Neutestamentliehe ApolC7lphen,
pp. 11‑21, Tiibingen, 1904.
	Commentaries, outside of patristic and medieval sources,
	are: P. A. Grate, 2 vole., Tobingen, 1821; T. J. Conant,
	New York, 1860; H. Lutteroth, 4 vole., Paris, 1860‑76;
	A. RAville, ib. 1862; W. A. Nast, Cincinnati, 1864; J. P.
	Lange, New York, 1865; H. T. Adamson, London, 1871;
	J. A. Alexander, New York, 1873; J. J. Owen, ib. 1873;
	B. Weiss, Halle, 1876; J. C. F. Keil, Leipaic, 1877; J. L.
	Sommer, Erlangen, 1877; P. Schaff, New York, 1879;
	P. Schans, Freiburg, 1879 (Roman Catholic); E. B.
	Nicholson, London, 1881; J. Kleutgen, Freiburg, 1882
	(Roman Catholic); Juan de Valdes (Eng. transl., London,
	1882); E. H. Plumptre, in Ellicott's Handy Commentary.
	New York, 1883; E. W. Rice, Philadelphia, 1886; J. A.
	Broadus, Philadelphia, 1887; A. Carr, in Cambridge Bible,
	Cambridge, 1879; idem, in Cambridge (creek Testament, ib.
	1887; J. Msldonatus, Eng. transl., 2 vols., London, 1888
	1889 (Roman Catholic, from the 18th century); E. KUbel,
	Munich, 1889; J. M. Gibson, in Expositor's Bible, London,
	1890; H. J. Holtsnann, 3d ad., Tflbingen,1901; J. Morison,
	London, 1895 (one of the best); C. F. Schaefer, in Lutheran
	Commentary, New York, 1895; C. F. NOegen, Munich, 1897;
	J. M. S. Baljon, Utrecht, 1900; F. C. Ceulemans, Malines,
	1901 (Roman Catholic); F. N. Peloubet, 2 vole., New York,
	1901; T. Zahn, Leipsic, 1903; F. S. Gutjahr, GmE,,19G4
	(Roman Catholic); J. Wellhausen, Berlin, 1904; A. Macla^
	rear 3 vols., London. 1905‑06; W. C. Allen, in International
	Critical Commentary. Edinburgh and New York, 1907; A.
Plummer, London, 1909; E. Rice, Philadelphia, 1910.
	MATTHEW PARIS: English chronicler; b. in
	or near St. Albans not much before 1200; d. there,
probably in June, 1259.	[The origin of the desig
nation " Paris " is questionable.	It has been at
	tributed to a supposed (but doubtful) sojourn in
	the city of Paris during his studies: the claim is
	also made that it was his family name. The latter
	supposition is difficult (though not impossible), as
	the period is early for surnames:] He was educated
	in the abbey school, and became (Jan. 21, 1217)
	a monk in this famous monastery, which, founded in
	1077, had become a great center of light and learn
	ing, and since the time of Abbot Simon (1167‑53)
	had paid special attention to literary arid partic
	ularly historical production by its monks. Matthew
	was placed in charge of the acrtptortum or writing
	room in 1236 and retained this office until his
	death. He frequently visited London, Canterbury,
	and Winchester, gaining some knowledge of the
	great world outside his cloister, and made one visit
	to Norway (1248) to reform the abbey of Niderhohn
	near Trondlljem. He rightly regarded the writing
	of history, for which he had not only special faeili
	ties but special talent, as his life‑work. His fame
	rests principally on his Chronica majora, written in
the usual form of annals.	Up to 1235 it is a
	recasting and enlargement of the Floret histor
	iarum of Roger of Wendover, from that date
to 1259 entirely independent.	He wrote also a
	history of the abbey of St. Albans in the form of
biographies of the abbots; Liter additamentolum,
a collection of documents to serve as a supplement
to the Chronica; lives of the two Offas, kings of
Mercia, of Stephen Langton and Edmund Rich,
archbishops of Canterbury, and of St. Richard of
Chichester. The Chronicle is distinguished . by
many virtues: an insatiable desire for accurate
information, keen realization pf the difference
between essentials and non‑essentials, a broad view
of Christianity, outspoken boldness even when
dealing with kings and popes, clearness and beauty
of style. He is an admirable representative of the
English public opinion of his day. Matthew was
unusually privileged in having frequent opportuni
ties of intercourse not only with courtiers but with
kings, who valued him highly and took a deep inter
est in his work. But his opportunities would have
counted for little if he had not possessed a mind
that knew how to search further for any piece of
information of value in any part of the civilized
world, and to make prompt and systematic use of
the knowledge thus gained. He ranks as the first
great English historian. 	(H. B81=R.)
BIHLIOOaAPH7: The Hdsforia Anplorum, ed. F. Madden, is
	no. 44 in Rolls Series, 3 vols., London, 186&‑09; and the
	Chronica majora, ed. H. R. Luard, is no. 57 of the same,
	7 vole., ib. 1872‑84 (the prefaces to these works are of
	especial value); the Liber additamentorum is in Luard, ut
	sup., vol. vi.; excerpts from Matthew's works, ed. F.
	Liebermann, are in MQH, Script., xxviii (1888), 74 155;
	the Chronica in Eng. tranel. is in Bonn's Antiquarian
	Library, 3 vole., London, 1852‑54. Consult: T. D. Hardy,
	Descriptive Catalogue of Materials, no. 26 in Rolls Series,
	vol. iii., preface, London, 1871; A. Jessop, Studies by a
	Reduse, pp. 1‑65, ib. 1893 (an appreciation); H. Plehn,
	Der polrotische Character Madharus Parisiansis, Leipsio,
	1897; Gross. Sours. pp. 29"00; DNB, xliii. 203‑2~13,
	of. xxxv. 292.
MATTHEW, THOMAS: Pseudonym for John Rogers (q.v.); see also B1RLE VRRsloxs, B, IV.,. J 4.

MATTHEW, TOBIE (TOBIAS): Anglican prelate and statesman; b. in Bristol 1546; d. at Cawood Castle (9 m. s. of York) March 29, 1628. He was graduated from Oxford (B.A., 1563‑64; M.A., 1566; B.D., 1573; D.D., 1574); was chosen public orator of the university,, 1569; appointed canon of Christ Church, 1570; archdeacon of Bath, and prebendary of Teynton Regis in the cathedral of Salisbury, 1572; the same year he was made president of St. John's College; dean of Christ Church, 1576; vice‑chancellor of the university, 1579; dean of Durham, 1583; vicar of Bishop's Wearmouth, 1590; bishop of Durham, 1595; archbishop of York, 1606 Matthew was in his day a noted orator, a preacher of high repute, faithful even to punctiliousness in the performance of the duties of his bishopric, a diligent guardian of the royal and national interests in the northern counties, and a man of quiet humor and earnest piety. His only publication seems to have been a Coneio apologetics adversua Campianum, which was circulated in manuscript form some time prior to his death and printed only after his death (London, 1638).
BIBLIOGRAPIFY: DNB, xxxvii. 80‑83, where references to other literature are given.

MATTHEW OF WESTMIRSTER: The name once given to the supposed author of Floret Histor‑

Xatthias	THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG	256
Xsurloe
iarum, which is now known to be a composite work.
A full discussion is to be found in the preface to
H. R. Luard's .masterly ed. of the Flores, no. 95 of
Rolls Series, London, 1890. See MATTHEW PARIS.
MATTHIAS: According to Acts i. 23, one of
the	witnesses of the ministry, death, and resur
	rection of Jesus. He was therefore received among
the Twelve, but no traditions have been preserved
	regarding his activity, although the early Church con
sidered him one of the seventy disciples. The third
	and fourth centuries possessed a heretical Gospel of
	Matthias (see APOCRYPHA, B, I., 28). (A. HAuc$.)
	MAULBRONN: A little town of Wiirttemberg, 23
m. n.w. of Stuttgart, noteworthy as the seat of a
	former Cistercian monastery and as the place where
a Protestant conference was hell in 1564 and a
	formula drawn up in 1576. The monastery was
			founded about 1138 by Walter of
		The	Lomersheim at a distance of an hour
	Monastery. and a half from the present village,
			whence it was transferred by Bishop
	Gilnther of Speyer, between Aug., 1146, and May,
	1147, to the valley of the Salzach, where it still
	forms one of the lest‑preserved monasteries in
	Germany. Its daughter abbeys were Bronnbach
	(1151) and Schonthal (1157). At the beginning
	of the Reformation it was a center of the monks
	who remained faithful to the Roman Catholic
	Church; but in 1557 it received a Protestant abbot,
	although for a short time during the Thirty Years'
	War it again came under Roman Catholic control.
	It is now the seat of a famous theological seminary.
	The Colloquy of Maulbronn arose from the intro
	duction of Calvinism into the Palatinate by the
	Elector Frederick III., and especially from the
	formulation of the Heidelberg Catechism in 1563
	(see HEIDELBERG CATEOHI8M; and PHILIPPIBTB).
			The neighboring Lutheranprinces, seek
	The Collo‑ ing both to unite Protestantism and to
		quy of	maintain pure doctrine, proposed to
	Maulbronn. Frederick (Oct. 4,1563) to hold a confer
			ence of the rival schools in the presence
	of the princes. Though at first reluctant, Frederick
	finally consented to a secret " friendly colloquy" to
	be held at Maulbronn immediately after Easter, the
	theme to be the meaning of the words of institution.
	The	conference, attended by Frederick and Duke
	Christopher of Wurttemberg, with an imposing
array of theologians and officials on either side, was
	accordingly held in ten sessions on Apr. 10‑15, 1564.
	Eight of these were consumed in a debate on the
	ubiquity of the body of Christ, without reaching any
	conclusion whatsoever; and the remaining sessions
were devoted to an equally useless attempt to reach
	harmony in Eucharistic doctrine. The princes,
hard pressed by affairs of state, put an end to the
fruitless debates, and on Apr. 17 the protocols. were
	compared and signed, the two princes exchaging
written statements of their several beliefs. Despite
the bond of secrecy, the affair leaked out through
letters in which the Calvinists boasted that they
had triumphed over the Lutherans. The result was
a series of publications of the transactions of the
conference.	These were, on the Lutheran side,
J. Brenz, Wahrhaftiger and grundgicher $ericU
von dam Gesprach zwischen des Churfursten Pfaltzgrafen and des Hertzogen zu Wurthemberg Theologen von des Hewn Nachtmahl zu Maulbronn gehalten (Frankfort, 1564; Lat. ed., 1564); Protocoll des Gesprechs . . . dam Original gleichfor‑ig, one Zusatz and Abbruch (Tiibingen, 1565); Erkldrung der Wurttembergischen Theologen Bekanndtnum . . . der wahrhafftigen Gegenwartigkeit . . . im heiligen Abendmahl (1565); and Letzte Antwort der Wirttembergischen Theologen wider die Heydelbergische (1566). On the Calvinistic side appeared Protocoll, das ist, Acta oder Handlungen des Gespreehs zurischen den Pfdltzischen and Wirtembergischen Theologen .
item, der Wirtembergischen Theologen ton gemeldtem Gesprech desselben Jares aussgangener Bericht, samt der Pfaltzischen Theologen wahrhaftigem and be8tendigena Gegenbericht (Heidelberg, 1565; Lat. ed., 1566); Solids refutatio sophismatum et cavillalionum quibus Wurtenbergici totam controverstam incru8taverunt (1565); and Bestendige Antwort der Pfaltzischen Theologen auf der Wirtembergischen Theologen Erkldrung and Bekenntniss (1566). The ensuing controversy involved the theologians of Wittenberg and elsewhere, who decided against the Calvinistic position. Duke Christopher, however, alarmed by the growth of Calvinism in Germany, appealed in addition to the Evangelical princes, and it was only through the energetic intervention of the Elector Frederick at the Diet of Augsburg in 1566 that the threatened storm was averted.
Far more peaceable was the conference held at Manlbronn in 1576, at which theologians from Wtirttemberg, Baden, and Henneberg drew up the
	"Maulbronn formula," one of the
The	bases of the "Formula of Concord"
	"Maulbronn (q.v.). In conformity with the desire of
	Formula." the Elector August of Saxony to secure
	doctrinal unity among the Evangelical
churches of Germany, a preliminary document was
drafted at Stuttgart on Nov. 14, 1575, which formed
the basis of the formula adopted at Maulbronn on
Jan. 19, 1576 (first printed by T. Pressel in Jahr
bvlcher far deutsche Theologae, 1866, 640‑711). This
was sent to August, who, about the same time,
received the Swabo‑Saxon formula of Duke Julius of
Brunswick. At the Conference of Torgau, opened
May 28, 1576, the latter was made the basis of
discussion, though with the incorporation of all
the essentials of the Maulbronn formula, the result
being the " Book of Torgau." In September of the
same year a second conference of theologians from
Wurttemberg, Baden, and Renneberg was held at
Maulbronn, at which the "Book of Torgau" was
ratified in all essentials.	(E. NESTLE.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: On the monastery, besides the literature under CIBTERCIANe, consult: F. Eisenlohr, Mittelalter‑
luhe Bauwerke im sttdweetliclten Dmtachland Carlsruhe, 1853‑57; J. and P. Hartmann, Wepweiaer durcA das Klostar Maulbronn, Stuttgart, 1875; E Paulus, Die Cieterzienaerabtei Maulbronn, Stuttgart, 1889; E. Baseler, %leiner FiiArer durch das Kloster Mautbronn Haulbronn, 1902; A. Mettler, Zur %losteranlape der Zisteraienser and zur Bau.
peachicUc Maulbronns, Stuttgart, 1909.
On the Maulbronn Colloquy consult: G. J. Planck,
Geschiclite . . . unsers protestantischen Lehrbeprifa, v. 2, pp. 487 sqq., 6 vole., Leipsic, 1791‑1800; H. L. J. Heppe, Geschichte des deutwhen Protestanuamw, ii. 71 eqq., Frankfort, 1865‑66; A. Kluckhohn, Friedrich der Fsnrtune, pp. 166 aqq, NBrdlingen, 1876‑79.

257	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	xatthias
		Xsurice
	MAUNDY THURSDAY: The day before Easter,
also called Holy Thursday. The word,, maundy " is
derived from the Latin rnandatum (commandment),
referring to John xiii. 34, and the day commemo
rates the institution of the Lord's Supper and the
washing of the disciples' feet. See HoLy WEEK, § 4.
	MAUR, mor (MAURUS), SAINT: A legendary
disciple of Benedict of Nursia, who first became fa
mous through the Congregation of St. Maur (q.v.).
He is said to have been born at Rome in 511 and
died at Glanfeuil in Anjou, 584; also to have intro
duced the Benedictine rule into France and to have
founded at Glanfeuil the first French monastery of
his order. His extant biography is ascribed to
Faustus, a monk of Monte Cassino and a contem
porary of Maurus, but is in reality a forgery of the
ninth century. Gregory of Tours does not mention
Maur, and the details of his life are doubted not
only by Protestants but also by Roman Catholic
scholars.		(A. HAuc$.)
BIBLIoaRAPH7: For the Vita, or other documents, consult
	ASS, Jan., i.1039,1051‑60; ASM, exec. I., pp. 274‑298, IV.,
	2, pp. 165‑183; MPL, xciv. 1594‑97; and ed. O. Holder
	Egger, MGH, Script., xv (1887), 462‑472. Consult:
	S. Maur et le eanctuaire de Glaafeuil en Anjou, Angers,
	1869; A. Ebert, Allgemeine Gezchichte der Literatur des
	Mittelaltera, ii. 351, Leipsic, 1880; Zeumer, in NA, xi.
	316; A. Molinier, Sources de 1'hist. de France, i. 161‑162,
	Paris, 1901.
	MAURICE OF HESSE. See VnRBEssERuNOs
PLTNxTE, DIE HE&9IsCREN.
	MAURICE (MAURITIUS), SAINT: The name
of several early Christian martyrs, of whom the
most celebrated is the commander (primicerius) of
the famous Theban Legion (q.v.) which was put to
death in a body under the Emperor Maximian for
its confession of the Christian faith.
	MAURICE OF SAXONY: Elector of Saxony;
b. at Freiberg Mar. 21, 1521; d. at Sievershausen
(16 m. e. of Hanover) July 11, 1553. He succeeded
his father as duke of Saxony in 1541, and obtained
the electoral dignity after the battle of Miihlberg,
1547. Though he had embraced the Reformation,
and, together with his father, signed the Schmalkald
Articles, he refused to ioin the League, probably
because he considered the organization too weak,
and his own position in it too subordinate, to form
the basis for his ambitious schemes; and at the Diet
of Regensburg (q.v.), where he and Duke Eric of
Brunswick were the only Protestant princes present,
he made a secret alliance with the Emperor Charles
V. Accordingly, when the war broke out, he
marched his troops into the territory of his cousin,
the elector of Saxony, and conquered the country.
But as soon as the elector, who stood in Upper
Germany with a well‑appointed army, heard of this
treachery, he hastened back to Saxony, and not
only reconquered his own land, but also expelled
Maurice from his dukedom. The emperor came to
his rescue; and at the Diet of Augsburg (Feb. 24,
1548) he was solemnly invested with a large portion
of his cousin's territory and the electoral dignity.
He rejected the Augsburg Interim; but the Leipsic
Interim, which he substituted after conferring with
Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, and others, proved as
		VIL‑17
hateful to his subjects. Realizing that the Reformation would not be kept apart from politics as a purely religious issue, he decided to place himself at the head of the movement, driven onward, no doubt, also by indignation at the emperor's faithlessness toward his father‑in‑law, Philip of Hesse, and by fear of the intrigues recently set on foot to supersede King Ferdinand, the emperor's brother, and fasten the succession on Don Philip, the emperor's son, but a Spaniard. Concealing his plans with great adroitness, he gathered a great army, formed an alliance with France, and suddenly fell upon the emperor at Innsbruck, and compelled him to fly for his life across the Alps. By the mediation of King Ferdinand, the Treaty of Passau was brought about (1552), and full religious liberty was granted to the Protestants. Maurice now completely regained the confidence of his coreligionists; but he had only a short time to avail himself of the great opportunities thereby offered him. In a feud with the margrave of Brandenburg he was severely wounded, and died a few days after. See INTERIM; and AuosauRG, RELIGIOUS PEACE OF.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. A. von Langenn, Moritz, Herzog and Churfiirat zu Sachsen, 2 parts, Leipsic, 1841; E. Brandenburg, Moritz von Sachsen, Leipsic, 1898. Consult further: 0. winckelmann, Der aehmalkaldiachen Bund, 1650‑58, Strasburg, 1892; J. Janssen, Hiat, of the German People, vi. 308 eqq., 8t. Louis, 1903.

MAURICE, m6'ris, JOHN FREDERICK DENI‑
SON: Church of England theologian, metaphysician, and educator; b. at Normanston near Lowestoft (20 m. s.w. of Norwich), Suffolk, Aug. 29, 1805; d. in London Apr. 1, 1872. He entered Cambridge in 1823, but left in 1827 without taking a degree because he was unable to subscribe; but went to Oxford in 1830, and was ordained to the ministry of the Church of England in 1834. He was chaplain of Guy's Hospital, 183646; became professor of English literature and history at King's College, London, 1840; was Boyle lecturer, 1846‑17, and Warburton lecturer, 1846; became chaplain of Lincoln's Inn, 1846; assisted in the founding of Queen's College, 1848, and of the College for Working Men, London, 1854, of which latter he became principal; was appointed to St. Peter's, Vere Street, London, 1860; became Knightbridge professor of casuistry, moral theology, and moral philosophy at Cambridge, 1866, retaining charge of St. Peter's till 1869; was appointed to St. Edward's, Cambridge, 1870, and was Cambridge preacher at Whitehall, 1871‑72. Maurice came of Unitarian parentage, and his early career was somewhat handicapped by the scruples and limitations involved. But under the influence of the writings of Coleridge he worked his way to an Evangelical position, though the changes in his personal attitude made him ever unwilling to attach himself to any party in the Church. The result was that throughout his life the independence of his thought, sometimes expressed polemically, as well as his dissent from the extremes of the two wings in the Church, brought upon him much of discomfort through the many attacks to which he was subjected. He had a natural aptitude for metaphysics, and in the development of his theology his popularity was often

Xaurice	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	258
Ifasimus Confessor
hindered by the profundity of his statements. He
was one of the men who profoundly influenced
thought both in England and in America. This he
did not less by the fact that he was a voluminous
writer than by his sincerity and earnestness, being
	always ready to resign a position rather than to be
deemed insincere in holding it, and by his essen
	tially irenic disposition. His industry was remark
able, as is attested by the number of his works (cf.
G. J. Gray, Bibliography of the Writings 7of F. D.
Maurice, London, 1885). The most important of
	these are: The Kingdom of Christ, or Hints to a
	Quaker Respecting the Principle, Constitution, and
	Ordinances of the Catholic Church (3 vols., London,
1837, 3d ed., 1883);	The Epistle to the Hebrews
	(Warburtonian Lectures; 1846); The Religions of
	the World and their Relations to Christianity (Boyle
Lectures; Cambridge, 1847);	The Old Testament,
	Nineteen Sermons (London, 1851; 2d ed. issued as
	Patriarchs and Lawgivers of the Old Testament,
Cambridge, 1855);	Theological Essays (London,
	1853); The Prophets and Kings of the Old Testament
(Cambridge, 1853);	Ecclesiastical History of the
First and Second Centuries (1854);	Claims of the
	Bible and of Science (on the Colenso controversy;
	1863); The Gospel of the Kingdom. of Heaven; a
	Course of Lectures on the Gospel of Luke (1864);
The Conscience;	Lectures on Casuistry (London,
	1868); Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy (2 vols.,
	1871‑72); and The Friendship of Books, and Other
	Lectures, ed. T. Hughes (1874). Matthew Arnold's
	remark that Maurice was always beating the bush
	bu'; never started the hare is accepted as just by
	many who think that Maurice has been much
	overrated, and that his "profundity" is frequently
allied with obscurity.
	BMLIOaaAPHY: Life of Frederick Denison Maurice, chiefly
	told in his own Letters, ed. by his Son, Frederick Maurice,
	London, 1884; C. Fox, Memories of Old Prierute, Vol. ii.
	passim, ib. 1882; C. G. F. Maeterman, Frederick Denison
Maurica, ib. 1907; DNB, aQvii. 97‑105.
	MAURY, m8"A', JEAN SIFFREIft: French
	cardinal; b. at ValrOas (78 m. n.n.w. of Marseilles),
	France, June 26, 1746; d. at Montefiascone (about
	50 m. n.n.w. of Rome), Italy, May 11, 1817. He
	was educated in the seminary of Avignon, but
	occupied himself more with literature than theology.
	By his Oraison funkbre du Dauphin, panogyrrque de
	saint Louis (Paris, 1766), he attracted great atten
tion as an orator;	was made abbot of Frdnade,
	and prior of Lyons, and published his best work
	Essai Sur lWoquence de la chaire (new ed., Paris,
1810, Eng. transl., Principles of Ed1793). Elected a member of the States ~ 	o
	Generalin
	1789, and of the constituent assembly, he played a
	conspicuous part, defending the prerogatives of the
	crown, the privileges of the nobility, and the immu
	nities of the church. Compelled to emigrate in 1792,
	he repaired to Rome, where he was received by
	Pius VI. with great honor; made archbishop in
	partib‑ of Nica;a, bishop of Montefiascone, and
cardinal 1794.	At the instance of Pius VII., it
	is said he wrote a humble letter to Napoleon, Aug.
	22, 1804, which resulted in his reconciliation with
	the French Government. In 1806 he returned to
	Paris; and so absolutely did . he devote himself to
Napoleon that he became an object of hatred to the legitimists and the ultramontanes. In 1810 Napoleon made him archbishop of Paris; but the chapter protested against the appointment, and the pope refused his sanction. He was expelled from his see as soon as the Bourbons returned, and, when he went to Rome to lay the case before the pope, was imprisoned in the castle of San Angelo until he resigned his see. His (Euvres choisies were published by his nephew (5 vols., Parie,1827); his Correspondance diplomatique et m6moires iWdifs appeared in 2 vols. (Lille, 1891); his (Euvres orataires completes are in Migne, Collection . . . ales orateurs sacr6s, Vol. Ixvii.
BIHwoasAPaT: J. J. F. Pouioulat, Le Cardinal Maury, sa vie. sea wuvrea, Paris, 1859; G. Bonet‑Maury, Le Cardinal Maury d'apr~s see mbmoires et as correapondance in6dite, 17.48‑1817, ib. 1892.
MAUSBACH, maus'baa, KARL JOSEPH: German Roman Catholic; b. at Wipperfeld (a village near Wipperfiirth, 23 m. n.e. of Cologne) Feb. 7, 1861. He was educated at the University of Munster (D.D., 1888) and the theological seminary at EichsMtt, having already been a curate in Cologne in 1884. He was teacher of religion in MunchenGladbach from 1889 to 1892, and since the latter year has been professor of moral theology and apologetics at the University of MiInater. He has written: D. Thom&, Aquinatis de voluntate et appetitu sensitivo doctrana (Paderborn, 1888); Christentum and Weltmoral (Munster, 1897); Die katholische Moral, ihre Methoden, Crrundsdtze and Aufgaben (Cologne, 1901); Die ultramontane moral nach Graf Paul Von Hoembroech (Berlin, 1902) ; Kernfragen christlicher Welt‑ and Lebemanschauung (Miinchen‑Gladbach, 1903‑08); Weltgrund and Menschheitsziel (1904); Auagewahlte Texte zur allgemeinen Moral au8 Thomas von Aquin (Munster, 1905); Die Stellung der Frau im Menschheitsleben (MunchenGladbaeh,1906); Altchriatliche and moderns Gedanken iiber Frauenberuf (1906); and Die Ethik ales heiligen Auguetinua (2 vols., Freiburg, 19M).
MABIMMUUS. See DIoCLETiAN.

MAXIMEKU99 max"i‑mailnvs, THRA%, CAIUS JULIUS VERUS• Roman emperor, 235‑238; b. of Gothic and Alan parentage in Thrace, probably in 173; d. at Aquileia (the modern Aquileja,‑21 m. w.n.w. of Triest) June 17, 238. The first barbarian to occupy the throne of the Cwsars, he was in early life a cowherd and later a cavalryman. Eight feet in height, and powerful and brave in proportion, he gained the favor of Alexander Severus, who made him a senator and the head of a legion, as well as a trainer of the recruits among his compatriots. In the campaign against the Germans, the soldiers proclaimed Maximinus emperor. In terror of the troops, the senate confirmed their choice, but th8
new emperor never came to Rome, preferring to remain with his soldiers and conquer the Germans, after which he went to Pannonia. But the brutality of his rule, accentuated by his auspicious nature and his knowledge of his lack of culture, resulted in a cruelty and oppression which led to his assassination.
Shortly after his accession to the throne, Maxi‑

259	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
		=us Confessor
minus issued an edict against all the Christian clergy, but it was practically disregarded, Sulpicius Severna mentioning only the occasional application of torture during this reign. In Rome the bishop Pontianus and the priest Hippolytus were banished, while Origen, who was a special object of the emperor's hatred on account of his relations with the household of Alexander Severna, found refuge in the home of Juliana, a Christian woman. In Pontus and Cappadocia the persecution was more severe, but there it was inspired rather by popular anger at the Christians because of an earthquake, than by the imperial decree. Although the persecution of Maximinus was in itself unimportant, it was the first systematic, general attack upon the new faith. He was the first to recognize the importance of the Christian hierarchy and to seek to annihilate it, thus furnishing a precedent for Valerian and Diocletian. His precise motive is difficult to determine; he gave no worship to the GrecoRoman deities, and possibly the persecution was due simply to the desire of Maximinus to strengthen his position so far as possible, and to prevent any Christian rebellion against himself. (G. UH1.HoxNt.)
BI131,rof3RAPHT: The subject is covered from the secular side in the works on the history of Rome of the period, and on the Christian side in those on the history of the Church of that time. See also literature under PmsCUTIONa OF CHRISTIANS IN Tam RosrAN EMPIRE. Reference may be made here to Grirres, in ZWT, iv., 1876; J. C. L. Gieseler Church History, ed H B Smith, i. 177, New York, 1868; B. Aub6, Lee Chrbhaas loss 1'empirs romain, pp. 418‑460, Paris, 1881; K. J. Neumann, Der remische Sfaat and die allpameine %irehe, i. 210 sqq., Leipsic, 1890; Schaff, Christian Church, ii. 59.

MAXIMUS CONFESSOR
I. His Life.
Early Life and Success (§ 1).
Later Life. Trials, and Death (1 2). II. His Writings.
Exegetical Works on Scripture and the Fathers U 1).
Dogmatic and Polemical Writings (¢ 2).
Ethical, Ascetic, and other works (4 3). III. His Theology.
The Component Elements (§ 1).
His Christology (§ 2).
His Mysticism (§ 3).
	L His Life: Maximus, usually known as the
Confessor, was the leading representative of the
orthodox doctrine against the Monothelites of the
seventh century. He was born in Constantinople
about 580; d. at Shemari, on the shore of the Black
Sea, Aug. 13, 662. He came of a distinguished
		family, and received an excellent
	i. Early	education after the ideals of the time.
	Life and	Of delicate constitution and quiet
	Success.	loving temperament, he seems at
		first, to have been inclined to a life of
contemplation and study, but was called away
from it for a time to a political career. The Emperor
Heraclius (610‑641) summoned him to court and
made him his first secretary. When he exchanged
this position for the monastic state is uncertain. He
entered the monastery of Chrysopolis at what is
now Scutari, and before long became abbot. Soon
after the beginning of the Monothelite controversy,
when the monk Sophronius stood forth as the
champion of orthodoxy against Cyrus, patriarch
of Alexandria, Maximus was in that city and received the stimulus which led him to devote himself to combating Monothelitism. In a series of treatises and letters he defended the Chalcedonian orthodoxy as to the two natures and the two wills of Christ against both Monophysites and Monothelites, as well as against the imperial efforts at compromise. It was through his influence that North Africa became the headquarters of the orthodox party after the death of Heraclius. On the accession of Conatans II. (642‑668), the patriarch of Constantinople, Pyrrhus, was forced to flee on account of participation in the intrigues of Martins, the widow of Heraclius, and took refuge in North Africa, where the prefect, Gregory, was a strong supporter of Maximus; and there took place, probably at Carthage in 645, the disputation between Pyrrhus and Maximus which is one of the most remarkable documents in the history of the controversy. Maximus was victorious, and followed up his triumph energetically. The bishops of North Africa and the adjacent islands held a synod in 646 to condemn Monothelitism, and requested Pope Theodore to confirm their decision. Maaimus went to Rome with Pyrrhus, who abjured his errors before the pope, and was recognized as rightful patriarch of Constantinople. Maximus was the soul of this apparently formidable coalition, which, however, soon fell to pieces. Gregory fell the neat year in battle with the Mohammedans; Pyrrhus retracted his recantation, and made his peace with the emperor. In 648 appeared the Typos, a decree of Constans forbidding under heavy penalties any discussion of the question of one or two wills. Man imus, still in Rome, was again the most active spirit in opposition to this, denying the emperor's right to interfere in dogmatic questions and declaring the language of the document irreconcilable with the creeds of the Church. He determined the new pope, Martin I., to call the Lateran synod of 649, and inspired its decision unhesitatingly condemning Monothelitism and the imperial decree.
Maximus spent several years in Rome in a monastery, actively engaged in work for his cause, and thoroughly imbued with the hierarchical and dogmatic views of the Roman see. 2. Later Life, He was finally arrested by the empelTrials, and or's orders and taken to Constantinople
	Death.	where all endeavors were made to
		induce him to accept the Typos, but
without avail. In the winter of 654‑655 his first
formal trial took place before the privy council in
the imperial palace. The opening charges were
political‑of hatred of the emperor, responsibility
for the loss to the Mohammedans of Egypt and
North Africa, participation in the revolt of Gregory,
and the like. There were further charges of Origen
istie heresy, and some based on his dealings with
Pyrrhus in Africa and Rome. Maximus was able to
justify himself on most of the counts, but refused to
hold communion with the church of Constantinople
as having departed from "the four holy synods."
He rejected a compromise formula, and declared
that peace could be attained only by the emperor's
withdrawing the Typus. Fresh proceedings were
conducted on May 18, 655, by representatives of

Msaimus Confessor	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	280
Pyrrhus, and again a few months later by two patriarchs, Peter of Constantinople and Macedonius of Antioch. .Maximus refused to make any concessions, and the next day a synod held by the patriarchs recommended that the penalty of banish' ment be inflicted on him and his disciple Anastasius. Maximus was sent to the fortress of Bizya in Thrace, where he remained for a year amid great discomfort. In August, 656, Bishop Theodosius of Caesarea and two secular envoys appeared for the purpose of effecting an agreement; but he still firmly declared that nothing would serve but the recall of the Typus and the acceptance of the Lateran synod of 649. On Sept. 8 he was transferred to the monastery of St. Theodore near Reggio, where another attempt to win him failed, after which he was subjected to greater severities by the imperial emissaries, and he was removed first to Salembria and then to Berberis, where Anastasius already was. Here the authentic documents of the Codlectio Anastasii end. According to another account, the historical value of which is disputed, he was brought once more to Constantinople and after a formal discussion solemnly anathematized in a synod, together with all upholders of Dyothelitism; then he and his disciples were delivered to the prefect to be scourged and have their tongues cut out and their hands chopped off. Thus mutilated, they were sent to Lazica on the eastern shore of the Black Sea. They arrived on June 8, 662; Maximus was separated from the others and sent to the fortress of Shemarum (modern Shemari), where he died. Yet his heroic constancy was not without effect. Constans II. fell a victim, only a few years later, to the hatred he had aroused partly by these cruel and arbitrary proceedings, and the faith for which Maximus had suffered was solemnly proclaimed by the sixth ecumenical council in 680.
II. His Writings: In spite of their frequent obscurity, due partly to their technical difficulty and partly to their involved style, his works were highly prized, especially in the Greek monasteries, but also by such keen western philosophers as Scotus Erigena, and by pious and learned women like the Empress Irene and her daughter Anna Comnena. Fabricius enumerates fifty‑three different writings, of which five are either lost or still unpublished, while forty‑four are printed by the French Dominican Combefis and four elsewhere. Combefis undertook a complete edition, but published only two volumes (Paris, 1675); the third was left unfinished at his death.
The exegetical writings of Maximus are not so much continuous expositions as theological and mystical excursuses on selected passages, following the anagogical or allegorical method of the Alexandrian school. The most important work in this
class is the Quostiones ad Thalassium t. Exegeticalin locos acripturce difciles, addressed
Works on to a Roman abbot who has left a
Scripture collection of moral and ascetic sen‑
and the tences. It begins with a discussion of
Fathers. the problem of evil, and goes on to
propound sixty‑five questions which Maximus answers, usually taking the text only as a point of departure for rich dogmatic, ethical, or
mystical trains of thought. Of a similar nature,
	though briefer and less original, are the Quo'stionea
et dubia, seventy‑nine questions and answers on
texts of Scripture and other subjects; Ad Theo
	pemptum scholaBticum, on three passages of the
New Testament; Ezpositio in psalmum LIX., an
	allegorical‑mystical exposition; Orationis dominicas
	brevis expositio, rich in mystical ideas. There are
	also fragments of other exegetical works (on the
	Psalms, Isaiah, Canticles, Luke, James) in the
Greek catenae.	The same kind of treatment is
	applied by Maximus to patristic texts in his Scholia
	and Ambiguu on Gregory Nazianzen and Dionysius
	the Areopagite; he attempts less to explain another
	man's thoughts than to develop mystical or theo
	logical ideas of his own suggested by the text.
	There are three collections of this sort on the two
	authors named; the third, Ambigua in, Gregorium
	Nazianzenum, was translated into Latin by Erigena
	about 864, at the instance of Charles the Bald. The
	unpublished manuscript (at Vienna) Quastiones
	sacro miscellanea is apparently of a similar nature.
	The dogmatio‑polemical works treat of Christo
	logical, Trinitarian, and anthropological questions.
	(a) The first class are of the most importance for
the history of dogma.	In them he defends the
	doctrine of the two natures against the idea set
	forth by Philoxenus and Severus in
	z. Dogmatic the sixth century, of a single fused or
and	combined nature. To this particular
	Polemical division belong the Epistola ad joanr
	Writings,	mm Cubic. de rectis ecclesie deeretis
		et adversus Severum haeereticum; Oratio
brevis see liber adversas dogmatd Semri, written
before 634; Epistola dogmatica; De communi et
proprio, hoc est de essentia et hypostasi; De duabus
Christi naturis; De qualitate, proprio, et differentia;
Pro synodo Chalcedonensi ad symbolum additio;
Capita de subatantia et natura, de hypostasi et persona;
De ecclesiastic' dogmale quod attinet ad dominimm
inearnationem; and Ad moniales quo Alexandria; a
catholica fide discesserant. Several of these treatises
include an attack upon Monothelitism in their
opposition to Monophysitism; but a still larger
number refer directly to the former, and are among
the most valuable documents on the controversy.
The most important of these are the following:
Acts disputationis cum Pyrrho; Epistola ad pyrrhum
presbyterum et hepmenUml IPrl0ea shortly after
633; Tomes dogmaticus ad Marinum diaconum;
Epastola de duabus in Christ' voluntatibvs; De oper
atwnabus et voluntatibus; Ad Marinum Cypri
?n'esbytemm responsa, a reply to the charges of
Theodore of Byzantium, written after 642; Tomus
dogmaticus ad Marinum presbyterum; Ad Marinum
presbyterum Cypri, written from Carthage appar
ently in 645; Defloratio ex epistola scripts ad petr,m
1llustrem, a fragment of a letter written after 641;
Spiritalis tomes et dogmaticus adversua Heraclii
Ecthesin; written from Rome between 645 and 648;
Hegumen's et monachis ac. catholicis populis per
S'ciliam constitutis, written probably in Sicily after
646; De Christi mysterio; De dab. in. Christ'
naturis; De duabus unius Christi dei nostri volunto
txbus; Non posse dici unam in Christ' voluntatem;
De dupliei vo	domini ad orthodoxos;Ex

281	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Sazimus Confessor
quiestionibus a Theodoro monacho propositis; Adversus eos qui dieunt, dicendam unam Christi operationem, containing three brief answers to three different assertions of the Monothelites; Ad ildzul: Si possibile est, transeat a me calix; Varace definitiones; Distinctionum et unionum definitiones; Diversa, patrum de duabus operationZus domini Jesu Christi definitiones. On strictly Trinitarian questions Maximus left a letter to the presbyter Maximus of Cyprus on the procession of the Holy Ghost; and a fragment may be his which is contained in Ex opere LXlll dubiorum ad Achradat regem; but the Dialogi V de trinitate attributed to him in the majority of the manuscripts is certainly not his. Anthropological questions are treated in De animm natura et afectionibus, and in two letters, one to John, archbishop of Cyzicus, on the incorporeality of the soul, and one to a presbyter Johannes or Jordanes on its conscious immortality.
	Another important class of the writings of Max
imua is made up of ethical and ascetic treatises.
Under the former head may be classed several of
the letters, but especially the LLber ad pietatem
		exercens, a dialogue between an abbot
3. Ethical, and a young monk on the principal
Ascetic, and duties of the spiritual life, remarkable Other for its fervor and moral earnestness‑
	Works.	an example of the beat ascetic liter
		ature of. the Eastern Church. A sort
of supplement to this is the Capita de carltate, a
collection of four hundred sentences, principally
ethical but partly dogmatic and mystical. In
another similar collection, the Capita theologica et
aconomica CC, the mystical predominates. There
are two other collections of a similar nature, the
Capita diversa D theologica et a;conomica and Alia
capita of the same ethical‑ascetic bearing; and a still
larger collection of passages partly from the Scrip
tures and partly from all sorts of Christian and
pagan authors, known as Capita theologica and also
as Sermwnes per excerpts or Loci communes. Among
other works which do not fall ‑under the above
classes, the moat interesting are the Mystagogia
and the Computus ecclesiasticus. The former con
tains thoughts on the symbolio‑mystical significance
of the Church and its ceremonies, of a kind common
in later Greek theological writing. The latter,
written in 640, is an introduction to the Christian
system of reckoning the ecclesiastical seasons and
to sacred and profane chronology in general. Of the
letters of Maximus forty‑two are given by Combefia,
and others are extant elsewhere, both published and
unpublished; and Daniel gives three of his hymns in
the Thesaurus hymnologicus (iii. 97 aqq.).
Ill. His Theology: The theological position of Maximus is a combination of various elementsPlatonism and Aristotelianism, Scriptural ideas and the orthodoxy of Nicsea and Chaloedon and of the Greek Fathers, and Christian mysticism, especially the mysticism of Dionysiua the Areo:. The pagite (q.v.). He quotes Dionysius
Component continually, and is responsible for the
	Elements.	effect which that author's writings had
		upon medieval western as well as eastern
theology. But since he did not follow him blindly,
it is possible with Baur to designate the teaching
of Maximus as an ethical or Christian modification of the Dionysian system, or more exactly still as an ethical‑theological recasting and continuation of it. The essential character of the Dionysian system lies in a fusion of Neo‑Platonism and Christianity, through which the Christian idea of God, the ethical concepts of sin and redemption, and still more the historic reality and specific meaning in the scheme of salvation attached to the person of Christ suffer from the abstract idealism. of Platonic speculation. With Maximus, on the other hand, Aristotle supplies a salutary counterpoise, and his theology gains a purer, more fully Christian content by his recourse to Scripture and the older Greek Fathers. Dorner (Entuoickelungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi, ii. 283, Stuttgart, 1845‑56, Eng. transl., History of the Demlopment of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Edinburgh, 1861‑63) points out the decisive point in which he goes beyond his teacher: " The dialectic element in Maximus seems at strife with the mystical, Areopagitic element, to which he plainly clings with all the fervor of his love. But one gets the impression that it is precisely because he is conscious of the monistic, almost pantheistic strain in his mind that he takes such a strong stand against Monophysitism and Monothelitism. It is the principle of freedom that he strives to incorporate with the Areopagitie system, and through which at least his anthropological teaching is a further development of it."
The historical importance of Maximus for his own day lay above all in his firm defense of Dyothelitism. From the double nature of Christ he deduced the twofold character of energy and of will. He is moved by a vivid interest in the real human life of Christ, who without a human will
a. His would not be really man. But he is
Chriatology. forced to take the same position by his Trinitarian beliefs. If the will of the Savior is a theandrakon thelema, a fused divine. human will, then it would follow that the Father and the Holy Ghost had a similar will, or tritheism would be inevitable. Both wills in Christ are perfectly free, bound together by the same tie which joins the two natures, the union of the single hypostasis. In opposition to Nestorianism, he makes it clear that the human will of Christ was not, like ours, fluctuating between moral opposites, but by union with the Logos attained a permanent direction toward good. This direction it affirmed by a multitude of purely human actions; sin, indeed, was excluded‑but sin is not an essential characteristic of human nature. The fact is that Maximus saw more keenly and clearly than any of the older Fathers the real centerpoint of the humanity of Christ.
This alone would be sufficient to make him a notable figure in the history of Christian thought, without the further fact that he furnished the form in which the mysticism of Dionysius exerted its great and far‑reaching influence on the later theology of both East and West. How
3. His much John of Damascus owes to him
Mysticism. has been rather suspected than proved; but the direction given by him is obvious in the later Greek theology of Euthymius Zygabenus, Nioetas Choniates, Nicholas of Methone,

JE&Zfmn• t?oafesror Xayer
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
and still more in the Greek mysticism of the Hesychasts (q.v.) and of Nicholas Kabasilas. He is yet more important as the connecting link between Dionysius and Scotus Erigena, who depends on him for almost every point of his philosophic system, merely reducing to completer logical form the ideas thrown out as isolated aphorisms by his predecessor. But even more may be said; the " Thomas Aquinas of the Greek Church," as he has been called, may really be considered one of the most important sources and precursors of medieval scholasticism and mysticism in general. Much as he was dependent on those who went before him, and imperfectly as he succeeded in reducing to harmonious unity the rich and many‑sided intellectual inheritance he received from them, he is none the less by his intellectual and moral character, by his learning, by his literary and ecclesiastical influence, and by the heroic firmness and patience of his life, entitled to the place of one of the greatest and most venerable of Christian thinkers and confessors. (R. SBBBEBO•)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources for s life of Maximus are: Ada Mazimi, Latin in Anaataeii bibliothecarii colledanea, ed. J. 8irmond, Paris, 1620, Greek and Latin in the ed. Of Maximus by Combefis named in the text (under 1l.), i., pp. ‑ix. eqq., and in MPG, xe. 109 eqq.; a Vita by an unknown author, also in Combefis, i., pp. i.‑uviii., in MPG, xc. 67 eqq., and in ABB, Aug. iii. 118 eqq.; Theophanes, Chronopraphia, ed. C. de Boor, ii. 331‑332, 347, 351, Leipeie,1885.
On his life and activities consult: C. W. F. Walch, Historis der %stzereien, ix. 60, 499 eqq., 11 vole., Leipsic, 1762‑85; Neander, Christian Church, iii. 171 eqq.; Ceillier, Auteurs socrbs, xi. 760‑772; Schaff, Christian Church, iv. 496‑498, 622 eqq.; DCB, iii. 884; and literature under MONOPHSBTTms; and Moxoxsarrra8. Particularly on the literary and theological sides consult: J. Back Die Dopmergeschidhte dos Miuelauere, i. 15‑49, Viemms, 18731875; Fabricius‑Hades, Bibliotheca Grafca, ix. 638 owl., Hamburg, 1804; A. Preuss, Ad Maximi Confeesoria de deo hosniuisque dsolcatione doctrinam adnotationes, Bchneeburg, 1894; G. Owsepian, Die Entetehunflapeachiichk des Monothalitiamus, pp. 56 eqq., Leipsic. 1897; O. Bardenhewer, Patrolopio, pp. 507‑511, Freiburg, 1901: Harnack, Dogma, iv. passim, v. 274, vi. 30; Krumbacher, Gsachuhta, pp. 61‑64: Hefele, ConcilisngeecAichte, iii. lag eqq•. Eng. transl., v. 73 eqq., 126 eqq.
MAXIMO MARGUIYIOS: Greek bishop and theologian; b. in Crete; d. at Venice 1602. In 1579 he became a monk, and later was consecrated bishop of Kythera (the modern Cerigo), but resided chiefly at Venice. He was the most learned theologian of the period, and his life was devoted to the upbuilding of his church and his people. His unionistic tendencies, particularly in his doctrine of the Trinity, occasionally brought him into sharp conflict with Gabriel Severus and even with the ecclesiastical authorities at Constantinople. Nevertheless, he recognized the difficulty of a union under the primacy of the pope, and was, on the other hand, an opponent of Protestantism, being probably the soul of the movement which led Jeremiah to refuse to unite with the Tiibingen Lutherans. Margunios was a prolific editor and author, although the majority of his writings are still inedited. His chief published works are: " Manual on the Procession of the Holy Ghost," and a treatise on the divine permission of evil, both contained in his "Two Epistles" (Frankfort, 1591); Brevia tradatus de consiliis atque pr‑ept%s evangeliicis (Venice, 1802); and "Lives of the Saints" (1603). (PSILIPP MsyEa.)
131BLIOGRAPHY: For the beet lists of literature and accounts of the man consult: A. Legrapd, BiblioptaPkis hti7Eni9ue, ii., pp. saiii•‑luvi., Paris. 1885: P. Meyer, Die theolopiache Littsratur der priechiscAe» %irche, Leipeic. 1899.
	MA%IMUS OF TURIN: Bishop of Turin; b.,
probably in the Rheetian Alps, about 380; d. after
465, although Gennadius states that he died in 420.
The only details known concerning his life are that
in 451 he attended the Synod of Milan and that in
485 at the Roman synod he signed immediately
after Pope Hilarius. He also witnessed the martyr
dom of three missionary priests at Anaunia in the
Rheetian Alps in 397. He was deeply influenced in
his training by Ambrose, whose works include many
sermons by Maximus. His numerous writings,
116 sermons, 117 homilies, and 3 tractates on
baptism, are important for the history of Christian
life while paganism was still strong, especially in the
rural districts, and while the migration of peoples
was in full course. His ninety‑fourth homily alludes
to the destruction of Milan by Attila, and he also
refers to the cult of "Diana, the divinity of the
fields," is whose honor the priests wounded or
intoxicated themselves; the games and divination
which marked the festival of the new year; and the
custom of "helping" the moon by outcries at its
eclipse. He sought to calm the terror felt at the
barbarian inroads, and urged his people to remain
constant in their faith, yet rebuked them sternly
for their readiness to profit by the withdrawal of
the Huns by purchasing the plunder and even
the slaves which the invaders were unable to
take away. 	(R. SCHMID.)
Btemoasere:: The extant writings are moat conveniently consulted in MPL, lvii. For accounts of the man consult: Gennadiue, De roir. ill., al.; O. Bardenhewer, Patrolopie, p. 497,*Fieiburg, 1894; and DCB, iii. 881‑882. The legends collected in d3B, June, v. 48 eqq., are without historical value.
MAY LAWS. See UIIfBAMONTANIBM.
MAY, JOHANN HEIftRICH: German Pietist; b. at Pforzheim (16 m. s.e. of Carlsruhe) Feb. 5, 1653; d. at Giessen Sept. 3, 1719. He studied at the University of Wittenberg, which he entered in 1671; while going to Sweden, he made at Hamburg the acquaintance of the Orientalist E. Edzard, with whom he studied the Bible, the Talmud, Arabic, and Syriac. After a winter in Copenhagen, he resumed his studies at Hamburg, but was recalled by his father to southern Germany. At Leipsic he became acquainted with J. B. Carpzov, and at Strasburg with S..Schmidt; but a more profound influence was exerted on him by H. Ludolf, whom he aided in reading the proof of his Historia Xthiopica (Frankfort, 1681). From Frankfort, where he had become imbued with the pietism of Spener, he went for a short time to Veldenz as court preacher to the palsgrave, but in 1684 was appointed by the elector professor of Oriental languages at the gymnasium of Durlach, where he was also pastor of St. Stephen's. In 1888 he was called to Giessen as professor of Oriental languages. Here he passed the remainder of his life, becoming second professor of theology, paedagogiacch, bursar, superintendent of Alafeld, and assessor of the conaistory.
Of May's numerous works none has borne the

268	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA ~ ~ confessor
test of time except his edition of the Hebrew Bible, a revision of the work of his predecessor at Giessen, David Clodius (Frankfort, 1692). His importance lies in the fact that he powerfully influenced the pietistic reformation of the theological faculty at Giessen. When he entered Giessen, he found scant opportunity for a practical propagation of his views; but in 1689 he announced a course of private studies on Romans, in continuation of his confirmation‑class, to which both children and adults were invited. . This evoked a formal protest to the prince on the part of May's colleague, P. L. Hannecken, which led to a controversy which finally caused the retirement of Hannecken in 1693. His successor, Bilefeld, used his influence both as professor and court preacher to break down the opposition of the orthodox party, and by 1695 the pietistic reform was complete. In this latter phase of the conflict May took little public part, but his quiet activity conduced far more to the victory of Pietism than was apparent on the surface. (ERwIN PREBBCHEN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The basal source, apart from the archives at Darmstadt, is the memorial oration by J. G. Schupart, Giessen, 1723. Consult: F. W. Strieder, Grundtape su einer hese%acken Gelehrten‑ and schriftetelkryesehichte, viii. 326 sqq., Cassel, 1788; W. KBhler, Die Aryfdnge des Pietiamue in Giessen, vol. i., Giessen, 1907.
MAY, SAMUEL JOSEPH: American Umtarian; b. in Boston, Mass., Sept. 12, 1797; d. at Syracuse, N. Y., July 1, 1871. He was graduated at Harvard College in 1817, attended the divinity school, was ordained in 1822, and was pastor at Brooklyn, Conn. (1822‑35), South Scituate, Mass. (1836‑42), and Syracuse, N. Y. (1845‑68). He was an earnest anti‑slavery advocate, and from 1836 to 1854 he was the general agent of the Massachusetts Antislavery Society. He wrote: Some Recollections of our Anti‑Slavery Conflict (Boston, 1869).
BISmoasAPHY: T. J. Mumford, Memoir of Samuel Joseph May, Boston, 1873.
MAYER, EMIL HUGO WALTHER: German Lutheran; b. at Lyons, France, Sept. 9, 1854. He was educated at the Lyons Lyceum and at the University of Berlin, where he studied from 1872 to 1876 (Ph.D., Halls, 1879). He was a teacher at the Kdnigliches Friedrich‑Wilhehns‑Gymnasium in Berlin from 1880 to 1893, and in the latter year accepted the appointment of associate professor of systematic theology in the University of Strasburg, where he was promoted to his present position of full professor in 1900. In theology he. is an adherent of the scientific school, and has written: Das Verh4ltr nis der Kantt'achen Religyionaphilosophie sum Ganten des Kantischen Systems (Berlin, 1879); Die christliche Moral in ihrem Verhhltnia zum slaatlichexi Recht (1892); Das christliche Gottverlrauen uttd der Glaube an Christ= (GSttingen, 1899); Ueber die Aufgaben der Dogmatik (Tiibingen, 1902); Die Aufgabe der innern Mission gegenuber der gegenwdrtigen Gef4hrdung der chrisawhen Lebensanschauung durch antichristliche Geistmstr6mungen (Brunswick, 1903); Der christliche Gottesglaube and die natunvissenschaftlicheWelterk1drung (Strasburg, 1904); Christentum and Kultur (Berlin, 1905); Das psychologiache Wesen der Religion (Strasburg, 1906); and contributed to Philotesia (in honor of Paul Kleinert'a c.eventieth birthday; Berlin, 1907).
MAYER, JOHANN FRIEDRICH: German polemical writer and orator; b. in Leipsic Dee. 6, 1650; d. in Stettin March 30,1712. He studied in Leipsic, taking his master's degree in 1668, and in Strasburg. He was appointed Saturday preacher in Leipsic in 1672, and pastor and superintendent at Leisnig in 1673, whence, in 1678, he was called to Grimma. His one desire was for an academic life, and on April 7, 1684, he accepted the appointment as fourth professor of theology at Wittenberg, becoming at the same time substitute preacher for Quenstedt in the Castle church of the town. It was here that he was awakened to a more earnest understanding of Christianity by Spener (q.v.), whom he praised in his first sermon given before the venerable Calov. Mayer shone in argument and was a, very popular preacher and lecturer. In spite of scandal caused by his unhappy marital relations, he was appointed preacher at the St. Jacob's Church in Hamburg, 1686. Although gratified at his promotion, Mayer had no wish to give up his academic vocation, but Spener did not retain him, and his attempt to hold his position as professor and dean of the theological faculty at Wittenberg failed, though he succeeded in obtaining the post of extraordinary professor at the Hamburg Academy, and in addition was made honorary professor of the theological faculty at Kiel in 1687. On Quenstedt's death, May 22, 1688, Mayer made another attempt to be reinstated as professor in Wittenberg University, but in spite of the representations of Johann Winckler (q.v.) Spener was unyielding. From this time, Mayer ranged himself on the side of Spener's opponents.
Among the many religious controversies at that period was one relating to the opera. Mayer and Winekler were opposed to each other on this question, the latter having attacked operatic representations in July, 1686. In the ensuing conflict, Mayer gained a victory over Winckler before the senate and ministry. In the controversy on the " religious oath" Mayer took a prominent part, and appealed for a decision to the theological faculties, while his opponents sought the support of several distinguished theologians outside Hamburg, and in particular of Spener, against whom Mayer vented his personal animosity. Mayer was even more bitter in his controversy with Johann Heinrich Horb (q.v.). He discovered every conceivable heresy‑Pelagian, popish, Socinian, quakerish, and Arminian‑in a pamphlet put in circulation but not written by Horb, entitled Klugheit der Gerechten (Hamburg, 1693), and although Horb explained that it was to be understood only according to the "analogy of faith," Mayer induced the ministers of Hamburg to withhold the sacrament from Horb, who fled the city. Mayer's standing in Hamburg had been greatly injured by the whole controversy, but he was more than ever honored as a theologian and scholar in other countries, and traveled to Sweden and Holland, making the friendship of kings and princes, and receiving titles and honors. He was appointed general superintendent in Pom erania and Ragen, president of the consiatory, professor primarius, procanoellarius perpetuus, and pastor of St. Nicholas Church in Greifswald. He wished to still retain his Hamburg pastorate, but as

8eyer Xeade
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
this was refused him, he induced his friends to have him recalled to St. Jacob's Church, which, after violent controversy, they did in 1704. But Mayer now wrote to the senate that he had no desire to leave the king's service, and Charles XII. declared that Mayer bad no thought of going to Hamburg, and increased his stipend and retained him. Mayer held the theological decanate in Greifswald for eight years. When the Russian General Buck, in January, 1712, requested him to omit the war grayer or give up preaching, he chose the latter and went to Stettin where he died. Before leaving Hamburg he published the first hymn‑book for standard use, containing two sacramental hymns by him. The titles of 581 pieces from his pen are given in the sketch found in Lerikon der hamburgischen Schriftsteller, v. 89‑164, Hamburg, 1870. (CARL BERTaMev.)
BIBLIOGRAPHT: J. Geffeken, Johann Winckler and die ha»r burgische Kirche seiner Zedt, Hamburg, 1864; idem, in Zeitschrift des Vereins far hamburpische Geechichte, i (1$41), 567 eqq.; ADB, xxi. 99 sqq.; and the literature under Hose, JOBANN HEINBICH.
MAYER, KARL JULIUS: German Roman Catholic; b. at Bahl (26 m. s.w. of Carlsruhe), Baden, Mar. 12, 1857. After completing his education at the University of Freiburg, he was parish priest in Rastatt, Mannheim, and Bruchsal until 1896, when he became director of the archiepiscopal theological seminary at Freiburg, a position which he retained three years. Since 1899 he has been professor of moral theology in the University of Freiburg. Besides editing the new series of the Fretburger Didzesav‑Archiv (Freiburg, 1900‑04), he has written Geschiehte der Benediktiner‑Abtei St. Peter auf dam Schwarzwald (Freiburg, 1893); Leben des heiligen Ulrichs (1893); Die christliche Askew, ihr Wesen and ihre Entfaltung (1894); and Der heilige Konrad, Bischof eon Konstanz and Patron der Erzdidzese Freiburg (1898).

MAYHEW, EXPERIENCE: Missionary to the Indians; b. in Martha's Vineyard, Mass., Jan. 27, 1673; d. there Nov. 29, 1758. He came of parentage which for three generations had done missionary work among the Indians, and he himself began to preach to them in 1694, devoting his life to the service. In 1709 he finished a version of the Psalms and of John for the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England (Boston, 1709, cf. C. Evans, American Bibliography, i. 198‑199, Chicago, 1903). He also published a work upon Indian Converts (1727), giving an account of thirty Indian ministers and some eighty other pious Indians (reprinted 1729). In connection with a Discourse Sheering that God Dealeth with Men as Reasonable Creatures (Boston, 1720) he gave A Brief Account of the State of the Indians on Martha's Vineyard . . . 1694‑1720.
BIHmOGBAPIiy: W. B. 'Sprague, Annals of the Amwiaan Pulpit, i. 133, New York, 1859.

MAYHEW, JONATHAN: New England minister; b. in Martha's Vineyard, Mass., Oct. 8, 1720; d. in Boston July 9, 1766. He was graduated at Harvard College 1744; entered the ministry, and in 1747 he was called to the West Church, Boston, maintaining the connection throughout his life.
He was an earnest preacher and an accomplished controversialist. He was especially noted as a vigorous opponent of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, because he, m common with intelligent New‑Englanders generally, regarded it as a mere disguise for introducing prelacy. He was also an ardent patriot and did much to hasten the Revolution. In this connection he issued a Discourse concerning unlimited submission and no&‑resistance to the higher powers: with some reflections on the resistance mode to King Charles 1., and on the anniversary of his death: in which the mysterious doctrine of that Prince's saintship arid martyrdom is unriddled (Boston, 1750, reprinted there 1818, 1867, 1876, and in Thornton's Pulpit of the American Revolution, Boston, 1860). He also published Observations on the charter and conduct of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1763). Other works by him are cited by full titles in C. Evans, American Bibliography, consult index, iii. 424, Boston, 1905.
B1BLaoGaAPH7: A. Bradford, Memoir of the Life and Writings of Jonathan Mayheto, Boston, 1838; W. Walker, Ten New England Leaders, pp. 293, 298, 333, 339, New York, 1901; F. H. Foster, Hist. of New England Theology, pp. 131‑133, Chicago, 1907.
	MAYNOOTH, m6'nuth, COLLEGE: Roman Cath,
olio seminary for candidates for the priesthood,
the chief institution of its kind in Ireland, 15 m.
n.w. of Dublin. It was established by the Irish
parliament in 1765, and received an annual grant
originally of £8,000, but after 1845 of over £26,000;
after the Union, and especially from 1845 on, it
was a constant subject of contention between polit
ical and ecclesiastical parties, until the question was
settled by the Irish Church Act of 1869, which
went into effect in 1871. By this measure, which
disestablished the Protestant Church in Ireland,
state aid was withdrawn also from the Roman
Catholic seminary, on the principle of equal justice.
A sum equivalent to fourteen years' purchase of
the annual grant was allotted in one payment.
Provision was also made for the pensioning of those
who at that time formed the teaching staff, and the
debt contracted by the making of advance payments
through the Commissioners of Public Works was
remitted 	(C. Sa$oELLt.)
B‑: J. Healy, Maynooth College, Dublin, 1895.

MAZARIN BIBLE: The first complete book printed in the West from movable type. It receives its name from the fact that " a copy in the library of Cardinal Mazarin first attracted the attention of bibliographers " in 1760 (See BIBLE VERBIoNs, A, II., 2, § 4). It was printed by Gutenberg, in Mentz, 1450‑55, but is without date or place. There are two sorts of copies of this Bible, that on paper, which is the earlier, and that on vellum.
BmwoaHAPHY: S. A. Allibone, in Literary World, Boston, Nov. 18, 1882.
MAZARIN, maz"a"An', JULES (Guilio Mazzarfni)
French cardinal and diplomatist; b. at Piscine in the Abruzzi, southern Italy, July 14, 1602; d. at Vincennes Mar. 19, 1661. He studied in the Jesuits College at Rome, then took his degree in law at the University of Alcala in Spain; on his return to

265	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	XgLyer
Italy he held a command as captain in the papal army, and finally entered the service of the church. As secretary to Cardinal Sacchetti, he came to France in 1629. His diplomatical ability was immediately recognized; and his partiality to French interests was so pronounced, that in 1639 he was naturalized as a French citizen, and entered the service of the king. In 1641 he was made cardinal, and in 1642 succeeded Richelieu as prime‑minister of France, in which position he continued till his death. Partly from religious indifference, and partly from political calculation, he showed great tolerance to the Huguenots. May 21, 1655, he solemnly renewed all edicts in their favor, and at times showed considerable courage in resisting the fanaticism of the Roman‑Catholic clergy. Turenne and Gaston retained their positions in the army; and Herworth, a Protestant banker, was made controller‑general, in spite of a formidable opposition. The last great favor he showed the Reformed was the permission in 1659 to convoke the synod of Loudun. [Mention should be made of the intervention of France, under Mazarin's guidance, in the Thirty Years' War (q.v.), in pursuance of the purpose to prevent the Hapsburgers from scoring a victory. The Peace of Westphalia (see WEsTPHALIA, PEACE OF), with its recognition of the equal rights of Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed, was in part the result. A. H. N.]
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The first source is the correspondence of Mazarin, ed. A. Chdruel, in Collection des documents inWits sur Mist. de France, Paris, 1872‑94. The best modem works on the subject are: A. Chdrue1, Hist. de France pendant to minoritM de Louis XIV., 4 vols., Paris, 18791880; idem, Hist. de France sous Is ministers de Cardinal Mazarin, 2 vole., ib. 1881‑82. Consult further, V. Cousin, Jeunesse de Mazarin, ib. 1865; A. Desprez, Richelieu et Mazarin, ib. 1883; idem, Mazarin et son anuvre, ib. 1883; J. Bourelly, Cromwell et Mazarin, ib. 1886; G. Masson, Mazarin, London, 1886; J. B. Perkins, France under Mazarin, New York, 1886; A. Haesall, Masarin, London, 1903.
MAZDAISM. See ZOROABTER, ZOROASTRIANISM. MAZDAZNAN. See ZEND FOLK.
MAZZOLINI, SILVESTRO. See PRIERIAB, SILVESTER.

MEAD, CHARLES MARSH: Congregationalist; b. at Cornwall, Vt., Jan. 28, 1836. He was educated at Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vt. (A.B., 1856), after which he taught for two years (1856‑58) at Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass., and one year (1858‑59) at Middlebury College. He received his theological education at Andover Theological Seminary, from which he was graduated in 1862. He then studied at the universities of Halle and Berlin until 1866 (Ph.D., Tabingen,1866), and on his return to the United States was appointed professor of Hebrew in Andover Theological Seminary, a position which he held until 1882. He then spent ten years in Germany, and from 1892 until his retirement from active life in 1898 was professor of Christian theology in Hartford Theological Seminary. In 1872 he became a member of the American Bible Revision Committee (Old Testa, ment). In addition to preparing the volume on Exodus for the American edition of J. P. Lange's
commentary on the Bible (New York, 1876), and besides translating a portion of I. A. Dorner's " System of Christian Ethics " (in collaboration with R. T. Cunningham; 1887), he has written The Soul Here and Hereafter: A Biblical Study (Boston, 1879); Supernatural Revelation: An Essay concerning the Basis of the Christian Faith (L. P. Stone lectures at Princeton Theological Seminary; New York, 1889); Romans Dissected (under the pseudonym E. D. McRealsham; 1891); Christ and Criticism (1893); and Irenic Theology (1905).

MEAD (MEDE), JOSEPH: Church of England Biblical scholar; b. at Berden (29 m. n. of London), Essex, Oct., 1586; d. at Cambridge Oct. 1, 1638. He was graduated from the University of Cambridge (M.A., 1610; B.D., 1618), was elected fellow in 1613, and soon after appointed to the Greek lectureship on the Sir Walter Mildmay foundation. He is best known by his Clavis Apocalyptica (Cambridge, 1627; Eng. transl. by R. More, The Key of the Revelation, London, 1643; new transl. by R. B. Cooper, London, 1833). In this and in his In sancti Joannis Apocalypsin commzntarius (1632) he advocated the continuistic view of the apocalyptic prophecies. His Works were gathered in two parts (London, 1648; enlarged, 1663‑64; again enlarged, with a Life, 1672).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Hunt, Hiet. of Religious Thought in Eng
land, i, 167‑168, London, 1870; DNB, zlevii. 178‑180.

MEADE, WILLIAM: Protestant Episcopal bish‑
op; b. near Millwood, Clarke Co., Va., Nov. 11, 1789; d. at Richmond Mar. 14, 1862. He was graduated from Princeton College in 1810; prepared for the ministry under Rev. Walter Addison of Maryland, and was ordained Feb. 24, 1811. He was rector of Christ Church, Alexandria, 1811‑13; became curate of Millwood 1813, and afterward rector, and soon was known as an influential leader in his church. In 1823 he was the " Fatmder of the Protestant‑Episcopal Theological Seminary of Virginia," and in 1829 was elected assistant bishop to Bishop Moore of Virginia, succeeding to the charge of the see in 1841. He published Lectures on the Pastoral Ofce (New York, 1849); Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia (2 vols., Phila, delphia, 1856); The Bible and the Classics (New York, 1861).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Johns, A Memoir of the Life of . . .
William Meade, Baltimore, 1867; W. 8. Perry, The Rpis‑
copate in America, p. 51, New York, 1895.

MEADE, WILLIAM EDWARD: Church of Ireland; bishop of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross; b. at Donaghmore, County Cork, Feb. 24, 1832. He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin (B.A., 1857), and was ordered deacon in 1862 and ordained priest in the following year. He was rector of Ardtrea, County Tyrone, from 1864 to 1884, successively prebendary of Armagh (1877,84), treasurer of Armagh Cathedral (1882‑85), and archdeacon of Armagh (1885‑94). In 1893 he was elected by the Armagh Diocesan Synod as ad interim bishop of Armagh, and in the following year was consecrated bishop of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross. He was also a prebendary in St. Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin, in

Meals, Hebrew
Meolclenburg‑Btrelita
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
1882,85, secretary to the General Synod in 1880, a member of the Representative Body in 1883, and examining chaplain to the bishop of Armagh in 1886‑93, as well as a diocesan nominator and a member of the diocesan court.

MEALS, HEBREW: The hours for meals among the ancient Israelites and the Orientals of the present day are not as definite or as regular as with modern Europeans. Nevertlieless it is probable that they also had their regular time for taking food. The fellah of Palestine eats his bread, perhaps with a little fruit, according to the season, before he goes to work in the fields, or else after having worked for one or two hours. About noon he again takes a little food, some bread and fruit, then enjoying his noonday rest. Neither in the morning nor in the afternoon does he prepare a hot meal, the principal repast being taken in the evening after the day's labor is ended, and consisting usually of a warm dish, even if it be only some onion soup. In general, however, the poor partake of only two meals, one in the late morning and the second in the evening. As these usages are conditioned by the climate which makes the hot noontide an undesirable time for the chief meal, it may be safely assumed that the same custom held in ancient times, although the Old Testament does not say much regarding the hours at which meals were taken. Food was brought to Elijah in the morning and in the evening (I Kings xvii. 6), and the Israelites fn the desert had bread in the morning and meat (quails) in the evening (Ex. xvi. 12); the principal meal was in the evening; this was also the case with the servants of Boaz (Ruth iii. 3‑7), although the reapers in the field were given food and their hour of repose at noon (Ruth ii. 14; cf. Susanna, 7, 13).
While eating, those Orientals who are not yet influenced by European culture sit cross‑legged on the floor, upon mats or carpets, around a low table which consists of a metal sheet or of a large wickerwork plate, resting on a low stand. The larger the board, the greater the hospitality of the host; some are two meters in diameter. Very often the Bedouins use only a round piece of leather spread upon the flaor. After its use it is drawn together so as to form a bag, by means of a cord which passes through rings attached at the border. After the Israelites settled in the land, this custom probably changed; chairs and tables existed in ancient times in western Asia (see HousB, T» HEBREW, AND t7s APPomTMENTB), and the Old Testament shows that they formed part of the ordinary household furnishings (II Kings iv. 10). Use was also made of the migah, "divan," as a seat during meals (Ezek. xxiii. 41). From a casual remark of Amos it appears that in his time a new fashion arose which he condemned; namely, that of reclining during the repast (Am. ii. 8, vi. 4). In the time of Christ, probably under Greco‑Roman influence, this usage was general (Matt. ix. 10, and frequently). The divans, for three or five persons,were covered with costly rugs in the homes of the rich (Prov. vii. 16‑17; Ezek. xxiii. 41). The Israelites reclined upon them in such a way as to rest upon the left arm, having the right band free for use in eating; the one seated at the
right might rest the back of his head on the bosom of his left‑hand neighbor (cf. John xiii. 23, xxi. 20).
Knives, forks, and spoons were not known as utensils for eating, but were used for cooking purposes; the meat as served was cut into small pieces (Ezek. xxiv. 4). Meat, vegetables, broth, etc., were put together in a large dish that was set on the table; every one had his flat cake of bread, with which he took the broth out of the dish or upon which he put his vegetables, just as on a plate; the meat was taken out with the fingers (Ruth ii. 14; Prov. xxvi. 15; Matt. xxvi. 23). The host himself helped an honored guest to the best pieces (I Sam. i. 4, ix. 23‑24). Under these circumstances, washing of the hands before and after meals was necessary; in later times it became even a religious custom.
The usage of praying before a meal is not mentioned in the Old Testament; in the New Testament, however, it appears as a general practise before the meal; at least, Christ as well as his disciples always speak a few words of thanks (berakah, eulogia, eucharestia; Matt. xiv. 19 and often; Acts xxvii. 35; cf. I Tim. iv. 3 sqq.). The rabbis also valued praying after meals (cf. Berachoth, 6‑8, etc.; see PRAYER).
	The meal of the common man was very sim
ple, bread formed its most essential part (see
BREAD AND BexiNa); to this were added milk,
butter, and cheese; vegetables and fruit constitu
ted a third indispensable adjunct. Meat was taken
only exceptionally on holidays, when a sacrifice
was offered, when honored guests arrived, or when
a family festival was held. The rich naturally in
dulged at all seasons in the luxuries of the table
(cf. Am. iv. 1, vi. 4‑5). When they entertained
guests, the guest was honored by the slaughtering
of a beast of the herd, otherwise he was principally
distinguished by the size of his portion (Gen. xliii.
34; I Sam. ix. 24). 	I. BENzINGER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: An excellent article is found in EB, iii. 2989‑3002. The subject is discussed in the Bible dic‑
tionaries under Food, Meals, Banquets, and like headings:
also in the treatises on Biblical archeology.

MEARS, DAVID OTIS: Presbyterian; b. at Essex, Mass., Feb. 22, 1842. He was educated at Amherst College (A.B., 1865), and, after studying theology privately, was ordained to the ministry of his denomination in 1867. He has held successive pastorates at North Avenue Church, Cambridge, Mass. (1867‑77), Piedmont Congregational Church, Worcester, Mass. (1877‑93), Calvary Presbyterian Church, Cleveland, 0. (1893‑95), and Fourth Presbyterian Church, Albany, N. Y. (since 1895). He was associate editor of The Golden Rule (now The Christian Endeavor World) in 1879‑80, and besides numerous briefer contributions, sermons, and addresses, and in addition to an edition of E. N. Kirk's Lectures on Revivals (Boston, 1875), has written Life of Edward Nmria Kirk (Boston, 1877); The Deathless Book (1888); The Pulpit and the Pews (Oberlin, 0., 1892); and Inspired through Suffering (New York; 1895).

MECCA: The chief holy city of the Mohammedl£n faith. It is situated in Western Arabia,

88"J	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	122ealsl, Hebrew
			eokenbnr8‑8trelita
latitude 21° 30' north, longitude 40° 8' east, in a
narrow and barren valley in the province of Hedjaz,
sixty‑five miles east of Jiddah, its port on the Red
Sea, and about two hundred and fifty miles south of
Medina. It has no manufactures and no commerce.
Its inhabitants depend almost entirely on the pil
grims who come to pray in its celebrated mosque,
and to kiss the black stone of the Kaaba. See
KAABA; and MOHAMMED, MOHAMMEDANISM.
	MECKLENBBURG‑SCHWERIR: A grand‑duchy
of the German empire; area 5,137 square miles;
population (1905) 625,045, of whom 609,914 were
Lutherans and Reformed, 12,093 Roman Catholics,
742 Greek Catholics, 810 unclaesed Christians, and
1,482 Israelites. Mecklenburg became Christian in
the twelfth century and accepted Lutheranism in
1549. The practical administration of the Lutheran
State Church was committed in 1571, by statutory
regulation, to the polity of Superintendencies and
Consistories. The reigning sovereign, along with his
territorial jus circa sacra, holds the metropolitan
jus in sacra. Synodical rights are vested in the
territorial estates, the representatives of the landed
proprietors and of the towns. The sovereign exer
cises his jus circa sacra through the ministry of
justice; his metropolitan jurisdiction has been exer
cised, since 1850, through the Superior Church
Council in Schwerin. The ecclesiastical courts are
the Consistory and, for cases of appeal, the Superior
Ecclesiastical Court, both at Rostock. The church
is subdivided into six provincial superintendencies
(Doberan, Gilstrow, Malchin, Parchim, Schwerin),
Wismar, and one town superintendency (Rostock).
The provincial superintendencies are further subdi
vided into thirty‑five presidencies, under presiding
officers called prapositi. There are 308 parishes, and
472 churches, besides 48 chapels. In accordance with
the synodical regulation of 1841, the pastors in each
presidency hold an annual synod, under the district
prarpositus. There are two general conferences,
which alternate in annual sessions, the one consisting
of all the pastors; the other of pastors and laymen.
With both conferences are associated conventions
of the Society for Foreign and Jewish Missions and
of the Inner Mission.
	The average yearly income of a pastor is approx
imately 4,000 marks. The superannuating provision
of 1900 allows a retirement salary amounting to
twenty‑five per cent of the stipend after ten years
of service, and as high as ninety per cent after fifty
years. The widows of pastors, prapositi, and
superintendents, in addition to their parochial
tithe and a residential indemnity from the widows'
fund, draw pensions of 750, 850, and 1,200 marks
respectively. Ecclesiastical patronage is partly
vested in the sovereign (to nearly two‑thirds of
the cures), and partly proprietary or municipal.
Candidates for the spiritual office have to undergo
two examinations, pro licentia concionandi, and pro
minisLrio. In the way of practical preparation,
the candidates attend the theological seminary at
Schwerin for the period of a year between the first
examination and the second. The duties of sac
ristans, precentors and organists are fulfilled, in
almost every instance, by publio‑school teachers,
in a legally regulated connection with their positions. Church‑building expenses are generally so divided that the ecclesiastical patrons furnish the material and half the cash cost of construction; the congregation bearing the remainder of the cost.
In the matter of church doctrine, the clergy stand loyal to the Lutheran Confession, and the congregations are at least externally faithful to ecclesiastical ordinances. Open ecclesiastical enmity is of rare occurrence. Christian benevolence has been on the increase for fifty years past, and yields gratifying fruit in such works as those of the House of Deaconessea at Ludwigslust, with some 300 sisters, laboring in 100 stations, and of the Inner Mission (Rescue House at Gehlersdorf, Infirmary at Schwerin, Home for Cripples, and Magdalen Asylum at Rostock, institutional homes, etc.), as also in the support of the Gotteskasten (q.v.) for helping Lutherans abroad (see DusroRA) and of missions to the heathen.
The relation between church and schools is close. The direction of schools is constitutionally in the hands of the church superintendents and pastors, under the supervision of the Ministry of Instruction. Rectors of the municipal public schools are certified theological candidates. Common‑school teachers obtain their preparation in two seminaries, whose directors and principal teachers must be divines. The Board of Seminary Curators includes (besides a representative of the government) two divines, a superintendent and the resident pastor. Religious instruction in the seven state high schools is likewise in the hands of approved divines. The five theological professors of the state university at Rostock are appointed by the Ministry of Instruction, subject to the approval of the Sunerior Church Council.
	There are no sects in Mecklenburg on any organ
ized footing. Baptista and Irvingites occur sporad
ically. The Reformed Church has one pastor, the
Roman Catholic Church six pastors, with four
congregations, belonging to the diocese of Osna
brilck. 	HEINRICH BERM.
BIBLIOGRAPH7: J. Wiggers, %irchenpeschichte Mecklenburps, Parehim, 1840; Mecklenburpieche Geechichte in Rinseldarsiellunp, parts 5 sqq., Berlin, 1899 sqq.; G. Mau, Hirchliche Verhdltnisse in Mecklenburg, ib. 1899; E. Millies, Cirkular‑Verordnunpen des Oberkirchenrats . . aus der Zeit 184,9‑189.1; Schwerin, 1895; idem, Die Emertierunps‑Ordnunp fir die eroanpeliech‑lutheiachen Geistlichen in . . . Mecklenburg‑Schwerin, ib., 1904; Mecklenburpi8ches Urkundenbuch, ib.,190‑7.

MECKLENBURGSTRELITZ: A grand‑duchy of the German empire, separate from MecklenburgSchwerin since 1701; area 1,131 square miles; population (1905) 100,451, of whom 100,314 were Lutherans, 2,499 Roman Catholics, 128 Greek Catholics, 212 unclassed Christians, and 298 Israelites.
The church organization is similar to that of Mecklenburg‑Schwerin (q.v.). In his metropolitan capacity the sovereign exercises his governing power through the consistory at Neu‑Strelitz, which also attends to the ecclesiastical administration of the Ratzeburg district. The jus circa sacra is exercised through the state govemmel t. The consistory at Neu‑Strelitz acts as an ecclesiastical court of first instance; appeals lie to the Superior Ecclesiastical Court at Rostock. Mecklenburg‑

a us	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Strelitz has only one superintendent, under whom
are six prapoaiti and the provost at Ratzeburg.
There are 153 churches. With reference to other
ecclesiastical conditions the statements as to
Mecklenburg‑ Schwerin generally apply here as
well 	HEINRIcH BEHM.
BIHLIOaRAPBY: Consult the literature under Macsrsrrsosa‑Scawnalx.
	MEDARDUS, SAINT: Missionary bishop in
northern France; b. at Salentiacum (Salency) in
Picardy, not far from the present St. Quentin,
c. 457; d. c. 545. He was educated in the school of
his native city where he distinguished himself by
his diligence, piety, and charity. He received holy
orders at an early age, and about 530 succeeded the
bishop of Veromandum (Vermand), but soon
removed the see to Noviomagua (Noyon) which,
as a fortified place, offered better protection against
the barbarians. After the death of Bishop Eleu
therius,about 532, he was elected also bishop of
Tourney, and for the rest of his life administered
both dioceses, being very active and successful in
spreading Christianity. By his pure and pious
conduct and the enduring steadfastness with which
he bore all sufferings and struggles for the advance
ment of the Christian faith, he occupied a well
deserved place among the confessors. He is com
memorated by the Roman Catholic Church on
June 8, and is considered the patron of horticulture
and agriculture, more specifically of haymaking.
A church and a monastery were built over his
grave at Soissons. Besides this city, the chief seat
of devotion to Medardus, Dijon, Jodoigne (Geldon
acum)near Louvain, Cologne, Treves, Paris, and
Prague boasted the possession of relics of the
saint. 	(O. ZSC%LERt.)
Blaraoanera:: The two early biographies of Medardue were by Fortunatus Venantiueand Bishop iisdbod, which with other lives, documents and commentary are collected in ABB, June, ii. 72‑105. Early material is found also in MPL, la%i. 1117‑1118, laxaviii. 533‑b40, caxsii. 829‑639, and s Carmen by Fortunatus Vensntiue is in MGH, Aud. ant., iv. 1 (1881), 44‑48. Consult: J. Corblet,Notice historeque#ar la tulle do S. M~idard, Amiene, 1868; DCB, iii. 887888.
MEDD, PETER GOLDSMITH: Church of England; b. at Leyburn (36 m. n.w. of York) July 18, 1829; d. at North Cerney (near Cirencester, 15 m. s.e. of Gloucester) July 25, 1908. He was educated at King's College, London, and University College, Oxford (B.A., 1852; M.A.,1855). He was ordained deacon in 1853 and priest in 1859. He was curate of St. John Baptist, Oxford (1858‑67); rector of Barnes, Surrey (1870‑76); and in 1876 became rector of North Cerney,Gloucestershire. He was fellow of University College, Oxford, from 1852 to 1877; lecturer, tutor, bursar, and dean from 1853 to 1870; and Bampton lecturer in 1882. His works include: The Priest to the Altar, or Aids to the Devout Celebration of Holy Communion (London, 1865); Sermons Preached in the Parish Church of Barnes (1877); and The One Mediator (1884), Bampton lectures. Together with W. Bright he edited the Latin version of the Book of Common Prayer (1865).

MEDEBA: A town on the table‑land of Moab east of the Jordan. It is situated almost directly east from Bethlehl;m,about five miles slightly west
of south from Heshbon, at an elevation of 2,940 feet, and is the site of a modern town built an a pile of early Christian ruins having a circumference of a mile and a half. New interest attaches to the town because of the discovery there of a mosaic map of Christian Palestine and part of Egypt. The place was anciently of considerable importance and finds frequent mention in the Old Testament (Num. xxi. 30; Josh. xiii. 9, 16; T Chron. xix. 7; Tsa. xv. 2; I Mace. ix. 36) and on the Moabite Stone (q.v.). It was originally Moabitie territory, but was taken by the Amorites, then by Israel; in David's time it was an Ammonitic point of defense, was captured by Omri (Moabite Stone, line 8, Mehedeba) and recaptured by Mesha, the Moabitic king who indited the Moabite Stone. The place comes into later mention as the home of the robber band which accomplished the death of John the Maacabee; John Hyrcanua took the city after a siege of six months (Josephus, Ant., XIII., ix. 1), and it had to be retaken by Alexander Jannaeus. Ptolemy the geographer mentions it (V., xvii. 6) as lying between Bostra and Petra. After the Christian era it appears as the seat of a bishop who attended the Council of Chalcedon (451). After that it was lost to eight until in 1880 a Christian colony, mostly of Greeks, from Kerak settled there, and there is also a Roman Catholic mission. The preparations for building led to a series of discoveries of interesting antiquities. These include a large pool (324 feet by 309, and from 10 to 13 feet deep), ruins of several churches, the remains of a colonnaded street, inscriptions, mosaic pavements, and especially the map referred to above. The character of some of the ruins show that parts of the town had pretensions to elegance.
The story of the mosaic furnishes a lamentable instance of the loss to knowledge and to art which accrues from ignorance or stupidity. The first notics of the map came through a monk belonging to the Christian colony settled at Medeba in 1880, the find having been uncovered in clearing a floor for a new church on the lines of an old one. In 1882 this monk wrote concerning the mosaic to the Greek patriarch of Jerusalem, who simply filed the letter, which remained hidden till the new patriarch, Gerosinos, found it. The latter sent a master‑mason (with the title of architectl) to examine the mosaic and with directions to include it in the new church if found worthy. The deputy reported that it was unimportant, and in the building of the church large portions were destroyed, it being calculated that only eighteen square meters remain of an original area of perhaps 280 square meters. In 1896 the patriarch sent C15opas Koskylides, librarian of the Society of the Holy Sepulcher, to reexamine the map, and he recognized its importance. Large parts had been covered by cement for the flooring of the new church, while nearly all the rest had been destroyed, traces being left, however, which showed how great had been the destruction wrought.
The piece of the map remaining covers the territory from Nablus to the Nile. It is decorative and free in execution, somewhat lacking in perspective, but its location of places is approximately accurate. The East is at the top; the northern portion is

889	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Xedardus
		Xedfator
nearly all destroyed; the extreme northern part
was outside the present church walls, for in the
early period the names Ephesus and Smyrna were
read on it, showing that it originally included at
least the southern part of Asia Minor. The artist
accomplished very fair results with the difficult
material and subject with which he worked. Moun
tains are indicated in colored lines, the Dead Sea
in blue wavy lines; in the larger cities principal
streets are roughly represented, while in Jerusa
lem appear the principal structures of the period
(the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, and at least
three other churches, one outside the city), as well
as two colonnaded streets which run through the
north and south length of the city, and three (or
four) gates on north, east, and south. Smaller
cities are indicated with walls and round towers.
The subdivision of the map was by tribes, with
boundaries and chief towns. Nearly 140 names or
parts of names can be traced. The territories of
six tribes are represented in whole or in part‑Dan,
Simeon, Judah, Ephraim, Benjamin, and Zebulon.
As examples of the places named may be cited:
Modein, Nob, Lydda, Gath, Ashdod, Jericho,
Ephrata, Alamon, Bethabara, Ramah (in Benjamin
and in Judah), Gibson, tEnon, Shiloh, Gerizim,
Shechem, Gerar, Bethlehem Ephrata, Beth‑zur,
Ascalon, Gaza, Beersheba, the tomb of Joseph, the
well of Jacob, and the oak of Mamre, in Palestine;
and in Egypt Pelusium, Tanis, Sais, Hermoopolis,
and three arms of the Nile. The date of the map
is made out to be probably the middle of the fifth
century, since the principal structures of Jerusalem
seem to correspond with those of the city of that
period. The extant remnant has proved of some
service in confirming a number of locations already
made out, and in suggesting a few others. Had
the entire map been preserved, its value might have
been very great. A subject of debate still is whether
in the map's composition the Onomasticon of Euse
bius was employed.	GEo. W. GILmOEE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The principal account of the map is by
	C. Clermont‑Ganneau, in Recueil d'ardeolopie orientate,
	ii (1897), 161‑175, from which is taken the matter in
	PEF, Quarterly Statement, 1897, pp. 213‑225, cf. 167, 239,
	also 1898, pp. 85, 177‑183, 251, and 1901, 235‑246. Other
	summaries are to be found in The (New York) Independent,
	1897, p. 1656; Biblical World, 1898, pp. 244‑250; Meth
	odist Review, 1898, 478‑480; Geographical Journal, 1901,
	p. 516. Other discussions are: G. Durand, Le Carte Mo
	saique de Madaba, Paris, 1897; A. Schulten, Die Mosaik
	karte von Madaba, Berlin, 1900; Kubitschek, in the Mite
	theilunpen of the Royal Geographical Society of Vienna,
	1900, pp. 335‑380; A. Jacoby, Dos peopraphiache Mosaik
	von Madaba, Leipsic, 1905. A large and important litera
	ture is indicated in Richardson, Encyclopaedia, P. 666.
		On the town, apart from the map, consult: PEF, Quar
	terly Statement, 1895, July; M. Sejourne, in Revue biblique
	snternationale, 1892, 617‑644; DB, iii. 309‑310.
	MEDHURST, WALTER HENRY: Missionary,
sinologue, and lexicographer; b. in London Apr. 29,
1796; d. there Jan. 24, 1857. He studied at Hack
ney College, embarked for China as a missionary
printer, 1816; was so successful as a student of
languages and as a preacher that he was ordained
at Malacca, 1819, and labored in Penang and
Batavia; returned to England, 1836, but again
went out to his work in Java, 1838; on the opening
of Shanghai as a treaty port in 1842 he settled there
and remained until the year of his death. He was accomplished in the Javanese, Chinese, and Japanese languages. With the cooperation of friends he produced what is known as the " Delegates' Version " of the Bible in Chinese. Among his other works may be noted: English and Japanese Vocabulary (Batavia, 1830); Dictionary of the Hok‑%€bn Dialed of the Chinese Language (Macao, 1832); China, its State and Prospects (London, 1838); Chinese and English Dictionary (2 vols., Batavia, 1842‑43); Chinese Dialogues (Shanghai, 1844; new ed. by his son, 1861); and Dissertation on the Theology of the Chinese (1847).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. O. Dwight, H. A. Tupper, and E. M. Bliss. Encyclopedia of Missions, pp. 444‑445, New York,
1904; DNB, xxxvii, 202‑203.

	MEDIATOR: A title applied to Jesus Christ in
relation to his work as intermediary between God
and the world and between man and God. The
New Testament presents Christ as mediator in two
aspects, the cosmic and the redemptive. The prin
cipal passages bearing on the cosmic or universal
mediation are I Cor. viii. 6; Col. i. 15‑17; Heb. i.
2‑3; John i. 3‑4. As the image or Logos of God
the son is the sole mediator of the divine creative
activity. Eternal preexistence is affirmed of him.
Through him the universe is a consistent unity,
and progressively realizes the divine purpose. In
him is seen the rational explanation and final aim
of all things. This type of thought has its Jewish
as well as Greek background. In the Jewish doo
trine of Angels (q.v.), of wisdom (Prov. viii.), and
of the Spirit of God (q.v.), the idea of mediatorial
agencies between God and the world is made famil
iar. Greek thought represented the Platonic‑Stoic
logos both as immanent reason and as expressed
will. Josephus described the law as given by angels
(Ant. XV., v. 3), a view repeated in Acts vii. 53;
Gal. iii. 19; and Heb. ii. 2; cf. Jubilees, i. 27‑29, and
Assumption of Moses, i. 14. Phi7o gathers up the
lines of both Greek and Jewish development in his
doctrine of the Logos: the Logos is the mediator
between the immortal God and the sinful human
race (" Who Is the Heir "). The New Testament
teaching culminstes in the unique and unshared
mediation of the eternal Christ.
The other aspect of mediation‑the redemptiveis more fully represented in the New Testament (Matt. xi. 27‑28; Mark viii. 38; Luke ix. 11‑27; John, passim; Acts xvii. 31; Eph. i. 10‑21; Col. i. 20; I Tim. ii. 5‑6; I John ii. 1‑2). Mediation before Christ's earthly existence is armed in I Cor. x. 4; I Pet. i. 11; and John i. 11‑12. For Paul the mediation consists of vicarious suffering and death in behalf of sin, continues after death in his intercession (Rom. viii. 34) and gift of the Spirit (Rom. viii. 8‑11), and in manifold saving activities until his return to judgment, the destruction of the last enemy, and the glorification of the saints (I Thess. iv. 16‑17; I Cor. xv. 24‑28,50‑57; Phil. iii. 20‑21). The mediatorship of Jesus is the special theme of the epistle to the Hebrews. He was qualified for this task by the experiences of his earthly life. He was superior to the angels, to Moses, and to the priests. The latter was evinced by the fact that he was appointed not by men but by God, that he

A c`.1p a
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
offered not an external sacrifice but himself, through the eternal Spirit, the effect of which was spiritual and everlasting. He has opened for men the heavenly world, where as priest‑king he continues his mediation of the new covenant.
In successive periods of the Church the Christian doctrine of mediation reflects the changing doctrine of God and of man; it has therefore been identified in part with the various theories of the Atonement (q.v.). By the Church Fathers, Christ is designated as mediator, since he reconciles God and man, by uniting in his own nature the divine and the human which had become mutually estranged through sin (Cyril of Alexandria, Dial. i., " Concerning the Trinity"; Theophylact on Gal. iii.; Chrysostom, Seventh Homily on 1 Tim.). Since Gerhard, who followed the lead of many of the Fathers (cf. Eusebius, Hint. eccl. I., iii.), Thomas Aquinas, and Calvin, the mediatorehip of Christ has been divided into three aspects. (1) The prophetic: during his earthly life Christ revealed God's purpose of redemption. (2) The high‑priestly: Christ fulfilled two functions, satisfaction and intercession. He satisfied God's justice through his active and passive obedience in his earthly life and death, to which the worth of his person and the intensity of his suffering lent an infinite value. As exalted he continues his high‑priestly work through his intercession for the redeemed. The mediation of Christ was conceived by the Lutherans as meritorious and as related to all men; by the Reformed, as instrumental and as confined to the elect. (3) Christ's royal office, concealed during his earthly life, was assumed at his exaltation; as king he maintains and governs (a) all creatures (regnum potentice), (b) believers here below (regnum gratice), and (c) the church triumphant in heaven (regnum glori,ce). Ritschl modifies the traditional view by substituting vocation for office in Christ's mediation, by emphasizing the likeness of the community to Christ as respects the vocation, by conceiving of the royal function as fundamental, expressing itself in relation to God in the priestly, in relation to man in the prophetic, activity, and by affirming that the priestly and prophetic vocation extends into the state of exaltation. Christ mediates his forgiveness first to the community and then to individuals according as they become members of the community. The individual believer is brought into communion with God not through the living but through the historical Christ. In many of the popular sermons and hymns of the last two centuries Christ is set forth as mediator between an angry God and the condemned sinner, pleading with God for mercy, at the same time receiving the divine wrath into his own bosom and thus averting from the sinner the consequences of his sin. With the ethicizing of the character of God this view is yielding to a more adequate idea of Christ's mediation, as consisting in the revelation and communication of the life and love of God to men. The intercession of Christ, relieved of its picturesque features, signifies that the relation between God as gracious and man as sinful, established once for all in the life and death of Christ, is permanently valid in the changeless relation of Christ to the Father,
a'ro
and made effective for men through the influence of Christ's Spirit in their lives. C. A. Bxcswlmx.
Bxsraoassra:: G. Steward, MediatoriaL sotiv, 2 vole., Edinburgh, 1883; W. Symington, Measiah, the Prince, or, the MedfaWrial Dominion of Jesus Christ, New York, 1881; P. G. Medd, The One Mediatr, London, 1884: W. Milligan, The Ascension and Heavenly PrieeAood of our Lord. London, 1892; M. s. Terry, The Mediation of Jena Christ, New York, 1903; sad the treatment of Christ se priest and of his offices in the works on dogmatic theology.

MEDICINE. See Dis>easxa term THE HEerixa ART, Hxsaxw.

MEDINA: The city next in importance to Mecca, of the holy cities of Islam. It contains a large mosque with the mausoleum of Mohammed, and is annually visited by a great number of pilgrims. It has about 15,000 inhabitants. See MoR"MM~n, MoH.,MMnA1v1sM, I.

MEDLER, NICOLAUS: Leader of the Reformation in Naumburg; b. at Hof (72 m. s. o€ Leipsic) 1502; d. at Bernburg (88 m. s.w. of Berlin) Aug. 24, 1551. His preliminary studies were made in his native town and at the Latin School of Freiberg, after which he attended the universities of Erfurt and Wittenberg. After a brief sojourn as teacher at Arnstadt and Hof, he became rector of the school at Eger, where he caused excitement by his Evangelical sermons, and was obliged to withdraw. Returning to Hof, he took charge of the town school, which flourished under his care from 1527 or 1528 onward, and was associated with the town pastor, Lbner, as preacher at St. Michael's. On account of their sharp sermons both were expelled from the town July 13,1531. Medler removed to Wittenberg, and continued there five years. Provided by the elector of Saxony with an annual stipend, he labored as a private tutor and as assistant preacher to Luther, who was then in poor health, and for some time was chaplain to the exiled Electresa Elizabeth of Brandenburg. On Sept. 1, 1536, he removed to Naumburg as pastor and overseer of the Church of St. Wenceslaus, an important post to which he had been nominated by Elector John Frederick on the recommendation of Luther. For the next eight years he was the reformer of the ecclesiastical and educational system of Naumburg. Starting from the existing beginnings he proceeded mainly along the Wittenberg lines. His plan for reorganizing the parish church of St. Wenceslaus was approved Oct. 21, 1537, by Luther, Jonas, and Melanchthon, and was ratified by the elector. It shows not a few distinctive elements. The school prospectus makes provision for Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, and for the mathematical branches. Medler himself gave instruction in Hebrew. In the matter of ceremonial regulation, what is especially to be remarked is the place of the Confiseor and its wording, which proved of considerable influence, and the use of Luther's German paraphrase of the Gloria in ezcelais. The five appendixes, including an order of confirmation, have unfortunately been lost.
By 1540 the victory of Protestantism at Naumburg was assured, and the cathedral alone remained as a citadel of Roman Catholicism. In July, 1541,

271	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Xediator
		Medo‑Persia
however, the inhabitants of the cathedral district
petitioned the elector for spiritual ministration at
the hands of Medler, and John Frederick commanded
him forthwith to begin Evangelical worship there,
which he did on Sept. 11, 1541. Both Luther and
Medler took part officially in the festivities attend
ing the induction of Amsdorf as Evangelical bishop
(Jan. 19‑20, 1542). Since Amsdorf usually resided
at Zeitz, Medler continued to be the leading person
ality at Naumburg and prosecuted zealously the
work of evangelizing the cathedral district. His
life, however, became embittered by growing
contentions, notably with Georg Mohr, who in 1544
had succeeded Medler's friend, Loner, as cathedral
preacher at Naumburg. Even Luther censured
Medler's lust of power, and his disposition to treat
the new bishop as a nullity. With the council
Medler's repeated requests for an increase of salary,
and his independence in filling appointments
caused manifold frictions. From this situation
Medler was released by the elector's command to
go to the Electress Elizabeth, his former patroness,
who was now seriously ill. He left Naumburg
about Apr. 20, 1545, and never returned. About
the same time he was confirmed by the elector of
Brandenburg in the position of court preacher to
the Electress Elizabeth. He declined a professor
ship at Frankfort‑on‑the‑Oder, but in deference to
the wishes of Luther and Melanchthon accepted
the superintendency at Brunswick, of which he
took charge about Michaelmas, 1545. The agitated
state of the times, no less than the wilfulness of his
own disposition, prevented any lasting good results.
In 1551, on the advice of Melanchthon, he accepted
the position of court preacher at Bernburg, but was
stricken with paralysis at his first sermon, June 7.
Having been conveyed, for better care, to Witten
berg, he had a second stroke, and was brought back
MEDO‑PERSIA.
V. The History of Medo‑Persia.
	The Manda Hordes (§ 1).
	The Kaeahites (§ 2).
	The Early Medes ($ 3).
	Early Migrations; the Cimmerians
		($ 4).
	Ecbatana (§ 5).
1. The Names: The form of the word Media in
the earliest Persian cuneiform texts is Mdda,
Assyr. and Hebr., Madai. The origin of the word,
its meaning, and its etymological relationships
are entirely unknown. The name Persia, Persian,
in the Old Persian inscriptions is P6rsa, in Susian
ParRr, in Babylonian Parsd, in Hebrew Paras.
The origin, meaning, and relationship of this word
are also unknown.
	IL The Countries: The geographical boundaries
of Media and Persia varied greatly through the
centuries, and it is not possible to do more than
roughly define them. The earliest knowledge of
the geographical situation comes from the Babylo
nian and Assyrian texts. In these earliest sources
the general name for the whole territory after
ward known as Media and Persia was, according to
Winckler, Anshan, which is usually connected closely
with Suri ("Syria "). In this double geographical
I. The Names. IL The Countries.
Geographical Position and Extent 0 1).
Climate; Fauna and Flora (§ 2). III. Exploration and Excavation. 7V. Ethnological Data.
to Bernburg to die a few weeks later. His literary works, apart from the Naumburg Kirchenordnung and writings against the Interim, are mostly schoolbooks, including revisions of Mela,nchthon's Latin grammar, rhetoric, and dialectics, and some mathematical works. Luther reckoned him, along with Veit Dietrich and Johann Spangenberg, as one of his three true disciples, because he served school and Church with equal ardor. O. ALBRECHT.
BrBLIO(iRAPHY: Sources of knowledge are: The t?ratio de vita . . . N. Medleri by A. 8treitberger, Jena, 1591; EPistolas Melanchthonis to Medlar, ed. Dana, Jena, 1525; Briefwechsel den J. Jonas, ed. G. Kswerau, 2 vole., Halle, 1884‑85; Lathers Briefs, ed. De Wette, vole. iv.‑vi.; Braunachwsipische Schulordnungen, ed. F. Koldewey, pp. hx. aqq., 85‑97, Berlin, 1888. References to the earlier literature (eighteenth century) will be found in HauckHerzog, RE, xii. 492. Consult: Medal, in Zeitachrift fur preuRSische (ieachichte and Landeakirche, ii (188b), 85‑100; Holstein, in the same, iv (1867), 271‑287; 6. Braun, N4umburger Annalen, ed. KSater, Naumburg, 1892; E. Hoffmann, Naumburg im Zeitalter der Reformation, Leipaic, 1900; KSeter, in ZK(i, axii (1901), 145 eqq., 278 sqq.; O. Mertz, Schulwesen der deutachen Reformation, Heidelberg, 1902.
MEDLEY, SAMUEL: English Baptist preacher and hymnist; b. at Cheshunt (6 m. s. of Hertford) June 23, 1738; d. at Liverpool July 17, 1799. After serving in the navy (1755‑59), he kept school in London (17626); entered the ministry and became pastor at Watford, Hertfordshire (1767), being ordained in 1768; and was pastor of the Byrom Street chapel, Liverpool, from 1772 till his death. He is known principally as a hymnist, his beat composition being " O could I speak the matchless worth."
BIBLIOGRAPHY: His Memoirs were compiled by his eon, Samuel, London, 1800; and by his daughter, Sarah, 2 parts, Liverpool, 1833. Consult also: Julian, HpnanoY ogy, p. 722; 6. W. Duffield, English Hymns, pp. 51, 402, 823, New York, 1888.
Deioces and Astyages 1. (16). The Acbemenians (§ 7).
Cyrus ($ 8).
Old‑Testament Allusions (§ 9). Cambyses; Darius (§ 10).
Xerxes, Artaxerxes, and Successors Q 11).
expression the word Surf stood for that part of the
valley of the Euphrates and Tigris north of Baby
lonia proper, and extended also northwesterly to Asia
		Minor. The word Anshan covered the
	x. Geo‑ territory east of the Tigris. It was bor
	graphical dared on the northwest by the territory
	Position of Man, later Armenia, on the north
and Extent. by the Caspian Sea, on the east by
		the great desert, and on the south by
Elam. This great territory was divided between
the complex of peoples known as Medea. The
territory originally known as Persia was much
smaller, and was located, in general, southeast
of the larger Median possessions. Its western and
southern border was the Persian Gulf, and its eastern
was formed by Carmania. When the Persians rose
to supremacy the name Persia was extended to the
greater Median territory, and a new geographical
signification was acquired by it. This is well

Xedo‑Persia,	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	272
expressed in the boasting words of Cyrus the Younger: " My father's kingdom extends so far to the south that men can not live there because of the heat, and northward to where they can not east because of the cold."
Media and Persia together comprise within their borders temperate, sub‑tropical, and tropical conditions. On the extreme northwest the winters are long, and deep snows block the wild and almost trackless mountain‑passes. In the a. Climate; neighborhood of the Persian Gulf
Fauna torrid temperatures prevail, as severe and Flora. in the plain as those of India. In the immediate neighborhood of the Caspian Sea, the summers are hot and humid, and bear an evil reputation for unhealthiness. The great tablelands have on the whole a temperate climate, but the heat of summer is often very excessive and the presence of deserts, large and small, contributes much sand to the atmosphere when the wind is high. These same table‑lands are covered with snows in the winter. The distribution of rain over the entire territory is, even yet, not scientifically known, and estimates of observers vary greatly. In Persia proper ten inches per annum is supposed to represent fairly well the average. Without irrigar tion, two‑thirds of modern Persia would be a desert, and within the historic period the change can not have been great. The remainder of the country includes some of the most fertile portions of the earth, the praises of which poets have sung for centuries. The flora covers a very wide range, from the apple in the northwestern mountain regions to the peach, figs, pomegranates, and lemons of the warmer sections. Wheat grows on the great steppes, and in the south cotton, opium, tobacco, madder roots, henna, and the mulberry. The fauna is as widely varied as the flora.
III. Exploration and Excavation: The explOration of the land of Media and Persia falls into two great subdivisions. The former concerns Persia almost exclusively, the latter springs chiefly out of the interest which the discovery and decipherment of the Babylonian and Assyrian inscriptions have awakened (see INSCRIPTIONS, II.). The earliest explorers of Persia were all men engaged in welting an overland route between Europe and India. The notion that Persia might, in itself, reward the explorer was an afterthought. The story of the earliest explorations may be said to begin with the Italian friar Odoric in 1320, for he saw the ruins of Persepolis and it was from the key afforded by the inscriptions there discovered that all present knowledge of Media and Persia has been derived (see ASSYRIA, III., 1, for the early explorations of Persia). The more recent explorations have been best summed up in the extended tours of George N. Curzon, now Lord Curzon of Kedleston (Persia and the Persian Question, 2 vols., London, 1892) and Prof, A. V. Williams Jackson (Persia Past and Present, New York, 1906). Both of these had the historical problems in mind, and saw the country in its relations to Babylonia and Assyria as the cuneiform inscriptions have made them known. The former has given a . most elaborate review of the work of former explorers, the latter has contributed valu‑
able corrections to the Behistun inscription, first copied and deciphered by Sir Henry Rawlinson and since recopied and perfected by L. W. King and R. C. Thompson (The Sculptures and Ireacrigrtion of Darius the Great on the Rock of Behistun in Persia, London, 1907). Persia proper has been much better explored than Media, but in neither land have the known remains of ancient cities been excavated. In some of these it may well be hoped, by analogy with Babylonian, Assyrian, and Elamite mounds, there still lie buried large numbers of inscribed records of the historical events of both the Medea and the Persians. Until this colossal task is begun much of the history of both peoples must be accepted at second hand from allusions in the already, discovered records of their neighbors. The sketch of their history which it is now possible to give is but fragmentary, with great gaps, especially in the earlier portions. The interest of the unexplored sites of Media would be scarcely inferior to those of Assyria, surely not inferior to the explored sites of Elam.
IV. Ethnological Data: The peoples of Media and Persia in ancient times afford a very similar set of problems to those which are confronted in Babylonia, Canaan and in Egypt. In all these cases there existed in historic times races, of more or less mixed blood, who may readily be classified ampng the great ethnological groups or families. The earlier prehistoric inhabitants present the greatest problems of ethnology. The prehistoric populations both of Media and of Persia are of unknown extraction and racial ties. These early inhabitants are called by the Babylonians Umvwn Manda, "the Manda hordes." They were uncivilized and nomadic and, as Winckler has said, fill in the minds of the Babylonians a place somewhat similar to that occupied by the Scythians in the mind of the Greeks. Whence these people came there is at present no knowledge. On the other hand, the peoples of the great historic period, who are known as Medea and Persians, both belonged to the IndoEuropean race‑the great race which in later times has spread all over Europe and America.
V. The History of Medo‑Persia: Philological indications would seem to show that in extremely early times there was an invasion of the territory known as Media by a number of people from the Caucasus region, a region once crowded with peoples of Aryan affinities but with much diversity in speech. Into this territory there had previously come a people of dark :. The complexions who may have had some
Manda	racial ties with the people now called
	Hordes.	Sumerians, who inhabited Babylonia
		before the Semitic Babylonians entered
it (98e BABYLONIA, V., § § 1, 3‑4). The first glimpse of
the land and people of Media is secured from an
inscription of Anu‑banini, king of the Lulubi, in
the valleys of the Zagros. The style of this inscrip
tion seems to make it contemporaneous with
Sargon I. (see BABYIANIA, VI., 3, § 1) about 3750
R.c.; Thureau‑Dangin does not venture to place it
so early, but classifies it merely as earlier than the
first dynasty of Ur (see BABYLOmA, VI., 3, § 3).
Whatever the date may be, the people called

273	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Xedo‑Perms
Lulubi must have come into the territory from the west or northwest to find it already occupied by the dark‑skinned folk, connected above tentatively with the Sumerians, and also by the people from the Caucasus. Their title for " prince " seems to have been "Yanzu." As they entered the land from west or northwest, there came from the east the Wasyapa, or Kasyapi. These may perhaps be all grouped together and called the Umvnan Manda.
After this early period knowledge of Media passes into darkness for many centuries, as the next intelligence comes from the period of the Kasshite dominion in Babylonia when Agum II.
(see BABYLONIA, VI., 5, § 1, where this a. The king is registered under the name
Basshites. Agum kakrime) claimed dominion not
only over Babylonia, but also over some Median provinces, from which it may be inferred that the great Kasshite invasion passed also over Media, and conquered portions of its territory. Another long period is to be passed over, of which nothing is known until the reigns of Adadnirari I. and Shalmaneser I., his son, kings of Assyria about 1300 B.C., who conquered the Lulubi or Lulumi, who were again conquered about two centuries later by Nebuchadrezzar I. of Babylonia. During this entire period there is not a single mention of the people whom the Greeks called Medea. They have not yet appeared in history. All the people who have up to this time attracted attention belonged in some way to the unclassified Manda hordes.
In his twenty‑fourth campaign in the year 836 Shahnaneser II., king of Assyria, made an expedition into Namri, and passing on through the country met for the first time the Amadai or Madai, that is,
the Medea of the Indo‑European 3. The family. He claims a great victory
Early	over them, carrying away prisoners
Medea.	and devastating their cities. Their
recuperative power was great, for during the reign of Adad‑nirari V. (formerly known as Ramman‑nirari III. or IV. or Adad‑nirari III. or IV.; 810‑782 B.C.) the eponym canon sets down no less than eight campaigns and still another under AsshurDan III. (771‑754 B.C.). The Medea seem to have increased in numbers, and then to have mastered more thoroughly the primitive population and to have gained rapidly in power with the passing years in spite of the great efforts of the Assyrians to overcome them. During the next Assyrian reign (Tiglath‑Pileser IV.; 745‑727 s.c.) two great expeditions were led against the Medea in 744 and in 737, in the former of which the Assyrian king claims to have carried away 60,500 captives, and in the latter 8,650. The king always refers to them as the " dangerous " Medea, and such he doubtless found them to be. There was an almost continuous battery of attacks upon the Medea during the reign of Sargon II., 722‑705; and Sennacherib (705‑681) received tribute from " the far‑away Medea, whose names no one of my predecessors had known."
	From about 700 B.C. new waves of migration
from the neighborhood of Lake Urunuah passed
		VIL‑18
down into the territory once held by the Assyrians and lying east of the Tigris. These were Indo. Europeans, and their names have been
4. Early preserved in part at least by the AssyrMigrations; ians. The best‑known of them are
	The Cim‑	the Cimmerians (the Kimmerioi of
	merians.	the Greeks, the Gomer of the Hebrews).
		All these peoples were a cause of deep
anxiety to the Assyrians during the reign of Esao
haddon (681‑668 B.C.), and Asshurbanipal (668‑625
B.C.) in vain attempted to hold them in check. In
large numbers, and increasing both in power and in
daring, they were sweeping all before them. From
about the year 640 the native rulers of Elam no
longer are mentioned, for the Medea had possessed
the land, and very soon after that year there is
notice of the kings of Anshan, to whom Cyrus
the Great looked back as his ancestors. As Assyrian
power dwindled these new invaders east of Assyria
were building up a new people, the old Indo‑Euro
peans melting together with the new, and soon this
new combination was able to found a kingdom of
its own with the capital city Ecbatana. From many
		sources there come down memories
g. Ecba‑ of that great city. The ancient tans. Persians called it Hagmatana, and the Babylonians Agamatanu, while the Greeks catching a false quantity made it Ecb& tans. It is perhaps safe to suppose that it is the city called Amadana by Tiglath‑Pileser I., and in this case its origin would go back to the twelfth century before Christ. Herodotus, on the other hand, ascribes its origin to Deiooes, whom he regards as the first great ruler of the Median empire about 700 B.c., who is represented as having erected great walls of defense, " the walls being arranged in circles one within another." From this time onward, the stream of Median history. is in full flow, and the Greek sources give valuable sidelights upon the native monuments.
Herodotus makes Deiooes the ruler of the Medea 70047 B.C. The successor of Deioces, according to Herodotus, was Phraortes (646‑625),
6. Deioces but of him nothing is learned from and Asty‑ the inscription material which has ages I. come down, and the name is therefore suspect. It has been suggested by Winckler that the real ruler of Media at this time was Astyagea I., and that it was he who was first invoked by the Babylonians to lend aid against the Assyrians. There is no solid evidence for this and the statement must suffice that the next king of the Medea, Cyaxares (624‑585), is the first really historical monarch of theMedian empire. His name is handed down by Darius the Great in the form Uvakshatara, and he it was who broke the Scythian power and formed an alliance with the Babylonians. Urged onward by Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, Cysaaree attacked Nineveh and in the year 606 B.C. laid it waste, and with it the upper part of Mesopotamia and the Babylonian cities which had cast in their lot with the Assyrians. By this one stroke the Medea were enriched through the vast plunder which Nineveh provided, but also they had sprung from insignificance into the position of a world power. The Median armies flushed with victory swept

Medo‑Persia Megander
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
onward into the northwest, conquering as they went, until the river Halys became the western boundary of the new empire which extended eastward to the confines of Elam. It was a vast and powerful empire which Cyaxares left to his son. Astyages (584550) was not able to keep up the good relations with Babylonia which had continued since the very beginning of his father's reign and there is evidence of a struggle of some kind with Neriglissar. When Nabonidus became king of Babylon a Median army was besieging Harran, and the Babylonians and Medea were enemies.
While the Medea were thus founding a widespread empire, another branch of the Indo‑European wanderers was slowly preparing for even greater
dominion. The kings who were to q. The lead the new movement are called the Acheemen‑ Achaemenians or Acbaemenides, and ians. three lists of the chief members of this
great family have come down, one upon the cylinder of Cyrus, a second upon the great inscription of Darius at Behistun, and the third in Herodotus (vii. 11). The combination of these three sources is by no means easy, but a fair agreement among modern scholars has been achieved, and the following may be regarded as representing the facts as well as they can be made out at present.
Hakhamanish (Achaemenes)
~ishl rah (Teispes)
	n usiya (Cambyees)
	rash ((
	s	i pish
Kurash (Cyrus)	Ariyiamna (Ariaramnee)
Kambiya (Cambysee)
Arehama (Areames)
	Kurlaeh (Cyrus the Great)	Vishti hpa (Hystaepea)
Kambl rya (Cambyses)	Darayavash (Darius)
In this great family the greatest name is Cyrus, son of Cambyses, grandson of Cyrus. His career was so splendid that the imagination of the whole world of ancient culture was touched, and the writers of Greece and Rome surrounded his per‑
sonality with legends for which no 8. Cyrus. historical basis is found. When he
first appears he is king of Anshan, and his capital was probably Susa. He is also called king of Persia, but the title was not a great one until he made it great, and both as king of Anshan and as king of Persia he was at first more or less subject to the greater kingdom of Media. There was no possibility that a man of his capacity could continue to be a "petty vassal." In 549 B.C. he conquered Astyages, and at one stroke made himself king of the Median empire. The concentration into the hands of one powerful man of three kingdoms, Anshan, Persia, and Media, was a menace to all western Asia, and there was soon a combination arranged in defense. The alliance was formed of Craesus, king of Lydia, Nabonidus, king of Babylonia, and Amasis, king of Egypt. It must have seemed formidable, but it afforded in reality no defense
274
against Cyrus. He completed the reduction of the whole Median empire and pushed at once into Asia Minor. Crcesus was taken in the autumn of 546, and before the end of 545 the peninsula of Asia Minor had become a part of the new Persian empire and was divided into satrapies and ruled by a strong hand. Cyrus turned next to Babylonia. Nabonidus was busy with temples and restorations, and his son Belshazzar, set to defend the country, went down to defeat before Cyrus at Opis, and Sippar fell without fighting. Gobryas (Gubaru, Ugbaru) entered Babylon without a struggle and on the 3d of Marcheswan (October) 539 Cyrus entered Babylon and was received as a deliverer.
It was no wonder that such a career should have captivated the minds of the Hebrews. In Isa. gl.‑xlviii. Cyrus is Yahweh's anointed and to him
the exiles were looking for the deliver‑
9. Old‑ ante from Babylonia. In 538 he
Testament issued the decree that set the Jews
Allusions. free from their trammels and permit‑
ted the beginning of the rebuilding of national and religious life in Jerusalem.
Cyrus built his capital at PasargadEe, and there also was set his tomb, and in the year 529 his reign, glorious not only in war, but also in peace came to an end, and Cambysea II. (529‑521 B.C.) reigned in his stead.
Cambyses began his reign by putting to death his brother Smerdis, and a despotic and mad though brief career began. Though far inferior to
Cyrus in ability, Cambyses had a
xo. Cam‑ daring imagination, and contemplated
byses;	vast projects of conquest. On slight
Darius.	pretexts he invaded Egypt, captured
Memphis, and pushed on victoriously to Thebes. A great expedition sent thence into Nubia met with disaster, and Cambyses set out for home. On the way he learned that a rebellion, serious in extent and dangerous in intensity, had begun in his kingdom. A Magian whose name was Gaumata (Gomates) had put forth a claim to be Smerdis, whom Cambysea had slain, and was ready to seize the supreme power. When this terrible news reached him, he committed suicide. With him ended the elder branch of the Achaemenian line, for his successor Darius, son of Hystaspes, belonged to the younger line. A combination of nobles succeeded in slaying the false Smerdis, and Darius (522‑485 B.C.) was made king. His reign began with great works of peace. He reorganized the system of satrap government, giving large autonomy but retaining effective control in all matters of moment to the empire. He dug a canal between the Nile and the Red Sea, established a system of posting over newly built roads covering large portions of his empire, secured a new respect for law and governed by it himself, and even by his enemies seems to have been held in almost universal respect. In war his success was mixed with failure, and his plans were far too great, but the achievements were nevertheless memorable. At one blow he established his dominion over the Punjab in northwestern India, while in the west he conducted a great campaign against the Greeks, only to meet with a decisive defeat at Marathon (490 B.C.). While

275
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Redo‑Persia Megander
preparing for another assault he died suddenly, leaving to his son Xerxes a revolt in Egypt, and unfinished preparations against the Greeks.
	Xerxes I.	(Khshayarsha), 485‑465 B.C., was in
no respect the equal of his father, but something of
the old military prowess was revealed in his success
ful suppression of the revolt in Egypt and also of a
		rebellion in Babylonia. He was then
ii. Xerxes, free to attack the Greeks, and with a Artaxerxes, large army he passed over Asia Minor, and Suc‑ crossed the Hellespont, and invaded cessors. Europe. But in the naval battle of Salamis his fleet was overwhelmed and he was compelled to return in defeat to his capital. His empire was tottering, but endured with some show of strength a century and a half longer, chiefly because of the organization which it had received at the clever hands of Darius. Xerxes fell a victim at last to intrigue and perished at the hands of assassins. With his end came the beginning of the end of Persian power. The Greeks had cause to remember him, while the Hebrews enshrined a tradition of his court in the book of Esther and called him Ahasuerus.
The next king was Artaxerxes Longimanus (Artakshatau), 465‑424 B.C., in whose reign Nehemiah, his cup‑bearer, and Ezra the scribe were permitted to visit Jerusalem and there set in order a new Jewish commonwealth with the organization of a church. His successor Darius II., called Darius Nothus (424‑405), had an inglorious reign, suffering not a little at the hands of his sister and Queen Parysatis, who was ambitious to set her beloved son Cyrus on the throne but failed in the effort. The scepter came into the hands of the lazy Artaxerxes I. Mnemon (405‑358), under whom the waning power of the empire became a byword. His successor Artaxerxes III. Ochus (358‑338) restored for a time the empire, reduced the Egyptians, and put down numerous revolts which had their origin in the laxity of the previous reign. He was murdered at last by Bagoas, who tried to settle upon the throne Arses (338‑336), but he proved faithless to his patron, and Bagoas poisoned him and made Darius III. Codomannus (336‑331 B.C.), a great‑grandson of Darius II., the king. He was unequal to the fearful emergency which came upon him. Alexander the Great, fresh from universal success, met him in battle at Arbela (331) and scattered his hosts, destroyed by fire his palaces at Persepolis, and sent his dead body to his Aged mother. The sun of Persian hegemony and independence had set. The history of the Christians under the Sassanidw is given under Nestorians (q.v.), which involves virtually the history of that period. ROBERT W. ROGERS.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: For current bibliography consult E. Wilhelm, " Peraien," in Jahreabericht der Geachichtataiasenachaft, Berlin (an annual). On the explorations and discoveries the literature under Assyria; and the works of Lord Curzon and A. V. W. Jackson named in the text. On the inscriptions, besides the works of Jackson, and of King and Thompson, named in the text, consult: H. C. Tolman, Guide to the Old Persian Inscriptions, New York, 1902; idem, Ancient Persian Lexicon and the Texts of as Achmmenian Inscriptions, ib. 1908; idem, The Behiatun Inscription of King Darius, ib., 1908; H. C. Rawlineon, The Persian Cuneiform Inscription at Behistun, in JRAS, 1846‑49; F. Spiegel, Alt‑pemiachs Keiiinachrlften, Leipeie, 1881; C. Bezold, Die Achammideninechriften, Leip‑
eio, 1882; T. N5ldeke, Persepolis. Die Achaemenidiachen and saaaniddachen Dsnkmnler and Inachriften von Pereepolie . . , 2 vole., Berlin, 1882; F. H. Weisabaeh, Die Achamenidaninachriften zweiter Art, Leipsic, 1890; F. H. Weiasbaeh and W. Bang, Die altperaiachen Keilinachriften, Leipsic, 1893‑1909; C. Bartholomse, Altiraniachee W6rterbuch, Strasburg, 1904. On the history consult: B. Brisson, De repi.o Peraarum principatu, ed. J. H. Lederlin, Strasburg, 1710; G. Rawlineon, Seven Great Monarchies (many reprints); T. NSldeke, Aufatitze zur Peraiechen Geachichte, Leipsic, 1887; idem, in EacycloPo=dia Britanniea, 9th ed., art. Persia; F. Spiegel, Eraniache Alterthumakunde, ii. 238‑581, Leipsic, 1873; E. Meyer, Geaddehte des Altertuma, parts 1‑3, Stuttgart, 1884‑1901; J. von Pralsek, Medien and daa How des Kyaxarea, Berlin, 1890; idem, Die eraten Jahre Dareioa des Hyataapiden and der al<peraiache Kalendar, Leipsic, 1901; idem, Geachichte der Mader and Pereer Us tur makedonischen Eroberunp, 2 vole., Goths, 1908‑10; F. Juati, Geaehichte Irana von den 8tteaten Zeiten, in Grundriaa der iraniachen Philoiogie, Strasburg, 1895‑1904; idem, Central and Eastern Asia do Antiquity, London, 1902; idem, Iraniachea Namen6uch, Marburg, 1895: J. Marquart, Uritersuchungen zur Geachichte von Iran, Gbttingen, 1896‑1905; idem, Eranaahr, Berlin, 1901; P. Kerahasp, Studies in Ancient Persian History, London, 1905; V. Smith, Early Hiat. of India from BINJ B.C. to the Mohammedan Conquest, pp. 10, 34‑35, Oxford, 1908 (deals with the conquest of Northern India, cf. Esther i. 1).
MEGANDER (GROSSMANN), gASPAR: Swiss Reformer; b. at Zurich, 1495; d. there Aug.18,1545. He studied at Basel, and in 1518 became a chaplain in his native city. From the beginning he stood unconditionally on the side of Zwingli; after 1525 he was active at the exegetical school founded by Zwingli. In 1528 he was called as professor of theology and preacher to Bern where the foundation for a theological institution was being laid, and the management of ecclesiastical affairs fell into his hands.
The importance of Megander for the history of the church lies in his consistent attitude in the negotiations for union between the Swiss and the German Reformation. Bern formed the center of opposition to the efforts of Butzer, and Megander was the leading spirit of that opposition. At first his older colleagues shared entirely his Zwinglian views, but Sebastian Meyer, the friend of the Strasburg theologians, and Peter Kunz, who for a time had studied at Wittenberg, energetically endeavored to advance the union with the Saxons. Consequently both sides vehemently attacked each other, in colloquies and from the pulpit. A synod held on May 31, 1537, censured the offensive quarreling of both parties and requested silence. Another convention, held in September, gave Butzer an opportunity to defend himself, and declared itself satisfied with his justification. Megander, on the other hand, was asked to revise his catechism because Butzer and Kunz suspected it of heresies in the article on the Lord's Supper. Megander'a catechism had appeared in 1536, and although he was not disinclined to make changes, he was so deeply hurt by Butzer's immediate and inconsiderate revision that he refused to acknowledge it. Consequently he was dismissed before the end of 1537, and returned to Zurich where he was made dean at the cathedral. With Leo Jud Megander published " Annotations to Genesis and Exodus " (1527) after Zwingli'a oral lectures, also " Annotations. to the Epistle to the Hebrews and to I John " (1539). He also wrote short commentaries on Gala‑

Xea ~ende	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
		278
bans (1533), Ephesians (1534), and Timothy and
Titus (1535). See BUTZER, MARTIN. (EMIL EGLIt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The best sources are the letters of Zwingli, in which the activities of Megander often receive notice. The works on the life of Zwingli have also more or less to say of him. Consult: Hundeshegen, Die Konflikts des Zwdnglianinnue, Lutherthums, Calviniamus in der bernischen Landeakirche 163.8‑68, Bern, 1842.

MEGAPOLENSIS, JOHANNES (Jan van Hekelenburg) : Dutch missionary to the American Indians; b. at Koedyck, Holland, 1603; d. in New York City Jan. 24,1670. He came to America, 1642, on the invitation of the patroon of Reneselaerwyck, and labored as a frontier missionary. He remained until 1649 working among the Mohawk Indiana, whose language he learned, many of whom joined his church. He was thus the first missionary among the Indians, preceding John Eliot by three years. From 1649 to his death he was pastor of the Dutch Church in New Amsterdam (New York). His zeal led him into intolerance toward Lutherans and Independents. His valuable " Short Account of the Mohawk Indians, their Country, Language, Figure, Costume, Religion, and Government," written in Dutch and published without his consent (Amsterdam, 1651), is translated in Historical Collections, State of New York, vol. iii.

MEGIDDO: A royal Cansanitic city assigned at the conquest to Manasseh, though situated within the borders of Issachar. Apparently it was not occupied at the conquest, though the statement is made that the inhabitants were subjected to tribute (Josh. xvii. 11‑13; Judges i. 27‑28). It was fortified by Solomon (I Kings ix. 15), and Ahaziah died there (II Kings ix. 27). It is mentioned in connection with Taanach, the modern Tell Ta'anuk (Josh. xii. 21, xvii. 11; Judges v. 19; I Kings iv. 12), on the. edge of the plain of Esdraelon about half‑way down its southern side. The site is therefore by some recognized in Tell el‑Mutasellim, on a spur jutting out from Carmel, not far from Lejjun, which marks the site of the Roman town Legio; others prefer Lejjun itself, the ruins of which lie on both sides of a perennial stream which may well be the " waters of Megiddo " (Judges v. 19). Its situation on the edge of the plain of Esdraelon, a battle‑ground of the nations for millenniums (cf. Judges v. 19‑21; II Kings xxiii. 29‑30; Zech. xii. 11; and the Egyptian inscriptions, e.g., of Thothmes III.), gave it a strategic importance. Accordingly it appears in history as a fortified city (Josh. xii. 21; I Kings ix. 15), and in ReX. xvi. 16 (Har Magedon, i.e., "the mountain [fortress] of Magedon") it figures as the typical fortress about which the final world conflict is to take
place. 	GEO. W. GILMORE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Dillmann's commentary on Joshua at ]ni. 21; G. F. Moore's commentary on Judges, pp. 47, 158; Conder, in the PEF, Memoirs, ii. 90‑99 (identifies it with Muiedda near Bethshean, unquestionably wrong); G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, pp. 53, 385‑387, 406, London, 1896.

MEGILLOTH. See CANON oh ScRIPTuRE, I., 6.

MEHLHORN, m61'hom, PAUL: German Protestant; b. at Gauern (a village of Saxon Altenburg) Jan. 3, 1851. He was educated at the universities
of Jena (1869‑72; Ph.D., 1873), Zurich (1872), and Leipaic (1872‑73), after which he was successively teacher in a private school for girls in Dresden (1873‑74), and at the Nicolai Gymnasium in Leipsic (1875‑81), and professor at the gymnasium in Heidelberg (1881‑93). He was also a teacher in the theological seminary of Heidelberg from 1883 to 1893 and associate professor of theology at the university of the same city from 1891 to 1893. Since 1893 he has been pastor of the Evangelical Reformed Church in Leipaic. He is a member of the Deutscher Proteatantenverein, belongs to the liberal school in theology, and has written, among other works: the Bibel, ihr Inhalt and geschichtlicher Boden (Leipsic, 1877); Kirchengeschichte fur hohere Schulen (1880); Grundriss der protestantischen Religlonslehre (1883); Heidelberger Universitktspredigten (1891); Ifritisches and Erbauliehes (Berlin, 1891); Wie ist in unaerer Zeit das Christentum zte verteidigertt (1894); Aus den Quellen der Kirchengeschichte (2 parts, 1894‑99); Reehenschaft von unserm Christentum (Leipsic, 1896); Au8 Hohert and Tiefen (sermons, 1902); Der Religionsunteraicht in, den hoheren Schulen (Heidelberg, 1902); Die beiden Hauptrichtungen des kirchlichen Protestantismus (1903); Wahrheit and Dichtung im Leben Jesu (Leipsic, 1906) ; and Die Bhitezeit der deutschen Mystik (Tiibingen, 1907). He has also edited the second part of K. J. Holsten's Das Evangelium des Pauhua (Berlin, 1898) and the fourteenth and fifteenth editions of J. Hammer's Leben ured Heimat in Gott, sine Sammlxcng Lieder zur Erbautcng and Yeredlung (Leipsic, 1901‑05).
MEIDERLIft, PETER. See MELDENIU9, RuPERTUB.

	MEIER, mni'er, ERNST JULIUS: German Lu
theran; b. at Zwickau Sept. 7, 1828; d. at Dresden
Oct. 6, 1897. He studied at the University of Leip
aic and filled the successive positions of pastor at
Flemmingen (1854‑64), superintendent at L6sanitz
(18647), superintendent of the diocese of Dresden
(1867‑90), and court preacher and vice‑president
of the national conaistory at Dresden (1890‑97).
By his vigorous personality he exercised a profound
influence upon the national church of Saxony and
its clergy. His especial gift was preaching. His
versatile spiritual interest was coupled with ready
command of expression, together with much skill
in the way of ingenious coordination of ideas. His
sermons stick closely to their text, and his ideas
are clearly presented, though their style pre
supposes a rather high degree of culture in the
audience. He published three volumes of ser
mons (Leipsic, 1871, 1877, 1886), two collections
of addresses as superintendent (1871, 1881), and
sundry lectures. 	GEORd RIETBCHEL.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: B. KUhn, in Beilr3ge zur edchsiachen Kir‑
cAengeachichte, zai. 1 eqq., Leipsie 1897; C. Meneel, Kirch‑
fiches Handlexikon, iv. b24‑525, Leipeic, 1894.

MEINHOLD, main'holt, JOHANN FRIEDRICH HELLMUT: German Lutheran; b. at Kammin (40 m. n.n.e. of Stettin), Aug. 12, 1861. He was educated at the universities of Leipaic, Berlin, Greifawald, and Tiibingen from 1879 to 1884, and

277	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	1=l‑sis
in the latter year became privat‑docent for theology at Greifswald, where he was appointed associate professor four years later. In 1889 he went in a similar capacity to Bonn, where he was promoted to his present position of full professor of Old‑Testament exegesis and Hebrew in 1903. In addition to briefer contributions, he has written: Die Composition des Buchea Daniel (Greifawald, 1884); Beitrdge zur Er4drung lea Bitches Daniel, i. (Leipsie, 1888); Die gesehichtlichen Hagiographen (Chronika, Esra, Nehemia, Ruth, Esther) and daa Bitch Daniel ausgelegt (in collaboration with S. Oettli; NSrdlingen, 1889); Wider den Kleinglauben, sin ernstm Wort an die evangelischen Christen aller Parteien (Freiburg, 1895); Jeans and das Alte Testament, sin zweitea ernstes Wort an die evangelischen Christen (1896); Jesaja and seine Zeit (1898); Die Jesajaerzdhlungen, Jesaja 369 (Gottingen, 1898); Die Lade Jahves (Tijbingen, 1900); Studien zur iaraelitiachen Religionsgeschichte, i. (Bonn, 1903); Die biblische Urgeschichte in gemeinveratdndlicher Daratellung (1904); and Sabbat and Woche im Alten Testament (G6ttingen, 1905).

MEINHOLD, KARL HEINRICH JOACHIM: German Lutheran; b. at Liepe (on the Island of Usedom in the Baltic) Aug. 21, 1813; d. in Kammm (120 m. n.n.e. of Berlin) July 20, 1888. His father was a pastor and a rationalist, like the clergy of his synod of that time, though his rationalism was not consistent. In 1827 he entered Mary's College at Stettin and in 1831 the University of Greifswald and later that of Halle. Under the influence of Tholuck and of Ullmann, and later of Schleiermacher in Berlin, he severed all relations with rationalism, drawing closer to the Bible. In 1838, he was appointed pastor at Kolzow, in the Island of Wollin, Pomerania, where he succeeded in maintaining Lutheran interests and soon became one of the acknowledged champions of the Lutheran Church. In the later part of the period of organization of Lutheranism within the Prussian state church Meinhold was a prominent worker and influenced the final settlement. The synod of Wollin, to which Kolzow belonged, resolved that their parishioners should take the name of Lutherans officially and that the sacraments should be administered according to the Lutheran rite. In 1846, a general synod petitioned the authorities to guarantee the Lutheran rights, but without success. After 1848, the authorities decided that the Union should become absolute. During the political struggles the Lutheran associations, with headquarters at Naugard, planned for self‑defense. In 1851, Meinhold was appointed superintendent at Kammin, where he soon became the leader of the associations in their contest with the authorities. These associations had to contend with two tendencies, first that toward separation, secondly that toward absorption, with the latter of which the authorities sided, and in the contest Meinhold received blame from both parties. In 1869, Superintendent Meinhold was suspended, but he was reinstated in 1874 by order of the ministry. Then supervened the Falk era: the clergy, expecting greater freedom and led by Meinhold, outlined
their position at a conference at Gnadau in 1874. However, disciplinary measures were taken against Meinhold. A synodal order was issued, looking to a union between the confessional group and the authorities. In 1875, a general synod assembled and determined upon harmony; the result was that the Lutheran Church gained a right of existence within the Prussian state church. In 1880, Meinhold was reappointed superintendent, then district school inspector, and in 1888 a jubilee was celebrated for his fifty years of active service. (T. MEINHOLD.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Allgemeine evanpeliach‑lutharieche Kirchenzeitunp, 1888, pp. 1107 sqq.

MEINRAD(MEGINHARD),ST. SeeEINSIEDELN.

	MEMWERg, main'v6rk: Bishop of Paderbom,
1009‑1036. He was related to the royal family and
received his education in the ecclesiastical schools
of Halberstadt and Hildesheim. He was made a
canon of Halberstadt; later, in the time of Otto III.,
court chaplain, and in 1009 Heinrich II. made him
bishop of Paderborn. He served faithfully in internal
and external affairs the emperor and his country,
and was able with great cleverness to assert his
influence among kings and nobles, among wealthy
clergymen and laymen, obtaining endowments for
his diocese or for the monastery of Abdinghofen,
built between 1015 and 1031 in the western suburb
of Paderborn. 	(FRANz G6I1REB.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The basal source is an anonymous life written about 1150, ed. G. H. Perta in MGFi, Script., u (1854), 104‑161, and in ASB, June, i 511‑553. A very useful bibliography is given in Potthast, Wepweiser, pp. 1478‑79. Consult: F. X. $ohrader, Leben and Wirken des . . . Meinwsrks, . , 1009‑56, Paderborn, 1895; H. Breselau, Jahrtaclaer des deutechen Reichs unter Kon. rad 11., ii. 460 sqq., Leipsio, 1884.
	MEISNER, mais'ner, BALTHAZAR: German the
ologian; b. at Dresden Feb. 3, 1587; d. at Witten
berg Dec. 29, 1626; belonged to that circle of theolo
gians in the first decades of the seventeenth century
who did not lose sight of the needs of the church.
He studied at Wittenberg, Giessen, Strasburg, and
Tubingen; was appointed professor in Wittenberg,
1613. He was on intimate terms with B. Mentzer
in Giessen and J. Gerhard in Jena, but among them
it was he who had the sharpest eye for the deficien
cies of the church and made effectual efforts to
remedy them. These attempts are evidenced in
his publication, B. Meisneri Pia Desideria, dictated
shortly before his death and published anony
mously (Frankfort, 1679). His Philosophia Sobria
(3 vols., Wittenberg, 1614‑23) opposed the prevail
ing tendencies of logical studies and established his
literary fame. 	(A. HAuCg.)

MEISSEN, mais'sen, BISHOPRIC OF: An ancient episcopal see in Germany, founded by the Emperor Henry I. in the sense that it grew out of the fortress which he built at the confluence of the Elbe and the Triebisch. The erection of the bishopric was decided at a synod held at St. Severus in Classe near Ravenna in 972. The first bishop, Burchard, was consecrated at Christmas, 968, and received the largest territory of any of the sees subject to the archbishop of Magdeburg. (A. HAuCg.)
The bishops received the dignity of princes of

=Xe
6‑tchthon, PhilipP
the empire, with the right of coinage from the thirteenth century. In the first half of the fifteenth century the Hussites were very strong here, and in the sixteenth Duke Henry of Saxony established Protestantism, the last bishop, John IX. von Haugwitz, resigning the ecclesiastical jurisdiction into the hands of the chapter; his predecessor John VII. von Schleinitz (d. 1537) had already abandoned to the duke all claim to secular jurisdiction. The town of Meissen is fifteen miles northwest of Dresden.
BiBLYOaaAPBY: Codex diplomaticus Saxonitv, ed. E. G. Gersdorf, TI., i.‑iii., Leipsic, 1883 eqq.; E. Machatschek, Geschichte der B%acht<fe de. Hochatifts Meieaen, Dresden, 1884; E. O. Schultze, Die Kolon%aiemng . . . der Gebiete zurischen Basle and Elbe, Leipsic, 1886; Der Papal, die RegLrung and die Verwaltunp der heilipen Kirche in Rom, p. 199 Munich 1904; J. P. Kirsch, Illuetrierts Geechichte der katholischen Kirche, p. 262, ib. 1905; KL, viii. 11961198; Hauck, KD, iii. 625‑627 et passim.

	MEJER, m@'yer, OTTO KARL ALEXANDER:
German canoDist; b. at Zellerfeld (28 m. s.e. of
Hildesheim) May 27, 1818; d. at Hanover Dec. 25,
1893; studied jurisprudence at Berlin, Jena, and
GBttingen (LL,D., 1841). In 1845 he published his
Institutionen des gemeinen deutachen Kirchenrechta,
containing the elements of canon law. Through this
work the Hanoverian government was led to grant
him a stipend by means of which he visited Rome,
studying the policy of the Roman Church, its power,
and its attitude toward Protestants. He officiated
as professor at K6nigsberg and in Greifawald,
1847‑50, and was in 1851 appointed consistorial
councilor at Rostock, and later librarian of the
university there. In Rostock he edited (1854‑60),
together with IUiefoth, the Kirchliche ZeUschrift,
and he took a part in the ecclesiastical‑political
struggles of the time. In 1874 he became professor
at Gottingen, and in 1885 president of the ecclesi
astical court at Hanover. Of his numerous works
may be mentioned: Die Propaganda, Are Provinz
en, ihr Recht (2 vols., GSttingen, 1852‑53); Zur
Geschichteder romi8ch‑deutschen Frdge (3 vols., Ros
tock, 1871,85); and Das Rechtsleben der deutschen
evangeliwhen Landeskirchen.	Umrisae zur Orientie
rung fur Geistliche and Gemeindeglieder (Hanover,
1889). 	(G. Uaraoawt.)
MEgHITARISTS: One of the noblest congregations in the Roman Catholic Church, which has developed a literary activity comparable to that of the congregation of St. Maur. Mekhitar, the founder of the order, was born of humble parentage at Sebaste, in Lesser Armenia, Feb. 7, 1676, and died at Venice Apr. 27, 1749. When fourteen years of age he entered the monastery of the Holy Cross near his native place, where in 1691 he was made deacon. He busied himself in study of the Scriptures and patristic writings and developed a talent for hymn‑writing. In search of learning he removed to Tokat, and thence to Echmiadzin, the seat of Armenian scholarship. Finding his desires unsatisfied he returned to Sebaste, and in 1693 renewed his study of patristics. In 1695 he set out for Rome, and on the way fell in with the Jesuit missionary Antoine Beauvilliers, who advised him to study in Rome and then diffuse western learning through
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
2'78
out Armemia. His journey was broken, however, by a violent fever which attacked him in Cyprus; he returned to his home in the monastery near Sebaste, and there was made priest, 1696. His ambition had been aroused to accomplish two purposes, the moral and religious uplift of his countrymen and the reconciliation of the Roman Catholic and Armenian Churches. In 1699 he was made doctor of theology at Erzerum, became noted as a teacher, and interested many of his pupils in the missionary work which he had at heart. When his purposes respecting church union became known, he was compelled to move with great circumspection, and engaged a house at Pera, a suburb of Constantinople, where a printing‑press was set up in the interest of his propaganda. Then began a persecution that compelled him to take refuge with the French ambassador and in the Capuchin monastery. He was advised to select a site in the peninsula of Mores, now a part of Greece, then a possession of Venice, as the seat of the missionary establishment which he contemplated; in 1703 he settled at Modon, in mores,, and by 1708 a monastery, church, and school had been built and occupied. In 1712 his order was constituted under the rule of St. Anthony and St. Benedict. In consequence of the war between Turkey and Venice, he was compelled to leave Modon; he obtained from Venice the island of San Lazarro, where he settled Sept. 8, 1717. The result of a journey to Rome was the gaining of so complete confidence in him on the part of pope and cardinals that all difficulties were removed, and, aided by rich countrymen, he was permitted to witness the completion of his projected buildings.
Mekhitar sought to improve education among the Armenians not only in secular but in religious instruction. He also attempted to carry further the earlier efforts of Popes Urban VIII., Alexander VII., and Innocent XI. for a union of the Roman Catholic and Armenian Churches. He fostered the study of the old Armenian language, writing Grammahca Ar»tena (ed. A. Mekhitar, Venice, 1770) and a lexicon of Armenian (1744). He wrote commentaries on various books of the Bible, e.g., on Matthew (1737); after the translation of individual books, he published a translation of the whole Bible in 1734; he also issued many other works rendered from Latin or Italian, selecting those which he thought would serve the purposes toward which he had worked. After his death the students who had gathered about him, who now called themselves Mekhitarists, took up his work. They and their successors stocked their library with the best treatises and rendered into Armenian the works of the ancient masters in philosophy and theology. Besides this, they were themselves producers, and such works appeared as M. Chamchian's " History of Armenia " (3 vole., Venice, 178486, Eng. transl., 2 vole., Calcutta, 1827), L. Indshidshian's " Archeology and Geography " (11 vole., Venice, 1802‑16), and the great Armenian lexicon compiled by a number of collaborators (Venice, 1836‑37). Contributions to patristica and other branches of learning have resulted, as

2"I0	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	XeJer
		Xe lanahthon, Philipp
in the discovery of the thirteen letters of Ignatius
in Armenian translation and of the commentary
of Ephraem Syrtis on the Gospel Harmony (of
Tatian?). The institution in Venice has great
influence even with Armenians not in the Roman
Catholic Church, and branches in other laads
Turkey, Russia, France, Austria, and Hungary
have added to its wealth and prestige. Especially
notable among these is the branch in Vienna,
planted there in 1810, the printing department of
which has contributed largely to the spread of
knowledge in the home country. The mother
house is now the goal of all modern scholars who
desire an intimate knowledge of Armenian language
and literature.	(K. KESS1.ERt.)
1. Life.
Education (¢ 1).
Professor at Wittenberg (§ 2).
Theological Disputes (§ 3).
Augsburg Confession (§ 4).
Discussions on Lord's Supper and Justification (§ 5).
Relations with Luther (§ 6).
BIBLi00RAPHY: E. Bore, Saint Laaare, ou hid. de la soeUM
	religieuse armbnnienne de MEchitar, Venice, 1835; idem, La
	Couvent de S. Lazare h Venise, Paris, 1837; s. Somalian.
	Quadro delta etoria letterarla di Armenia, Venice, 1829;
	C. F. Neumann, Versuch einer Geechirhte der armenischen
	Lttteratur, Leipsic, 1836; Windischmann, in TQ, 1835,
	part 1, cf. 1846, pp. 527 sqq.; Le Vaillant de Florival,
	Les MEkhitaristes de S. Lazare, Venice, 1856; V. Langlois,
	The Armenian Monastery of St. Lazame‑Venice, Venice,
	1874; P. A. Hennemann Das Kloster der amenisden
	MGnche auf der Intel St. Lazzaro, ib. 1881; A. Mayer, Die
	Mechitaristenbuchdruckerei, Vienna, 1888; F. Scherer,
	Die Mechitaristen in Wien, ib. 1892; K. Kalemkiarian,
	Skizze der litemrisclrtypopraphischen Thdtipkeit der Afechi
	tariaten Congregation in Wien, ib. 1898; S. Weber, Die
	katholische Ruche in Armenien, Freiburg, 1903; HL,
	viii. 1122‑37. Some of the literature given under AR
	mEmA will be found pertinent. Consult also Heimbusher.
Orden and %onyrnpationen, i. 313‑319.
MELANCHTHON, PHILIPP.
Controversies with Flacius (¢ 7). Disputes with Osiander and Flacius (¢ 8). Death (¢ 9).
II. Estimate of His Works and Character. Luther and Melanchthon (¢ 1). His Work as Reformer (§ 2). As Scholar (¢ 3).
I. Life: Philipp Melanchthon, the German humanist and Reformer, was born at Bretten (13 m. e.n.e. of Carlsruhe) Feb. 16, 1497, and died at Wittenberg Apr. 19, 1560. His father, Georg Schwarzerd, was armorer to Count Palatine Philip. Melanchthon received his first instruction in the school of his native city; he then had a private tutor, Johann Unger, in the house of his grandfather. In 1507 he was sent to the
r. Educa‑ Latin school at Pforzheim, the rector tion. of which, Georg Simler of Wimpfen, introduced him to the study of the Latin and Greek poets and of the philosophy of Aristotle. But he was chiefly influenced by his great‑uncle, Johann Reuchlin, the great representative of humanism, who advised him to change his family name, Schwarzerd, into the Greek equivalent Melanchthon. Not yet thirteen years old, he entered in 1509 the University of Heidelberg where he studied philosophy, rhetoric, and astronomy, and was known as a good Greek scholar. As the lectures of the university did not satisfy him, he diligently read in private grammar, rhetoric, dialectics, and the ancient poets and historians. Being refused the degree of master in 1512 on account of his youth, he went to Tiibingen, where he pursued humanistic and philosophical studies, but devoted himself also .to the study of jurisprudence, mathematics, astronomy, and even of medicine. When, having completed his philosophical course, he had taken the degree of master in 1516, he began to study theology. Under the influence of men like Reuchlin and Erasmus he became convinced that true Christianity was
something quite different from scholastic theology tfd
as it was taught at the university. But at that time he had not yet formed fixed opinions on the. ology, since later he often called Luther his spiritual father. He became convertor (repetent) in the contubernium and had to instruct younger scholars. He also lectured on oratory, on vergii and Livy.
As Theologian (¢ 4). As Moralist (§ b). As Exegete (§ 8). As Historian and Preacher (§ 7). As Professor and Philosopher (¢ 8). Personal Appearance and Character 0 9). His Fame (¢ 10).
His first publications were an edition of Terence (1516) and his Greek grammar (1518), but he had written previously the preface to the Epiatoka clarorum trirorum of Reuchlin (1514).
The more strongly he felt the opposition of the scholastic party to the reforms instituted by him at the University of Tubingen, the more willingly he followed a call to Wittenberg as proz. Professor fessor of Greek, where he aroused great at Witten‑ admiration by his inaugural De corri‑
	berg.	gertdis adolescerttia' studiis. He lectured
		before five to six hundred students,
afterward to fifteen hundred. He was highly es
teemed by Luther, whose influence brought him to the
study of Scripture, especially of Paul, and so to a
more living knowledge of the Evangelical doctrine
of salvation. He was present at the disputation
of Leipsic (1519) as a spectator, but influenced the
discussion by his comments and suggestions, so
that he gave Eck an excuse for an attack. In his
Defensio contra Johanne»a Eckium ([Wittenberg,]
1519) he had already clearly developed the principles
of the authority of Scripture and its interpretation.
On account of the interest in theology shown is
his lectures on Matthew and Romans, together
with his investigations into the doctrines of Paul,
he was granted the degree of bachelor of theology,
and was transferred to the theological faculty. Soon
he was bound closer than ever to Wittenberg by
his marriage to Katharina Krapp, the mayor's
daughter, a marriage contracted at his friends'
urgent request, and especially.,Luther's (Nov. 25,
1520).
In the beginning of 1521 in his Didymi Fawrtlirts
versus Thomam Placentinum pro M. Luthero
oratio (Wittenberg, n.d.), he defended Luther by proving that Luther rejected only papal and ecclesiastical practises which were at variance with Scripture, but not true philosophy and true Christianity. But while Luther was absent at the Wart, burg, during the disturbances caused by the Zwickai><

8elsnohthon, PhiliDD
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Prophets (q.v.), there appeared for the first time the limitations of Melanchthon's nature, his lack of
firmness and his diffidence, and had it
3. Theo‑ not been for the energetic interference logical of Luther, the prophets would not have
Disputes. been silenced. The appearance of
Melanehthon's Loci communes rerum theologicarum aeu hypotyposm theologice (Wittenberg and Basel, 1521) was of great importance for the confirmation and expansion of the reformatory ideas. In close adherence to Luther Melanchthon presented the new doctrine of Christianity under the form of a discussion of the " leading thoughts" of the Epistle to the Romans. His purpose was not to give a systematic exposition of Christian faith, but a key to the right understanding of Scripture. Nevertheless, he continued to lecture on the classics, and, after Luther's return, would have given up his theological work altogether, if it had not been for Luther's urging. On a journey in 1524 to his native town, he was led to treat with the papal legate Campegi who tried to draw him from Luther's cause, but without success both at that time and afterward. In his Unr terricht der Viaitatorn an die pfarherm in Kurfursterdhumb zu Sachssen (1528) Melanchthon by establishing a basis for the reform of doctrines as well as regulations for churches and schools, without any direct attack upon the errors of the Roman Church, presented clearly the Evangelical doctrine of salvation. In 1529 he accompanied the elector to the Diet of Speyer (see SPEYER, DIET OF) to represent the Evangelical cause. His hopes of inducing the imperial party to a peaceable recognition of the Reformation were not fulfilled. He later repented of the friendly attitude shown by him toward the Swiss at the diet, calling Zwingli's doctrine of the Lord's Supper "an impious dogma " and confirming Luther in his attitude of non‑acceptance.
Although based on the Marburg and Schwabach articles of Luther, the Augsburg Confession (q.v.), which was laid before the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, was mainly the work of Melanchthon. It is true,
Luther did not conceal the fact that 4. Augaburg the irenical attitude of the confession
Confession. was not what he had wished, but neither he nor Melanchthon were conscious of any difference in doctrine, and so the most important Protestant symbol is a monument of the harmony of the two Reformers on Gospel teachings. But at the diet Melanchthon did not show that dignified and firm attitude which faith in the truth and the justice of his cause should have inspired in him, although it is true that he had not sought the part of a political leader, since he lacked the necessary knowledge of human nature, as well as energy and decision. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession, likewise the work of Melanchthon, was also a clear exposition of the disputed doctrines, drawn immediately from experience and Scripture. Now in comparative quiet Melanchthon could devote himself to his academical and literary labors. The most important theological work of this period was the Commenetar" in Epistodam Pauli ad Romanoa (Wittenberg, 1532), a noteworthy book, as it for the first time established the doctrine that " to be justified " means 11 to be accounted just," while
280
the Apology still placed side by side the two meanings of " to be made just " and " to be accounted just." Melanchthon's increasing fame gave ocxasion for several honorable calls to Tilbingen (Sept., 1534), to France, and ba England, but consideration of the elector induced him to refuse them.
He took an important part in the discussions concerning the Lord's Supper which began in 1531. He approved fully of the Formula of Concord sent by Butter to Wittenberg, and at the instigation of
the Landgrave of Hesse discussed the g. Discus‑ question with Butter in Cassel, at the
sions on end of 1534. He eagerly labored for
Lord's an agreement, for his patristic studies
Supper and the Dialogue (1530) of (Ecolam‑
and Justi‑ padius had made him doubt the cor‑
fication. redness of Luther's doctrine. More‑
over, after the death of Zwingli and the change of the political situation his earlier scruples in regard to a union lost their weight. Butter did not go so far se to believe with Luther that the true body of Christ in the Lord's Supper is bitten by the teeth, but admitted the offering of the body and blood in the symbols of bread and wine (see WITTENBERG, CONCORD OF). Melanchthon discussed Butter's views with the moat prominent adherents of Luther; but Luther himself would not agree to a mere veiling of the dispute. Melanchthon's relation to Luther was not disturbed by his work as a mediator, although Luther for a time suspected that Melanchthon was " almost of the opinion of Zwingli "; nevertheless he desired to " share his heart with him." During his sojourn in Tiibingen in 1536 Melanchthon was severely attacked by Cordatus, preacher in Niemeck, because he had taught that works are necessary for salvation. In the second edition of his Loci (1535) he abandoned his earlier strict doctrine of determinism which went even beyond that of Augustine, and in its place taught more clearly his so‑called Synergism (q.v.). He repulsed the attack of Cordatus in a letter to Luther and his other colleagues by stating that he had never departed from their common teachings on this subject, and in the antinomian controversy of 1537 Melanchthon was in harmony with Luther.
It is true, the personal relation of the two great Reformers had to stand many a test in those years, for Amsdorf and others tried to stir up Luther against Melanchthon so that his stay at Wittenberg seemed to Melanchthon at times almost unbearable,
and he compared himself to " Prome6. Relations theus chained to the Caucasus."
	with	About this time occurred the noto
Luther. rious case of the second marriage of
Philip of Hesse (See LUTHER, MARTIN, ~ 21). Melanchthon, who, as well as Luther, regarded this as an exceptional case was present at the marriage, but urged Philip to keep the matter a secret. The publication of the fact so affected Melanchthon, then at Weimar, that he became exceedingly ill. In Oct., 1540, Melanchthon took an important part in the religious colloquy of Worms, where he defended clearly and firmly the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession. It is to be noted that Melanchthon used as a basis of the

281	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Melanohthon, PhiliyD
discussion an edition of the Augsburg Confession which had been revised by him (1540), and later was called Variata. Although Eck pointed out the not unessential change of Article X. regarding the Lord's Supper, the Protestants did not then take any offense. The colloquy failed, not because of the obstinacy and irritability of Melanchthon, as has been asserted, but because of the impossibility of making further concessions to the Roman Catholics. The conference at Regensburg in May, 1541, was also fruitless, owing to Melanchthon's firm adherence to the articles on the Church, the sacraments, and auricular confession. His views concerning the Lord's Supper, developed in union with Butzer on the occasion of drawing a draft of reformation for the electorate of Cologne (1543), aroused severe criticism on the part of Luther who wished a clear statement as to " whether the true body and blood were received physically." Luther gave free vent to his displeasure from the pulpit, and Melanchthon expected to be banished from Wittenberg. Further outbreaks of his anger were warded off only by the efforts of Chancellor Briick and the elector; but from that time Melanchthon had to suffer from the ill‑temper of Luther, and was besides afflicted by various domestic troubles. The death of Luther, on Feb. 18, 1546, affected him in the most painful manner, not only because of the common course of their lives and struggles, but also because of the great loss that he believed was suffered by the Protestant Church.
The last eventful and sorrowful period of his life began with controversies over the Interim (q.v.) and the Adiaphora (q.v.; 1547). It is true, Melanchthon rejected the Augsburg Interim, which the emperor tried to force upon the defeated Protestants; but in the negotiations concerning the socalled Leipsic Interim he made cony. Contro‑ cessions which can in no way be versies with justified, even if one considers his
	Flacius.	difficult position, opposed as he was to
		the elector and the emperor. In
agreeing to various Roman usages, Melanchthon
started from the opinion that they are adiaphom
if nothing is changed in the pure doctrine and the
sacraments which Christ instituted, but he ignored
the fact that concessions made under such circum
stances have to be regarded as a denial of Evan
gelical convictions. Melanchthon himself perceived
his faults in the course of time and repented of
them, having to suffer more than was just in the
displeasure of his friends and the hatred of his
enemies. From now on until his death he was full
of trouble and suffering. After Luther's death he
became the " theological leader of the German
Reformation," not indisputably, however; for the
real Lutherans with Flacius Illyricus at their head
accused him and his followers of heresy and apos
tasy. Melanchthon bore all accusations and
calumnies with admirable patience, dignity, and
self‑control. It can not be denied, on the one hand,
that the Lutherans defended themselves against not
only supposed but actual deviations from their
beliefs, although their zeal sometimes carried them
to extremes, nor on the other hand that Melanchthon
and his followers represented a justifiable point of
view, though they could not always express it
within proper limits. In his controversy on justi
fication with Andrew Osiander (q.v.) Melanchthon
		satisfied all parties. Melanchthon
8. Disputes took part also in a controversy with
	with Stancari, who held that Christ was our
	Osiander justification only according to his hu
and Flacius. man nature. He was also still a
		strong opponent of the Roman Cath
olics, for it was by his advice that the elector of
Saxony declared himself ready to send deputies
to a council to be convened at Trent, but only
under the condition that the Protestants should
have a share in the discussions, and that the pope
should not be considered as the presiding officer
and judge. As it was agreed upon to send a con
fession to Trent, Melanchthon drew up the Conjessio
Saxonica which is a repetition of the Augsburg
Confession, discussing, however, in greater detail,
but with moderation, the points of controversy
with Rome. Melanchthon on his way to Trent at
Dresden saw the military preparations of Maurice
of Saxony, and after proceeding as far as Nuremberg,
returned to Wittenberg (March, 1552); for Maurice
had turned against the emperor. Owing to his act,
the condition of the Protestants became more
favorable and was still more so at the peace of
Augsburg (1555), but Melanchthon's labors and
sufferings increased from that time. The last
years of his life were embittered by the disputes
over the Interim and the freshly started contro
versy on the Lord's Supper. As the statement
" good works are necessary for salvation " appeared
in the Leipsic Interim, its Lutheran opponents
attacked in 1551 Georg Major (q.v.), the friend and
disciple of Melanchthon, so Melanchthon dropped
the formula altogether, seeing how easily it could
be misunderstood. But all his caution and reser
vation did not binder his opponents from continu
ally working against him, accusing him of synergism
and Zwinglianism. At the conference in Worms
in 1557 which he attended only reluctantly, the
adherents of Flacius and the Saxon theologians
tried to avenge themselves by thoroughly humilia
ting Melanchthon, in agreement with the malicious
desire of the Roman Catholics to condemn all
heretics, especially those who had departed from
the Augsburg Confession, before the beginning of
the conference. As this was directed against
Melanchthon himself, he protested, so that his
opponents left, greatly to the satisfaction of the
Roman Catholics who now broke off the colloquy,
throwing all blame upon the Protestants. The
Reformation in the sixteenth century did not
experience a greater insult, as Nitzsch says.
Nevertheless, Melanchthon persevered in his efforts
for the peace of the Church, suggesting a synod
of the Evangelical party and drawing up for the
same purpose the Frankfort Recess (q.v.) which
he defended later against the attacks of his enemies.
More than anything else the controversies on the
Lord's Supper embittered the last years of his life.
The renewal of this dispute was due to the victory
in the Reformed Church of the Calvinistic doctrine
and its influence upon Germany. To its tenets
Melanchthon never gave his assent, nor did he use

Melanohthon, Philipp
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
its characteristic formulas. The personal presence and self‑impartation of Christ in the Lord's Supper were especially important for Melanchthon; but he did not definitely state how body and blood are related to this. Although rejecting the physical act of mastication, he nevertheless assumed the real presence of the body of Christ and therefore also a real self‑impartation. Melanchthon differed from Calvin also in emphasizing the relation of the Lord's Supper to justification.
But before these and other theological dissensions were ended, he was at last freed by his death; a few days before this event he committed
	g. Death.	to writing his reasons for not fearing
		it. On the left were the words," Thou
shalt be delivered from sins, and be freed from the
acrimony and fury of theologians"; on the right,
" Thou shalt go to the light, see God, look upon
his Son, learn those wonderful mysteries which
thou hast not been able to understand in this life."
The immediate cause of death was a severe cold
which he had contracted on a journey to Leipsic
in March, 1560, followed by a fever that consumed
his strength, weakened by many sufferings. The
only care that occupied him until his last moment,
was the desolate condition of the Church. He
strengthened himself in almost uninterrupted
prayer, and in listening to passages of Scripture.
Especially significant did the words seem to him,
" His own received him not; but as many as
received him, to them gave he power to become the
sons of God." When Caspar Peucer (q.v.), his son
in‑law, asked him if he wanted anything, he replied,
" Nothing but heaven." His body was laid beside
Luther's in the Schlosakirche in Wittenberg.
	II. Estimate of his Works and Character: Me
lanchthon's importance for the Reformation lay
essentially in the fact that he systematized Luther's
ideas, defended them in public, and made them the
basis of a religious education. These two, by com
plementing each other, harmoniously achieved the
great results of the Reformation. Only the heroism
		and creative power of a Luther were
r. Luther able to break with the reigning
and Me‑ church. Melanchthon was impelled
	lanchthon.	by Luther to work for the Reformation;
		his own inclinations would have kept
him a student. Without Luther's influence Me
lanchthon would have been "a second Erasmus,"
although his heart was filled with a deeper religious
interest in the Reformation. While Luther scattered
the sparks among the people, Melanchthon by his
humanistic studies won the sympathy of educated
people and scholars for the Reformation. Beside
Luther's heroism of faith, Melanchthon's many
sidedness and calmness, his temperance and love
of peace, had a share in the success of the movement.
Both men had a clear consciousness of their mutual
position and the divine necessity of their common
calling. Melanchthon wrote in 1520, " I would
rather die than be separated from Luther," whom
he afterward compared to Elijah, and called "the
man full of the Holy Ghost." In spite of the
strained relations between them in the last years of
Luther's life, Melanchthon exclaimed at Luther's
death, 11 Dead is the horseman and chariot of
282
Israel who ruled the Church in this last age of the world I " On the other hand, Luther wrote of Melanchthon, in the preface to Melanchthon's Commentary on the Colossians (1529), " I had to fight with rabble and devils, for which reason my books are very warlike. I am the rough pioneer who must break the road; but Master Philipp comes along softly and gently, sows and waters heartily, since God has richly endowed him with gifts." Luther also did justice to Melanchthon's teachings, praising one year before his death in the preface to his own writings Mela,nchthon's revised Loch, above them and calling Melanchthon " a divine instrument which has achieved the very best in the department of theology to the great rage of the devil and his scabby tribe." It is remarkable that Luther, who vehemently attacked men like Erasmus and Butzer, when he thought that truth was at stake, never spoke directly against Melanchthon, and even during his melancholy last years conquered his temper. The strained relation between these two men never came from external things, such as human rank and fame, much less from other advantages, but always from matters of Church and doctrine, and chiefly from the fundamental difference of their individualities; they repelled and attracted each other " because nature had not formed out of them one man." However, it can not be denied that Luther was the more magnanimous, for however much he was at times dissatisfied with Melanchthon's actions, he never uttered a word against his private character; but Melanchthon, on the other hand, sometimes evinced a lack of confidence in Luther. In a letter to Carlowitz he. complained that Luther on account of his polemical nature exercised a personally humiliating pressure upon him. Luther certainly never intended to exercise such a pressure, and if it existed at all, it was Melanchthon's own fault.
As a Reformer Melanchthon was characterized by moderation, conscientiousness, caution, and love of peace; but these qualities were sometimes only lack of decision, consistence, and courage. Often,
however, his actions showed not Z. His anxiety for his own safety, but regard
Work as for the welfare of the community,
Reformer. and for the quiet development of the
Church. Mela,nchthon did not lack personal courage; but it was less of an aggressive than of a passive nature. When he was reminded how much power and strength Luther drew from his trust in God, he answered, " If I myself do not do my part, I can not expect anything from God in prayer." His nature was inclined rather to suffer with faith in God that he would be released from every evil than to act valiantly with his aid. The distinction between Luther and Melanchthon is well brought out in Luther's letters to the latter (June, 1530) : " To your great anxiety by which you are made weak, I am a cordial foe; for the cause is not ours. It is your philosophy, and not your theology, which tortures you so,‑as though you could accomplish anything by your useless anxieties. So far as the public cause is concerned, I am well content and satisfied; for I know that it is right and true, and, what is more, it is the cause

283	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Xelanohthon, Philipp
of Christ and God himself. For that reason, I am merely a spectator. If we fall, Christ will likewise fall; and if he fall, I would rather fall with Christ than stand with the emperor." Another trait of his character was his love of peace. He had an innate aversion to quarrels and discord; yet, often he was very irritable. His irenical character often led him to adapt himself to the views of others, as may be seen from his correspondence with Erasmus and from his public attitude from the Diet of Augsburg to the Interim. It was, however, not merely a personal desire for peace, but his conservative religious nature, that guided him in his acts of conciliation. He never could forget that his father on his death‑bed had besought his family " never to leave the Church." He stood toward the past history of the Church in an attitude of piety and reverence that made it much more difficult for him than for Luther to be content with the thought of the impossibility of a reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church. He laid stress upon the authority of the Fathers, not only of Augustine, but also of the Greeks. His attitude in matters of worship was conservative, in the Leipsic Interim even too conservative, though not a CryptoCatholic, as Cordatus and Schenk said. He never strove for a reconciliation with Roman Catholicism at the price of pure doctrine. He attributed more value to the external appearance and organization of the Church than Luther did, as can be seen from his whole treatment of the " doctrine of the Church." The ideal conception of the Church, which the Reformers opposed to the organization of the Roman Church, which was expressed in his Loci of 1535, lost for him after 1537 its former prominence, when he began to emphasize the conception of the true visible Church as it may be found among the Evangelicals. The relation of the Church to God he found in the divinely ordered office, the ministry of the Gospel. The upiversal priesthood was for Melanchthon as for Luther no principle of an ecclesiastical constitution, but a purely religious principle. In accordance with this idea Melanchthon tried to keep the traditional church constitution and government, including the bishops. He did not want, however, a church altogether independent of the State, but rather, in agreement with Luther, he believed it the duty of the secular authorities to protect religion and the Church. He looked upon the consistories as ecclesiastical courts which therefore should be composed of spiritual and secular judges, for to him the official authority of the Church did not lie in a special class of priests, but rather in the whole congregation, to be represented therefore not only by ecclesiastics, but also by laymen. Melanchthon in advocating church union did not overlook differences in doctrine for the sake of common practical tasks. The older he grew, the less he distinguished between the Gospel as the announcement of the will of God, and right doctrine as the human knowledge of it. Therefore he took pains to safeguard unity in doctrine by theological formulas of union, but these were made as broad as possible and were restricted to the needs of practical religion.
As a scholar Melanchthon embodied the entire
spiritual culture of his age. At the same time he found the simplest, clearest, and most suitable form for his knowledge; therefore his manuals,
even if they were not always original, 3. As were quickly introduced into schools
Scholar. and kept their place for more than
a century. Knowledge had for him no purpose of its own; it existed only for the service of moral and religious education, and so the teacher of Germany prepared the way for the religious thoughts of the Reformation. He is the father of Christian Humanism, which has exerted a lasting influence upon scientific life in Germany. His works were not always new and original, but they were clear, intelligible, and answered their purpose. His style is natural and plain, better, however, in Latin and. Greek than in German. He was not without natural eloquence, although his voice was weak.
As a theologian, Melanchthon did not show so much creative ability as a genius for collecting and systematizing the ideas of others, especially of Luther, for the purpose of instruction. He kept to
the practical, and cared little for ¢. As a connection of the parts, so his Loci Theologian. were in the form of isolated paragraphs.
The fundamental difference between Luther and Melanchthon lies not so much in the latter's ethical conception, as in his humanistic mode of thought which formed the basis of his theology and made him ready not only to acknowledge moral and religious truths outside of Christianity, but also to bring Christian truth into closer contact with them, and thus to mediate between Christian revelation and ancient philosophy. Melanchthon's views differed from Luther's only in some modifications of ideas. Melanchthon looked upon the law as not only the correlate of the Gospel, by which its effect of salvation is prepared, but as the unchangeable order of the spiritual world which has its basis in God himself. He furthermore reduced Luther's much richer view of redemption to that of legal satisfaction. He did not draw from the vein of mysticism running through Luther's theology, but emphasized the ethical and intellectual elements. After giving up determinism and absolute predestination and ascribing to man a certain moral freedom, he tried to ascertain the share of free will in conversion, naming three causes as concurring in the work of conversion, the Word, the Spirit, and the human will, not passive, but resisting its own weakness. Since 1548 he used the definition of freedom formulated by Erasmus, " the capability of applying oneself to grace." He was certainly right in thinking it impossible to change one's character without surrender of the will; but by correlating the divine and the human will he lost sight of the fundamental religious experience that the desire and realization of good actions is a gift of divine grace. His definition of faith lacks the mystical depth of Luther. In dividing faith into knowledge, assent, and trust, he made the participation of the heart subsequent to that of the intellect, and so gave rise to the view of the later orthodoxy that the establishment and acceptation of pure doctrine should precede the personal

Nelanchthon, Philipp	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	284
attitude of faith. To his intellectual conception of faith corresponded also his view that the Church also is only the communion of those who adhere to the true belief and that her visible existence depends upon the consent of her unregenerated members to her teachings. Finally, Melanchthon's doctrine of the Lord's Supper, lacking the profound mysticism of faith by which Luther united the sensual elements and supersensual realities, demanded at least their formal distinction. The development of Melanchthon's beliefs may be seen from the history of the Loci. In the beginning Melanchthon intended only a development of the leading ideas representing the Evangelical conception of salvation, while the later editions approach more and more the plan of a text‑book of dogma. At first he uncompromisingly insisted on the necessity of every event, energetically rejected the philosophy of Aristotle, and had not fully developed his doctrine of the sacraments. In 1535 he treated for the first time the doctrine of God and that of the Trinity; rejected the doctrine of the necessity of every event and named free will as a concurring cause in conversion. The doctrine of justification received its forensic form and the necessity of good works was emphasized in the interest of moral discipline. The last editions are distinguished from the earlier ones by the prominence given to the theoretical and rational element.
In ethics Melanchthon preserved and renewed the tradition of ancient morality and represented the Evangelical conception of life. His books bearing directly on morals were chiefly drawn from the classics, and were influenced not so much by Aristotle as by Cicero. His principal works in this line were Prolegomena to Cicero's De ofciis (1525); Enarrationes librorum Ethicorum Aristotelix (1529); Epitome phaosophiee mosalis (1538); and Ethics doctrince eementa (1550). In his Epitome philo‑
aophice moralas Melanchthon treats g. As first the relation of philosophy to the
Moralist. law of God and the Gospel. Moral
philosophy, it is true, does not know anything of the promise of grace as revealed in the Gospel, but it is the development of the natural law implanted by God in the heart of man, and therefore representing a part of the divine law. The revealed law, necessitated because of sin, is distinguished from natural law only by its greater completeness and clearness. The fundamental order of moral life can be grasped also by reason; therefore the development of moral philosophy from natural principles must not be neglected. Melanchthon therefore made no sharp distinction between natural and revealed morals. His contribution to Christian ethics in the proper sense must be sought in the Augsburg Confession and its Apology as well as in his Loci, where he followed Luther in depicting the Evangelical ideal of life, the free realization of the divine law by a personality blessed in faith and filled with the spirit of God.
Melanchthon's formulation of the authority of Scripture became the norm for the following time. The principle of his hermeneutics is expressed in his words: " Every theologian and faithful interpreter of the heavenly doctrine must necessarily be first
a grammarian, then a dialectician, and finally a witness." By " grammarian " he meant the
philologist in the modern sense who is 6. As master of history, archeology, and Exegete. ancient geography. As to the method
of interpretation, he insisted with great emphasis upon the unity of the sense, upon the literal sense in contrast to the four senses of the scholastics. He further stated that whatever is looked for in the words of Scripture, outside of the literal sense, is only dogmatic or practical application. His commentaries, however, are not grammatical, but are full of theological and practical matter, confirming the doctrines of the Reformation, and edifying believers. The most important of them are those on Genesis, Proverbs, Daniel, the Psalms, and especially those on the New Testament, on Romans (edited in 1522 against his will by Luther), Colossians (1527), and John (1523). Melanchthon was the constant assistant of Luther in his translation of the Bible, and both the books of the Maccabees in Luther's Bible are ascribed to him. A Latin Bible published in 1529 at Wittenberg is designated as a common work of Melanchthon and Luther.
In the sphere of historical theology the influence of Melanchthon may be traced until the seventeenth century, especially in the method of treating church history in connection with political history. His was the first Protestant attempt at a history of
dogma, Sententia vetemm aliquot q. As His‑ Patrum de ccena domini (1530) and torian and especially De ecclesia et auctoritate
Preacher. verbi Dei (1539). Melanchthon exerted
a wide influence in the department of homiletics, and has been regarded as the author, in the Protestant Church, of the methodical style of preaching. He himself keeps entirely aloof from all mere dogmatizing or rhetoric in the Annotatioms in Evangelic (1544), the Conciones in Evangelium Matthai (1558), and in his German sermons prepared for George of Anhalt. He never preached from the pulpit; and his Latin sermons (Postilla) were prepared for the Hungarian students at Wittenberg who did not understand German. In this connection may be mentioned also his Catochesis puerilis (1532), a religious manual for younger students, and a German catechism (1549), following closely Luther's arrangement. From Melanchthon came also the first Protestant work on the method of theological study, so that it may safely be said that by his influence every department of theology was advanced even if he was not always a pioneer. Rothe did not exaggerate when he said: " Whatever was done in the time of the Reformation for the upbuilding of Evangelical theology in Germany, was his work."
As a philologist and pedagogue Melanchthon was the spiritual heir of the South German Humanists, of men like Reuchlin, Wimpheling, and Rudolf Agricola, who represented an ethical conception of the humanities. The liberal arts and a classical education were for him only a means to an ethical and religious end. The ancient classics were for him in the first place the sources of a purer knowledge, but they were also the best means

285	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Nelmohthon, Philivy
of educating youth both by their beauty of form and by their ethical content. By his organizing activity in the sphere of educational
8. As Pro‑ institutions and by his compilations of fessor and Latin and Greek grammars and oomPhilosopher. mentaries, Melanchthon became the founder of the learned schools of Evangelical Germany, a combination of humanistic and Christian ideals. In philosophy also Melanchthon was the teacher of the whole German Protestant world. The influence of his philosophical compendia ended only with the rule of the LeibnitzWolff school. He started from scholasticism; but with the contempt of an enthusiastic Humanist he turned away from it and came to Wittenberg with the plan of editing the complete works of Aristotle. Under the dominating religious influence of Luther his interest abated for a time, but in 1519 he edited the "Rhetoric" and in 1520 the "Dialectic." The relation of philosophy to theology is characterized, according to him, by the distinction between law and Gospel. The former, as a light of nature, is innate; it also contains the elements of the natural knowledge of God which, however, have been obscured and weakened by sin. Therefore, renewed promulgation of the law by revelation became necessary and was furnished in the Decay logue; and all law, including that in the scientific form of philosophy, contains only demands, ehadowings; its fulfilment is given only in the Gospel, the object of certainty in theology, by which also the philosophical elements of knowledge‑experience, principles of reason, and syllogism‑receive only their final confirmation. As the law is a divinely ordered pedagogue that leads to Christ, philosophy, its interpreter, is subject to revealed truth as the principal standard of opinions and life. Besides Aristotle's. " Rhetoric " and " Dialectic " he published De iadeaa lxbn: iro (1528); Erotemata dialedicea (1547); Liber de anima (1540); Initia dodrince physicce (1549); and Ethiaa doctrine elements (1550).
There have been preserved original portraits of Melanchthon by three famous painters of his timeby Holbein in the Royal Gallery of Hannover (said to be the best), by Dtirer (made in 1526), and by Lukas Cranach. Cranach represented the Melanchthon of later years, worn out, thin, and unsightly, but with a mild and peaceful eaprees‑
g. Personal sion on a highly intellectual face. Appear‑ Melanchthon was small and slight, ance and but of good proportions, and had a Character. bright and sparlding eye, which kept its color till the day of his death. He was never in perfectly sound health, and managed to perform as much work as he did only by reason of the extraordinary regularity of his habits and his great temperance. He set no great value on money and possessions; his liberality and hospitality were often misused in such a way that his old faithful Swabian servant had sometimes difficulty in managing the household. His domestic life was happy. He called his home " a little church of God," always found peace there, and showed a tender solicitude for his wife and children. To his great astonishment a French scholar found him rocking the cradle with one hand, and holding a
book in the other. His noble soul showed itself also in his friendship for many of his contemporaries; "there is nothing sweeter nor lovelier than mutual intercourse with friends," he used to say. His most intimate friend was Camerarius, whom he called the half of his soul. His extensive correspondence was for him not only a duty, but a need and an enjoyment. His letters form a valuable commentary on his whole life, as he spoke out his mind in them more unreservedly than he was wont to do in public life. A peculiar example of his sacrificing friendship is furnished by the fact that he wrote speeches and scientific treatises for others, permitting them to use their own signature. But in the kindness of his heart he was ready to serve and assist not only his friends, but everybody. He was as enemy to jealousy, envy, slander, and sarcasm. His whole nature adapted him especially to the intercourse with scholars and men of higher rank, while it was more difficult for him to deal with the people of lower station. He never allowed himself or others to exceed the bounds of nobility, honesty, and decency. He was very sincere in the judgment of his own person, acknowledging his faults even to opponents like Flacius, and was open to the criticism even of such as stood far below him. In his public career he sought not honor or fame, but earnestly endeavored to serve the Church and the cause of truth. His humility and modesty had their root in his personal piety. He laid great stress upon prayer, daily meditation on the Word, and attendance of public service. In Melanchthon is found not a great, impressive personality, winning its way by massive strength of resolution and energy, but a noble character which we can not study without loving and respecting.
Fatimates of Melanchthon's character and work have undergone radical changes since his death, according to the theological standpoint of those seeking in the representative figures of Luther and Melanchthon their champion or at least their spirit‑
ual associate. It is said that Leonhard zo. His Hutter (q.v.), the head o' the Witten‑
Fame.	berg theologians in the beginning of
the seventeenth century, on the occasion of a public disputation, when the authority of Melanchthon was invoked, tore down his picture from the wall, and in sight of all trampled it under foot. For more than a hundred years after that, few voices spoke a word in his favor. In 1760 the anniversary of his death was for the first time celebrated, and from that time he began to be regarded in a different light. After this ohange there was revived not only the interest in his person and works, but even the defects of his rationalism and unionism were defended. Recently, however, these defects have been looked upon again in their true light. The celebration of his four hundredth anniversary in 1897 referred on the whole more to the humanist than to the theologian; but a just opinion will not ignore that Melanchthon rendered great services both to the Church and to theology by his reform of humanistic education. For later followers and their doctrines see frrr"rsas. (O. Kim.)
Breraooa"m The Opera of Malauohthon, incomplete, appeared in 4 parts, Basel, lbl1; ed. C. Peuoer, 4 parts.

Melohiades meletius
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Wittenberg, 1562‑64, in 5 parts, ib. 1801, and in CR, vole. i.‑xxviii. The Supplementa Melanehthoniana to be published in parts, Leipsic, 1910 sq4•, will include the works not published in CR. The Loci in its early form, ed. G. L. Plitt and T. Kolde, appeared Leipaic, 1900. The early Vita by J. Camerarius was issued, Leipsic, 1566, ed. A. F. Neander, Berlin, 1841. The most exhaustive life is by K. Schmidt, Elberfeld, 1861, and the beat in English is by J. W. Richard, New York, 1898. Other lives are by F. A. Cox, London, 1835; C. F. Ledderhose, Heidelberg, 1847, Eng. tranal., Philadelphia, 1854; G. A. Ritter, Berlin, 1860; R. Schaefer Gtitersloh, 1894; G. Ellinger, Berlin, 1902; G. Kruger, Halle, 1906. On Melanchthon's theology and ethics consult: F. Galle, Verauch einer Charakteristik Melanchthona ale Theologen, Halle, 1840; Herrlinger, Die Theologie Melanehthona, Gotha, 1879; C. E. Luthardt, Die Arbeiten Meianchthona im Gebiete der Moral, Leipsic, 1884; F. K51tzseh, Melanchthona philosophiache Ethik, Freiburg, 1889; W. H. Rule, Spirit of the Reformation; Melanchthon, London, 1856; C. L. T. Henke, Daa Verhdltniaa Luthere and Melaachthona zu einander, Marburg, 1860; C. Paneeh, Melanchthon ale Schulmann, Eutin, 1868; A. Richter, Melanchthone Verdienste um den philosophiachen Unterricht, Leipsic, 1870; T. Brieger, Die Torgauer Artikel, ib. 1888; K. Hartfelder, P. Melanchthon ale Proeeptor Germanif, Berlin, 1889; W. Bornemann, Melanchthon ale Schulmann, Magdeburg, 1897; J. Haussleiter, Aus der Schule Melanchthona, Greifawald, 1897 (on his disputations); K. Sell, Melanchthon and die deutsche Reformation bin 1551, Halle, 1897; P. Tachackert, Melanchthona Broldunpsideale, Gdttingen, 1897; W. Walther, Melanchthon ale Retter des wiasenechaftliches Sinner, Leipaie, 1897; G. Kawerau, Die Vereuche, Melanchthon cur katholiachen Kirche zurflekzufahren, Halle, 1902; Cambridge Modern History, vol. ii., passim, London and New York, 1904; W. H. W oodward, Studies in Education during the Renaissance, New York, 1907; and, in general, works on the Reformation as well as those which deal with the other leaders of that movement in Germany, especially with Luther.
	MELCHIADES, mel‑cai'a‑diz (MILTIADES) : Pope
310‑314. According to the Catalogus Liberianus
he was made bishop in 311, but this contra
dicts its own dates for his death and the length of
his pontificate. The Liber ponttficalis says that he
was an African by birth. He was buried in the
cemetery of St. Calixtus, and De Rossi thought he
had discovered his grave to the right of the old
burial‑vault of the popes. In his time fall the
edict of toleration by Galerius, the conquest of
Rome by Constantine, and the edict of toleration
by Constantine and Licinius. Constantine wrote to
him from Gaul entrusting the decision in the
Donatist question to him and other bishops (cf.
Eusebius, Hist. eccl., X., v., in NPNF, 2 ser.,
i. p. 381), and he held a synod in consequence
(Oct. 2, 313) in the palace of the Empress Fausta
on the Lateran. Its proceedings and decision
against Donatus and in favor of Caecilianus are
reported by Optatus (De schismate Doruatistarum,
I., xxii. sqq.). 	(A. HARNACg.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: L4ber po'ntifealbe, ed. Mommsen, m MGH, Geat. poet. Rom., i (1898), 46; Jaftd, Regeata, i. 28, ii. 732; DCB, iii. 917‑919 (detailed); B. Platina, Limes of the Popes, i. 67, London, n.d.; Milman, Latin Christianity, i. 94; Bower, Popes, i. 41‑45; KL, viii. 1523‑25.
MELCHITES, mefchaita: The name given to the orthodox Christians in the Roman provinces which had been conquered by the Arabs. It distinguished them from the Monophysitea, and, being derived from melek, " king," connoted their fidelity to emperor and pope, on account of which they received harsher treatment from the Arabs than did the Monophysites.
MELCHIZEDEK, mel‑kiz'e‑dek: The king of Salem and priest of El‑elyon who met Abraham when returning from his victory over the united kings of the Euphrates valley, brought him bread and wine, blessed him in the name of El‑elyon, and received tithes from him. He is mentioned also in an obscure passage, Ps. ca. 4, and in Heb. v.‑vii. The data given in these Biblical passages were developed in patristic and pseudepigraphical literature, but without the addition of any historical material. The representation in Gen. aiv. is noteworthy in that, while in general the Canaanit2a of the Old Testament are regarded as typically heathen, in this passage a Canaanite prince is represented as a worshiper and priest of the Creator of heaven and earth, who is the God of Abraham, while Abraham gives tithes to Melchizedek in recognition of these facts. The discrepancy between these two views is one of which the narrator is entirely unconscious. Historical elements involved are that a Canaanitie deity Elioun ho hypsistos (" Elyon the highest ") is mentioned by Philo of Bybloa (Eusebius, Preparatio evangelica, L, a. 11, Eng. transl. by E. H. Gifford, i. 36, Oxford, 1903), while the last element of the name Melchizedek is a Phenician god‑name, Zift (W. Baudiasin, Sttcdien zur aemitiachen Religionsgeschichte, i. 15, Leipsie, 1876). This still leaves the monotheism of Melchizedek unexplained, since that of the nomadic Jethro is not parallel. An important datum in the narrative is that Melchizedek was king of Salem. Salem has been identified with a place of the same name eight Roman miles south of Scythopolis, and with the Salim of John iii. 23 and the Salem of Judith iv. 4. But these were places of minor importance, while in Ps. Lyavi. 2 Jerusalem is called Salem, in Josh. x. 1 an Adonizedek (a name formed like Melchizedek) is called king of Jersualem, and in the Amariia, Tablets (q.v.) " Urusalim " appears as the common name about 1400 B.C. for the city which appears in the David narrative as Jebus. So probably here.
With reference to the historicity of the Melchizedek episode many scholars hold that verses 18‑20 seem to be interpolated and that verse 21 continues the narrative in verse 17. The matter of the tithes is difficult to understand, whether regarded as taken from the booty or from Abraham's own property. Similarly, the last part of verse 22, after "Lord," is regarded as an interpolation. It is believed that the compiler used material from various sources, that he was not interested particularly in the historicity of the matter, since for him the importance lay in the significance of Melchizedek as the incarnation of an idea which finds expression in the giving of a tenth by the patriarch. Putting together the facts that the name " Salem " occurs in the late psalm Lyxvi., that Ps. ex. is Maccabean, that the name seems to have been "Urusalim" in the time of the Amarna Tablets, and that the Maccabees were called " priests of the most high God," the conclusion might be drawn that the representation of the text is a late creation to exalt the high priests of Jerusalem. On the other hand, such an idea of a Canaanitic personage is not natural for that period. The narrative is

287
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Melohledea Xeletius
best explained as an early remainder of a story of the historical environment of which nothing is now known, and this largely because of the purely religious interest of the compiler. (F. BuHL.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. E. Ryle, Early Narratives of Genesis, London, 1892; R6sch, in TSK, 1885, pp. 321 sqq.; A. H. Sayce, " Hipher Criticism " and the Monuments, London, 1894 (to be used with caution); F. Hommel, Ancient Hebrew Traditions as Illustrated by at Monuments, ib. 1897; DB, iii. 335; EB, iii. 3014‑16; JE, viii. 450; the commentaries on Genesis; the pertinent sections in works on the history of Israel, particularly Kittel's. The Ezpos ‑tory Times, vols. vii.‑viii., contains a series of pertinent articles by Sayce and Hommel.
	MELDENIUS, RUPERTUS: The pseudonym of
a German Lutheran theologian who, at the time
of the Thirty Years' War, wrote a small tract in
Latin, admonishing theologians in their disputes
not to forget moderation and love. His tract bore
the title: Parwnesis votive pro pace eccleaim ad
theologos Augustance tonfessionia audare Ruperto
Meldenio Theologo [Rottenburg, 1626]. The con
tents indicate that it was written after the death
of Johann Arndt (q.v.; d. 1621), when there was
a renewal of controversy over his orthodoxy. From
the tenor of the closing words: " In a word, were
we to observe unity in essentials, liberty in in
cidentals, and in all things charity, our affairs
would be certainly in a most happy situation,"
~LUcke (see bibliography) inferred the author to
be the originator of the celebrated phrase In no
cemarii8 unites, in non neeesaarim 1tbertas, in
utriaque (or, in omnibus) caritas. The pseudonym
" Rupertus Meldenius " resulted from transposing
the letters of Petrus Meuderlinus, the Latinized
name of Peter Meiderlin (b. at Oberacker, near
Maulbronn, 26 m. n.w. of Heidelberg, in 1582;
d. at Augsburg, 1651), ephor of St. Anne's in
Augsburg, 1612‑50. Meiderlin, in F. A. Veith's
Bibliotheca Augustana (12 vols., Augsburg, 1785
96), is mentioned as author of the Pdrmnmis, hence
Meiderlin is to be regarded as the originator of
the phrase in question, since so far as is known
it occurs nowhere any earlier than in his tract.
All else known of him is eminently in accord with
that utterance, as with the sentiments manifested
in the Paraanesis. Richard Baxter (q.v.) refers to
the phrase in his treatise: The True and Only Way
of Concord of all the Christian Churches (1680), and
speaks of the same as " the Pacificator's old and
despised words." 	CARL BmtTHEAU.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. L6eke, Ueber das Alter, den Verfasser, die urapranpliche Form and den wahren Sinn des kirehlichen Priedeneprurhes In neeessariia unites, etc., G5ttingen, 1850; idem; in TSK, 1851, pp. 905‑938; L. Bauer, M. Peter Meiderlin, Augsburg, 1906; ADB, xxi. 293.
MELETIUS, me‑1?'sbf‑us, OF ANTIOCH AND THE
MELETIAR SCHISM.
Personal History of Meletius (J 1). Origin of the Schism (¢ 2). Strengthening of bfeletius' Position (1 3). Continuance of Schism after his Death (¢ 4).
In his personal history Meletius forms a curious complement to Eustathius of Sebaste (q.v.), having come into possession of a large part of the esteem which has been withdrawn from Eustathius. He was spoken of in Rome as an Arian as late as 377,
and his first deposition was inflicted on him, according to Philostorgius (v. 5), after conviction of perjury, according to the Chronicon pascliade
i. Personal (362 A.D.) "for godlessness and other History of evil deeds"; while to‑day he is reckMeletius. oned as a saint by both the Roman and the Greek Churches. It might be thought that this reversal of judgment was due merely to ecclesiastical policy, if our knowledge of his virtues were confined to the letters of Basil and the pulpit rhetoric of Gregory of Nyssa ( " Funeral Oration on Meletius," NPNF, 2 ser., v. 514 sqq.) and Chrysostom (Ham. in S. Meletium). But fortunately this hypothesis is ruled out by the honorable acknowledgment made by Epiphanius about 376 (Hcer. lxgiii. 35) in favor of Meletius, with whom he had little dogmatic or partizan sympathy. It is clear that Meletius must have been a man of ascetic strictness of life and generally upright and amiable character, and honored as such widely. He was born at Melitene in the province of Armenia Minor, held property in the northern part of'this province at Getasa, and had a good secular education. He makes his first appearance in history soon after 357 as an adherent of the compromise policy of Acacius, with whom he opposed the Homoiousians Basil of Ancyra, George of Laodicea, and Eustathius of Sebaste; and when the last‑named was deposed at a synod held in Melitene (probably 358) he became his successor. Possibly on account of the opposition of the followers of Eustathius, he resigned his bishopric and retired to Beroea, then, according to Socrates (Hint. eccd. II., xliv., NPNP, 2 ser., ii. 73), attended the synod of Seleucia in the autumn of 359 and subscribed an Acacian confession. Even after the synod of Constantinople in the spring of 360, unfavorable as it was to the Homoiousians, he still possessed the confidence of the court party; and when Eudoxius of Antioch was translated to the see of Constantinople (Jan. 27, 360) he was chosen for the vacant bishopric. He was received with enthusiasm in Antioch when he took possession of his new see at the end of the year; but he had occupied it only a month when he lost it. The cause is not certain, but the old tradition asserts that his theological attitude disappointed the party with which he had been acting: Epiphanius indicates, and the orthodox historians of the fifth century say positively, that the special cause was a sermon, the orthodoxy of which embittered the opposite party. It was preached in the emperor's presence and by his command on Prov. viii. 22, after Acacius and a certain George, probably George of Alexandria, not of Laodicea, had already discoursed on the same text. But this was scarcely the cause of his deposition; the most decisive evidence against the tradition is the sermon itself, still extant (in Epiphanius, Ham. Ixriii. 29‑33), which, while not Arian, is certainly not Homoousian nor even Homoiousian, but just what might have been expected from a Homoian court bishop who was not a crypto‑Arian. The conclusion which best satisfies the conflicting authorities is that the first expulsion of Meletius was not on dogmatic grounds, but caused rather by some action of his which embittered opponents could construe as illegal.

Meletins
Meletius Pegas
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
288
But the origin of the orthodox tradition and the bearing of the faithful followers of Meletius would be alike inexplicable if he had not, before he left Antioch for his home, given a decided anti‑Arian
impulse to those whom he could
a. Origin influence. The most logical interpreof the tation of the accounts is that when he
Schism. was replaced by Euzoius, an open
Arian, he warned his followers to hold no communion with this man. Part of the Antiochian church followed this admonition, and a state of schism was created. The Meletian party were not the only anti‑Arians in Antioch. Ever since the deposition of Eustathius in 330, there had been a small Eustathian party there, whose leader at this time was the presbyter Paulinus. Taking the homoousios of the Nicene creed in the sense of min hypostasia 3 ousia, they considered the Meletian use of treis hypostawis as Arian; and thus, although the Meletians were more and more inclined to accept the homoauzios as the later "young Nicene "party held it, the two groups were unable to act together. The accession of Julian made it possible for Meletius, as for Athanasius, to return to his see, but he had apparently not availed himself of the permission when the synod of Alexandria met in the spring of 362. It sent Eusebius of Vercelli and Asterius of Petra to Antioch to arrange a basis of agreement; but their task was rendered more difficult by the fact that Lucifer of Calaris arrived before them and consecrated Paulinus as bishop. There were then three claimants for the see; and the continued antagonism between Eustathians and Meletians may be partly understood from the fact that when (363) Meletius, with a synod at Antioch, accepted the homoousios in the sense of homoim kit' ousian and condemned the view that the Holy Ghost was a creature, the decree of the synod was signed also by a man so suspected by the whole Nicene party as Aeacius. The Eustathians accordingly regarded the synodal decree as a repudiation of the Nicene faith; Athanasius recognized Paulinus, and when he came to Antioch in the end of 363 held communion with him alone. When the Emperor Valens in 365 banished anew from Antioch all who had been exiled under Constantine, Meletius was again driven out, to return on his own responsibility, taking advantage of the political eomplications of the time, in 367. A third exile began when Valens visited the East in the winter of 371‑372, and lasted until the death of Valens (Aug. 9, 378) completely changed the situation. During this third exile Euzoius died (376), but he was immediately succeeded by another Homoian, the Thracian Dorotheus, and the threefold schism continued until Dorotheus was expelled by the government in 380. In fact, there was even a fourth claimant after 375, in which year Vitalius, a former adherent of Paulinus and then converted to Apollinarianism, was consecrated by Apollinaris; some of his followers were still traceable in the time of Sozomen (Hist. eccl., VI., xxv., NPNF, 2 ser., ii. 362).
Between his second return and his third exile Meletius had been in correspondence with Basil of Cwsarea, to whose view of him he owes the high position which he takes in the traditions of the
" young Nicene " party. Through Basil his position in the controversies of the moment became a decisive one. The West, like Athanasius, had recog‑
nized Paulinus, whom the " young 3. Strength‑ Nicene " party suspected, as they did
	ening of	the entire " Old Nicene " view, of
	Meletius'	Sabellian or Marcellian tendencies. The
	Position.	recognition of Meletius in the West
		thus became an object of primary
importance for the young Nicene party. But
though the negotiations brought them a little
closer to the West, nothing more could be obtained
for Meletius than that the western bishops recog
nized the orthodoxy of Meletius, saving the rights
of Paulinus, and recommended an agreement which
would at least provide against the continuance of
the schism on the death of either. The renown of
Meletius in the East, however, was all the more
increased by this, and when he returned from
Armenia to Antioch in 379 he was the most promi
nent of all the eastern orthodox leaders. Under his
presidency assembled in Antioch (Sept. or Oct.,
379) a synod attended by 153 bishops which
attested the doctrinal unity between East and
West. He had a hand in the appointment of
Gregory Nazianzen to the see of Constantinople,
and presided over the ecumenical council of 381,
being singled out for special favor by Theodosius,
the new ruler of the East. He died, however, soon
after the council began its work.
The schism would soon have been ended if the Meletians of Antioch and the " young Nicene " party in general would have acknowledged Paulinus, as Gregory Nazianzen warmly urged at the council of Constantinople. But his appeal fell on deaf ears, and the schism was perpetuated by the elec‑
tion of Flavian. The West regarded
q. Contin‑ his position as wholly indefensible; a
uance of synod held in Milan (381) under Schism Ambrose's presidency pronounced after His strongly against him, . and another Death. in Rome (382) excommunicated Dio‑
dorus of Tarsus and Acacius of Beraea who had consecrated him. Theodosius, who was anxious for an agreement between East and West, apparently did not approve the new election. On the death of Paulinus (c. 388) the Eustathians elected Evagrius, the friend of Jerome, who was recognized scarcely anywhere outside of Antioch, and xoward whom the West assumed a friendly but non‑committal attitude. Theodosius had a synod called at Capua in the winter of 391‑392 to decide the controversy. This gathering committed the question as between Flavian and Evagrius to Theophilus of Alexandria and the Egyptian bishops, hitherto neutral. Flavian won the confidence of the emperor, and made a successful protest against any investigation of his title; and when Evagrius died (c. 393) he succeeded in preventing the election of another contestant. The Eustathians, however, still maintained their schismatic attitude, and Flavian was not recognized by Rome or Alexandria. Peace was finally made by the efforts of Chrysostom, himself a native of Antioch, who on his consecration as bishop of Constantinople (Feb. 26, 398) induced Theophilus of Alexandria to plead for Flavian at

289	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Xe1etins
		Meletins Peg"
Rome. The diminishing Eustathian party gradually
yielded to Flavian, although they finally disap
peared only in the time of Alexander, the second
from Flavian, eighty‑five years after the out
break of the schism, or in the year 415. See
DAMABUS I.	(F. Loolrs.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The sources have already been indicated in
	the text. Consult: C. W. F. Waleh, Hiatorie der Keb
	zereien, iv. 410‑502, Leipsie, 1768; J. H. Blunt, Diction
	ary of Sects, Heresies, pp. 306‑308, Philadelphia, 1874;
	Neander, Christian Church, vol. ii. passim; Hefele, Con
	ciliengeschichte, i. 726 eqq., Eng. tranal., ii. 275 sqq•;
	Schaff, Christian Church, iii. 372‑374; Harnack, Dogma,
	vol. iv. passim; Ceillier, Auteurs sacrh, v. 5‑12, and con
	sult Index; DCB, iii. 891‑893; XL, viii. 1221‑34.
	MELETIUS OF LYCOPOLIS: Originator of the
so‑called Meletian schism in Egypt; d. at Lyco
polis between 325 and 326. One account of the
events leading to the Meletian schism is contained
in Historda fragmerdum de achisnwte Meletiano, a
fragment of an Alexandrian church history. During
the persecution of Christians in Lower Egypt, this
source relates, four bishops, Phileas of Thmuis,
Hesychius, Pachomius, and Theodore, whose sees
were in the neighborhood of Alexandria, were
removed from their congregations and held in
prison in Alexandria, expecting martyrdom or
deportation. The spiritual care of the forsaken
congregations lay in the hands of itinerant bishops
and preachers who did not always perform their
duty.	Even Alexandria was without a spiritual
head, since Peter had forsaken his city. In this
time of distress there was only one man who showed
himself equal to the occasion, Bishop Meletius of
Lycopolis. He not only traveled among the
suffering congregations, but at their request insti
tuted new bishops. This action, however, was not
consonant with the tradition of the church, both
because no bishop had been allowed to take over
duties in another see, and because the bishop of
Alexandria had for some time claimed to be the
spiritual head of the province. Thus the attitude
of Meletius was interpreted as a desire to make
himself the ecclesiastical primate of Egypt. As it
was afterward learned with certainty that the four
imprisoned bishops were still alive, there developed
in the congregations a party which looked upon
them as still their legitimate heads. The bishops
related the events to Peter of Alexandria and
complained, but Meletius neither excused himself
nor did he seek confirmation of his acts from the
metropolitan. He even dared to enter Alexandria
and to interfere with its ecclesiastical affairs, as he
found the city still forsaken by its bishop. He ex
communicated two presbyters and ordained two
others in their place, thus again meddling with the
affairs of another diocese. As a consequence Peter
excommunicated him.
	According to another source concerning the begin
nings of Meletianism, found in Epiphanius (Hter.
lxviii.), Peter was imprisoned in Alexandria together
with Meletius and many other bishops and clergy.
The persecution had already lasted for some time;
a number of Christians had become martyrs, others
had bought their release from prison by sacrifice,
thus excluding themselves from the Church, but they
repented afterward and endeavored to be received
		vll.‑19
again into the Church through the mediation of the martyrs. The party of the martyrs, headed by Meletius, showed a hesitating attitude, at least for the time of persecution, while another party headed by Peter advocated an immediate rehabilitation. In this way the Meletian schism originated. Meletius together with his adherents founded the " Church of the martyrs." After the return from his deportation to the copper mines of Phaino in Arabia, he did not reoccupy his episcopal seat in Lycopolis, but remained in Alexandria as head of his own church which regarded itself in contradistinction to the Catholic Church as the strict community of pure Christians. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, had no communion with the Meletians, because Peter had excluded Meletius. Owing to the friendly relation of the Meletians to the episcopate of Alexandria, they received a favorable treatment on the part of the members of the Council of Nioaea, especially as the latter hoped to hinder in this way an alliance of Meletianism with Arianism. A document of the council addressed to the bishops of Egypt asked Meletius to return to Lycopolis as bishop, but without the right of ordination. The clericals of his community were to be consecrated anew, and acknowledged in their order, but always as ranking below the Catholic clerics, and in order to suppress all aspirations of the episcopal seat of Lycopolis to the primacy the metropolitan rights of Alexandria over all Egypt were expressly acknowledged. The Meletian party comprised twenty‑nine bishops in Egypt, and four presbyters, three deacons,and a military chaplain in Alexandria. Meletius accepted the decree of the synod, delivered his churches to Alexander of Alexandria, and returned to Lycopolis. But there took place a rapid change in the sentiment of the Meletians. The successor of Meletius led an embassy to Constantinople in order to obtain the recognition of the peculiar position of the Meletians, in other words, the annulment of the decree of Nicaea. AS they were not admitted, they entered into connection with Eusebius of Nicomedia, who successfully advocated their cause before the emperor, thus obtaining sanction for the union between Meletianism and Arianism. (H. ACHELIS.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The " Fragment " cited in the text is in M. J. Routh, Reliquim sacra, iv. 91 eqq., Oxford, 1848. and in MPG, x. 1565 sqq., xviii. 609‑510. Consult on these Hefele, Coneiliengesehichte, i., 1 40 (same in the Eng. trans].). Other sources are: Athanasius, " Apology against the Arians," i¢ 11, 59, and his " Letter to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya," chap. xxii.; Socrates, Hut. eccl., i. 6, 9; Sosomen Hiat. ecd., i. 24, ii. 18, 21, 23; Theodoret, Hist. ecc& Consult: DCB, ii. 890‑891; %L, viii. 1221 sqq.

MELETIUS PEGAS: Patriarch of Alexandria in the sixteenth century; b. about 1540; d. at Alexandria, 1601 or 1602. He studied at Padua, was employed about 1575 at the courts of the patriarchs of Alexandria, and Constantinople, and ascended the patriarchal throne of Alexandria in 1590. His most important work is his " Miscellanies," printed in the " Book of Joy " of the Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem (pp. 553‑604 [Bucharest], 1705). It treats of the true church and attacks at the same time the primacy of the pope. Against Rome were

Meletius eyras	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	290
Xelville, An
directed also " An Orthodox Christian Discourse "
(Vilna, 1596) and " The Orthodox Doctrine "
(1769). Meletius influenced the confessional strug
gles in Poland by a number of dogmatic epistles,
one to King Sigismund III. of Poland, one to Bishop
Hypatius Potei of Vladimir and Brest, and a
number of letters which were published by Niko
demos Metaxas, " On the Primacy of the Pope, in
a Series of Letters'‑' (Constantinople 1627).
Against the Jews he wrote, " Apology of & Chris
tian Religion, Addressed to the Jews " (Greek and
Slavonic, Lemberg, 1593) [in catalogue of British
Museum, ascribed to another Meletius]. The
important part which he took in the synod of
1593 ‑in Constantinople shows that he was active
also for the development and expansion of his
church.	(PHILIPP MEYER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The scattered references are collected in
	P. Meyer, Die theologiache Litteratur der priechiechen Kirche
	im 18. Jahrhundert, pp. 53‑54, Leipaie,,1899.
	MELETIUS SSCRIGUS: Greek theologian; b. at
Candia 1586; d. at Galata, a suburb of Constanti
nople, 1664. He studied in Padua and became
monk in a monastery of Crete whence he was soon
expelled on account of his attacks on the Catholics.
After a short stay in Alexandria he turned in 1630
to Constantinople where he received a position as
teacher of theology. He was a pronounced opponent
of Cyril Lucar (q.v.). In 1642 he cooperated at the
synod of Jassy in drawing up the orthodox creed
and wrote its Greek translation. In 1644 he was
banished from Constantinople by Patriarch Par
thenios the Elder, because he had hindered the
circulation of the translation of the Bible into
modern Greek by Maximos Kalliupolites. Only
after the death of Parthenios in 1651 could he safely
remain in Constantinople. The only one of his
works which has been published is the " Refutation
of the Calvinistic Articles and Questions of Cyril
Lucar " (Bucharest, 1690.	(PHILIPP MEYER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: It. Legrand, Bibliopraphis hell6nique, ii.
	470‑472, Paris, 1894; E. a Scheletrate, Acta orientalis
	ecclesid contra Lutheri htereaim, i. 393 eqq., Rome, 1739.
	MELITO: Bishop of Sardis. He flourished in
the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161‑180). Of his
numerous works in most cases only the titles are
known from a list of Eusebius probably copied
from a collection in the library of Ctesarea. The
list is as follows (NPNF, i. 203 sqq.): two books
" On the Passover "; " On the Conduct of Life and
the Prophets "; " On the Church "; " On the Lord's
Day "; " On the Faith of Man ";" On [his] Creation ";
" On the Obedience of Faith "; " On the Senses ";
" On Soul and Body"; " On Baptism"; " On
Truth "; " On Faith "; " On the Birth of Christ ";
" On Prophecy "; " On Hospitality "; " The Key ";
" On the Devil "; " On the Apocalypse of John";
" On the Corporeality of God "; " Apology to
Antoninus "; " Selections "; and perhaps a work
" On the Suffering of Christ." There are extant
only remnants of the " Selections," of the " Apol
ogy," and the works " On Baptism " and " On the
Passover." The Greek fragments edited by Ana
stasius Sinaita are quoted under titles not mentioned
by Eusebius. There are also some Syriac fragments
which undoubtedly go back to indirect Greek
tradition, for probably the Syriac Church never possessed his works complete. Of the works falsely ascribed to him may be mentioned the Syriac Apology, which can not be identical with the Apology mentioned by Eusebius, for the sentences quoted from it are not found in the other, but most probably, as Noldeke has explained, was a Syriac original work. Under the name of Melito, Pitra published a Latin " Key to the Scripture "which he considered a compilation from the " Key " of Melito; but Steitz and others have proved its spuriousness. From the scantiness of the material it is impossible to estimate justly Melito's importance for the history of church and doctrine. The titles of his works show that he took an interest in the dogmatical questions of his time and participated in the Paschal controversies which preceded the great schism over Easter. He was probably interested in Montanism, as appears from titles like " On the Conduct of Life and the Prophets," " On the Church," or " On Prophecy," yet he can not be called a Montanist (A. Schwegler, Morttaniantua, p. 223, Ann. 5, Ttibingen, 1841); for the manner in which Tertulhan wrote of him is against such an assumption. His attitude in this matter can be understood if he is compared with Irenams, whom he resembled also in other ways. His moral strictness, which made him a celibate, and his high regard for prophecy and spiritual matters explain his close relation to Montanism, and still more make clear its spread; for his asceticism showed the universality of the thoughts that it emphasized. In his Christology Melito laid stress on the distinction of both natures. His separating the Apocrypha from the canonical books shows that his theological education surpassed the ordinary standard. A great many surmises have been made in regard to his doctrine of God in connection with his work " On the Corporeality of God," but he probably expressed there the same realism that was represented by Tertullian. (ERWIN PREUBCHEN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The fragments are collected in M. J. Routh, Reliquie sacra, i. 115 eqq., Oxford, 1846; J. C. T. Otto, Corpus apoWetarum Chriatianorum, ix. 410 eqq., Jena, 1872; and W. Cureton, Spicnlepium Syriacum, London, 1855. An Eng. tranal. is found in ANF, viii. 750‑762. The earlier literature, named in ANF, Bibliography, pp. 110‑111, is in the main antiquated. Consult: Harnack, Litteratur, i. 246‑255, ii. 1, pp. 358 eqq., 517 eqq., 522 eqq., ii. 2 passim; DCB, iii. 894‑900 (important); A. Ehrhardt, in Strasaburger theolopischu Studien, i., Supplement (1900), 258 eqq.; Kruger, History, pp. 123‑129.
MELIUS, PETER: Hungarian Reformer and author; b. at Horhi 1515; d. at Debreczin (116 m. e. of Budapest) Dec. 15, 1572. His name is a Hellenization of his Hungarian family name JuhAsz. After three years at the University of Wittenberg (1555‑58), he returned as pastor to Debreczin, where he labored till his death. After 1557, only the Lutherans had legally enjoyed religious freedom; but two years later Mehus, with his two colleagues, took the first opposing steps in a pastoral conference, clearly stating Calvin's view in a short Orthodoza sententia de cmna Domini. The Transylvanian Lutherans, led by Matthias Hebler, Superintendent of Szeben, both opposed the Reformed party and excluded it from their church. The Reformed joined Melius, who now composed (1562)

291	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Xeletine Srsene
Melville, Andrew
the comprehensive Confe8sio Ecclesim Debrecinensie. The Lutherans appealed to four Lutheran universities in Germany, and accused the men of Debreczin of distorting tfie Augsburg Confession. Melius replied in two pamphlets (Refutatio and Apologia), defending the Reformed position, while the Reformed themselves turned to Geneva and Beza at two synods held in 1562‑63. New impulse was furnished by this act. The young Prince of Transylvania, John Sigismund, still attempted to hold the Protestants together in a single body, and convened a general synod at Enyed (Apr., 1564); but, after joint debate, the cause of union was lost, and the Diet of Torda (June, 1564) sanctioned equal freedom for the Reformed Church. The matter of organization thus becoming a practical necessity, Mehus, as the first Reformed bishop, convoked the first general synod at Debreczin (Feb., 1567), where seventeen presbyteries were represented from both sides of the River Tisza. By adopting the Second Helvetic Confession, they declared themselves an integral part of the Reformed Church in Europe. At the same synod, canons were drawn up, entitled Artieuli majorm, and defining the polity of the synod.
The young Church had hardly been organized when it was destined to encounter a new enemy. The prince's court physician, Georgius Blandrata (q.v.), secretly brought with him from Poland the books of Servetus, and imparted their tenets to the court preacher, Franciscus Davidis (q.v.), who then began to spread the Unitarian doctrines in Tranaylvania (1566). Melius firmly withstood him, and finally took part in the synod of Csenger (July 26, 1570), but Unitarians who had been invited did not appear. The synod formulated the Confessio vera, which was embodied in the Corpus et syntagma comr feasionum (Geneva, 1612) under the incorrect designation Polonica confeasio. The credit is thus due to Melius and his companions that Hungarian Calvinism was not swallowed up in the Unitarian stream. Melius likewise purposed to oppose the theses of the Jewish rabbis of Paris, assailing the divinity of Christ, but his career was cut short by death.
Melius corresponded with Bullinger, Beza, Thretius, and Dudics, and wrote many books. Among his thirteen Hungarian productions special mention may be made of his Az egefaz keresztyesn tudomkny summdja (" Summary of Christian Doctrine," Debreczin, 1562). He also composed exegetical works, and translated the Books of Samuel and Kings, and the New Testament (1567), the latter version being lost. His nine Latin works are mainly polemical and doctrinal. Of these the most important are Confessio Ecclesim Debrecinemsis (Debreezin, 1562); Apologia et abstersio Ecclesim Debrecinensia ~a calumnis quibus temere apud academias et principea accusatur (1563); Refutatio confesaionis de coma Damini Matthim Hebler et his coniundorum (1564); Brevis confessio pastorum (both in Latin and in Hungarian; 1567); and Artieuli ex verbo Dei e:t legs naturce
comhossiti (1567). 	F. BAIAGH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. A. Lampe, Hist. ecclesia reformatat in Hunparia, passim, Utrecht, 1728; E. Budai, Hist. of
Ilungary (in Hungarian), ii. 156‑168, Debrecain, 1808;
P. Bod, Hiet. ecc1. Hungarorum, ed. Rauwenhoi£, i. 256,
L~;den, 1888; J. B. Dal. and B,. M. Patteston, Report
of Proceeding* of the Second General Council of the Presbyterian Alliance, pp. 1099‑1120, Philadelphia, 1874; F. Balogh, Melius Pfter hatcfta, Debrecsin, 1888; idem, Hint. of the Reformed Church of Hungary, Lancaster, Pa., 1908.
MELLITUS: First bishop of London and third archbishop of Canterbury; d. at Canterbury Apr. 24, 624. Pope Gregory the Great sent him with Justus, Paulinus, and Rufinia,nua to join Augustine (q.v.) at Canterbury in 601. Augustine consecrated him bishop of the East Saxons in 604. Ethelbert, king of Kent, with his uncle Sabert, the East Saxon king, built for Mellitus the Church of St. Paul at London, where he established his episcopal see. Mellitus went to Rome in 608 to consult Boniface IV., was present at a synod there, Feb. 27, 610, and brought its decrees, with letters from the pope, to England. Eadbald, son and successor (616) of Ethelbert, as well as the sons of Sabert, adhered to the heathen religion, and Mellitus was driven from London and went to Gaul. After a year, however, he was able to return to Kent (see LAURENCE op CANTERBURY), but not to his bishopric. He suoseeded Laurence as archbishop in 619, but never received the gallium.
BIHLIOOMPHT: Beds, Hiet. acct., i. 29, 30, ii. 3‑7; Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, iii. b‑38, 71; DOB, iii. 900‑901; DNB, azavii. 221‑222.
MELVILL, HENRY: Church of England; b. at Pendennis Castle (2 m. s.w. of Falmouth), Cornwall, Eng., Sept. 14, 1798; d. in London Feb. 9, 1871. He was graduated from the University of Cambridge (B.A., 1821; M.A., 1824; B.D., 1836); was minister of Camden Chapel, Camberwell, London, 1829‑43; was appointed chaplain to the Tower of London, 1840; was principal of the East India College, at Haileybury, 1843‑59; and held the Golden Lectureship, St. Margaret's Lothbury, 1850‑56. In 1853 he was appointed one of her Majesty's chaplains; in 1856 a canon of St. Paul's; in 1863 he was made rector of Barnes, Surrey, and rural dean. He enjoyed a high reputation for pulpit oratory; his style was florid, and his delivery impassioned. Of the twelve volumes published by him, some of them in several editions, all were the results of his pulpit activities. His Lectures on Practical Subjects was reprinted in Philadelphia, 1864; and two volumes of his Sermons, ed. Bishop McIlvaine, appeared New York, 1870.
BIatIOasAPeY: J. Grant, Metropolitan Pulpit, ii. 1 21, London, 1839; The Lamps of the Temple, pp. 210‑241, ib. 1858; J. E. Ritchie, London Pulpit, pp. 60‑88, ib. 1858; DNB, aaxvii. 229‑230.
MELVILLE, ANDREW: B. at Baldovy, near Montrose (30 m. n.e. of Dundee), Scotland, Aug. 1, 1545; d. at Sedan (130 m. n.e. of Paris), France, in 1622. After preliminary training in Latin, Greek, and French, at Montrose, he entered St. Mary's College, St. Andrews, in 1559; and when he left St. Andrews for the University of Paris, in the autumn of 1564, he was commended as "the best philosopher, poet, and Grecian of anie young maiater in the land." In Paris he studied Hebrew as well as Latin, Greek, and philosophy. Two years later he went to Poitiers to master civil law and became a regent in the College of St. Marceon. He afterward traveled to Geneva, where he war speedily appointed to

Melville, Andrew	T~,1 ~`,W SCHAFF‑HERzOG	292
Xemorials and Sacred Stones
the humanity chair. During his five years' resi
dence there he devoted himself chiefly to the study of
	theology under Beza, who, at his leaving, wrote that
	the greatest token of affection the church of Geneva
	could give, was that it had consented to be deprived
	of Melville that the church in Scotland might be
	enriched. Having returned to Scotland, in July,
	1574, he accepted the principalship of Glasgow
	University. He began his work there in Nov.,
	and by his incredible labors and enthusiasm drew
	students from all quarters; so that the classrooms
	which for some years before had been literally
	empty, were soon filled to overflowing. Before
	Melville's return to Scotland, " Tulchan " episco
	pacy had been erected; and when John Durie pro
	tested in the General Assembly, in Aug., 1575,
	against the lawfulness of the bishop's office, Melville
	showed that prelacy was unscriptural, and should
	be abolished, and parity in rank and authority be
	restored among the ministers of the church. Five
	years later, the episcopal office was formally abol
	ished by the assembly, without a dissenting voice.
	Melville was on all the committees employed in
	preparing the Second Book of Discipline, took a
	prominent part in the discussions concerning it,
	and was moderator of an assembly which approved
	it, in April, 1578.
		In December, 1580, Melville was transferred to
	the University of St. Andrews; installed as principal
	of St. Mary's College, which, by act of Parliament,
	had been appropriated to the study of divinity.
	Here, at first, he met with much opposition; but
	in less than two years his learning and zeal wrought
	a favorable change. The number of students
	increased; and the cause of religion prospered,
	both in the city and in the university. This was
	interrupted only by his being called to defend the
	polity and liberties of the church. Despite the
	confession or covenant of 1581, the privy council
	revived the regulations recognizing episcopacy,
	framed at Leith in 1572; and Lennox, one of the king's
	unworthy favorites, had Robert Montgomery pre
	sented to the archbishopric of Glasgow. This high
	handed procedure of the court was boldly met by
	the church, and Montgomery was excommunicated.
	The privy council proclaimed the excommunication
	null and void, ordered those who refused to pay
	him the episcopal rents to be imprisoned, and laid
	Glasgow College under a temporary interdict. In
	his opening sermon before a special meeting of the
	assembly, Melville inveighed against those who had
	introduced " the bludie gullie of absolute power
	into the country, and who sought to erect a new
	popedom in the person of the prince." A remon
	strance was drawn up, which he and the others
	presented to the king. In Feb., 1583‑84, he was
	summoned before the privy council for seditious
	and treasonable preaching. Conscious of his inno
	eence, and furnished with ample proof, he appeared
	and gave, account of his sermon. On the council
	resolving to proceed with the trial, he maintained
	that he ought to be tried in the first instance by the
	church courts. As he would yield neither to
	entreaties nor threats, he was found guilty of
	declining the judgment of the council, and was
	sentenced to imprisonment in Blackness Castle,
and further punishment at the king's pleasure; but he escaped to England.
As the court wished to make James absolute by bringing every cause before the I)rivy council, it was necessary to curb the church courts; and accordingly, in 1584, Parliament overthrew presbytery, and laid the liberties of the country at the king's feet. But in 1585, after twenty months' absence, Melville returned with the exiled nobles. Weary of tyranny, their countrymen ,flocked to their standard, Arran fled, and the king received them into favor. Melville was moderator of the assembly in June, 1587, and was one of its commissioners to the Parliament which annexed the temporal lands of bishoprics, abbacies, and priori to the crown, thus paving the way for the entire abolition of episcopacy. At the coronation of the queen, in May, 1590, he recited a Latin poem entitled Stephaniskion, which he composed on two days' notice. Patrick Adamson, who still persevered in opposing presbytery and attacking Melville, having fallen into poverty, addressed "elegant and plaintive verses to his Majesty," who turned a deaf ear to him; but Melville generously supported him for several months, as he himself was afterward aided, when a prisoner in the Tower of London, by Adamson's nephew, Patrick Simpson. In June, 1592, Melville's labors were crowned with success; Parliament having consented to pass an act ratifying the assemblies, synods, presbyteries, and kirk sessions of the church and declaring them, with their jurisdiction and discipline, as agreed to by the king, and embodied in the act, to be, in all time coming " most just, good and godly." This settlement is still the charter of the Church of Scotland's liberties.
Contrary to his promise, James insisted in restoring the popish nobles, and put the ministers on their defense by declaring that state affairs should not be introduced into their sermons, that the assembly should not convene without his command, that its acts should not be valid until ratified by him, and that church courts should not take cognizance of offenses punishable by the criminal law. One minister being dealt with as an example, the others made common cause with him. Soon they were forbidden to speak against the doings of the council, the king, or his progenitors, under the pain of death, and ordered to subscribe a bond, before receiving their stipends, promising to submit to the king and council when accused of seditious or treasonable doctrine. Melville and the other commissioners of assembly were ordered to leave Edinburgh, and their power was declared illegal. Determined to restore episcopacy James, by secret and corrupt influence, secured a vantageground for his future plans at an assembly which Melville could not attend. It was with difficulty he carried out his measures, even in a modified form, at next assembly, where Melville was present. The committee of ministers there appointed to advise with the king about church affairs was " the needle which drew in the episcopal thread." In 1597 Melville was deprived of the rectorahip of St. Andrew's University after holding it seven years. To get rid of his opposition in the church courts,

293	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Melvoille Andrew
			red Stones
all doctors or regents teaching theology or philosophy, not being pastors, were forbidden to sit in any of these courts under pain of deprivation and rebellion. Prelates were declared by Parliament to have ever represented an estate of the realm; and, when the assembly met, the king would not allow it to proceed until Melville retired; and ultimately he was forced to quit the town. James protested that he did not intend to restore bishops, but only wished some of the wisest ministers, as commissioners of the kirk, to have a place in the privy council and Parliament to judge in their own affairs. To this the assembly by a small majority agreed. The king would not permit Melville to sit in the assembly of 1600, and, by acceding to many caveats, he induced the members to comply with his plan. When the Scottish Parliament restored the bishops to their ancient privileges, in 1606, Melville, who was sent by St. Andrew's presbytery, protested. As the bishops had as yet no spiritual power, Melville and seven other ministers were summoned to London, nominally to confer with the king on church affairs, really to deprive their brethren of their aid and counsel in opposing the changes contemplated. The English nobles were astonished at Melville's talents and courage. On a highly ritualistic service which he had been made to witness in the Chapel Royal he wrote a Latin epigram, which one of the court spies set to watch him conveyed to the king. For this Melville was tried by the English privy council Nov. 30, and though he had given out no copy, was found guilty of scandalum magnatum. In April he was sent to the Tower, where for ten months he was treated with great severity. Pen, ink, and paper were taken from him; and none saw him save the person who brought his food. But his spirit was free and unbroken, and he covered the walls of his cells with verses beautifully engraved with the tongue of his shoe‑buckle. By means of packed assemblies and bribery, prelacy was established in Scotland when he and other faithful men were far away. Though the Protestants of Rochelle were eager to have Melville as professor of divinity, James would not consent; but, after four years' captivity, he, at the request of Du Plessis‑Momay (q.v.), allowed him to go to Sedan to share with Tilenus the professorship of divinity. There his last years were spent, the bitterness of his exile being alleviated by the kindness of some Scottish professors and students. Among these last were John Durie (q.v.), and perhaps Alexander Colville, destined so long to carry on his work in St. Mary's College. The contest in which he took so prominent a part affected not only the government of the church but also the cause of civil and religious liberty. "Scotland," says hiss nephew James, " never received a greater benefit at the hands of God than this man." " If," says Dr. McCrie, " the love of pure religion, rational liberty, and polite letters, forms the basis of national virtue and happiness, I know no individual, after her Reformer, from whom Scotland has received greater benefits, and to whom she owes a deeper debt of gratitude and respect, than Andrew Melville." He was full of spirits, vigorous and courageous, quick‑tempered but kindly, of great and varied
learning, but more of a scholar than a popular
orator. His chief work was in the universities and
church courts rather than in the pulpit; and that,
perhaps, was the reason why, with all his influence
among his brethren, he never gained such sway
over the nobles and people as Knox and Henderson
attained. The hard measure meted out to him by
King James was one of the greatest blots on that
reign. 	D. HAY FLEMING.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The principal sources ‑are: J. Melvill, Autobiography and Diary, with Continuation, ed. R. Pitcairn, Edinburgh, 1842; J. Row, Hist. of the Kirk of Scotland, ed. D. Laing, ib., 1842; w. Boot, An Apologetical Narration of the State and Government of the Kirk of Scotland since the Reformation, ed. D. Laing, ib. 1846; J. Spottiswoode, Hind. of the Church of Scotland, ed. M. Russell, ib. 1851; D. Calderwood, Hid. of the Kirk of Scotland, ed. T. Thomson, 8 vols., ib. 1842‑49; Register of the Privy Council q/ Scotland, ed. D. Masson, vols. iii.‑iv., ib., 1880‑81. The one life of importance is by T. McCrie, 2 vols., ib. 1819, also in his works, ed., his son, the younger McCrie, ib. 1856, reissued, 1899. Consult also DNB, xxvii. 230; H. Cowan, Influence of the Scottish Church in Christendom. London, 18%.
MEMORIALS AND SACRED STONES.
	Scope of the Subject (§ 1).	The Maapebah (§ 4).
	In Non‑Semitic Territory (§ 2). Hebrew Usage (§ 5).
	Among Semites (§ 3).	Cultic Importance (§ 6).
	Among cultic objects preserved among practically
all primitive peoples and often continued in use in
an advanced state of society are pillars and sacred
stones. Regard for these objects is in part attri
butable to fetishistic or animistic concepts (see
COMPARATIVE RELIGION, VI., 1, a, 1‑3, 7; FzTIsH
IsM) ; in part to superstitious regard of what was, at
		the time when sacredness first attached
	i. Scope to the object, inexplicable or myster‑
of the ious; and in part to later association Subject. with divine powers. Sometimes the reasons for which these objects became sacred have long been lost and are now irrecoverable‑such a case is presented by the sacred stone at Delphi, to explain which a myth was invented (see COMPARATIVE RELIGION, VI., 1, a, § 7). For many of the occurrences found in the Semitic field, especially the monoliths regarded as deities, the animistic basis is evident. Other monuments, such as those at crossroads or on boundaries, received their sacred character through being, regarded as representing the god of highways or of boundaries. Among the classes of objects to be considered in this article are such reminders of past events as were set up by Jacob (Gen. xxxi. 46 sqq.) and Joshua (Josh. iv., xxiv. 6‑7), or such as marked a grave (Gen. xxxv. 20), or which at some time received veneration as embodying a god or as marking the haunt of deity (Gen. xxviii. 18, xxxv. 14; Judges vi. 20). These objects include menhirs (single stones or rude undressed columns), dolmens ('stone tables, possibly used as altars, one stone supported by two or more), cromlechs or circles of stones like that at Stonehenge, England, sometimes having a menhir in the center, and cairns or heaps of stones; besides these should be mentioned the figures developed from these originally rough and unshaped forms. These monuments are traceable all the way across the continents of Asia and Europe, and as far west as Ireland.
Because of the abundant remains of Greek

Xemorials and Sacred Stones	THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG	294
literature, the number of sacred stones in Greece appears to have been exceptionally large; but it may be taken for granted that that country is simply illustrative of a certain stage of civilization. Examples taken from this field are the sacred stone at Hyettos, the thirty stones which
s. In Non‑ the Pharaeans worshiped, that in
Semitic Baeotia which figured in the sacred
	Territory.	festivals, and the image of Artemis
		in Ephesus. Theophrastus (373‑283
B.c.) illustrates the frequency of these monuments
when he satirically describes a superstitious Greek
performing his devotions before the sacred stones
along the road, a part of the worship consisting of
anointing them with oil (Characteres ethici, xvi.).
The form of these early monuments was that of a
rough monolith set upright. But it was not to be
expected that the artistic Greek would continue to
be content with such crude monuments: accordingly
the pillar was chiseled into smooth quadrangular
form and surmounted later by a sculptured head,
originally that of Hermes (whence these pillars bore
the name Hermce or Hermula) but later that of other
deities. The reference to these in Pausanias is
frequent; cf. Frazer's ed. on viii. 34, 1 3, x. 24; § 6.
The origin of these Hernias is quite distinctly traced
to the rough blocks of stone which marked roads or
boundaries and bore the name of hermeia or hermakes;
these in turn may have developed from the cairn, to
which respect was shown by the passer‑by in the
addition of a stone to the heap. The Hermee
passed over to the Romans in the shape of termini,
having the same general form. Egyptians and
Assyrians extended the usage by erecting stelai and
pillars to mark the bounds of their conquests. It is
noteworthy that this development of the monolith
into the statue does not appear among the Semites.
Among the sacred places of the Greeks were those
known as baetyli (a name formed from the Hebrew
Bethel), the center of which were usually sacred
stones, some of them meteoric, like that of Artemis
mentioned above (cf. Acts xix. 35). There was a
sacred meteorite at Tyre (reported by Philo Byb
lius, q.v.), and one in the temple of Heliogabalus
at Emesa. It is probable that in many cases the
sanctity of the stone was due to its emblematic
character, as when it figured a holy mountain in a
Canaanitio high place or a Babylonian ziggurat
(see HIGH PLACEB). For citations of sacred stones
over a larger area and among both primitive and
more highly cultured peoples, cf. E. B. Tyler,
Primitive Culture, chap. xv. (London, 1903), where
examples are cited from western Europe as late as
the middle of the nineteenth century.
Among Semites the existence of a cult of sacred stones has long been known. The two sacred stones of the Kaaba (q.v.) are merely illustrative of a wealth of sacred objects of this character among pre‑Mohammedan Arabs. Lampridius speaks of " stones which were called gods "
3. Among at Syrian sanctuaries, perhaps the
	Semites.	menhirs, dolmens, and the like referred
		to above. Wastenfeld (ZDMG, xviii.
452, 1864) notes that the Arab geographer Yakut
about 1200 A.D. knew of a stone near Aleppo said to
mark the tomb of a prophet upon which pilgrims
(Moslems, Jews, and Christians) poured rosewatea Renan (Mission de Ph6nice, pp. 399‑400, Paris, 1864) speaks of a milestone near Sidon which was anointed with oil. Niebuhr is reported to have heard of a .stone venerated by the Jacobite sunworshipers of Mesopotamia (cf. D. Chwolson, Die Ssabier, i. 153, Leipsie, 1856). Among the Arabs sacred pillars (menhirs) were numerous, the most celebrated being the Allat stones (Smith, Kinship, pp. 292 sqq.; C. M. Doughty, Arabia Deserts, ii. 515 sqq., Cambridge, 1888), looked upon as deities. E. A. T. W. Budge (Egyptian Magic, chap. iii., London, 1899) shows that Egyptians believed that the statue of a god contained the deity's spirit; hence the superstitious Christianized Egyptians endeavored to shatter the image in order to make the spirit homeless. In this respect the conceptions of Egyptians and Arabs alike rest upon an animistic basis. For a notice of Canaanitic pillars see GEZER, § 3. The place of such a pillar was a " Bethel " (cf. Gen. xxviii. 18‑19), a word which passed over into the Greek baityloa or baitylion (ut sup.), cf. the Greek temenoa, Hebr. 'admath kodesh, " holy ground," Arab. haram. It implied a manifestation of deity by theophany, vision, dream, release from peril, victory, or the like. Into the idea of such a place there enters the notion of taboo (see COMPARATIVE RiLIOION, VI., 1, c) and consecrates the spot to the deity resident or manifest there. Possibly the Hebrew prohibition against using tools on the altar‑stones (Ex. xx. 25) was due to this animistic conception and the desire not to disturb the numen in the stone.
The most general name in the Semitic field for the pillar is derived from a root nzb (Hebr. mwzebah, pl. mazzeboth, the most general word, muzzabh, nezibh, ef. Gen. xix. 26; I Sam. x. 5, xiii. 3‑4, where for " garrison " should be read " memorial pillar " as the context clearly implies; Arab. nuzub, manzab,
nuzb, pl. anzab, Phenieian mazzebeth,
4. The Aramaic nzb; the Hebrew also emMazFebah. ploys the terms ammudh, Gen. xix. 26,
Jer. xxvii. 19, rendered by the Greek stalk, styles, kiln; and hamman, a pillar for sunworship, Isa. xvii. 8, xxvii. 9; Ezek. vi. 4, 6; Lev. xxvi. 30; II Chron. xiv. 4, 7). The Phenician mazzebeth usually means a memorial at a grave (as in modern Jewish usage), but is also used of a pillar (not structural) in a temple, as at Sidon, and may possibly refer to a votive tablet. The Aramaic nzb applies to a statue, possibly at a grave. Before Phenician temples twin pillars, not structural, usually stood, as is indicated by coins. Herodotus, ii. 44, describes the two in the temple of MelkartHeracles at Tyre, one of which he says was of pure gold and the other of emerald (glass? of. Rawlinson's note on Herodotus, ii. 81, New York, 1875). Bronze pillars were in the temple of Baal‑Heracles at Gades. These seem to have been round, though others of the Phenician cult were square with pyramidal tops. Through the spread of Phenician influence along the Mediterranean, the phrase " the pillars of Hercules " came to denote the extreme West, and to be applied to the mountains at the western end of the Mediterranean. The Phenician derivation of the two pillars in Solomon's temple is clear

295	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Xemorials and Sacred Stones
(I Kings vii. 15‑21). At Palmyra votive offerings took the shape of conical terra‑cottas, miniature pillars with possibly a phallic reference. Nisibis in Mesopotamia may have derived its name from the word for pillar and the existence there of one of these objects of more than common renown. A stele at Larnaka in Cyprus is called in the inscription a mazzebah, and has a pyramidal top.
Among the Hebrews the ma*?ebah is clearly distinguished from the Asherah (q.v.), the former being of stone and the latter of wood. Hebrew narratives contain references to the ma*?,ebah as the evidence of the presence of deity. Jacob's stone pillow becomes a pillar (Gen. xxviii. 18, xxxv. 14); Joshua's pillar is a hearing witness (Josh.
xxiv. 26‑27; cf. Judges ix. 6; a 5. Hebrew thoroughly animistic conception). As
	Usage.	a reminder of an event of importance
		the ma7,~ebah is of frequent occurrence.
It (or a heap of stones; there are two narratives
united in the account in Gen. xxxi. 45‑47) marked
the compact between Jacob and Laban; twelve
pillars at Sinai commemorated the covenant
(Ex. xxiv. 4), and Moses commanded to erect
monoliths at Mt. Ebal with the words of the law
incised in the plaster overlaid on the stones (Dent.
xxvii. 2 sqq.); Joshua had twelve pillars set up in
the bed of the Jordan and twelve at Gilgal to
commemorate the crossing (Josh. iv. 3 sqq., 20 sqq.;
the place‑name Gilgal, from a word meaning to
encircle, may be taken from the existence of
cromlechs at the various places bearing that name);
in remembrance of the victory over the Philistines
Samuel erected a "atone" (Hebr. ebhen, not mazze
bah, I Sam. vii. 12), and Saul also set up a monument
of victory (Hebr. yadh, " hand," I Sam. xv. 12;
the verb is to be read hizxabh), and a great stone
served as an altar (I Sam. xiv. 33; cf. ALTAR, I., § § 2
3). Absalom reared a pillar (mazzebeth) to perpetu
ate his own memory (II Sam. xviii. 18). As a mon
ument to the dead, corresponding to the Phenician
and modern Jewish usage, the pillar occurs in Gen.
xxxv. 23 (Rachel); II Kings xxiii.17; Ezek. xxxix.
15 (a temporary sign), and I Mace. xiii. 27. This is
parallel with the Arabic usage which applies nuzb
to a memorial at a grave (I. Goldziher, Muham
medanische Studien, i. 231‑238, Halle, 1889; D6ren
bourg, in JA, 8 ser., ii. 245, 1883). Heaps of stones
covered the grave of a man executed (Josh. vii. 26,
viii. 29; II Sam. xviii. 17). Thus it is seen that
memorials at graves were common to Semitic
custom, maintained by the Hebrews. Isaiah
(mix. 19) predicts that a pillar inscribed " Yahweh's
(land) " is to be set up at the border of Egypt as a
token that Egypt too is to be a part of God's
territory when his kingdom is realized; and Hoses
(iii. 4, x. 1‑2) mentions piflars as belonging to the
Yahweh cult. Other cases of sacred stones to be
noted are the stone of Bohan (Josh. xv. 6, xviii. 17),
that at Shechem (Josh. xxiv. 26‑27), at Ophrah
(Judges vi. 20‑21), at Gibeon (II Sam. xx. 8), the
stone of Ezel (I Sam. xx. 19), and of Zoheleth
(I Kings i. 9; a stone of sacrifice). Ise. Ivii. 6 may
refer to sacred ‑but prohibited stones, cf. Ivi. 4 sqq.
The ;iyyun, " direction posts," of Jer. xxxi. 21
were not sacred objects in Israel, though they were
elsewhere (cf. Ezek. xxi. 21). Ma;Teboth are prohibited in Deut. xvi. 22, vii. 5, xii. 3; Lev. xxvi. 1; as are the hammanim (R. V. " sun images ") in Lev. xxvi. 30; cf. Ezek. vi. 4, 6; . Isa. xxvii. 9; II Chron. xiv. 5, xxxiv. 4, 7; Jelin destroyed the pillars of Baal in Samaria (II Kings x. 26‑27), and Josiah broke those of the southern kingdom (II Kings xxiii. 14).
The cultic importance of these objects is implicit in what precedes (Gen. xxviii. 22, xxxi. 13, xxxv. 14), and is further supported by the name Bethel (which has the generic signification of " sanctuary ") and by the ritual observance of anointing the pillar with oil or performing sacrifice at it or upon it (cf. I Kings i. 9). The ma4Zebah, as a rough
unhewn stone, was an accessory of 6. Cultic the pre‑Deuteronomic sanctuary (see Importance. HIGH PLACES), and is unquestionably
to be connected with early Semitic stone‑worship. Even in Hebrew times the pillar marked the presence of deity (outside of Gen. xxviii. 16 sqq., cf. Josh. xxiv. 26‑27, " this stone is a witness, . . it hath heard "). Accordingly it received the blood or fat of the victim or the oil of the vegetable offering. Thus are to be explained the hollows in many of these objects where the substance of the offering was applied. For the stages in the developmenb%f the conception of these objects see the references to ALTAR above. That the Hebrew but followed common Semitic usage is suggested by the fact that in Arabic custom the blood or fat of the sacrificial victim was applied to the stone with the purpose of bringing it into direct contact with deity (cf. the modern custom of stroking with the hand the sacred stones of the Kaaba). Arabs swore by the anzab about a sanctuary (Wellhausen, Reste, 2d ed., p.102), and Herodotus (iii. 8) testifies to the application of the blood directly to the stones. The Hebrew altar of unhewn stones has its analogue in the cairn, which is sometimes an altar, as in the camel sacrifice reported by Nilus, in which case the animal was bound upon a heap of stones (Smith, Rel. of Sem., 2d ed., p. 338). In modern Syria many spots sacred to saints are marked with pillars regarded as sacred, and cultic performances still take place in many respects identical with those noted in earlier times (S. I. Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion To‑dory, chap. vii., New York, 1902): The passage in Isa. Ivii. 6 might have been written of most primitive peoples. Anointing of stones continued in Norway till the close of the seventeenth century (S. Nilsson, Primitive Inhabitants of Scandinavia, p. 241, London, 1868), and the earl of Roden reports a case in which the Irish of Inniskea worshiped a stone kept carefully wrapped in flannel (Tylor, ut qUp., ii. 167).
A question yet under debate is the.relation to this subject of the use of the Hebr. pr as applied to Yahweh (Dent. xxxii. 4; I Sam. ii. 2; Ps. xviii. 2, 31; Isa. xvii. 10, xxa. 29). This application ocoure only in late passages, never in J or E, and the connection with pillars or stones is not made out. 7ux appears to be used figuratively. On the other hand, analogy seems to give some support for the idea advanced in the fact that ,zur occurs as an

Xesniphis	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	296
Xonfus
	element in proper names among Sabians, and
	possibly among place‑names in Judea and Midian.
	On zur as a divine name cf. A. Wiegand, in ZATW,
1890, pp. 85 sqq.	GEo. W. GILMORE.
	BIBLIoesAPHY: Bensinger, Archflvie, pp. 314 eqq. et pas
	sim; Nowack, Arehdologie, i. 90‑93, ii. 17‑21; Smith.
	Ref, of Sem., passim; idem. Kinship, pp. 292 sqq.; G.
	Baur, OescAiehte der alltedamenaiche Weissapung, i. 128
	131, Giessen, 1861; F. Lenormant, in Comptes rendus de
	Paoadimie des ineeriptione et belles‑letree, 1888,. pp. 318
	322; idem, in Revue de 1'hietodre des religions, iii (1881),
	31‑53; W. von Baudiasin, Studien our semiliachm Relipions
	geschichts, vol. ii., Leipsic, 1878; Fslconnet, in MEmoires
	do l'acadimis des inscriptions et belles‑lettres, vi (1729),
	513‑532; F. Mffnter, Ueber die won Himmel gefallanen
	Steins, Leipsic, 1805; F. von Dalberg, Usber den Metsor
	Cultus der Alten, Heidelberg, 1811; C. R. Conder, Beth
	and Moab, pp. 190‑287, London, 1883; idem, Syrian
	Stone Lore, ib. 1886; R. Pietachmann, Oewhichte der
	Ph6nisier, pp. 205‑213, Berlin, 1889; H. Schultz, O. T.
	Theology, f. 209‑210, London, 1892; A. von Gall, AMP.
	raelitisahe Kullstatten, Giessen, 1898; A. S. Palmer, Studies
	on Biblical Subjects, no. II., London, 1899; S. L Curtiss,
	Primitive Semitic Religion Today. New York, 1902; P.
	Torge, Ashera and Astarte, pp. 29‑35, Greifewald, 1902;
	E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, chap. xv., London, 1903;
	J. 0. Frazer, Attis, Adonis and Osirie, London, 1906;
	Jane Ellen Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek
	Religion, Cambridge, 1908; Folk Lore, vi. 24 eqq.; Well
	hausen, Heideruhum; the literature under ALTAR; DB,
i. 75‑77, iv. 289‑290. 617‑619.
MEMPHIS. See NOPH.
	MEN OF UNDERSTANDING. See Holamm
INTELLIGENTL'l9.
	MEIYAHEM: Sixteenth king of Israel, son of
	Gadi, usurper and successor of Shallum. His dates
	according to the old chronology are 772‑763 s.c.;
according to Kamphausen, 740‑738;	according
to Curtis, 741‑737 (DB, i. 401);	according to
Kittel, 740737.	The narrative in II Kings xv.
	14‑22 makes Menahem march from Tirzah and kill
	Shallum in Samaria, and then waste the region
	about Tappuah (so the corrected text) because that
	town had declined to receive him. Tirzah, the old
	capital of the northern kingdom, was doubtless
	well fortified, and Menahem was its commandant.
	He may have been the head of one of the two
	portions into which the kingdom split after the
	death of Jeroboam. His victory over Shallum must
	have been the result of a severe conflict, and
	Tappuah was doubtless the center of the opposition
	to Menahem (cf. Isa. ix. 19‑20; Hos. vii. 7, viii. 4).
	The Biblical narrative also states that Pul (Tiglath
	P°.leser, see AssYRIA, VI., 3, § 9) came against the
	land and that Menahem paid him a tribute of
	1,000 talents to be recognized as king. This does
	not involve that it was at Menahem's invitation
	that Tiglath Pileser came, but it appears that the
	Assyrian had been in Syria as early as 740 B.C.,
	that his intervention in Israel was a part of his
	general plan to reduce that land to a province of
	his empire, and that Menahem took advantage of
the situation.	It is hardly possible to allow
	to Menahem the full ten years assigned to
his reign in II Kings xv. 17.	His tribute to
	Pul belongs to the year 738, and he can not
	have reigned long after this to allow for the other
	reigns which fell before the destruction of Samaria
in 722.	(R. KITrRL.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The sources are TI Kings xv. 14‑22. Consult: R. Hittel, Geschichte der Hebrder, ii, 488‑472, Goths, 1909; DB, iii. 340; EB, iii. 3019‑20; JE, viii. 485 168, and the pertinent sections of the literature given under AHAB; and laBAEL, Hlsroay or.
	MENAAION, me‑nai'en: The breviary of the later
Greek Church. It contains the prayers and hymns
appointed for each feast and holy day of the year,
together with short lives of the saints and martyrs.
When it became too bulky, it was divided into
twelve volumes, one for each month (whence the
name, Gk. men, "month"), which are still extant,
both in manuscript and in printed editions dating
from the sixteenth century to the present time.
They were published first at Venice, later else
where. 	(PHILIPP MEYER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Krumbacher, Geaehichte, pp. 181, 185, 658659; Analeda Bollandiana, xiv (1895), 396‑434; P. Meyer, Die theolopiaehe Litteratur der priechiachan Kirche, pp. 148 eqq•, Leipeic. 1899; It. Legrand, Bibliographic hell‑Inique, Pari1, 1894‑96.
MENANDER, m&naarder: One of the oldest Gnostics. He was, according to Justin (ANF, i.171), born at Capparateia, a village in Samaria, and taught in Antioch. According to Irena=us (ANF, i. 348), he was a pupil of Simon Magus. He taught that there was a supreme power unknown to all, and pretended to have been sent from the invisible eons for the salvation of men. The world, according to him, was made by the angels who emanate from Mind. To those baptized by him he promised power over the world‑creating angels, immortality, and eternal youth. He was the teacher of Saturninus or Saturnilus and of Basilides. It is not known whether this Samaritan‑Syriac gnosis preceded and led to the Hellenistic variety, or whether the Hellenistic developed independently. If the former is the case the importance of Menander would lie in the fact that he formed the transition from Oriental to Hellenistic gnosticism. (G. UHLHORNt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The sources are indicated in the text. Consult DCB. iii. 902.

MENDELSSOHN, MOSES: German Jewish philosopher; b. at Dessau (67 m. s.w. of Berlin) Sept. 6, 1729; d. in Berlin Jan. 4, 1786. He came of poor parents and pursued his studies in the Bible, the Talmud, Maimonides, and afterward modern languages and literatures, under great privations. In 1750 he became tutor in the family of a rich Jewish manufacturer in Berlin, in 1754 bookkeeper, and, later, partner in the firm. From about the same time date his intimate acquaintance with Lessing, Nicolai, Abbt, etc., an earnest study of the philosophy of Locke, Shaftesbury, Spinoza, and Wolff, and the beginning of his long and varied literary activity. His Phwdon, oder von der Urtsterblichkeit der Seele (Berlin, 1767; Eng. transl., Phaedon; or, the Death of Soavtes, London, 1789), and MOrgenstunden (1786), lectures on the existence of God and immortality, procured for him fame as a philosopher. He also deserves well for his efforts for the elevation, mental and moral, of his coreligionists in Germany, and especially in Berlin. Among his many books may be mentioned: Pope, sin Metaphysika• (in collaboration with Leasing; 1755); Briefs fiber die Empfindungen (1755); Jeru‑

297
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Salem, Oder fiber religiose Macht and Judenthum (2 parts, 1783; Eng. tranal., Jerusalem, a Treatise on Ecclesiastical Authority and Judaism, 2 vols., London, 1838) ; and a commentary on Canticles (1772). He also translated the Pentateuch (1783), and the Psalms (1788). The most complete edition of his works is that by his grandson G. B. Mendelsaohn (7 vols., Berlin, 1843‑45); his philosophical writings were edited by M. Brasch (2 vols., Leipsic, 1880).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: S. Hensel, Die Familie Mendelaeohn, 9th ed., 1898, Eng. tranal., London, 1882; M. Samuels, Memoirs of Moses Mendelesohn, London, 1825; J. H. Bitter, Mendelssohn and Leasing, Berlin, 886; M. Kayserling, Moses Mendelssohn, Leipeie, 1888; JR., viii. 479‑485. An excellent bibliography is furnished in J. M. Baldwin, Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, iii. 1, pp. 389‑370, New York, 1905.
MENDES, FREDERICK DE SOLA: Jewish rabbi; b. at Montego Bay, Jamaica, July 8, 1850. He was educated at Northwick College (1865‑68), the University of London (1868‑70; B.A., 1869), and the university and Jewish theological seminary of Breslau (1870‑73; Ph.D., Jena, 1871). On returning to England, he became rabbi of Great St. Helen's Synagogue, London, in 1873, but within the year accepted a call to the rabbinate of Congregation Shaaray Tefillah (now West End Synagogue), New York City, of which he is still the head. In 1879 he was one of the founders of The American Hebrew, which he edited until 1885. In 1900‑02 he was likewise associated with the editorial staff of The Jewish Encyclopedia, and in 1903 edited, the Jewish Menorah. He is one of the collaborators in the revision of a new Jewish translation of the Bible, and besides translating the " Jewish Family Papers: Letters of a Missionary" of Gustav Meinhardt (the pseudonym of W. Herzberg; New York, 1875), has written Defense, not Defiance; A Hebrew's Reply to the Missionaries (1876); Child's First BiVe (1879); and Outlines of Bible History (1886).
MENDICANT MONKS, MENDICANT ORDERS (Ordines mendicantium): Those monastic orders which renounce on principle established income and live by the solicitation of alms; such as the Dominicans, Franciscans, Augustinians, Carmelites, and Servites (qq.v.).
MENEGOZ, mb"n6"g6z', 'EUGENE: French Protestant; b. at Algolaheim (a village near Br'Oisach, 40 m. s.s.w. of Strasburg), Alsace, Sept. 25, 1838. He was educated at the gymnasium of Strasburg and the faculty of Protestant theology in the same city. After being subdirector of the preparatory school of Lutheran theology in Paris for four months in 1866, he was assistant pastor of the Pglise des Billettes, Paris, until 1877. Since the latter year he has been professor at the faculty of Protestant theology, Paris, and director of the seminary of the same faculty. He was likewise a member of the Council of the University of Paris in 1895‑1906 and of the Upper Council of Public Instruction in 1901‑05. In theology he is a"symboIo‑fiddiste,'seeking " a middle way between rationalism and orthodoxy." He has written.9tude
1862);
R~flextons Sur 1 L;vangtle du Salut (Paris, 1879);
dogmatxque Sur l'ulee de 01gliae (Strasburg,
Menineis
Le P&hk et la rMemptian d'aprba Saint Paul (1882); Quid de catechismo sentiendum sit (1882); La Notion du cat6chisme (1882); Luther conaiderE com‑ th6ologien (1883); La Predestination daps la theologie paulinienne (1884); L'Autoritk de Dieu (1892); La Th6ologie de l'~pitre aux Hgbreux (1894); La Notion bi'blique du miracle (1894); etude our Is dog‑ de la Trinitk (1898); Du Rapport entre fhistoire saints et la Jai religieuse (1899); Le Salut d'aprbs l'enr aeignement de Jesus‑Christ (1899); La Justification par la foi d'aprbs Saint Paul et Saint Jacques (1901); Apergti de la th&logie d'Auguste Sabatier (1901); Le Fideisme et la notion de la foi (1905); La. Religion et la vie socials (1905); La Mort de Jesus et le dogme de l'expiation (1905); L'Anti‑fdW.Tme (1906); and Une triple distinction thEologique. Observations Sur Is rapport de la foi religieuae avec la science, l'histoire et la philosophic (1908). He was also one of the founders of the Annales de bibliographic th6olagique.
	MENI: A deity named in the Old Testament
only in Isa. Lzv. 11 (A.V. " that number," margin
" Meni "; R.V. " Destiny," margin " Meni ") as
worshiped by idolatrous Israelites. Light is
thrown on the subject by the etymology (Hebr.
manah, " to number," Arab. " to apportion "),
by the occurrence in Arabic of the feminine form
Manat, one of the daughters of Allah (Koran, liii.
20), and by the use of the Arabic maniyya, " fate "
(cf. the Nabataean Ma‑»awat, " Fates," Wellhausen,
Heidentum, pp. 25‑29).	The word ebedhmeni,
	servant of Meni," occurs on Ae6menian
coins, and Meni(s) is found as a parallel to Belus
fortunte rector, " Bel, controller of fortune," on an
altar at Vaison in Provence, in which there seems
to be present a reminiscence of the Biblical passage.
It is unlikely that Meni is of Babylonian origin,
the name not having been found as a god name in
the cuneiform inscriptions.	He was probably
introduced into Palestine by Aramaeana or by the
Arabs who began to press in soon after the
exile. The plausible suggestion has been made
that as Gad was the deity of (good) fortune,
Mini is the controller of misfortune. The
equation Meni‑Iahtar‑Venus is probably ruled
out by the sex of Meni.	The name was misun
derstood by Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and
Jerome. 	Gro. W. GILMORE.

MENIUS, m6'ni‑us, JUSTUS (JODOCUS MENIG): German Reformer; b. at Fulda Dec. 13, 1499; d. at Leipsic Aug. 11, 1558. In 1514, at the age of fifteen, he entered the University of Erfurt, where he cemented friendship with such humanists as Mutianus, Crotus, Eoban Hess, and others. Joachim Camerarius taught him Greek. At the suggestion of Melanchthon, whose pupil he became, he went in 1519 to Wittenberg. After Luther's return from the Wartburg he enjoyed his personal friendship. In 1523 he was appointed vicar at Miihlberg near Erfurt, but in 1525 resigned his position and went to Erfurt to teach. In the same year he became pastor of the Church of St. Thomas in Erfurt. But soon the council of the town changed its attitude toward the Reformation. In 1525, after the end of the Peasants' War, Roman Catholic clergymen and

Menius	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	298
Mennonites
monks were allowed to return. Their most prom
inent spokesman was Konrad Kling, a Franciscan
monk, against whom Menius directed his polemical
treatise, Wider den hochberiihmten Barfiisser zu
Erfurt, D. Conrad Kling, Schutzrede (Wittenberg,
1527) and his sermon, Etlicher Gottlosen and
Widerchristlichen Lehre von der papistischen Messe
(1527). Luther wrote a preface for both of these
works, but in spite of his assistance and intercession
the council of the town did not change its position.
Under those circumstances Menius removed in
1528 with his family to Gotha where he became
intimately acquainted with Friedrich Myconius. He
wrote and instructed the youth, but his chief
activity was the visitation of Thuringia, jointly
with Christof von der Planitz, Melanchthon, and
Myconius. After his return from this visitation
he was appointed in 1529 pastor and superintendent
at Eisenach where he labored eighteen years. He
became one of the chief champions in the fight
against Anabaptism, was active as a reformer, and
took part in several other visitations, in 1533 and
1539 in Thuringia, subsequently in Schwarzburg,
and in 1545 in the bishopric of Naumburg. In
1542 he introduced the Reformation in the imperial
city of Miihlhausen. He took part in the religious
colloquy of Marburg (1529), in the Wittenberg
Concordia (1538), and in the meeting at Schmal
kald (1537). Upon the death of his faithful friend
Myconius in 1546 he became Ins successor in Gotha.
After the unfavorable termination of the Schmal
kald War he was compelled to leave Gotha for some
time, but was soon able to return. Like his colleagues
he protested against the Augsburg Interim. The
propagandism of the Anabaptists which threatened
to invade Thuringia from Hesse and Miihlhausen in
duced him to resume his polemical activity against
them, especially against their antinomian doctrine,
according to which it is impossible for man to sin
if he is born of God. [Antinomianism was not char
acteristic of the Anabaptists. A. H. rr.j In 1552
Menius was involved in the Osiandrian controversy.
Elector John Frederic sent an embassy to Prussia for
the purpose of allaying the dissensions caused by
Osiander's teachings. Beside two of his councilors
he sent Menius and Johann Stolz to K6nigsberg in
1553. The duke of Prussia commissioned Funck to
transmit to them a confession of faith in accord
ance with Osiander's views, which was answered by
Menius and Stolz. Funck replied shortly afterward.
As Menius was taken ill, the negotiations were
delayed. A later conference between Menius and
Stolz, Funck and Sciurus led to no agreement, and
the delegates returned without having attained
their object. A few months afterward, on the occa
sion of the Thuringian visitations, Amsdorf found an
opportunity to involve Menius intimately in the
Majoristic Controversy (q.v.). Menius returned
from Eisenach to Gotha, full of the hope to resume
his duties; but Amsdorf, Ratzeberger, Aurifaber,
and others continued their calumnies, denouncing
him as an Adiaphorist and Majorist. The ungra
cious attitude of the court induced him to resign his
position. By the intercession of Melanchthon and
Camerarius, Menius received a position at the
Church of St. Thomas in Leipsic. There he defended
himself against further assaults of Flacius and
Amsdorf, who did not cease their polemical attacks
until his death. It is owing to the conditions of
the time that Menius' literary activity was chiefly
polemical. He published (Economic Christians
(1529) which was prefaced by Luther, and against
the Anabaptists he wrote, Der Wiedertaufer Lehre
and Geheimniss Gus heiliger Schrift widerlegt (1530)
and Von dem Geist der Wiedertaufer (1544). He
also published a somewhat modified edition of
Luther's Small Catechism under the title, Cate
chismus Justi Menii (1532), a copy of which is
preserved in the town library of Breslau. The
manual continued in use till the 19th century.
Menius also wrote De usu historim sacrarum
literdrum (1532) which is an exposition of I Sam.;
a translation of Luther's large commentary on the
Galatians (1535) and Wie sin ieglieher Christ
gegen allerki Lehre, gate and boss, each Gottes
Befehl sich gebilhrlich halten soll (1538). His
treatise, Von der Notwehr Unterricht, niitzlich zu
lesen (1547) was occasioned by the war of Schmal
kald. The aggressive attitude of the Anabaptists
induced him once more to write against them a
polemical treatise, Von dent Blutsfreunden Gus der
Wiedertaufe (1551). Against Osiander he wrote,
Erkenntnis Gus Gotten Wort and heiliger Schrift
fiber die Bekenntnis A. Osiandri (1552), and
Von der Gerechtigkeit, die fur Gott gilt: Wider
die neue alcumistische Theologiam A. Osiandri
(1552). 	(G. KAwERAU.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Thirteen letters are to be found in Zeitachrift sea Vereins far tharing. Geschichte, s (1882), 243 sqq., and others are among the correspondence of Luther, Melanchthon, Jonas, Mutianus, and Eobanus Hess. Autobiographic material is communicated in ZHT, 1865, pp. 303 Sqq. The one biography is G. L. Schmidt, Justus Menius, der Reformator Thfiringem, Gotha, 1867. Material will be found in the literature dealing with the Reformers with whom he came into touch (e.g., J. W. Richard, Philip Mdanchthon, pp. 159, 185, 254, New York, 1898) , and in that on the Reformation and on the Anabaptists.
MENKEN, GOTTFRIED: German Reformed pastor; b. at Bremen May 29, 1768; d. there June 1, 1831. In the house of his parents he imbibed a Biblical piety which was, however, free from all narrowness though consciously opposed to rationalism. While still in the gymnasium he preached, and when he entered the University of Jena in 1788 his theological convictions had already assumed definite form. The rationalism of the university induced him to devote himself wholly to the Bible, to which the mysticism of his earlier days gave way. In 1790 he went to the University of Duisburg where he found a more sympathetic atmosphere in the circle of F. A. Hasenkamp and others whose study of the Bible was governed by the spirit of Bengel and Collenbusch. In 1791 he passed his theological examination, but stayed two years longer at Duisburg. He was assistant preacher in Uedem near Cleve (1793‑94), for the German Reformed congregation in Frankfort‑on‑the‑Main (1794‑96), pastor of the Reformed congregation in Wetzlar (1796‑1802), second preacher of St. Paul in Bremen (1802‑11), and first preacher of St. Martin (1811‑25).
The theology of Menken was not original with him; but the vigor of his expressions gave him a

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
far‑reaching influence, especially upon Bible students. The immovable center of his theology was the Bible, which he looked upon as the divine testimony of the past, present, and future history of salvation in the center of which stood Christ. From Collenbusch Menken acquired his views on the ethical relation of God to humanity, the atonement, and salvation. The divine nature is love, of which holiness and justice are only phases. These fundamental attributes of God are revealed in the order of his kingdom, which is never based upon an unfathomable decree, but always upon foreseen worthiness. In order to assure this worthiness, every reasonable creature is in need of a test; if in this way sin comes into the world, it serves only a good purpose that there may come into existence a more perfect and blessed creation. If Adam fell, death was for him not a punishment, but a natural consequence of sin, and if his heirs are overcome by sin, this also is not a punishment, but a suffering of injustice, since they are personally innocent of the sinfulness and mortality of their being. Christ delivered human nature from that unjust imposition, by assuming it not as it was originally, but as it was after the fall. This was not intended to assail the divinity or personal sinlessness of Christ, but only to emphasize his humanity. So it follows that in no way is there a compensation of the claims of divine holiness or of the law by the death of Christ. The sinleasness acquired by Christ can be appropriated by faith in him. Faith in Christ is a divine power producing that holiness and glory in man, and on this depends the main interest of the whole doctrine, and consequently the worthiness of man is in no way a divine gift, but the chief demand of God, for the sake of which he imparts to man his grace. All predestinarian ideas are combated from this standpoint. It is only consistent with this whole conception, which lacks a clear estimate of sin as positive opposition to God, that sanctification can be completed upon earth. As justification or forgiveness of sins in no way necessarily results from this doctrine, they really have no place in it, and the fact
I. Origins.
II. Swiss and South German Antipedobaptists. III. Mennonites in Holland prior to 1538. IV. In the North.
1. In Holland 1538‑80 (1840).
2. In Holland and North Germany 1580 (1840)‑1700.
MENNONITES.
3. In Holland 1700‑1909.
V. On the Lower Rhine, and in North Germany and Russia 17001909.
VI. South German end Swiss Menno‑
nites, 1800‑1909.
VII. In the United States end Canada, 1883‑1909.
I. Origins: The Mennonites form a number of religious bodies which originated on the continent 11 the sixteenth century, where they were characterized by antipedobaptist and antisacerdotal doctrines. Since the seventeenth century their chief center has been Holland. They must be sharply distinguished from the Baptists, for though the General Baptists were developed from the Mennonites, 1609 onward, their distinctive tenet of immersion was both late and infrequent among the older body. As early as the sixteenth century the term Anabaptists [used opprobriously of Antipedobaptists of all types.
Menine
Mennonitera
that Menken nevertheless used these conceptions shows that the Biblical vein in him was stronger than the influence of Collenbusch.
		His chief works are: Christliche HtrmzZien (Frank
fort, 1797); Neue Sammlung chriatlicher Homilien
	(1801); Christlithe Homil2en uber Stellen an die
	Geschichte des Propheten Elias (1804); Versuch
	eimzr Anleitung zum signers Unterricht in die Warh
	heite7a der heiligen. Schrift (an exposition of his
	system; 1805); Betraehtungen fiber das Evangelium
	Matthai (only one volume published; 1809); Daa
	Glaubensbekenntnis der christtichen Kirche (1816);
	Erklarung des elften Kapitels des Briefea an die
	Hebrder (1821); Predigten (1825); Blicke in daa
	Leben des Apoatel Paulus and der eraten Christen
	gemeinert (1828); and Htrmilie7a Off das ytetcnte
	and zehrtte Kapitel des Briefes an. die Hetr6.er
	(1831). His works have been collected in seven
	volumes (Bremen, 1858‑65; new edition, 8 vole.
	1894‑95). 	(E. F. KARL Mtill.>;a.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. H. Gildemeisten Leben and iYirkGti do
. (}oltfried Menkes, 2 vole., Bremen. 1881. E. C. Achelis published a selection of Menken's Homilien, to which he prefixed an introduction dealing with the life, Goths, 1888. Consult also A. Ritsohl, (zreechidtte des Pietismua, i. 588 eqq., Bonn, 1880.
MEftNAS: Patriarch of Constantinople 538552; d. at Constantinople Aug. 5, 552. Nothing is known of his early life. He was a priest and president of the Hospice Samson when he was appointed to the patriarchate at the desire of Justinian in the Place of Anthimua (who had been deposed by a synod at Constantinople in 535), and was consecrated by Agapetus, being the first Eastern patriarch to receive consecration from a pope. He presided at a synod held at Constantinople in 536, called to finish the case of Anthimus, left uncompleted by the death of Agapetus. His administration is marked by ability and t1 regard for the peace of the Church. He is commemorated by the Greek Church On Aug. 24, and by the Latin on Aug. 25. Br8W0f3sAP8y: AS'B Aug., v. 184‑‑185; Hefele, Conciiierr
peachichte, ii. 571 783 aqq., 787 eqq., 812 eqq.. 855‑858, Erg. transl., iv.193‑194, 218, 285‑288; DCB, iii. 902‑903.
MEftNO SIMONS. See 517140N6, MENNO.
VIII. In America.
1. Antecedents. Swiss Brethren (¢ 1). Obbenites (§ 2). Two Groups of Churches (¢ 3).
2. Doctrinal and Statistical Description.
A.a.N.] did not connote any special chLU'ghl but WU applied to an entire tendency which developed in
western and central Europe between 1521 and 1550 from the popular side of the German Reformation, from which it borrowed form and coloring. Under the influence of the newly discovered `° Gospel," it
rejected the Christianity received through infant baptism on the ground that it did not effect regeneration. It therefore required not only adult baptism, but also a Christianity based upon personal, faith, and awaited. the coming of the regeneration of the heart and of all Christendom, or rather the

Xsnnonites	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	800
establishment of a living church of Christ within the world. As the representative of voluntary, or even of subjective Christianity, moreover, it taught the absolute separation of religious and secular life, thus advocating freedom of conscience. After the middle of the sixteenth century some churches, especially those of a unitarian trend, came into close connection with the Mennonites. The adherents and the spirit of these became in later years, subsequent to 1640, an independent force in England among such bodies as the Quakers. About a century earlier, however, it had received a permanent organizes. tion in communities which have continued to the present time and are still called Mennonites.
The term Wiedertkufer (" Re‑baptizers ") may be employed to connote that faction of the Anabaptists which aimed to establish the kingdom of Christ on earth through temporal force, and did not seek to reform social conditions simply by the regeneration of individuals. The type of this faction was the kingdom of Munster and its plans of social revolution (see MiYNBTER, ANABAFTIOTs IN). The only party of antipedobaptists which has preserved a historic continuity until the present day is the Mennonites, who now have some 250,000 members, divided both historically and geographically into (1) Swiss and South German; (2) the Dutch, who form the basis of the West and North German, and these, in their turn, of the Russian; and (3) the American. [The remnant of the Huterites that settled in South Dakota in 1874, who have never been identified with the Mennonites, constitutes at least one exception. A. H. N.]
II. Swiss and South German Antipedobaptists: The first independent church within the general Anabaptist movement was formed at Zurich in 1523. On Jan. 18, 1525, the church began to baptize on profession of faith, despite the efforts of the authorities to suppress it by force, and about the same time kindred societies were founded at Augsburg, Nuremberg, and Worms. The plan of forming churches of pious Christians separated from the world originated in the Unitas Fratrum, and was not unknown to Luther, while at first infant bap. tism was not regarded as obligatory by Zwingli, Butzer, Farel, Erasmus, Capito, Schwenckfeld, Billican, Hubmaier, or Brunner. Although Anabaptism was no baseless phenomenon, suddenly evolved from the Reformation, there seems to be little evidence to show that it was derived from older religious bodies. Anabaptists denied the doctrine of a grace which was decreed from without, and which was, therefore, independent of personal piety and devoid of influence on life. Faith, they declared, must be personal; and they were, accordingly, influenced by the same spirit which led Michael Sattler to reject infant baptism simply because " piety and salvation are sought through it," and because. they " would not abandon their separation from the world " (i.e., the worldly churches). The doctrine that the grace of God must be regained by man, however, has been common among Protestants from the earliest times, while the monastic ideals of poverty and celibacy, attributed to the Anabaptists, were in reality antipodal to their real tenets. Nor did they consider themselves without sin, al‑
though they held that a Christian might have a good conscience and live blamelessly.
Immediately after the Peasants' War, Anabaptist communities sprang up throughout Germany in Strasburg, Augsburg, Salzburg, and elsewhere, headed by Denk, Gross, and Kautz. As early as Feb. 24, 1527, an assembly was convened at Schlatten near Schaffhausen by Sattler, who had founded the communities of Horb and Rottenburg‑on‑the Neckar. Throughout the Palatinate of the Rhine and Swabia many deserted both the Roman Catholics and the Protestants for the Anabaptists, even though the itinerant preachers, controlling neither the press nor large congregations, could only urge individuals to repentance and baptism. Communities also existed in St. Gall, Bern, and Basel, while in 1526 the Anabaptists entered the Tyrol and Moravia. After the spring of 1527, the extension of the movement was attended, except in Moravia, by bitter persecutions. According to the government records of Innsbruck, 700 persons were executed, banished, or otherwise punished in the Tyrol in 1530, while 600 were put to death in Ensisheim before 1535. Only Strasburg, Nuremberg, and Philip of Hesse refrained from the effusion of blood, and in Augsburg, which was protected by imperial privilege and the edict of Worms, Hut barely escaped the stake (see HuT, HANS). [But Hans Leupold, the minister of the antipedobaptists of Augsburg, was beheaded (cf. F. Roth, Augsburga Reformationsgeschichte, 1617‑80, p. 251, Munich, 1901). J. HORsCH.] The Evangelical authorities at the Diet of Speyer concurred in the imperial decision of 1529 that all Anabaptists should be executed without a. trial before ecclesiastical judges, their motive probably being their fear that the separatistic tendency of the body would destroy all civil and social institions.
The erroneous opinion has long existed that antipedobaptism involved communism and the abolishment of private property. These were practised, however, only in Moravia, and even there surrender of private rights was purely voluntary and confined to members of that church. It is clear, on the other hand, that they denied the State the right to compel belief and to regulate religion, or to expel from home on account of belief, for "the earth is the Lord's "; yet, though " in the perfection of Christ " there was neither magistracy nor sword, they rendered obedience to the temporal authorities. It was an exception that Hut and some others taught the speedy coming both of the day of judgment and of the condemnation of the wicked by the righteous. Although Zwingli constantly charged the Anabaptists with immorality, there is no basis for his assertions, nor is it known that there were cases of polygamy among them, as there were later in Munster. This does not imply, however, that no discordant elements entered into Anabaptism, or that their persecutions, in particular, did not lead them to excesses. The position of the majority of the martyrs, as well as the wealthy members of the communities of the Tyrol, the writings of Denk, the Worms translation of the Prophets, and the rich hymnology, render it certain that the Anabaptists did not belong to the lowest grades of society.

801	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
All those, however, who might have given a theological formulation of their doctrines and have become leaders of distinction were soon snatched away by death. It is impossible to speak, therefore, of uniformity in their dogmas, especially as their doctrinal interests paled before their enthusiasm for practical Christianity. Their hymns, the treatises of Denk and Hiibmaier, the letters of Sattler, and other memorials of the martyrs all breathe the same spirit; love of Jesus and the Bible; the cross as the token of the Christian; the joy of the consciousness of salvation; gratitude for safety from this evil world and horror of it; brotherly love; and full freedom of conscience. In all else there was the widest divergency. Denk, Kautz, and Hetzer regarded Christ as their predecessor and example, not as the mediator in the presence of God; but in their Getrewe Warnung the Strasburgers " know not why Anabaptists call Our Lord `Jesus Christ of Nazareth,' since he is of heaven." On the one hand, their baptismal hymn runs:
I am alone the only God,
I am alone, T am not three
while Hoffmann, on the other, was an avowed Trinitarian. The inner word interpreted the Scriptures to Denk, others based their exegesis on the literal meaning, and some Anabaptists laid special stress on revelations, visions, and dreams. The pantheistic trend of Desk was offset by the deep pietistic morality of Settler and the chiliasm of Hut. Some regarded baptism as indifferent, and the washing of feet was practised but rarely, as in Zurich and the Harz. AD, however, followed Zwingli in the breaking of bread in the Lord's Supper, as a witness of unity, while Arianism, sleep of the soul, and universal salvation were here and there taught among them. Their unifying bond was the belief that by the baptism of repentance and by the individual fear of God and love to him they were members of the church of Jesus Christ, separated from the world and purified by the power of the ban. Their creed, which was not dogmatic, but practiced, was the "Brotherly Union of some Children of God," formulated at the conference of Schlatten. This confession was known at Zurich as early as 1527 and was attacked by Zwingli in that year and by Calvin in 1541. In its articles some of their teachers united concerning seven points: baptism of repentance and change of life, the ban, the breaking of bread, separation, pastoral care, the sword, and the prohibition of oaths‑all practical problems, rather than doctrinal. Over the questions of private property. and the paying of taxes levied for purposes of war a schism arose in Moravia in 1528.
About 1530 not only did the extension and the persecutions of the Anabaptists enter upon a new stage, but the obscurity which had thus far enveloped them was dissipated, and in the previous year the man was found and baptized at Strasburg who was to give the church anew home in the north, Melchior Hoffmann (q.v.). The same period was the beginning of the two tendencies which have continued side by side among the Mennonites
to the present time, although both are equally opposed to an official church which teaches faith and salvation by means of dogma and sacrament. The one body (Swiss, Moravian), founded by Hoffmann, lays stress on personal piety and the formation of a church which is to have sharp external delimitations. The other party (Desk, Hiibmaier) regards Christianity se a sum total of inner feelings and as a spiritual tendency in the world, having no earthly church, yet retaining the ban.
After 1530 the outward condition of the Anabaptists gradually altered. Although many, including Luther and Melanchthon, still regarded them as rebels, they were free from peril of death in some districts, and they might live there in comparative quiet, despite occasional oppression; imprisonment, and banishment. Their numbers also increased in the Palatinate, Alsace, Hesse, the eastern part of the Canton of Bern, the bishopric of Basel, and especially in Moravia. Elsewhere, however, they were exposed to constant persecution, and every trace of them disappeared, the few survivors either dying out or fleeing to Moravia, this being the cams especially in Bavaria, the Tyrol, Austria. and Silesia, and eastern Switzerland. Despite many vicissitudes and even banishment in 1535, Anabaptists from Austria, Carinthia, sad Silesia sought refuge in Moravia, whence some of them later emigrated to Poland, Hungary, and Transylvania, while about 1550 and after 1561 the Venetian Anabaptists came into relation with their Tyrolese brethren. Many of these churches became very important. In 1537 the one at Lorsch contained some 240 adults; there were 250 at GrUaberg (Hesse) in 1538; between 1,400 and 1,500 were at the controversy of Rhenish Anabaptists held at Worms in 1556; and is the great Strasburg congress of 1557 representatives were present from nearly fifty churches in Moravia, Swabia, Switzerland, Wffrttemberg, Breisgau, and Alsace. In ! 545, according to a moderate estimate, the Moravian. Anabaptists numbered but 2,000; exact historians show that at a later time the church had increased considerably. Elsewhere, however, the persecutions continued with unremitting severity. In 1581, the Anabaptists knew of executions in South Germany and Austria to the number of 2;169, and many executions are not reported.
In the sixteenth century the Anabaptists remained closely united, but at the close of this period the intercommunication diminished, partly in consequence of the disappearance of many Anabaptists through persecution, and partly because the condition of the others had become more settled and quiet. Simultaneously with this new security, on the other hand, came differentiar tions and even dissensions. The communistic followers of the Tyrolese Jacob Hutter separated from the other Germans, whom they celled " Swiss Brethren." In 1533 he succeeded in organizing the great majority of Moravian Anabaptists into a communistic body which remained unshaken for a century and a half, inspiring it with his spirit and giving it his name when he died at the stake in Innsbruck in 1536. During the administration

Xennonites	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	302
of the active and talented elders who succeeded him, the Bavarian Hans Amon (d. 1542), the Silesian Peter Riedemann (1532‑56), the Tyrolese Peter Walpot (1565‑78), and Claus Braidl or Schuster (1585‑1611), Hutter's followers received continual accessions of men of means, industry, and economy from other lands. Their watchword was separation from the world, but there was no trace of asceticism; while their entire interest was devoted to a moral life, the organization of the church, and economic and industrial development, so that they neglected theology entirely. They published but few works, which now have almost vanished, such as Peter Riedemann's Rechenachaft unserer Religion, Lehre and Glaubena (Brann, 1565; reprinted by the Huterites of South Dakota in 1902); but a number of treatises and a mass of hymns are extant only in manuscript. The followers of Hutter sent out many missionaries, including Ham Raiffer, or Schmidt (burned at the stake in Aachen, 1558), who were indefatigable in urging the faithful to go to Moravia and be received into the church. They were hostile, on the other hand, to the " Swiss " Anabaptists, among whom, in their turn, divergencies arose which were laid before congresses in the course of the century, although only the conferences of Strasburg are known.
The letters of these assemblies are among the best products of the non‑Hutterian Anabaptists of the sixteenth century. On Aug. 24, 1555, at the instance of the Dutch brethren and the followers of Hoffmann, the first convention was held, and the doctrines of the incarnation and the Trinity were considered. Believing that their dissensions were, perhaps, a punishment for their endeavor to gain a higher knowledge than God has made attainable for man, they declared that all should be content henceforth to follow the commandments of God with a pure and humble heart and in a life dead to the world. In a second conference, held two years later, the greatest moderation was enjoined, especially in the use of the ban, nor, in case one of a married pair had fallen under excommunication, was the other required to avoid him or her. Thus they deviate sharply from the view of Menno and the majority of Dutch Anabaptists.
The cleavage between the disciples of Hutter and the Roman Catholics was far wider than between the German Anabaptists and the Reformed churches, although the latter could not accept the Mennonite insistence on the ban, nor agree that neither the sacraments nor obedience to the Church, but only inner and experimental faith, constituted a Christian. Gradually it came about that Lutherans and Calvinists no longer regarded Anabaptists as heretics and opponents of all ordinances, human and divine, who should be destroyed with fire and sword, but rather as erring souls who were to be won by gentle means to renounce their separatism and unite with the Church. This was the attitude of the diplomatic Butzer, who, at the request of the landgrave, held a conference of the Hessian brethren at Marburg in 1538. The controverted problems were the equality of the Old Testament with the New, which the Anabaptists denied, the atonement of Christ and his death, the incarnation, the necessity
of works, Christian baptism, the oath and magistracy, and the ban. The refusal of the Anabaptists to submit to the organized state church roused the hostility of the authorities rather than their doctrinal heresy. It was contrary to the interest of the state, however, to expel the Mennonites by harshness, so that, while both in Hesse and in Bern all severity was exercised against the envoys of Hutter with their advocacy of emigration, provision was made for the property of the children of Mennonites who had been banished or punished. This explains the efforts of the authorities to induce the Anabaptists to enter the Church by means of religious conferences, as at Marburg, Pfeddersheim, and especially at Frankenthal (1571), while pleas for freedom of conscience for the Mennonites were made at Zurich and Bern as early as 1558.
The pressure of authority, wielded with mercy and even with recognition, gradually induced many to unite with the Church, so that by 1600 the Hessian communities, still flourishing after the Marburg conference of 1538, had almost disappeared. The Anabaptists no longer regarded the state church as anti‑Christian in itself, but rejected it solely on account of its lack of spiritual fruits. Some even granted that infant baptism was not really ungodly, so that although it was not Biblical, it might be advantageous, in case it was followed by a Christian education. From this point of view it was indeed possible to organize a church of the pious which should be separated by means of the ban, but it gave equal scope to the opposite tendency by which each one might join a visible church. There were, moreover, many elements peculiar to the Anabaptists which could scarcely tend to strengthen the community: the lack of a formulated theology, the absence of dogmatism, their exclusion from the universities and all higher social culture, and the oppression and opposition of the churches. These disadvantages were augmented by the lack of organization, common to all similar bodies. In the period of their early enthusiasm this was no disadvantage, but with the waning of their zeal little was left to sustain the church, so that the south was not the district where the Mennonites could survive and preserve an active spiritual life; this land was Holland, especially the province of Friesland and the towns of Amsterdam and Haarlem.
III. Mennonites in Holland Prior to :536: Such Evangelical views as the denial of transubstantiation had long been current in the Netherlands, although the fact that Holland formed an imperial inheritance made it impossible for them to gain open acknowledgment until about 1530, when the Anabaptists from the Lower Rhine and East Friesland became influential among the Dutch. In that year the eloquent apocalyptic lay‑preacher Melchior Hoffmann worked and baptized at Emden, teaching the Bible and the community of believers as opposed to the Church, yet inculcating obedience to the magistracy, non‑resistance, and moral purity. Returning to Strasburg, he appointed Jan Volkerts Trijpmaker bishop, and the latter soon went to Amsterdam, where he founded the first Dutch community, but was beheaded, with nine others, Dec.
5, 1531. At Emden, on Dec. 10 of the previous

303	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Xennonitea
year, he had baptized Sicke Freerks Snyder, who was beheaded at Leeuwarden on Mar. 20, 1531. Within an incredibly short time " covenanters " were found in large numbers throughout Holland, Zeeland, and Friesland, so that the testimonies of prisoners speak of 3,500 in Amsterdam, and 400 in Kampen. The converts were all adherents of Hoffmann, regarding baptism as the token of the covenant through which they were to share in the coming kingdom of Christ. Many of them were gentle, righteous pietists, even after Nov., 1533, when Jan Matthysen proclaimed himself Elijah, the immediate precursor of the kingdom of Christ, and when passive expectancy became active aggression. A minority endeavored from Nov., 1533, to May, 1535, to gain fortified positions. That this was but a small group is clear both from the trials and from the fact that only forty or fifty of the many Anabaptists took part in the attack on Amsterdam, May 11, 1535, while their bishop, Jacob of Kampen, condemned all violence. After 1534, pure and impure elements alike, chiefly from Holland and Friesland, but also from the Rhine and Westphalia, united to seek Munster, the city chosen by God as the New Jerusalem, where they were carried away by John of Leyden (see MONSTER, ANABAPTISTS m). With the fall of Munster, June 2 [24‑25], 1535, the hopes of temporal power, held by a faction, vanished. The conference in a village near Bockholt (Westphalia) marked the amicable separation between those who were unwilling to renounce the expectation of an earthly kingdom (which was not, however, to be established by force), and those who found the kingdom in the hearts of the regenerate, the latter party being in harmony with Obbe and Dirk Philips, and obtaining a leader in Dec., 1536, in Menno Simons. Persecutions in Holland drove the Anabaptists. into exile in Holstein, Mecklenburg, England, and Prussia. They found many sympathizers in the country last named, especially among the followers of Schwenckfeld, and succeeded in remaining there, despite some official expulsions up to this time. There were also French‑speaking Mennonites about 1536, probably in Walloon Belgium, Ghent, and Strasburg, while Anabaptists were even found in Sweden. Representatives from various countries were either present or expected in Bockholt. In 1540 all the Mennonites formed a single, though loosely organized, " church of Christ." IV. In the ftortlL‑1. In Holland 1588‑80 (1640): After 1536 the elders (Menno Simons, Dirk Philips, Adam Pastor, Gillis of Aachen, Lenaert Boumens, and others) toiled to bring order out of the confusion. Their crucial task was the maintenance of the true church of Christ, as opposed both to the national church in East Friesland and Prussia on the one hand, and to the teachings of David Joris (see Jofus, JAN DAvm) on the other, who refused to form openly a congregation, and exposed his followers to excessive moral perils. Menno and his successors continually warned their disciples not to form a sect, but rather to establish the true church of Christ. The Mennonites are important, therefore, as being the only body in the sixteenth century who did not seek to reform the Church, but believed themselves justified in rees‑
tablishing beside it the ancient apostolic teachings, and appealed diligently to the Church Fathers, desiring to revivify the church of the apostles, which had been obscured for a time, rather than to continue the medieval secularized ecclesiasticism. The unremitting toil of the elders and, in still greater degree, the charm exerted by the piety of the brethren brought success, and neither the persecutions of the Roman Catholics nor the later oppression of the Evangelical authorities were able to check the growth of the Mennonites. Probably 5,000 Protestants were executed by the Roman Catholic authorities in the Netherlands after 1530. Of these 3,700 were Mennonites; of the Lutherans and others six per cent and of the Mennonites thirty per cent were women. In the north the last to die was burned at the stake in 1574, and in the south a young woman was buried alive in 1597.
The persecutions, especially after 1550, drove hundreds from the south of Holland to the north, whence they were expelled to other countries, where they found an abode both on account of former immigrations and because of independent Anabaptist movements. Their safest refuge was East Friesland. After 1550, organized congregations existed in close contact with Holland, in Westphalia, Oldenburg, Cleves, Jtilich, Berg, Cologne, Aachen, and Odenkirchen. New circles or churches likewise arose in Holstein, Wismar, and Rostock, although, next to Emden, their chief center was Schottland, the suburb of Danzig, where Dirk Philips lived. Anabaptist congregations existed in Elbing and Montau near Graudenz as early as 1552, and even in Wisby; Gothland.
Since Reformed Protestantism prevailed in nearly all these lands, the Mennonites were obliged to protect themselves against it, while the Reformed, in their turn, felt threatened by Anabaptism. The claims of the churches, their preachers, and their baptism to exclusive control over the people and to validity among them, as well as the official character of religion and the Church, were never recognized by the Mennonites, while their opponents assailed the Anabaptist views of the State, war, oaths, and similar tenets, but reserved their chief polemics for their doctrine of the incarnation. This dogma continued to be, as Hoffmann had taught, that the Son of God is man, and " was made flesh " (John i. 14), being transformed into man. Jesus received nothing in his conception by Mary, nor did he have a unity of two natures. The Reformed not unjustly charged the Mennonites with Unitarianism. When the Dutch magistracy and church were reformed after the revolution of 1572, William of Orange protected the Anabaptists both in their civil and in their religious rights, although they were frequently assailed by the Reformed Church and its preachers. The communities and their do ctrines thus gained safety in Holland, and enjoyed freedom of conscience after the Union of Utrecht in 1579.
As the Mennonites had saved their concept of a free church by bitter struggle from 1530 to 1580, so they were forced to endure internal strife for almost a century before their democracy could becorse independency. These problems found

Xennoaites	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	304
expression in the controversies over the ban and the avoidance of the faithful who had lapsed, as well as of everything connected with the secular church and religion. Their other characteristics were denial of original sin and emphasis of the freedom of the will, with a consequent standard of measurement in terms of morality, so that regeneration was the improvement of life, while they remained indifferent to all scholastic dogmas. It was doubtless from fear of exclusion from Christendom that Adam Pastor was attacked by Menno and banned by Dirk Philips for denying the Trinity, and asserting that Christ was one with the Father in works and purpose, but not in essence, else he could not have prayed to God in Gethsemane. In the eyes of the Mennonites neither baptism nor the Lord's Supper was, strictly speaking, a sacrament. In their gatherings only the Germans prayed audibly, which usage gradually permeated Holland also after the seventeenth century.
In 1555 the " Waterlanders " seceded from the strict Mennonites, rejecting the ban without previous warning, as well as avoidance of the lapsed in any relations except those of religion, and opposing patience and adaptability to the rigor of the elders. Between 1566 and 1567 the church was divided into the Frisians and the Flemings, the latter permitting themselves greater luxury in clothing, insisting on a more friendly attitude toward the world, and opposing certain organizing and centralizing measures of the elders. The result was unending division and subdivision, until after 1600 many adopted the point of view of the " Waterlanders," who regarded the church as an ordinance of man and granted the individual local congregations a considerable degree of self‑government. In Holland, the government by elders was retained, however, by the " Old Frisians " and the " Old Flemings," who adhered most closely to tradition, until the end of the eighteenth century, while in Prussia and Russia it has survived until the present time, like rebaptism and the washing of feet, both of which disappeared in Holland about 1780.
2. In Holland and North Germany 1580 (1840)1700: After the " Waterlanders" and their leader Hans de Ries (1553‑1638) had striven from 1577 on to unite their own communities, and all others which were available, into an organic union free from a rigorous application of the ban. the milder Mennonites grew closer and closer together. Many " Waterlanders " attended the Frisian and High German conference at Cologne, May 1, 1591. Conventions of that sort were held occasionally until 1640. The conferences gave rise to the first symbolic writings of the Mennonites, such as the creed of Hans de Ries and Lubbert Gerrit at Cologne (1591), the symbol adopted at a conference between " Waterlanders " and a community of English Brownists or Independents (1615; see BROWNE, ROBERT; and CONGREGATIONALISM, I., 1, §§ 1‑2), the creed of the olive‑tree (1627) and of Jan Cents (1630) and the Dort symbol of Adrian comensz (1632). All these symbolical statements were formulas of union, not of government in dogmatics.
A new factor had meanwhile entered the church.
Since 1580 the unitarian tendency of the Mennonites had received fresh life from the Socinians, despite the opposition of Hans de Ries and others. The " Old Flemings," most strict in regard to the community and practical life, were the most liberal in doctrine. Many Mennonites stood in equally close relations with the Remonetrants, and sought their theological training in the Remonstrant seminary. Both parties furnished recruits for the Collegians or Rhynaburgers, who in 1622 borrowed from the Socinians baptism by immersion. This entire Socinian and anti‑ecclesiastical rationalistic tendency was blended with pietistic elements, but an intense opposition developed, which led at Amsterdam in 1664 to a division between the liberals and the conservatives. Almost without exception the Dutch churches took sides with one faction or the other, but the controversy was of short duration, and the two parties were working together in brotherly harmony in 1672, although the dual administration continued in Amsterdam until 1801.
Throughout the seventeenth century the Mennonites were opposed by the Reformed as despising the Church and denying Christian doctrines, original sin, predestination, and the divinity of Christ, although their principle of non‑resistance and their refusal to take oaths were respected. They were debarred, however, like all the non‑Reformed, from official positions. Notwithstanding this, their numbers and their wealth rendered them an influential body. Between 1580 and 1660 they counted at least 200,000 adherents, more than a tenth of the population, and they included some of the greatest artists, poets, and engineers of Holland's prime. Since the Reformed theological faculties were closed to them, they devoted themselves chiefly to medicine and science. It was not until the eighteenth century that they had salaried pastors who did not occupy themselves with other callings.
8. In Holland 1700‑1909: The Mennonites and the Remonatrants were the most zealous adherents and propagandists of the scientific and philosophical doctrines of the illumination which made headway in Holland in the eighteenth century. They grudged neither financial nor diplomatic aid in behalf of their oppressed coreligionists in Switzerland, the Palatinate, Jiilich, Poland, and Lithuania, while they became more and more convinced that all ecclesiastical distinction was antiquated. Additional elements of dissolution were the sympathy felt for the Moravians by the pietistic party among them, the restriction of public office to those who belonged to the Reformed Church, and the frequent 1aek of preachers in the country districts. Increasing numbers joined the established church, and neither the theological seminary founded by the community at Amsterdam in 1735 nor the unions of congregations for mutual financial and spiritual support could check the movement. In 1808 the Mennonites numbered but 28,000. This decline was
ended, however, by the foundation of the Algemeene Doopagezinde Soci&eit at Amsterdam in 1811, which took charge of the theological seminary and the care of needy communities. Now all congregations have ministers who have received academic train‑

305	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	~ennouites
ing. The Mennonites now have 134 communities with 126 preachers and 60,000 adherents, almost 10,000 being in Amsterdam. The other Protestants are no longer hostile to them; their pastors frequently officiate in the churches of other denominations, and vice versa, and the teachers in their theological seminary rank as professors of the University of Amsterdam. The fact that some of them represent orthodoxy in opposition to the prevalent rationalism does not destroy their inherent unity. They, are associated with their coreligionists outside of Holland chiefly by their board of foreign missions which works in Java and Sumatra. Their hostility to the State has disappeared, many of the congregations receive state aid, and Mennonites now take part in public office. Their distinctive features are abstinence from taking oaths, adult baptism, and the substitution of moral earnestness and piety for dogma. The congregations possess full autonomy, and are directed by the preacher, who need have no official authorization or qualification, and by the deacons, who are chosen by all members, male and female.
V. On the Lower Rhine, and in North Germany and Russia i7oo‑rgog: During the period of oppression, which lasted until 1720, the majority of the Mennonites in Jalich, Berg, Cleves, and neighboring districts emigrated to Holland, while many settled in Crefeld, where they came in contact with such pietists as Hochmann and Tersteegen. This community still flourishes, like that in Altona and the congregations in East Friesland. The chief Mennonite center of Germany, however, is West Prussia, where the body numbers 11,000 out of a total in Germany of 18,000. All these communities have passed through the same stages as their Dutch coreligionists, although the two bodies have been far less closely associated since 1780. They maintained their doctrine of non‑resistance until 1868, when political equality and the growth of culture put an end to their isolation from their fellow citizens. To avert the danger of absorption into larger religious bodies, the Vereinigung der Mennonitengemeinden im deutschen Reiche was founded at Hamburg in 1884. The chief organ of the German Mennonites is the MenmonBlatter, established in 1854.
The Russian grant of large territories and the unrestricted right of religious freedom led a few thousand Mennonites to emigrate from Prussia to Russia in 1788, where they received numerous accessions until 1824. They now have, together with the followers of Hutter, who in 1874 emigrated from Hungary to the United States, 70,000 members, and are settled in the governments of Yekaterinoslav, Taurida, Warsaw, the Crimea, Saratof, Samara, the Caucasus, and Khiva. In their communities, which are sharply defined socially and economically, the churches and schools are excellently organized, the former being rigidly controlled, as in the rural congregations of Prussia, by elders and by preachers chosen from among the brethren and exercising their office in addition to their civil calling. They are noteworthy, moreover, for their industry, especially in agriculture. Thousands emigrated to America when military service was VIL‑20
forced upon them. Immigrant Prussians have also founded communities in Galicia. All these congre. gations have been affected by the activity of Bap. tist and Methodist missionaries, and are characterized by a liberal spirit, although they are tenacious of their ancient customs and still faithful to their old doctrines of sobriety, independence, and separation of Church and State.
VL The South German and Swiss Mennonites :boo‑:gog: Throughout the seventeenth century the Mennonites were subject to oppression from the Swiss governments, nor was it until 1715 that imprisonment and deportation to the Italian galleys ceased at Zurich. In Bern, on the other hand, the emigration, with the financial assistance of the Dutch, of all Mennonites whom the government could seize, that they might seek new homes in America, was powerless to prevent the continuance of churches in the Emmenthal, the bishopric of Basel, and Neuenburg, which have survived to the present day. Their organ is the Zzompilger. After 1600 a large number of Mennonites was settled by Alsacian nobles on their estates, where they amalgamated with older Anabaptist communities and still exist, like their French‑speaking coreligionists in eastern France. In the nineteenth century their numbers were much diminished by emigration to America. Many also entered the Palatinate, and thence sought America, after accepting the rigid teachings of Jacob Amman, who, about 1690, introduced into the highlands of Bern the doctrines of avoidance of all under the ban, the washing of feet, and the condemnation of such luxuries as the use of buttons on clothing, thus founding the " Amish " sect. The fate of the followers of Hutter was most pathetic. Driven from Moravia in 1622, they settled in Hungary and Transylvania, where they renounced their communism in 1685. They were unable, however, to make headway against the Jesuits after 1680, and entered the Roman Catholic Church in increasing numbers subsequent to 1762.
VIL In the United States and Canada i683iyog: Mennonites from the Netherlands and Holstein settled in New Amsterdam (New York) as early as 1650, and on Oct. 6, 1683, thirteen families from Crefeld occupied the territory on the Delaware which they had purchased from Penn, and founded Germ‑town, now a part of Philadelphia. In 1688 their numbers were augmented by coreligionists from the Palatinate and Crefeld, and they began an emigration which lasted throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. After 1820 they received new additions from Switzerland and South Germany, while they were joined by entire communities of Russians subsequent to 1870. Many American Mennonites stood in close relations with the Quakers, the Schwenkfeldians, and other bodies. Others, however, maintained their individuality, usually separating themselves rigidly from all others. These still retain the washing of feet and excommunication in case of mixed marriage. Only after long deliberation did they permit elders who had not received the laying on of hands in Europe to administer baptism and the Lord's Supper. The majority of Mennonites cling to their past, remem‑

Mennonites	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	808
bering with pride their protest against slavery as early as 1688, and still retaining, after the lapse of two centuries, their Anglicized Rhenish German dialect (" Pennsylvania Dutch "). As in the case of the Quakers, their principle of non‑resistance was respected both in the Revolution and in the Civil War, although in 1786 many, disapproving of the resistance to England, emigrated to Canada, where their numbers were much increased especially by Russian immigrants to Manitoba in 1874.
	The Mennonites now number some 250,000,
of whom 60,000 are in Holland, 18,000 in Germany,
1,500 in Switzerland, 800 in France, 800 in Poland
and Galicia, 70,000 in Russia, 20,000 in Canada,
and more than 80,000 in the United States. In
Germany their numbers are decreasing, but in
Holland they remain stationary, while they are
increasing in Russia and the United States. In
Holland and North Germany they possess no uni
fying doctrine, the most rationalistic unitarianism
existing side by side with pietistic orthodoxy. Their
distinguishing characteristics are their doctrines of
opposition to all ecclesiastical control, personal re
sponsibility, autonomy of the churches, freedom of
conscience, separation of Church and State, and a
practical piety, devoid of dogma but manifested in
domestic and economic virtues.	Their external
tokens are adult baptism, avoidance of taking oaths,
non‑resistance, and, with some, the washing of feet
as a symbol of the equality of all in ministering love.
Their churches are essentially voluntary and family
organizations, and this fact explains even more
than the long periods of persecution which they
have endured, and their resultant caution, their
reluctance to receive new members. Although they
defend their own doctrines, they do not polemize
against others. 	S. CRAMER.
VIII. In America.‑1. Antecedents: Of the various bodies of Mennonites in America some represent schisms and subdivisions from the church in
^ 1. Swiss which Menno Simons was the most . prominent leader, while others antedate Menno's renunciation of the Church of Rome. The modern Mennonites are the direct successors of three distinct Anabaptist denominations of the Reformation time‑the Swiss Brethren, Obbenites, and Hutterites.
The Swiss Brethren, the leading Anabaptist denomination of Switzerland and southern Germany, were first organized at Zurich, in Jan., 1525. Their first leaders were Conrad Grebel, Felix Manz, Georg Blaurock, Michael Sattler, and Pilgram Marbeck (q.v.). The Swiss Brethren were the only Anabaptist body in South Germany and Switzerland that survived the relentless persecution of the dissenters. Their principal stronghold was Strasburg, where their sufferings stopped short with banishment, confiscation, and imprisonment. As to their doctrinal position there are extant various reliable sources, such as the confession of Schlatten (1527, republished by W. KOhler, Giessen, 1908; cf. the articles of Kautz in Selected Works of Huldreich Z‑evingli, ed. S. M. Jackson, pp. 177 sqq., Philadelphia, 1901); the protocols of the disputations of Zofingen (1532), St. Gall (1532), and Frankenthal (1571); the proceedings of a number of conferences,
held at or near Strasburg, in 1555, 1557, 1568, and 1607, at Oberstilzen (exact date unknown) and at Offstein in 1688; also numerous epistles and the Ausbund, the hymnal of this denomination, published for the first time in 1570 or 1571 (R. Wolkan, Die Lieder der Wiedertdufer, p. 122, Berlin, 1903), which has been reprinted for the tenth time, Lancaster, Pa., 1908, besides editions published at Elkhart, Ind. From Menno Simons the Swiss Brethren differed on certain points to which Menno ascribed great importance. Between 1693 and 1700 Jacob Amann, a Swiss minister, began to insist on the avoidance of the excommunicated, as taught by Menno; his agitation resulted in a schism which has continued to this day. The followers of Amann, called Amannite or Amish Brethren, number now over 15,000 in America, although only the Old Order Amish have retained all their former peculiarities. After the secession of the Amish from the Swiss Brethren, the latter were sometimes named Reist Brethren, from Hans Reist, their leading minister at the time of the schism. The largest Mennonite body in America, known in some states as " Old Mennonite," descends from the Swiss (Reist) Brethren, whom they follow in doctrine and practise. Both the Reist and Amish Brethren, with the exception of the Old Order Amish, have in South Germany and America adopted the name Mennonite; in Switzerland and France this name is not officially used by them.
On the relation of the Swiss Brethren to Menno Simons, it is first of all to be said that Menno's
2. Obben. sphere of influence was confined to the ites. Netherlands and northern Germany where Dutch or Low German was the vernacular. In 1536 Menno Simons (see SIMONS, MENNO), until then a Roman Catholic priest, united with a sect called Obbenites, from Obbe Philips. These people had only a few years prior renounced Romanism to become adherents of Melchior Hoffmann (q.v.). For a short time Hoffmann practised the baptism of adults only and rejected infant baptism, hence he is generally considered an Anabaptist; but he soon suspended this practise and a few years later expressly sanctioned the baptism of infants, while refusing to recant other teachings upon which he placed greater importance (Hulshof, Geschiedenis van de Doopagezinden to Stmatsburg, p. 180, Amsterdam, 1905). Offensive to Lutherans and Swiss Brethren alike was his faith in the prophecies of Ursula Jost of Strasburg, whose visions date from the year 1524. Hoffmann accepted her dreams as divinely inspired and consequently believed great changes in Church and State to be imminent, and that a wonderful period of liberty of conscience and missionary activity (not the millennium) was close at hand. Hoffmann developed a peculiar doctrine on the incarnation‑that Christ's human nature as well as his divine nature was of heaven. He also taught the sinlessness of believers and other doctrines that were regarded as unscriptural by the Swiss Brethren, whom he considered outside of true spiritual enlightenment. His followers were known as the Melchiorites. After Hoffmann's imprisonment in Strasburg in 1533, Jan Matthysen, a baker of Haarlem, the founder of the sect of the Munster.

307	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Xennonites
ites, arose among his followers, proclaiming, on the ground of revelations with which he had been favored, that the time when the persecution was to cease was now at hand and the saints themselves were to be used of God to inaugurate a new order of things. A new state church was to be established, not like the Roman Catholic and Protestant state churches, in which saint and sinner alike were compelled by the State to hold membership, but one which should be truly the communion of the saints and used of God to bring judgment upon those who had deserved it. It is worthy of notice that some of the most offensive teachings and appalling excesses of the Miinsterites are of later date (see MUENSTER, ANABAPTISTS IN). Matthysen's principal opponent from the ranks of the Melchiorites was Obbe Philips, who, with his brother Dirk, not only saw in him a wolf in sheep's clothing and a fanatic, but also realized that some of Melchior Hoffmann's ideas and teachings were unsound. Obbe and his friends became strict Biblicists; the Word of God was the only standard of doctrine and the New Testament the rule of life and practise; special revelations were considered dangerous and unnecessary. Christian believers must bear the cross and follow the lowly and non‑resistant Nazarene; they must suffer with him if they would reign with him in the world which is to come. Only those who are willing to follow in the footsteps of the Savior and have been baptized upon the confession of their faith may be members of Christ's church. Without fear or favor Obbe Philips excommunicated all who yielded to Mansterite influences, no one being permitted to keep company with them or eat with them (according to T Cor. v. 11). This was the beginning of the practise of the avoidance of the excommunicated which was destined to lead to endless disputes and various schisms among the Mennonites. The latter name superseded the designation Obbenites after Obbe Philips had (in 1540) withdrawn from that body and Menno Simons had become their principal leader. Menno's writings afford thorough information regarding the doctrines, practises and aims of the Obbenites. Menno testifies that the Obbenites, when he identified himself with them, were " unblamable in doctrine and life," in other words, their characteristics did not undergo a change through his influence. This statement is corroborated by other evidence and is entirely trustworthy. Hoffmann's doctrine of the perfection of believers and of the impossibility of obtaining forgiveness for sins that have been knowingly committed after regeneration was rejected by the Obbenites. They insisted on the strict avoidance of the excommunicated except in cases of emergency; even the marital relation must, in a given case, be suspended. The refusal of the Waterlander churches, in Holland, to sanction marital avoidance led to the first schism among the followers of Menno, in 1555. It was on " avoidance " and on the incarnation that the Swiss Brethren differed from Menno and his friends. The former held a conference at Strasburg in South Germany in 1555 and again in 1557 and stated their position on these points. The conference of 1557 wrote a friendly letter to Menno
Simons pleading for union and brotherhood notwithstanding the prevailing differences. But Menno held that a doctrine of the Scriptures was at stake. In his opinion the rejection of " avoidance " was a matter of grave importance. At the disputation of Frankenthal in the Palatinate, in 1571, the Swiss Brethren declared that " Menno is not and never has been of one mind with us." They never socepted his teaching on the points in question, although some of them, at a much later date, adopted the name Mennonites, recognizing in Menno Simons the principal representative and expositor of their fundamental teachings.
Among those Mennonites whose ancestors were the followers of Menno Simons two great groups are
to be distinguished: (1) The churches TWO of Holland and of northwestern Ger‑
ChouDh of many; (2) the churches of West
Churches. Preussen, a province of Prussia, including their descendants in Russia and America. All Mennonites of South Russia, as well as those who emigrated from Russia and Prussia to America are the descendants of the churches of West Preussen. They are principally of Dutch ancestry. About the middle of the sixteenth century a number of Netherlandish families fled to what is now West Preussen, but was then a part of Poland. The majority of the Mennonites of this group, numbering not less than 110,000 souls of whom at least 30,000 are found in America, descended from those Dutch fugitives. They continued to use the Dutch language in worship until after the middle of the eighteenth century. The fact deserves notice that the number of family names in this group is surprisingly small; most of the names are represented by a large number of families; and the names found in the Russian Mennonite settlements in America are the same as those of the Mennonites of West Preussen and Russia. Emigration from Prussia to Russia began in 1788, and from both these countries to America in 1874. The language of all Mennonites of this group, including those of Russia, is German. While the churches of this group, as well as those who are the descendants of the Swiss Brethren, are thoroughly and conservatively ortho. dox on such leading doctrines as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the atonement, the inerrancy of the Scriptures, the resurrection, etc., the Mennonites of Holland and northwestern Germany are of a de. cidedly liberal, rationalistic type. The supposition advanced by some of them that early Mennonite teaching had a liberalistic tendency has never been established by evidence. The more liberal wing of the early Mennonites, the Waterlandere who seceded from the main body in 1555, accepted unreservedly orthodox doctrines, as is established by their comprehensive confession of 1577. The confessions of all other Mennonite factions teach the same doctrines. Menno Simons, as well as Dirk Philips, a coworker with Menno; was orthodox on the preexistence and deity of Christ. It was at a much later date that the churches of Holland and northwestern Germany accepted rationalistic views. These churches are to‑day scarcely holding their own as far as numbers are concerned. The Vereiniguny der MennaniterVemeinden im deutwhen Re1che,

Sennonites	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	308
comprising a minority only of the Mennonites of the fatherland, is dominated by rationalistic influences, and consequently the churches of West Preussen, Baden, W Orttemberg, Alsace‑Lorraine and most of those of Bavaria are holding aloof from this body. The organ of the " evangelical " Mennonites of Germany is Daa Gemeindeblatt, Reihen, Baden. The principles of non‑resistance and the rejection of the oath are upheld by well‑nigh all American Mennonites. In Russia Mennonites are required, instead of serving in the army, to labor in the forestry work of the State. In Prussia they have the privilege of serving as nurses or drivers in the army.
In some of the Mennonite bodies in America various practises are in vogue which can be explained only from their history; particularly is this true of the Old Order Amish. It is improbable that any other denomination was called upon to endure so relentless persecution as the Swiss Brethren in the cantons of Zurich and Bern (cf. E. Maller, Geachichte der berniachen Tdufer, Frauenfeld, 1895). In consequence of their principle of non‑resistance to which they strictly adhered, they were truly "as sheep for the slaughter." The severest persecution notwithstanding, extending over a period of over two hundred years, small churches continued to exist in the mountains of the canton Bern. When some of the oppressed found it.possible to assemble for worship, the services were several hours in length. The members were scattered over a large territory and the paths over the mountains were difficult at best, consequently it was found neces~ sary to provide a meal for the worshipers. This meal, coming after the services, attained a semireligious hignificanoe which it retains among the Old Order Amish Brethren, the brother in whose house the meeting is held being the host of the congregation. The custom of the ministers to enter the audience room after the congregation has sung some hymns, dates from the time when oppression had taken the place of bloody persecution, and orders were to apprehend the ministers only.
9. Doctrinal and atatietical Description; The Mennonites in America are divided in general into Old Mennonites, General Conference, Mennonite Brethren in Christ, Mennoniten Briider Gemeinde, Reformed Mennonites, and Old Order Amish.
The Old Mennonites are of " Pennsylvania Dutch " stock and of Swiss descent. They have an actual membership of about 29,000 in the United States and Canada (about 8,000 in Lancaster County, Pa.). They observe as ordinances, besides baptism of believers only (by affusion) and the Lord's Supper, feet‑washing, the anointing of the sick, the kiss of charity, and the literal application of I Cor. xi. 5. Their meeting‑houses are quite plain; instrumental music is not tolerated in worship. The churches are, as a rule, well supplied with ministers who are chosen from the brotherhood, special preparation not being considered essential for candidates. In case of more than one receiving the votes of the congregation, decision is obtained by lot. Few of the ministers receive financial support. Stipulated ministerial salaries are considered unscriptural. Discipline is strictly en‑
forced. Prior to every communion service a " counsel meeting " is held to ascertain whether any member who has given offense has refused to make amends after brotherly reminder by one or two other members. In case of serious offense a public confession by the offender is asked. Only those at peace with the church and who confess peace with God may partake of the Lord's Supper. Simplicity of attire, as opposed to the ever‑changing whims of fashion, is held to be a Scriptural requirement. Titles, such as Mr. or Rev., are not in use. Members of secret societies are excluded. Oaths are forbidden, as well as suits at law. Non‑resistance and the condemnation of war are emphatically insisted upon. This branch of the denomination has a flourishing mission with asylums for orphans and lepers in India, home missions in various cities (three in Chicago), also orphans' homes, homes for the aged, and a sanitarium. Their church organ is the Gospel Herald, published at Scottdale, Pa., by the Mennonite Publishing House, which is owned and controlled by the church. Books and tracts on the doctrine and history of the church are also published. The works of Menno Simons and of his coworker Dirk Philips, as well as the comprehensive work on the martyrs of the church by Braght, are common possessions. Goshen College, Goshen, Ind., their largest institution of higher education in America, also Hesston Academy, Hesston, Kans., belong to this branch of Mennonites.
The General Conference Mennonites, the most progressive branch of the denomination, consisting principally of German congregations which have immigrated to the western states from Russia and Prussia, have over 13,000 members. They have abandoned most of the former peculiarities. Bethel College, Newton, Kans., is their most prominent institution of learning, besides Bluffton College, Bluffton, Ohio. They have prosperous missions among the Indians of Oklahoma and in India. Their organs are Der Bundeabote and The Mennonite, both published by the Mennonite Book Concern, Berne, Ind.
The Mennonite Brethren in Christ, numbering about 6,000 members, form a very active church. They baptize by immersion, have open communion and practise feet‑washing as an ordinance. Their camp and revival meetings are conducted after the fashion of the early Methodists. They support about thirty foreign missionaries. Their organ is The Gospel Banner, of Cleveland, O.
The Mennoniten Brddergemeinde consists of German colonists who immigrated to the western states from Russia. They do not agree among themselves on the administration of baptism. The larger branch (with nearly 5,000 members), having been under English Baptist influence in Russia, immerse the applicant for baptism forward while the Crimean branch insist on backward immersion. The latter have nearly 1,000 members. The organ of the former body is Der Ziombote, published at McPherson, Kans. Tabor College, Hillsboro, Kans., belongs to this branch. They have mission stations in India and Oklahoma.
The Reformed Mennonites, called also Herrites after their founder John Herr (who in 1812 needed

309	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Xennonites
from the Old Mennonites), have about 1,700 members, living mostly in Pennsylvania. Considered even from the view‑point of Menno Simons, they are ultraconservative. The well‑known novel, Tillie, a Mennonite Maid (New York, 1904), by H. R. Martin, is designed to portray life among them.
The Old Order Amish, who about 1690 seceded from the Mennonites in Switzerland and Alsace, have about 4,500 members. Their congregations are necessarily small, owing to the fact that they do not build meeting‑houses. They meet for worship in dwelling‑houses or barns. In their opinion, under the Christian dispensation one place can not surpass another in sanctity. There must be no other house of God than his true spiritual house, the church. The fact that Solomon, at God's command, built a temple is to be considered in the same light as the sacrificial offerings under the old covenant. The principal purpose of the Mosaic ceremonies and law was to typify Christ and the New Covenant. Various usages that were permitted under the old covenant, such as resistance by force, the taking of human life, the swearing of oaths, and divorce, were abolished by Christ, who fulfilled the whole law. The Old Testament is to be interpreted in the light of the New which alone is the Christian's rule of life and worship. Building church‑houses would be the first step toward ritualism, which is utterly foreign to New‑Testament teaching and would mean death to true Christian piety. Among the Old Order Amish services are conducted exclusively in the German language and ordinarily require about four hours, while on communion Sunday they are continued from morning till dusk without intermission, there being always a number of ministers present. No text is taken on such occasions; the sermon begins, after introductory remarks, with the first parents of the human race and covers the content of Scripture. The subject may be said to be the wickedness of sin and the faithfulness of God toward those who love him and keep his commandments. Their hymnal is still the Ausbund, the old hymn‑book of the Anabaptist Swiss Brethren, which was published for the first time in 1571 and reprinted at least twelve times in America. The hymns are sung to what are supposed to be the original tunes, which have never been written in musical notation. After meeting, dinner is served for the whole congregation by the family with whom the meeting convenes. There is no church property except hymnbooks, plain benches, and the utensils necessary to prepare a plain dinner for the worshipers. They may be said to live in a voluntary semi‑communism. Their apparel and houses are kept exceedingly plain and unassuming. Carpets, curtains and wall pictures are forbidden, as is also property insurance. Their largest settlements are found in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Ontario.
Besides these divisions there are a number of smaller Mennonite bodies.
The Hutterites have about fourteen prosperous churches or communities in South Dakota, whither they immigrated from South Russia in 1874. They name themselves " Hutterite Brethren " from Jacob Rutter who was burned at the stake at Innsbruck
in the Tyrol in Feb., 1536. Their organization dates from the year 1533. Although never in any sense identified with or influenced by Mennonites, they hold the same doctrines and principles excepting on one point: they are strict communists‑the oldest communistic society in the United States. Their communism is based entirely upon religious principles. It is to be noted, however, that one of these congregations has discarded the doctrine of community of goods. By this denominational body the principle of non‑resistance is carried to the extent of disapproval of the payment of war taxes. From the fact that their communities in Dakota are known as Bruderh6fe they received in the United States census bulletins the name Bruderhof Mennonites, which, as already indicated, is not the name by which they prefer to be known. More than usual interest attaches to them because of their possession of numerous early documents of considerable historic value. Among these is the important and comprehensive confession of faith by Peter Riedemann (d. 1566), which was reprinted, Rechenschaft unaerer Religion. . . , n.p., 1902; also some valuable " chronicles " which have been collected and published by Joseph Beck, Die Gewhichtsbucher der Wiedertdvfer, Vienna, 1883. Their hymns have been collected but not published by R. Wolkan.
The Old Colony Churches (a name given to them in Russia), a body which has never deviated in doctrine or practise (including " avoidance ") from the early Mennonites, are in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. They constitute a distinct body numbering a few thousand members. Their recent elder Johann Wiebe was a man of extraordinary abilities as a preacher and leader. Another small body of the same descent, known as Die kleine Gemeinde, has also perpetuated old Mennonite customs and usages. They have a few hundred members in Manitoba and Kansas.
	Among the most conservative descendants of
the Swiss (Reist) Brethren is a small body, called
the Old Swiss, which has a few congregations in
Ohio and Indiana. The Conservative Amish Men
nonites differ from the Old Order Amish in that
they have meeting‑houses and are somewhat less
strict in discipline. They have about 2,000 mem
bers. The most progressive body of Amish Men
nonites, the Independent Mennonites of Illinois,
have a number of churches and about 1,000 mem
bers. The Defenseless Mennonites date from the
year 1866 when Jacob Egli, of Indiana, seceded
from the Old Order Amish on the ground that def
inite conversion and religious experience had not
a sufficiently prominent place in Amish teaching.
They have a number of congregations. Their Eng
lish organ is Zion's Call (Gridley, 111.). The Wisler
Mennonites represent a schism from the Old Men
nonites, from whom they seceded in 1870, believing
them to be too progressive in such innovations as
continued meetings and general aggressiveness.
They have a few thousand members in the United
States and Canada. 	JOHx HORsCH.
131BUOGRAPHY: The reader should consult the literature under AxsBAPmaw, while part of that under BAPUST8
contains pertinent matter. The articles on the leaders

Menolottion
Xeroersburg Theology
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
named in the teat and that on Simoxe, MsxNo, also contain references to a rich literature. Consult further: S. Blaupot ten Cate, Geachiedenie der Doopegezinden, 5 parts, Leeuwarden and Amsterdam, 1839‑47; R. Baird , Religion in U. S. A., pp. 593‑594, Glasgow, 1844; B. Ely, %urzgefaaate Kirchen‑Geachichte und' Glaubenelehre der taufgeainnten Christen and Menoniten, n.d., Lancaster, Pa.; the periodical Doopsgezinde Bifdmgen, 1860 sqq.; J. F. Funk, The Mennonite Church and her Accusers, Elkhart, Ind.. 1878; D. Musser, The Reformed Mennonite Church, Lancaster, 1878; F. Ellis and S. Evans, Hint. of Lancaster Co., Pa., chap. asvii., Lancaster, n.d.; A. Brons, Uraprung and Schickaale der Taufgeeinmten odor Mennonites, Norden, 1884; M. Schoen, Das Mennonitenthum in Weatpreusaen, Berlin, 1886; B. C. Roaeen, Geachichte der Mennoniten‑0emeinde zu Hamburg and Altona, 2 parts, Hamburg, 188687; A. Mans, Unaere %olonien in Ruasland, Odessa, 1887; J. P. Maller, Die Mennonites in Oetfrieeland, Emden, 1887; H. C. Vedder, Short Hist. of the Baptiste, pp. 103‑106, Philadelphia, 1891; idem, The Baptieta, pp. 24 sqq., New York, 1903; T. Armitage, Hint. of the Baptists, pp. 51, 366, New York, 1893; J. Loserth, Anabaptiamus in Tirol, Vienna, 1892; idem, Communismua der mahrischen Wiedertdtufer, ib. 1894; A. H. Newman, in American Church History Series, vol ii. passim, New York 1894• idem, Hint. of Anti‑Pedobaptiem, pp. 296 sqq., Philadelphia, 1897; C. H. A. Smissen, %urzgefasete Geachichte der Tdufer, Summerfield, Ill., 1895; H. P. Krehbiel, Hint. of the General Conference of the Mennonites of North America, Canton, Ohio, 1898; G. Tumbolt, Die Wiedertdufer. Bielefeld, 1899; wedel, Geachichte der Mennonites, 4 vols., Newton, Hans., 1900‑02; E. C. Pike, The Story of the Anabaptist&, London, 1904; C. H. Smith, The Mennonites of America, Goshen, Ind., 1909.
MENOLOGIOft: The equivalent in the Greek Church of the Calendarium and Martyrologium of the Latin Church. It contains a list of the festivals in honor of the saints and martyrs, together with short notices of the life and death of the saint or martyr celebrated. It is not to be confused with the Menaion (q.v.), which contains the offices for the day as well as the " Acts " of the saint. The basis of the present Menologion was laid in 886 under the Emperor Basil. See ACTA MARTYRuM, AcTA SANCroRum, II., § 1.
MENSES PAPALES ("PAPAL MONTHS"): A term applied to the pope's right of making appointments to certain benefices falling vacant in certain specified months, while the bishops and other patrons appointed in the remaining months. The arrangement is set down in the Roman chancery regulations, under No. IX. The point should be particularly noted that in common parlance the expression " papal months " is incorrectly supposed to mean the same as odd months, alternating months, alternativa mensium, while in fact the papal months are January, February, April, May, July, August, October, and November. There is one defined exception to the rule as stated, and this is specifically laid down in the chancery regulations, namely, that in favor of the patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops who contemplate personal residence in their sees, the eight papal months are reduced to six, and in such fashion that the pope has reserved for himself only the six odd months (January, March, May, July, September, November).
The origin of the papal months rests on the following facts. From the twelfth century, the popes began to recommend incumbents for vacant benefices in case of particular churches, at first through the channel of written requests (precw); and if this proved ineffectual, they would then
supply the place with the designated incumbent, by a mandatory reseript (naandatum de providendo). When the mandate itself was not observed, it was customary to issue, in due succession, liUrw monir torim, prmceptarim and executorim (briefs of admo. nition, injunction, and execution); and then, if necessary, the " execution "followed. Since these mandates came to be issued, for the most part, in favor of indigent petitioners, such concessions were styled per f‑m communem, or in forma pauperum. Before long, however, the issue of mandata de providendo was applied to benefices not only actually but also prospectively vacant, which involved a violation of a provision of the Lateran Council of 1179, forbidding the bestowal of a contingent incumbency. A regulation of the practise was undertaken by the Council of Basel (1418) and by the Concordat of Vienna 1448; though it came to be much modified later by custom and by special indults.
The right of the papal months is still in existence, although with fresh modifications in modern times, or under special agreements. Thus the Bavarian concordat of 1817 provides that the king shall appoint two canonries in the six apostolic or papal months. In the case of Prussia, the bull De salute am marum (1821) decrees " from this time forth, canonries falling vacant in the months of January, March, May, July, September and November, shall be bestowed in the manner hitherto observed in the Chapter of Breslau." In Breslau, by virtue of his title as sovereign duke of Silesia, the king had exercised the right of nomination to vacant canonries in the odd months, the bishop supplying credentials as to canonical fitness, whereupon the papal brief of provision was issued. In various other countries, the papal months have lapsed along with other curial reservations; as in Hanover, the territories belonging to the ecclesiastical province of the Upper Rhine, etc. E. SEHLIN(i.

MENTAL HEALING. See PSYCHOTHERAPY.
MENTZER, BALTHASAR: The name of four German scholars.
1. Balthasar the Elder: Theologian; b. at Allendorf (11 m. e. of Marburg) Feb. 27, 1565; d. at Marburg Jan. 6, 1627. After preliminary studies at the gymnasium at Hersfeld, he entered the University of Marburg in 1583; became pastor at Kirtorf in 1589; and professor at Marburg in 1596, enjoying the friendship of Ludwig III., landgrave of Hesse, until the latter's death in 1604. Mentzer was a strict adherent of Lutheran orthodoxy; the course of the new landgrave of Hesse‑Cassel, Maurice, in favoring the Reformed type of doctrine was therefore a severe blow, intensified by the prohibition of discussions which involved the points at issue between Lutherans and Reformed and by the sending of advocates of the Reformed teachings to preach in Marburg. This gave an opportunity to the landgrave of Hesse‑Darmstadt to interfere in the affairs of Hesse. He therefore, in 1605 invited Mentzer and two other professors to establish a gymnasium at Giessen for the protection of Lutheranism. The new institution was a success from the first, and this led to the founding

811	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Xenol°ti°a
Mercers	g Theology
of the University of Giessen (1607), and Mentzer was one of the first professors chosen. When the political difficulties between the two landgraves ended in 1625, the university was transferred back to Marburg, and Mentzer was elected its first rector. In his new office he showed great zeal and ability, introducing new studies, taking great interest in the moral improvement of the students, and advising the theologians to refrain from mere scholasticism and to base their studies upon the Bible. He was an earnest, sincere, and devoted, if somewhat narrow, theologian. Practically all his writings were polemical, and had value only for his contemporaries. They were aimed in part at Johann Pistorius, Johann and Ludwig Crocius (qq.v.), and Anton Sadeel. Even his Exegesis Augustance Confessionis (Giessen, 1613) had a polemical purpose.
2. Balthasar II.: Theologian and diplomatist; son of the preceding; b. at Giessen May 14, 1614; d. at Darmstadt July 28, 1679. He was educated at the University of Marburg; accompanied Landgrave George II. on a journey to Saxony in 1631, and on his return finished his studies at Jena and Strasburg. He was appointed extraordinary professor at Marburg in 1640, and at the University of Rinteln in 1646; when the University of Giessen was reestablished in 1650, he was made professor of Hebrew and theology. He was, however, more at home in diplomacy and the landgrave made use of his talents in this direction. In 1652 Mentzer was appointed court preacher and superintendent at Darmstadt, and had ample opportunity for displaying his administrative talents. He was the constant companion of the landgrave in the latter's travels, and proved himself a capable diplomat. Several religious difficulties were settled satisfactorily through his skill and tact.
8. Balthasar III.: Mathematician, son of the preceding; b. at Rinteln Feb. 21, 1651; d. at Hamburg Mar. 8, 1727. In his sixteenth year he was elected professor of mathematics at the University of Giessen. He was a member of the orthodox party, and opposed the pietistic movement so energetically that he lost his position in 1693. A few years later he was chosen professor of mathematics at the Johanneum of Hamburg (a private institution).
4. Balthesar IV.: Theologian, son of the preceding; b. at Giessen Jan. 12, 1679; d. at Hanover Dec. 20, 1741. He studied philosophy and oriental languages at Leipsic and Wittenberg; spent some time in travel, then became pastor of the German Church in London in 1714; court preacher at Hanover, 1722; superintendent at Calenberg in 1726, and at Hanover, 1732. (ERWIN PREU$CHEN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Opera Latina of Balthwar I. were published Frankfort, 1669, and contain a brief account of his life by his eon‑in‑law, M. Hannecken; consult further for his life: F. W. Btrieder, Heaaiacha Gelehrten‑ and SchriftaWlerpesshiehte, viii. 418 eqq., Cassel, 1788 (contains on p. 424 a list of Balthasar's writings). On 2 consult: E. F. Neubauer, Hemiade Hebopfer, i. 379 eqq., Giessen, 1734; F. W. Strieder, ut sup., viii. 442 eqq.; W. M. Beaker, Goaehidte der Univeraitdt Giessen, Giessen, 1907.

MENZIES, men'zez, ALLAN: Church of Scotland; b. at Edinburgh Jan. 23, 1845. He was
educated at St. Andrews (M.A., 1864) and the universities of Edinburgh (B.D.,1868) and Erlangen. From 1873 to 1890 he was minister of the parish of Abemyte, Perthshire, and was also examiner in classics at St. Andrews from 1881 to 1884. Since 1889 he has been professor of divinity and Biblical criticism at St. Mary's College, St. Andrews. In 1897 he was elected president of the National Church Union, a position which he held for a number of years. He has translated F. C. von Baur's Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi (2d ed., 2 vols., Leipsic, 1866‑67) and Das Christentum and die chriatliche Kirche der drei eraten Jahrhunderte (3d ed., Tiibingen, 1863) under the titles Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ (London, 1876) and The Church History of the First Three Centuries (1879); J. Wellhausen's Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (2d ed., Berlin, 1883) under the title Prolegomena to the History of Israel (in collaboration with J. S. Black, Edinburgh, 1885); and also 0. Pfleiderer's Religionsphilosophie auf geschichtlicher Grundlage (2d ed., 2 vols., Berlin, 1883,84) under the title Philosophy of Religion (in collaboration with A. Stewart; 4 vols., London, 1886,88), and has likewise edited the supplementary volume of the Ante‑Nicene Fathers (New York, 1896) and the Journal of Theology and Philosophy since 1905. As independent works he has written, in addition to briefer contributions, National Religion (London, 1888); The History of Religion (1895); and The Earliest Gospel (1902).

MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY: A school of philosophy and theology which took its rise about 1836 in Marshall College and in the Theological Seminary of the German Reformed Church, then located at Mercersburg, Pa. It grew out of the contact between the modern Evangelical theology of Germany and Anglo‑American church life, and quickened the German Reformed Church to new activity. It produced considerable fermentation and controversy, which affected also the Lutheran and other neighboring churches, but is now a matter of history, though its fruits remain. The movement had three phases. The first was philosophical (1836‑43); the second was theological, and turned chiefly on the church question (1843‑58); the third was liturgical (1858‑66).
The leaders of this school of thought were F. A. Rauch, J. W. Nevin, and Philip Schaff (qq.v.), though Rauch's plans were frustrated by his premature death. Complementing each other reciprocally, Nevin and Schaff developed the ideas of Mereereburg theology in different ways. Nevin discussed the questions concerning the Church and the sacraments. Turning to Cyprian and the Nicene age, he represented the contrast between the church idea then extant and the sect system of the nineteenth century, but aimed chiefly to show that the Oxford Tractarian theory of repristination was historically untenable, and would lead logically to the whole system of the papacy. On the nature of the sacraments he reproduced the anti‑Zwinglian and anti‑Lutheran conception of John Calvin, which he held to be the true Reformed doctrine. Schaff, in his Princilude of Protestatdiemi

Xe~Acg Theology	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	81'.3
vindicated the doctrines of the Reformation on the basis of historical development, in decided opposition to Romanism and Puseyism on the one hand, and also to rationalism and sectarianism on the other. The Mercersburg school was charged with transcendentalism, mysticism, and Romanizing tendencies, but all these charges gradually subsided. A regular heresy trial was held at the synod of York in 1845, and again at two subsequent synods; but in each case the Mercersburg professors were acquitted by an almost unanimous vote.
	Mercersburg theology taught that the divine
human person of Jesus Christ is the primordial
truth of Christianity, both of revelation and redemp
tion. From the Christ‑idea, as the fundamental
principle, are to be developed all scriptural loo
trines. Issue was taken with the high Calvinistic
principle of a twofold unconditional predestination,
as well as with the contrary Arminian principle
of. free will, and no less decidedly, also, with the
Roman system, which starts from the idea of the
Church as a visible and centralized organization.
Mercersburg was the first theological school in
America to propound and vindicate what has
since been called the " ° Christocentric " idea of
Christianity. Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of
God, is the second Adam, the head of a regenerate
human race. Born in him and of him, by the
Holy Spirit, believers are his members. He, glori
fied in heaven, and they, though still in the flesh
on earth, together constitute one mystical body, a
spiritual organism. This is the Christian Church,
holy, catholic, and apostolic. Of supernatural
origin, invested with divine authority, possessing
spiritual powers adequate to the fulfilment of her
mission, instinct with heavenly life, and destined
to overcome her enemies, she is the communion
in which men may obtain salvation and eternal
life. The Church, extending through all ages, and
destined to embrace all nations, is ever identical
with herself, having one Lord, one faith, one bap
tism; yet different phases of the fulness of her
spiritual life, including doctrine and morals, cultua
and ecclesiastical polity, appear at different epochs
in her history. Hence no statements of doctrine
formulated in any past age need be final, and no
form of organization can be fixed and unchangeable.
The Church modifies doctrinal formulas according
to her progress in the knowledge of Christian
truth, and adjusts her organization to the advanced
status of her life and to her altered connections
with the world. Christ perpetuates his mediatorial
office by an order of chosen men, who, by the
laying‑on of hands, are duly invested with divine
authority to speak in his name, to dispense the
sacraments, and to bear rule as undershepherda
over the flock. At the same time, Mercersburg
always taught the general priesthood of the laity
and the equality of ministers.
The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper are not empty forma, but the significant signs and seals of God's covenant with us. They are means of grace which become efficacious by faith alone. By baptism, the subject is received into the covenant. The Lord's Supper is the commemoration of the once crucified but now glorified Christ,
and the communion of his body and blood, wherein, by the impartation of his own divine‑human fulness, he nourishes his people unto everlasting life. The contrary opinion, which then largely prevailed in the American churches, that baptism is only the empty symbol of forgiveness and of the new birth, and the Lord's Supper merely a celebration of the crucifixion of Christ, was sharply criticized. Mercersburg found fault with the common style of extemporaneous public prayer, and advocated a revival, in a modernized form, of the liturgical church‑service of the Reformation period. The result was, A Liturgy, or Order of Christian Worship (Philadelphia, 1858), prepared by Schaff, Nevin, Harbaugh, Gerhart, and others, and a book of common prayer, entitled An Order of Worship for the Refornied Church (1866). Both, however, were merely optional, and not intended to supersede free prayer: A new German hymn‑book was also prepared by Dr. Schaff (1859), which is now generally used in the German congregations of the Reformed Church.
The Mercersburg movement was Christological, and in close sympathy with the positive Evangelical theology of Protestant Germany, though necessarily modified by American surroundings and wants.
	At present, the peculiar characteristics of the
Merceraburg school are no longer distinctive,
because similar Christological tendencies have
since sprung up, and taken root in other denomi
nations; hence former issues have been superseded.
The formation of the General Synod in 1863 set
tled the doctrinal differences which had divided
the church into two parties. See REFORMED
CHURCH. 	E. V. GERHARTt.
B1BLIOa8AP87: F. A. Rauch, Psychology, New York, 1849;
	J. W. Nevin The Anxious Bench, Chambersburg, 1843;
	The Mystical Presence a Vindication of the Reformed or
	Calvinistic Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, Philadelphia,
	1846; idem The History and Genius of the Heidelberg Cats
	chum, Chainbersburg, 1847, and his Introduction to the
	tnglot tercentenary ed. of the Heidelberg Catechism, New
	York, 1863; idem Antichrist, or, the Spirit of Sed and
	Schism, New York, 1848; P. Schaff The Principle of
	Protestantism as Reated to the Present State of the Church,
	Chambersburg, 1845; idem What is Church History f A
	Vindication of the Idea of Historical Development, Phila
	delphia, 1846; E. V. Gerhart, in Bibliothwa Sacra, Jan.,
	1863, pp. 1‑78; idem, Institutes of the Christian Religion,
	New York 1891; H. Harbaugh, Chriatologiml Theolmy,
Philadelphia, 1864; T. G. Apple, The Theology of the German Reformed Church, in the Proceedings of the Second General Council of the Pesbyterian Church, held in Philadelphia, 1880 Philadelphia, pp. 484‑497. onsult also The Mer. ceraburp Review vole. i.‑aji., 1849‑60; Der deutsche Kir_ chenfreund, 1848‑b4• German Reformed Messenger; Minutes of the German Reformed Synod, from 1843 to 1866• The Provisional Liturgy, Philadelphia, 1858; The Order of Worship for the Reformed Church, ib. 1867.

MERCY, SISTERS OF: The name of several religious congregations of women in the Roman Catholic Church.
1. Institute of Our Blessed Lady, of Mercy: A congregation founded by Catherine Elizabeth McAuley (q.v.). The beginnings of this order go back to 1827 when the founder, then forty years of age, and having recently inherited a large fortune, established in Dublin (on the feast of Our Lady of Mercy, Sept. 24) an institution for the harboring of destitute women and orphans and for the tied of

$18	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
poor schools. The house was plated in charge of Miss Anna, M. Doyle who was assisted in the school work by Miss Katherine Byrne. At that period there was no intention of founding a religious order, but rather of organizing a society of secular ladies who, between the period of leaving school and settling in life, might devote a portion of their time to the instruction of the poor and to other works of charity. But as several of her associates evinced a desire to make this a life‑work and become sisters, Miss McAuley was led to establish, with the permission of the archbishop, a religious community under the title: " Institute of Our Blessed Lady of Mercy." In 1828 the members adopted a distinctive costume, but it was not until Dec. 12, 1831, after a year's novitiate in the Presentation Monastery of George's Hill, that they made their religious profession, taking the three vows according to the presentation form. Returning to their convent, Sister Mary Katherine was appointed superior by Dr. Murray, archbishop of Dublin, but for several years the institute had no written rule. The costume adopted by the foundresa consists of a habit of coarse black serge, or cashmere, falling in folds from the throat to the feet in front, and lengthened into a train behind. It is confined to the waist by a leathern girdle, or cincture, on which the beads and cross of the order are suspended. The sleeves are long and wide, falling in plaits from the shoulders, with tight undersleeves. The habit and veil are very ample: the guimp is a deep linen collar, worn in front, and the coif, an envelop of the same material, covers the head, partly concealing the face. The rule of the institute, based on that of St. Augustine, was approved by Pope Gregory XVI. June 8, 1841. The specific objects of the order are the education of the poor, the visitation of the sick, and the protection of distressed women of good character. Besides the three ordinary vows of religion the sisters bind themselves to the service of the sick, the poor, and the ignorant, and they also take a vow of stability or perseverance in the institute. The order comprises two classes of sisters, choir and lay religious, and each separate community is subject canonically to the bishop of the diocese in which it is situated. Forty‑three convents of the order were established before the death of the founder in 1841. There are houses of the order also in England, Scotland, Australia, and the United States. The Sisters of Mercy were first introduced into the United States in 1843 by Bishop O'Connor of Pittsburg, where the beginnings of the American foundation were materially furthered by the generosity of Miss Eliza Jane Tiernan who, on joining the community, bestowed upon it a large fortune inherited from her father. The development of the order in the United States was quite rapid, and it had in 1909 about forty mother houses in various cities from Maine to California. The sisters conduct schools, academies, hospitals, asylums, etc. The number of pupils under their charge is about 80,000, and the total number of professed sisters is about 4,500.
2. Sisters of Mercy of Seez, France: A congregation founded in 1823 in the diocese of Seez, France, by five pious women under the direction
of a zealous priest, M. Bazin. They first took the name "Sisters of Charity," but in 1825 it was changed to " Sisters of Mercy " in order that the new community might be distinguished from that of the Sisters of Charity founded by St. Vincent de Paul. The object of the order is to minister to the spiritual and temporal needs of the sick, and especially of the poor in their homes. There are foundations of the order in England as well as in France.
	8. Sisters of Mercy of Montreal (Sceura de la mis
&icorde) : A congregation established in Montreal,
Quebec (where the mother house is located), by
Bishop Ignatius Bourget in 1848. The foundress
was Madame Rosalie Jettk (in religion, Mother
Mary of the Nativity), but from the beginning she
declined to accept the office of superior, and Sister
St. Jane de Chantal was placed in charge. The
specific object of the institute is to assist women in
labor, both rich and poor, especially the latter,
whom the sisters receive in their institutions or
visit in their homes. In receiving patients no
discrimination is made in respect to religion, color,
nationality, or place of residence. No questions are
asked, and all precautions are taken to protect the
honor of patients and avert the crime of infanticide.
The children are cared for both in the main institu
tions and in homes established especially for the
purpose. Patients who desire to remain in the
institution for a time after their convalescence are
placed in charge of a sister. They follow a certain
rule of life, without, however, contracting any
religious obligation, and are known as " conse
crated " (conaacreees). If they choose to remain in
the convent permanently and show the proper
dispositions, they are allowed, after a period of
probation, to become " Magdalena," and after a
further probationary period they are admitted to
take the vows of the subsidiary Magdalen order.
The congregation is governed by a mother general
who is elected every six years. The institute was
approved by Pope Pius IX., June 7, 1867. These
sisters have establishments not only in Canada,
but also in New York, Chicago, Milwaukee, and
Green Bay. 	JA'mms F. Dluscom..
BxBwoaSAP87: Heimbucher Orden and %onpreg
	iii. 388‑387, 554; Currier, Religious Ordara, PP. 578
595: OflcW Catholic Directory, New York, 1909.
MERIBAH, mer`i‑bit: A Hebrew word meaning " strife," apparently given as a name to two places where water was miraculously provided through Moses for the wandering Israelites. A critical problem is raised by the fact that two accounts are given in the Pentateuch of events closely re. sembling each other but apparently at different places. One account is in Ex. xvii. of occurrences at Horeb (verse 6), and to the place the name Massah was also given; another account is in Num. xx. 1‑13 of occurrences apparently connected with Kadesh (cf. Num. xxvii. 14; Deut. xxxii. 51; Ezek. x1vii. 19, xlviii. 28). The Septuagint and Vulgate generally translate the word by expressions which mean " railing, reproach, irritation " (so the English A.V. of Ps. xcv. 8, " in the provocation "), a sense which would fit the context in Num. xx. 13, 24, xxvil. 14; Deut. iii. 51, zrriii. 8; Ps. lusi.

Merici Merit
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
814
7, xcv. 8, cvi. 32 (in the last two cases the English
R.V. margin explains " strife "). Ezekiel's mention
implicitly connects the occurrence with Kadesh,
and does not oppose the rendering of the word by
" striving "; his mention does not even necessitate
that such a place as Meriboth‑kadesh or Meribath
kadesh (note the two formal) existed in his day,
since his scheme of the land and its partition is
ideal. Attempts to locate the places serve only by
the variance between scholars to emphasize the
conclusion that the word is probably an appellative,
not a proper name. 	GEo. W. GILMORE.
MERICI, ANGELA, SAINT: Founder of the Ursuline nuns (see URSULINE$); b. at Desenzano (20 m. w. of Verona) Mar. 21, 1474; d. at Brescia Jan. 27, 1540. In early youth she became a Franciscan tertiary, and devoted herself to works of piety and charity while still living in the world. She was already fifty‑six, however, before she was convinced by a vision that the time had come to carry out a long‑cherished plan by founding an order of women devoted to works of mercy. She took a house in Brescia with twelve companions, and the order was formally established on Nov. 25, 1535. According to Angela's plan the members were not to leave the world but to live with their parents or other relatives, assembling for conference at stated times and observing various rules of conduct, though without the requirement of vows. At a chapter held in March, 1537, attended by fifty‑nine out of the seventy‑six sisters, Angela was unanimously elected mother superior, and by the influence of her holy life did much to strengthen the order in her few remaining years. She was buried in the church of St. Afra at Brescia; beatified in 1768; and canonized in 1807.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Dae Leben der hei.ligen Angela Merici, Augs
	burg, 1811 ; M. Sintzel, Leben der healipen Angela, Regenz
	burg, 1842; W E. Hubert, Die heilige Angela Meriei,
	Mainz, 1891; Oeechichte der heidigen Angela Merici and
des . . . Ordens der Ureulinen, Innsbruck, 1892; Lebenepeechichte der he$lipen Angela Merici, Paderborn, 1892. MERIT. Definition; Origin of the Conception (§ 1). Views of Apostolic Fathers (§ 2). Augustine and Others ($ 3). Thomas Aquinas (¢ 4). Later Roman Catholic Views (5 5). Protestant Views (¢ 8).
The conception " merit," in a religious‑ethical sense, points to a fundamental opposition between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. While the former recognizes merit as establishing a relation between man and God, the latter denies this absolutely. In the Roman Catholic view,
	religion is concerned with Inan'S
	r. Defini‑ securing after his death eternal salva
tion;	tion from God as a reward for his
Origin	merits; and under " ° merit " is under
of the	stood works done voluntarily in the
	Conception. service of God constituting a claim on
	a reward from God. Connected with
	this is the narrower conception of merit as some
	thing done beyond the normal measure of ordinary
duty.	The origin of the religious conception of
	merit is to be found in Jewish practical piety, in
	the thought of a legal relation between God and
mankind. But in post‑exilic Judaism the idea became more usual that there was to be a retribution for service of God after death, limited, however, to the good and the pious. The classical example of this view is found in the book of Tobit: " If thou aerveat God it will be requited thee" (iv. 14). God's service consists chiefly in prayer and almsgiving. The main principle of the religious relation of man to God was that he wins from the divine judge a reward, first of all by keeping the commandments, second by good works not involved in the performance of the Law. It was implied that enough could be done to satisfy God's demands and that therefore a claim of reward was legitimate. An atoniistic weighing and counting of separate performances, good as well as evil, from the human se well as the divine side was in order and was a characteristic feature of Pharisaic piety. A similar view is found in the works of Philo of Alexandria, intermingled there with strains of Platonism, for Plato in many places speaks of rewards given to the good and punishment of evil deeds. In the early Christian view these Judaistic conceptions were not received, for man's salvation goes back to God's grace in Christ; despite the paradoxical character of Jesus' teaching in several places his clearest statements tend to reject the thought of any human claim of merit from God (Matt. xx. 1 aqq.; Luke xv. 17 sqq.). The kingdom of heaven is not built on the right of men but on the grace of God. Paul's position was naturally entirely in line with this, for he was occupied in many places in showing that God did not reward man according to his merit but according to free grace.
Although Pharisaical Jewish Christianity was so directly opposed by Paul as a perversion of a fundamental idea of the Gospel, yet the earliest works of the Apostolic. Fathers and of the apologists show the introduction of the merit idea into the church system. The sins of past life are s. Views of forgiven in baptism (Hernias, Mandates,
Apostolic	IV., iii.; Justin, 1 Apol., Lii.; Tertul‑
	Fathers.	lien, De bdPtismo, i.). In this and in
		the promise of future blessings the
grace of God is exhausted (cf. Clement, L, vii. 4).
The baptized has now the duty of avoiding sins and
fulfilling God's commandments, observing the new
law of Christ in order that in the retribution at the
resurrection of the dead he may inherit eternal life
(Hernias, Vision, L, iii. 4a; Clement IL, viii. 4). Of
course the condition of this is man's freedom of
will by which he can choose the good and fulfil
God's law (Hernias, Mandates XII., iii.‑v.; Justin,
11 dpol,, vii, 14; Tequlllall, De AM, U1,), h
Hernias (Similitude, V.,iii. 3) the conception of merit also appears as an act going beyond what is commended: " If thou doest anything good outside of the commandments of God thou wilt gain for thyself more abundant glory and thou wilt be of more repute with God than thou Overt about to be." It was Tertullian who introduced the strict juristic
conception of merit: " From the beginning he [God] sent into the world messengers endowed with the Holy Spirit . . . to preach that there is only one God . . . to declare the rules appointed by him for

316	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Xerid
		Xerit
	securing his favor, and what rewards he had destined
	for those who ignore, forsake, or keep them " (Apol.
	xviii.). Tertullian brought the whole of Christianity
	into a scheme of works and rewards that became
	characteristic of Occidental Catholicism. Cyprian
	follows closely in the steps of his teacher: " There
	is need of justice that any one may secure merit
	with God our judge: his precepts and warnings
	must be obeyed that our merits may receive reward"
	(De ecclesice unitate, xv.). Again, " What will be
	the glory of those whO work‑how great and exalted
	the joy when the Lord will begin to number his
	people and distribute the promised rewards to
our merits and works, giving heavenly things for
	earthly, eternal things for temporal, great things
	for small . . . A mighty and divine thing . . . a
	salutary operation . . . a thing placed in the power
	of him who acts . . . the true and greatest gift of
	God, necessary for the weak, glorious for the strong,
	by which the Christian who is aided shows a spiritual
	grace, deserves merit from Christ the judge, accounts
	God his debtor . . . The Lord will never fail to
	give a reward for our merits " (De opere et eleemos.,
	xxvi.). The works of Christians deserving such
	merits are, in general, alms, fasting, celibacy, but
	particularly martyrdom. Occidental thought was
	not strictly logical, for both Cyprian and Ambrose
	state that the life marked by virtues is possible only
	through the Holy Spirit. Augustine was the first
	to cast aside this prevalent teaching of merit.
			He denied that the grounds of merit
3. Augus‑ lay in the freedom of the will (Enchi
		tine and	ridion, xxxii.), holding that divine
		Others.	grace calls forth a good will without
			any previous works of merit. The
	process is founded on the inspiration of love, which
	is	synonymous with grace. This is needed not
	only for the beginning but in separate acts (De
	gestis Pel., lvi.). Related to the rejection of merit
	was Augustine's teaching of an absolute predes
	tination, of the irresistibility of God's grace, and of
	the gift of perseverance received by the elect. Yet
	he shows tendencies to relapse into the old teaching
	that God crowns man's merits, " but God does not
	crown thy merits as thy merits but rather as his
	gifts" (De grdtia et liberoarbitrio, VI., xv.; cf. Enehi
	ridion, evii.). Later on Catholic theological develop
	ment by its adoption of a conditional instead of an
	absolute predestination (" For those whose merits
	he foresaw he predestined rewards," Ambrose,
	De fide, V., vi. 83) returned in principle to the older
	theory. Gregory the Great adheres to the Augus
	tinian predestination but recognizes merit: " Grace
	preceding and good will following, that which is of
	God becomes merit in us " (Hom. in Ezek., I., ix. 2).
	Grace is conceived of not as salvation but as clear
	ing the ground for the successful operation of free
	will. The great scholastic philosophers of the
	Middle Ages systematically worked up this semi
	Augustinian tendency, Peter Lombard (q.v.)
	laying the foundation with his theory of the co
	operation of grace and will in the production of
	good works. He plainly declares that there is no
	merit in man that is not through free will, and
	makes the hope of future depend on God's grace
	and preceding merits, " For without merits to hope
for anything can not be called hope but presumption" ("Sentences," IV., xxvi. 1).
Thomas Aquinas makes merit the end of religion, yet in appearance holds to the Augustinian teaching (cf. Summa, II., i. 109‑114). He distinguishes two kinds of grace, one belonging to the sphere of salvation, the other extending over the whole field of God's activity. This second
4. Thomas type of grace does not give man's
	Aquinas.	acts meritorious character, although
		through it he may love God above all
things. To inherit eternal life man, who is not
able to produce merits proportioned to it, requires
a higher virtue, the virtue of grace. As his nature
is corrupt it must be healed by grace. This grace
is called operative, inasmuch as it heals or justifies
the soul, and from the other point of view co
operative, inasmuch as it marks the beginning of
meritorious action which proceeds from free will.
The merit produced by operative grace is the
motion of free will by which we accede to God's
righteousness in making us righteous. Strictly
speaking, merit can not be predicated of man in
relation to God, but according to the prearrange
ment of the divine ordinance so established that
man may attain it from God through his own
operation, a reward, as it were, for what God be
stowed on him, viz., the virtue of acting. In relation
to free will he distinguishes a congruous merit from
the condign merit which comes from the grace of
the Holy Spirit. Man can prepare himself to
receive grace through the action of his free will,
not, however, without the aid of God who moves it.
Its action is imperfect compared with what it can
do when it is infused with grace, but the infusion
of grace necessarily follows this cooperation be
tween man's free will and God's motion.
The nominalists criticized this theory of merit, yet the tendency has been since the Middle Ages to stress congruous merit and moreover to confer merit only on those works which have the stamp of churchliness, introducing as chief fao‑
5. Later tors the sacraments of baptism and
Roman	the Eucharist. The scholastics also
Catholic	introduced the thought of the super
	Views.	erogatory merits of the saints (see
		SUPEREROGATION, WORBs OF). At
the time of the Reformation the Roman Catholic
position on merit was intensified through the
conflict with Protestantism. This is seen in con
fessional documents even before the time of the
Council of Trent. Its decrees (Session VI.) laid
down the position that through the righteousness
of Christ all deserve the grace of justification.
This is given to each individual. Justification
comes through the sacraments and reward is given
to good works, for God is so good to man that he
wills that what are really his gifts should be their
merits. Yet the essential spirit of merit remains.
Bellarmine states plainly that the good works of the
just are properly and truly merits and deserve
eternal life (Disputationes, V., i. 6). Present‑day
Roman Catholic teaching distinguishes between
auxiliary or actual grace and sanctifying or habitual
grace. The first is imparted temporarily to man
but is necessary to every good work. The second

Wt	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	818
is given through the sacraments, baptism, penance, but is lost through mortal sin. A meritorious work requires the cooperation of both. Among good works especially meritorious are prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. The grace that is lost through deadly sin is restored by penance. The general idea is that the church system acts as a factor along with human free will in the attainment of salvation.
The Reformation was especially a conflict against the theory of merit, but Luther's final position on this question was the result of a development. In his earlier years he talked of congruous merit and accepted the terms " preparation " and " disposition " for salvation. Later on he still continued to
use the word merit, but evacuated it 6. Protes‑ of its meaning. He recognized nothing
tant Views. in man to increase the value of human works. There is no longer any room for merit, since all are made just by the justness of Christ. The works do not deserve heaven, but men, receiving heaven, through faith do good works. Melanchthon incorporated in the Augsburg Confession and Apology (cf. Apology, lxii. 17 sqq.) a clear‑cut definition of Luther's position where he attacks the distinction between congruous and condign merit and develops the Reformed justification‑teaching in opposition to the whole merit theory, especially denying the possibility of the transference of the merits of the saints. Christ's merits are given us in order that we may be reputed just by our faith in the merits of Christ when we believe in him, just as if we had our own proper merits (Apology, cav. 14 sqq.). The use of the word merit in Protestant theology is associated with the satisfaction of Christ, not with individual deserts enabling man to appear before God. Kant discussed the question of merit, but in an unfavorable sense, saying the impulse to it was due to selflove and that it had some relation to sensuousness. Paulsen approximates to Roman Catholic ethics by distinguishing between actions which are in accordance with duty and others which deserve merit. Stange opposes this classification of an ordinary and extraordinary morality, as if there was something higher than duty. The deficient element in Roman Catholic teaching is that it makes the essence of morality depend on the separate act rather than on the whole atmosphere and direction of the personal will. See ATONEMENT; GRACE; GOOD WORM; and SAT1svAcTloN.
(JOHANNEs KUNZE.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The subject in treated usually in the works on systematic theology, e.g., W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, i 366 sqq., New York, 1891; C. Hodge, Bye tematic Theology, ii 308‑311, New York 1871‑73; and in the theological dictionaries, e.g., J. H. Blunt, pp. 139141, 145, 805‑808. Consult further: K: H. Wirth, Der Beprif des meritum bei Tvtullian, Leipsic, 1892; idemDer Verdienetbepriff bei Cyprian, ib 1901 ; K R. Hagenbach, Hut. 01 Christian Doctrines, ii. 308‑311, Edinburgh, 1880; H. schults, in TB%, lavii (1894), 1‑50, 245‑314; C. Stange, Esnleitunp in die Bthik, Vol. ii., Leipsic, 1901; %L. Ioi. 890‑894; Harnack, Dogma, consult Index.
MERKLE, SE13ASTL43: German Roman Cath‑
olic; b. at Ellwangen (45 m. e.n.e. of Stuttgart) Aug. 28, 1862. He was educated at the University of Tubingen from 1882 to 1886, and after being s
teacher at Rottenburg in 1887‑88, was a lecturer at the Wilhelmestift, Tlibingen, from 1888 to 1898. Since the latter year he has been professor of church history, dogmatics. and Christian archeology in the University of Wilrzburg, of which he was rector in 1904‑05. In 1894 he visited Italy, where he became a member of the historical institute of the GSrres‑Geselischaft, under whose auspices he visited Spain and France in 1896 and Austria, Hungary, and South Germany in 1897. He has written, Gwmnni Dominict urtd seine Lucula nodie (Tilbingen,1892); Die ambrmianiwhenTiWi (Rome, 1896); Kardinal Gobried PalwW (1897); Zur Quellenkunde dea Trienter Konzila (Tilbingen, 1898); Concilium Tridentinum, i. (Freiburg, 1901); Gutachten im Prozeaa Berlichingen (Munich, 1904); Die theologi8chen Fakultdten and die religibae Frio* (Berlin, 1905); Daa Kanzil van Trient and die Universitdten (Wilrzburg, 1905); and Die katholische Beurtedung des Aufkldrungszeitaltem (Berlin, 1909).

	MERLE D'AUBIGRE, mkrl do"bf"ny6', JEAN
HENRI: Swiss Protestant; b., of French family
exiled during the religious disturbances, at Esua
Vives (now a part of Geneva) Aug. 16, 1794; d. at
Geneva Oct. 21, 1872. His father, though a citizen
of Geneva, was a merchant in Marseilles, and it was
intended that the son should follow a like career;
		but a strong personal inclination led
	Life. the latter to the ministry. He was a
		student at the University of Geneva
when the religious movement known as "° the
Awakening " (le rwvil) began, and in 1816, when the
pastors of the city were accused of rejecting the
divinity of Christ, he led his fellow students in a
public expression of confidence in their spiritual
superiors. Early in the following year, however,
he came fully under the influence of Robert Haldane
(q.v.), the leading spirit of the awakening. It was
not without hesitation that he subscribed to the
edict issued by the Venerable Company of Pastors
May 3, 1817, forbidding preachers to speak in the
pulpit on doctrines in dispute (see MALAN, CksAR
HENRI ABRABAM); but the edict was interpreted
liberally, and Merle d'Aubign6 was ordained
July 3, 1817. He almost immediately went to
Germany, where he busied himself with literary
studies, translating Arjosto and Schiller, and
intending to devote his life to literature. But the
celebration of the three‑hundredth anniversary of
the Reformation at Eisenach in October gave his
ambition a new direction and suggested to him the
idea of writing an exhaustive history of the Refor
mation. He went to Berlin, heard Schleiermacher,
DeWette, and Neander, and became the warm
friend of Neander, whose influence remained with
him permanently. Appointed pastor of the Re
formed congregation in Hamburg in 1818 and
court preacher in Brussels in 1824, he exercised
great influence in both places, although opposition
in Hamburg at one time induced the consistory to
attempt to secure his recall. The revolution of
1830 drove him from Belgium. He was offered a
professorship at Montauban and a church in Paris,
but, although it involved some pecuniary sacrifice,
decided to return to his native city. The Evange~

817	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Xerit
		hterodsoh
ical Society of Geneva (q.v.) had been formed dur
ing his absence, and for the rest of his life he
labored as professor in the theological school which
it founded, lecturing chiefly on church history and
doctrine, but also on symbolics, homiletics, catechet
ics, ecclesiology, and pastoral duties. In 1832 he
founded the weekly Gazette 6cangglique and, with
Gaussen and Galland, he preached for the congrega
tion of the Society in the Chapelle de 1'Oratoire.
The Genevan Church naturally looked with suspicion
on the new society, and the Company of Pastors
forbade the pulpit to Merle d'Aubignti and his
associates. The former had Christian unity deeply
at heart, but he felt that he could not allow any
external authority to interfere with his office as a
preacher of the Gospel. So, reluctantly and under
compulsion, as he believed, in 1835 he consented
that the Lord's Supper should be administered in
the Oratoire, thereby making the congregation
independent of the State Church. The final step
was taken in 1849 when the Oratoire was united
with the old separated church of the B;,ug
and the Evangelical Church ('gliee hvangllique) was formed. Two years later, when changes in the
constitution of the national church were under
consideration, he published La Libert6 des cultea
(Geneva, 1851; Eng. transl., The Separation of
Church and State, published by the British Anti
State Church Association, London, 1851) and
other tracts, demanding more power for the laity
and that the congregations should have a voice in
the choice of pastors, and herein his plea was
successful.	His contention that the constitution
should not emanate from a political body which
counted Roman Catholics among its members,
but from a synod representing the Protestant
citizens was not listened to. His view of the proper
relations of Church and State did not exclude all
power of the latter in certain external and secular
matters. He would not have the Church receive
its material support from the State; nor would he
have a hard and fast compact, but an understand
ing limiting the sphere of each by mutual agree
ment. Concerning the form of church government,
he held the presbyterial most Scriptural; but re
fused to condemn Episcopalians or Congregational
ists because of their preference.
	The first volume of the history of the Reforma
tion appeared in 1835, the thirteenth and last in
1878 (the last three volumes published posthu
mously). The entire work comprises two parts, the
		first (la Reformation du seizi~me aikcle,
	Writings. 5 vols., Paris, 1835‑53; Eng. transl.
		by D. Walther, 3 vols., London, 1838
1841, by H. White, 5 vols., Edinburgh, 1846‑53,
and others) treating of the time of Luther, about
whom are grouped Zwingli and Farel in Switzer
land and the predecessors of the Reformation in
France and England (vol. v.=La R9formation d'Anr
gleterre). In the second part (La Reformation en
Europe au temps de Calvin, 8 vols., Paris, 1863‑78;
Eng. transl., 8 vols., London, 1863‑78) Geneva is
made the central point of the narrative. The
author's chief merit is the patient search for the
sources and penetrating study of them. He writes
with zeal and learning, earnestness, and charm of
style. His defects are an inclination toward pathos, and such a use of the sources as results in a partizan and prejudiced coloring of the narrative. The work appeared at a favorable time, and its success was remarkable, particularly in Englishspeaking lands.
The more noteworthy of Merle d'Aubign6's other publications, omitting numerous occasional sermons, are the following: Le Cult domeatique (Paris, 1827; Eng. tranel. London, 1846); Le Christianisme et Is Protestantisme, sonE‑ila deux ckosaa distinctesf (Paris, 1828); Diacours sur 1'6tude de L'Aietoire du Christianisme (Geneva, 1832); La Voix de l1glise une eous toutes les formes successives (Geneva, 1834); Foi et science (Geneva, 1835); Les Miracles ou deux erreurs (Go. neva, 1840); Gentve et Oxford (Geneva, 1842; Eng. tranel., London, 1843); Le Lutheranism et la REforme (Geneva, 1844; Eng trans]., Luther and Calvin, Glasgow, 1844); Rome and the Reformation (London, 1844); Le Protecteur ou la r6publique d'Anpleterre aux fours de Cromwell (Paris, 1848; Eng. tranel., Edinburgh, 1847), a somewhat overdrawn apology for the English leader; Trois sitciee de luner en ‑0cosse (Geneva, 1850), a narrative of the struggle for religious liberty in Scotland from John Knox to the founding of the Free Church in 1843; L'Authorit6 des Ocritures inspire de Dieu (Geneva, 1850); Le Tdmoinape de la th6ologie ou is biblicism de N6ander (Geneva, 1850); Deux discours prononcia d Londree, exposition universelle (London, 1851); Quells est la th6oioyie propre h puhir les mauz du temps actuel f (Geneva, 1852; Eng. trans]., What is the Theology Fitted to Cure the Evils of the Present Time? Glasgow, 1853); L'1gliae et la dipte de f1yliee (Berlin, 1853; Eng. tranal., The Church and as Church Diet (London, 1854); Du caracti!re n&essaire au thholopien et au chritien dans l'6poque actuelle (Paris, 1845); Faith and Criticism
Address Delivered at the Opening of the Presbyterian College, Belfast (Belfast, 1853; French ed., Geneva, 1854); Jean Chrysost6m (Geneva, 1854); Souvenir des derniers joure de Marianne Merle d'Aubipng nie Br6laz, his first wife (Geneva, 1855); L'Ancien et Is minisere (Paris, 1857); L'AssembMe de Berlin ou unit6 et diversiM dance 1'Eglise (Geneva, 1857); L'Orient ou Orip&e et la science‑L'Occuknt ou Cyprien et la pratique (Geneva, 1857; Eng. trans]. in Christianity in the First Three Centuries, Edinburgh, 1858); Vie et doctrine (Geneva, 1858); ll y a un minietre de la parole (Paris, 1858); La Pierre our kguelle l'Aead6mie de Gentve fert pos6e en Juin, 1668 (Geneva, 1859); Le R6veil de 1'6ylim contemporaine (Toulouse, 1860); Septembre, 1881, ou 1'Al_ licence Evanpglique h Genhe (Geneva, 1861); Caractisre du Rformateur et de la R6formation du Genive (Geneva, 1862); Enseignemnt de Calvin: plortfler Christ, address at the three‑hundredth anniversary of Calvin's death (Geneva, 1864; Eng. tranel., Calvin's Teaching for the Present Day, London, 1864); Les Coups et les enseignemnta de Dieu (Geneva, 1865); L'Expiation de la croix (Geneva, 1867; Eng. tranel., The Expiatory Sacrifice of the Cross, London, 1868); Jean Calvin un de fondateurs des liberms modernes (Geneva, 1868); Le Comit6 et 1'infallibilitU (Geneva, 1870). (DucHam1N.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Bonnet, Notice our la vie et let 6crita de
Merle d'Aubipnd, Paris, 1874.
MERODACH, mer'o‑dac (Hebr. Merodak; Assyr. Marduk or Maruduk): The god of light of Babylonia who revealed himself in the beneficent appearrance of the sun of the morning and of spring time. Long before the time of Hammurabi Merodach was brought, as son of Ea, into connection with the cult of healing in Eridu (see BABYLONIA, IV., § 2, VIL, 2, §§ 3, 10), in the inscriptions is often sent as a messenger of good by his father, and is by him recognized as equal in knowledge, all of which is in accordance with his nature as a light deity and as the dispeller of the shadows of night and cold of winter. After Babylonia had been unified under Hammurabi, the priests of his temple based their claim for the rulership of the world by Babylon upon the alleged creation of the world by Merodach. To Merodach they applied the story of creation pre‑

Xerodach	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	818
Merseburg
viously told of Bel of Nippur (see BABYLONIA, VIL,
1, § 1, 2, § 2), and he became " king of the gods,
king of heaven and earth, lord of lords and king of
kings." His seven‑storied temple in Babylon bore
the name E‑temen‑anki, " House of the foundation
of heaven and earth." His cultus lived on in the
religion of the Mandmans (q.v.).
	It is important for the understanding of the use
of his name in the Bible to remember that in the
time when it was written Merodach was called Bel
(from Bel of Nippur). These two names enter as
elements into personal names, as in Belshazzar and
Merodach‑baladan. Merodach is also brought into
close connection with Nebo, god of the sister city of
Borsippa (Isa. xlvi. 1; so also in the inscriptions).
A close relationship existed between the New Year's
feast of Merodach and the Purim of the Jews (" the
day of Mordecai," II Mace. xv. 36; H. Winckler,
Altorientaliache ForacAungen, iii. 1 sqq., Leipsic,
1895). Indeed, a thoroughgoing influence upon
Biblical conceptions, especially as to the relations
of God and man, is ascribed by H. Zimmern to the
Babylonian Merodach. Babylonians and Hebrews
were united by a threefold bond of relationship in
speech, ideas, and mythological expression, though
this does not necessarily involve literary depend
ence. Moreover, where both peoples have used
material in common, the Biblical narratives are in
comparably higher in religious content than the
Babylonian. Indeed, it may be asked in some
cases whether the Babylonian expressions have not
been influenced toward their best form by Hebrew
thought and personalities. At any rate, the re
ligion which centered in Merodach, at least in its
latest phases as shown in the development of the
Maadaeans, conWned the idea of salvation.
		(A. JEREMIAs.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A full list of literature is given under BARY
	LONIA. Consult Particularly DB, iii. 347, and extra vol.,
	p. 545; A. Jeremias, in W. H. Loscher, Lexikon der pr<,e
	chisehen ur.d r6mischen Mythologic, ii. 2340‑72, Leipsic,
	1898; H. Gunkel, Bchapfunp and Chaos, Gottingen, 1895;
	M. Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, Boston,
	1898, and the German ed., Giessen, 1902 sqq.; H. Zim
	mern, in Schrader, KAT, ii. 370 eqq.; P. D. Chantepie de
	is Saussaye. Lehrbuch der RelvionepeschwAte, i. 294‑299,
	Tibingen, 1905; F. Martin, in Vigouroux, Dictionnaire,
	part xxvi. 997‑1001.
	MERODACH‑BALADAN: The Babylonian king
mentioned in Isa. xxxix. as sending an embassy to
Hezekiah, in the parallel passage, II Kings xx. 12
19, appearing either by mistake or change of con
sonants as Berodach‑baladan. He was the second
of the name on the throne of Babylon, the first
being a member of the Kasshite dynasty and ru_
fing 1129‑17 B.c. The sources of information about
him, outside of Biblical sources and the Ptolemaic
Canon, are the cuneiform inscriptions, particularly
the king lists, the inscriptions of Tiglath‑Pileser,
Sargon and Sennacherib, and two inscriptions of
Merodach‑baladan himself. The mention in the
inscriptions involves the period 729‑700 B.C. as that
of his activity. Variations in the way in which he
is mentioned in the inscriptions of Sennacherib, as
compared with those of Tiglath‑Pileser and Sargon,
were supposed to indicate that two persons of the
name were referred to, but recent research has
made it more probable that all the passages deal
with the same man. The Biblical narrative calls him " son of Baladan," possibly through a misunderstanding of the relation of the two elements in his name; Tiglath‑Pileser and Sargon call him " son of Yakin "; he speaks of himself as a descendant of Erba‑Marduk (an early king of Babylon) but does not give his father's name. He was king of BitYakin, one of the Chaldean states on the lower course of the Tigris and Euphrates, but became a vassal of Tiglath‑Pileser in 729. In 722 he utilized the confused condition of affairs to make himself king of Babylon, after forming an anti‑Assyrian alliance with Elam, succeeding in 721 in his effort and holding the position till 709, when he was driven out by Sargon and his paternal kingdom ravaged. After the death of Sargon, Merodach‑baladan renewed his activity against Babylon and in 703 [704] once more sat on the throne of that city, only to be driven out within a year by Sennacherib and compelled to hide in the marshes near the sea. In 701700 he again attempted to make headway against the Assyrian, but the vigorous measures of Sennacherib foiled his efforts. After that he disappears from the Assyrian annals.
There is no reason to doubt the historicity of the Old‑Testament account of the embassy sent to Hezekiah, though the purpose was doubtless not that of sympathy and congratulation, but rather to involve the Judean king in an anti‑Assyrian league. The time when this took place is not definitely indicated in the Biblical narrative, and has been variously placed by students, with the probabilities in favor of the time 721‑709 when Merodach‑baladan was first king of Babylon [more probably in 704 when Merodach‑baladan was again king of Baby‑
lon, about lilteen years before the death of Hezekiah; Isa. xxxviii. 5, xxxix. 1]. (See AsBYRIA, VI., 3, §§ 11‑12; and BABYLONIA, VI., 7, § 1.)
(R. KRAETZBCHMARt.)
BIBLIoaRAPHr: Schrader, KAT, pp. 72‑73, 79‑80 et par sim; idem KB, vole. ii.‑iii.; idem, in E. C. A. Riehm, Handw6rterbuch des biblischen Altertums, pp. 997‑998, Leipsic, 1894; the pertinent sections in the works on the history mentioned under AssyRIA, especially those of Rogers, Hommel, and 'Bele; H. Winckler, Die Keilech.Vttexts Sargona, i., pp. xv. sqq., xxxi. eqq., Leipsic, 1889; idem, Untereuehunpen our altorienemlischen Geschwhte, pp. 54 eqq., ib. 1889; idem, AlUestamentliche Untersuchungen, pp. 138 eqq., ib. 1892; J. F. McCurdy, History Prophecy and the Monuments, §§ 340, 621, 637‑638, 880‑872, 3 vols., New York, 1894‑1901; F. Martin, in Vigouroux, Dictdonnairs, part xxvi. 1001‑04; the later commentaries on If Kings and Tsaiah; DB, iii. 347; EB, iii. 3037‑38.
MERRIAM, ALEXANDER ROSS: Congregation‑
alist; b. at 0osheu~ N. YI1 hpi P1 102
Liu was educated at Yale College (A.B., 1872), and after teaching at the Hartford High School for two years (1872‑74) he entered Andover Theological Seminary, from which he was graduated in 1877.
He was pastor of Payson Congregational Church, Easthampton, Mass., from 1877 to 1884, when he accepted a call to the pastorate of the First Congregational Church, Grand Rapids, Mich., which pulpit he filled until 1891. Retiring from the ministry on account of ill‑health, he then resided at Brattleboro, Vt., for two years, and since 1893 has been professor of homiletics, pastoral care, and sociology at Hartford Theological Seminary.

319	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Bterodaoh
Mereeburg
MERRICK, JAMES: Church of England Biblical scholar and poet; b. at Reading Jan. 8, 1720; d. there Jan. 5, 1769. He was graduated from the University of Oxford (B.A., 1739; M.A., 1742); became a fellow, 1745; was ordained, but owing to ill‑health 'never took a charge. His earlier productions were on the Greek classics. He issued among other works a Dissertation on Proverbs ix. 1‑6 (Oxford, 1744); Poems on Sacred Subjects (1763); Annotations, Critical and Grammatical, on John i. 1‑14 (Reading, 1764); and on John i. 15‑iii (1767); The Psalms Translated or Paraphrased in English Verse (1765); Annotations on the Psalms (1768). His paraphrases of the Psalms were often reproduced, and some of them are found in modern hymn‑books, though in general his poetical work is severely criticized as too verbose for profitable employment in church hymnody.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: S. W. Duffield, English Hymns, pp. 578578, New York, 1888; Julian, Hymnology, pp. 725‑728; DNB, Ics:vii. 289‑291.

MERRILL, SELAH: Congregationalist; b. at Canton Center, Conn., May 2, 1837. He was educated at Yale College, but left before graduation. He then studied at Yale Divinity School, from which he was graduated in 1864, and after being chaplain of the Forty‑ninth (colored) Infantry at Vicksburg, Miss., in 1864‑65, was pastor at Chester, Mass., in 1865‑6; First Congregational Church, Le Roy, N. Y., in 1867; stated supply at the Third Congregational Church, San Francisco, Cal., in 18678. From 1868 to 1870 he studied in Germany, and after being pastor at Salmon Falls, N. H., in 1871‑72 and teaching Hebrew at Andover Theological Seminary in 1872, where he again taught in 1879, he was archeologist of the American Palestine Exploration Society from 1875 to 1877. He has been United States consul at Jerusalem in 18821886, 1891‑94, and since 1898, and is honorary curator of the Biblical museum of Andover Theological Seminary. He is well and favorably known for his contributions to Biblical archeology, especially in connection with excavations in and about Jerusalem, especially those which disclosed the second wall. He has made collections dealing with the coins, implements, and fauna of Palestine. In theology he is orthodox and approves critical methods so long as they remain reverent. In addition to a large number of contributions to theological and Oriental periodicals, he has written East of the Jordan: A Record of Exploration carried on in 1876‑77 (New York, 1881); Galilee in the Time of Christ (Boston, 1881); Greek Inscriptions collected in the Years 1876‑77 in the Country east of the Jordan (New York, 1885); The Site of Calvary (Jerusalem, 1885); and Ancient Jerusalem, Topography and Archoology (New York, 1908).

MERRY, WILLIAM WALTER: Church of England; b. at Evesham (15 m. s.e. of Worcester), Worcestershire, Sept. 6, 1835. He was educated at Balliol College, Oxford (B.A. 1857; M.A., Lincoln College, 1860), and was ordered deacon in 1860 and ordained priest in the following year. He was a fellow and lecturer in Lincoln College from 1859 to 1884, and was also vicar of All Souls, Ox‑
ford, from 1862 to the same year. He was classical moderator at Oxford in 1863‑64, 1869‑71, 1874, 1877, and 1883‑84, select preacher at the university in 1878‑79 and 1889‑90, and Whitehall preacher in 188384. He was likewise a member of the Hebdomadal Council, pro‑vice‑chancellor in 1902‑1904, and vice‑chancellor in 1904‑06. His literary work has dealt with editions of classical authors: the " Odyssey " (2 vole., Oxford, 1870‑78); Specimens of Greek Dialects (London, 1875); the " Clouds " (Oxford, 1879), " Acharnians" (1880), " Frogs " (1884), " Knights " (1887), " Birds " (1889), " Wasps " (1893), and " Peace " (1900) of Aristophanes; and Selected Fragments of Roman Poetry (1891).
MERRY DEL VAL, RAPHAEL: Cardinal; b. in London (of a Spanish father and an English mother) Oct. 10, 1865. He was educated suceessively at Brussels, St. Cuthbert's, England, and the Accademia lei nobili ecalesiastici, Rome, and was ordained to the priesthood in 1889, after having already been made privy chamberlain to the pope in the previous year. In 1892 he became " guardaroba " to the pope, and in 1897 was appointed domestic prelate. He was then entrusted with a mission to Canada, and on his return was made president of the Accademia lei nobili ecclesiastici in 1899. In the following year he was consecrated titular archbishop of Nicea. He was the edvoy of Leo XIII. to congratulate King Edward on his accession to the English throne, and was also secretary of the conclave which elected the present pope. On the accession of Pius X., Merry del Val was appointed pro‑secretary of state, and in 1903 was created cardinal priest of Santa Prasede, his promotion to full secretary of state following two days later.
MERSEBUR6, mer'se‑burg, BISHOPRIC OF: A former episcopal see in Saxony, founded at the same time and in the same manner as those of Meissen and Zeitz, as part of the plan for binding more closely to the empire the territory of the Wends on the right bank of the Saale (967). The first bishop was Boso, a monk of Ratiabon, distinguished by his missionary labors among the Wends. His successor Gisiler procured the suppression of the see through Otto IL's power over Benedict VII. in 981; but this step was so clearly against the interests of the Church that it was revoked in 998 or early in 999 at a Roman synod. The diocese did not, however, recover all its former territory, and was now almost exclusively a missionary jurisdiction among the Wends, who were not wholly converted to Christianity until the middle of the twelfth century (see WENDs,CONvNB910N OF). (A. Heucx.)
	The Reformation was forcibly established here
during the episcopate of Sigismund van Lindenau
(d. 1544) after his protector, Henry of Brunswick
WolfenbUttel, had been driven out by the Schmal
kald League in 1542. The electors of Saxony there
after put in members of their own house with the
title of administrator, and from 1652 to 1738 with
that of duke of Saxony Merseburg. By the decision
of the Congress of Vienna three‑fourths of the dioce
san territory was assigned to Prussia, the rest re‑

Xerswin	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	ago
maining Saxon; the religious attitude of the people was by that time almost entirely Protestant.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Gams, Series epiacoporum pp 291‑292; Chronic= epiacoporum Meraeburg, ed. R. Wilmans in MGH, Script., x (1852), 163‑212; cf. Wilmans in Archiv der Geaellachaft Air dltere deutsche Geachichtakunde, I3. 146211; Hauck, KD, ii. 130 sqq., 142 sqq., et passim.
MERSWIR, RULMAN. See FRIENDS or GOD.
MERULA, ANGELUS (Engel de Merle): Early Dutch Protestant; b. at Briel (14 m. w. of Rotterdam) 1482 or 1487; d. at Bergen (34 m. s.s.e. of Brussels) July 26, 1557. He studied four years at the University of Paris (M.A., 1507; Lie. theol., 1508), was ordained priest at Utrecht, 1511, and became preacher in Briel. In 1530 he removed to Heenvliet. Before 1540 he came under suspicion of heresy, but was not molested till 1553, when he was arrested at The Hague. In 1554 the authorities claimed that he retracted, but it is probable that, being deaf, he did not understand the document which was read to him. He was not released and was finally condemned to death at Bergen, but died while kneeling in prayer at the place of execution. He was a learned scholar and his convictions were the fruit of his study. His view of the Lord's Supper was the same as Zwingli's, but was not borrowed from him. He wished to reform the Church from within by the pure preaching of God's Word, which he made the sole authority; to church tradition he attached no worth. Each one must follow his own conscience, since without freedom no faith is possible. Unbelief is the chief sin. Christ alone is savior, and the invocation of the saints is fruitless. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the only sacraments. All Christians are priests. The Roman Church is but one branch of the Church catholic and the pope is antichrist. He rejected purgatory, transubstantiation, and the church doctrine of absolution and indulgences. He is described as an amiable, discreet, and good‑hearted man, who loved to do good. An orphan asylum founded by him in Briel is still in existence.
(S. D. vAN VEEN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. Moll, Angelus Merula, de hervormer en martelaar des peloofs, Amsterdam, 1855 (cf. on this H. de Jager, in Archief voor Nederlandache Kerkgesch%edenis, vi. 1‑44, and A. H. L. Hensen, in De Katholiek, cu., 1897, 43‑68); T. M. J. Hoog, De Verantwoording van Angelus Merula, Leyden, 1897.
MERE, ERNST OTTO ADALBERT: German Protestant; b. at Bleicherode (10 m. s.w. of Nordhausen), Prussian Saxony, Nov. 2, 1838; d. at Heidelberg Aug. 4, 1909. He was educated at the universities of Marburg, Halle, and Berlin, 1857‑61 (Ph.D., Breslau, 1861); became privat‑docent at the University of Jena, 1865, and associate prof^ssor, 1869; professor of Oriental languages at Tiibingen, 1869; of theology at Giessen, 1873; and of Old‑Testament exegesis at Heidelberg, 1875. He was the author of Meletemata Ignatiana (Halls, 1861); Bardesanes von Edessa (1863); Cur in libro Danielis yuxta Hebrceam Aramaxi adhibita sit dialectus (1865); Grammatica Syriaca (1867); Das Gedicht von Hiob (Jena, 1871); Neusyrisches Lesebuch (Tiibingen, 1873); Tfirkische Sprichworter ins Deutsche ubersetzt (Venice, 1877); Die Prophetic des Joel and ihre Ausleger von den altesten Zeiten bis zu den Re‑
formatoren (Halls, 1879); Die saadjanische Uebersetzung des Hohen Liedes ins Arabische (Heidelberg, 1882); Chrestomathia Targumica (1887); Idee and Grundlinien der alIgemeinen Geschichte der Mysterien (Heidelberg, 1892); Documents de paUographie hebreue et arabe (Leyden, 1894); Ueber die heutigen Aufgaben des evangelischen Bundes (Leipsie, 1892); Die vier kanonischen Evangelien nach ahrem altesten bekannten Texte (3 vols., Berlin, 1897‑1905); Aus Muallim Nadschia Sunbule (1898); Die morgenldndisehen Studien and Professoren an der Universitat Heidelberg (Heidelberg, 1903); and Die Biicher Moses and Josua . . . fur Laien (Tiibingen,1907). He edited the Archiv fiir wissenachaftliche Erforschung des Alten Testaments since 1871, as well as Vocabulary of the Tigrd Language written down by Moritz von Beurmann (Halls, 1868); and the second edition of F. Tueh's Commentar fiber die Genesis (1871).
MERZ, GEORG HEINRICH: German Lutheran; b. at Crailsheim (46 m. n.e. of Stuttgart) Aug. 8, 1816; d. at Stuttgart Dec. 31, 1893. At Maulbronn and Ttibingen he came under the influence of Strauss and Baur, only to turn from them to a more positive faith. Schelling's lectures at Berlin (1841‑42) suggested to him the possibility of apprehending historic revelation as the pivotal center for a philosophic system; while Kugler inspired him to a concrete historical understanding of medieval art, a study promoted by his extensive travels in Germany, Belgium, France, England, and Austria. On his return to Germany, he began a careful study of German art, and his Uebersichten took up the cause of ancient German and Evangelical art.
From 1846 to 1850 Merz was deacon at Neustadton‑the‑Kocher, while during the years that marked the frustration of national hopes he was pastor of St. Catherine's in Hall, Swabia (1850‑63). His most effective literary work was his Armut and Christentum (Stuttgart, 1848), in which he advocated not merely " Christian communism," as practised by open‑handed Pietism, but rather " Christian socialism," or the corporate application of personal assistance, and the enlistment of women in forms of Christian activity. Pursuing a popular vein, he now wrote his most widely circulated book, the Christlichen Frauenbilder (Stuttgart, 1851; Eng. transl. by S. Jackson, " Eminent Women of the German Reformation," London, 1856), presenting a collection of biographies of Christian women of all eras of the Christian Church. Meanwhile, he further cultivated the study and practise of art, restoring his own church with very modest means and writing the text for J. Schnorr von Carolsfeld's Bibel in Bildern (Leipsie, 1852‑60; Eng. transl., The Bible in Pictures, 2 vols., London, 1869). His main object, however, was to reach a scientific ground of harmony with the practical church problems of the present; and his results were set forth in his Die innere Mission in ihrem Verhaltnis zu den wissenschaftlichen and kirchlichen Richtungen der Gegenwart (TSK, 1854), in which he explained the significance and status of the Innere Mission in both actual and ideal relation to the German Church.
Merz now became successively dean and circuit school‑inspector at Marbach (1863), supreme con‑

321	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Merewin
		Mesrob
sistorial councilor at Stuttgart (1869), and prelate
and general superintendent of Reutlingen (1873).
With these positions was also associated his en
trance into the house of deputies, in which capacity
he was a member of the state synod. His own dis
tinctive province, however, was the cultivation of
Christian art, in which field he succeeded Graneisen
as director of the Verein fur christliche Kunst in
der evangelischen Kirche Wilrttembergs and as edi
tor of the Chridlichm Kunathlatt from 1878 onward.
He gave the impulse, counsel, and ready assistance
toward furnishing and renovating many churches
in Wilrttemberg, and also took a leading part in all
the more important enterprises in the domain of
church art in his time, both in and beyond W urttem
berg proper.	J. MERZ.
B:BLxoaRAPRr: Lutheranische Kirchenuitunp, xoviii. 473 sqq.
	MESHECH. See GOG AND MAGOG; and TABLE
OF THE NATIONS.
	MESOPOTAMIA, mes"o‑po‑t&mi‑a: The name
applied by the Greeks after the time of Alexander
and by the Romans to the region between the Tigris
and the Euphrates (cf. Acts ii. 9). In earlier times
the equivalent term applied only to the region
northwest of Babylonia through which the Balich
and the Chabur flowed. Before the Assyrian period
the district was the locus of independent states, one
of which was Kisshati, capital Haran, the title of
whose king was assumed by early Babylonian mon
archs. Of the history of this region before 1500 B.C
little is known. About 2000 B.o. it was settled by
the peoples of the branch of Semites to which Ca
naanites, Phenicians, and Hyksos belonged. The
Egyptian wars of the eighteenth and nineteenth
dynasties, following the expulsion of the Hyksos,
were in part directed against Nahrina (see below),
" land of the rivers," which was Mesopotamia in its
proper sense (cf. W. M. Miiller, Asien and Europa,
pp. 144, 249 sqq., Leipsic, 1893), and reports of
these wars give the earliest information of the re
gion. The next news comes from the Amarna
Tablets, which speak of non‑Semitic conquerors,
the Mitanni (see ASSYRIA, VI., 2, § 1), under a King
Tushratta (see AMARNA TABLETS, HL), whose
father and grandfather had had diplomatic rela
tions with Egypt, while his own kingdom had a
considerable area. Shortly afterward, the region
belonged to Assyria, the kings of which assumed
the title " king of Kisshati," and Shalmaneser II.
(see AssYRIA, VI., 3, § 7) extinguished the remains
of the independence of its princes. Much of the
culture, especially on its linguistic side, which came
to be known as Assyrian, was due to the influence
of this region of Kisshati. After the subjection of
the Mitanni, the Arameans overran tile region (cf.
A. Sands, Die Aramder, Leipsic, 1902). A result of
this migration was the establishment of the king
dom of Bit‑Adini (the " children of Eden " of Isa.
xxxvii. 12), which reached from the Balich to the
Euphrates and was destroyed by the Assyrians (see
AssYRIA, VI., 2; 3, § 7).
	Acts vii. 2 refers to a command received by Abra
ham " when he was in Mesopotamia, before he
dwelt in Charran." The common explanation that
by Mesopotamia is here meant the entire region
		VIL‑21
between the Euphrates and the Tigris is untenable. Winckler would read the passage " when he was (once) in Mesopotamia, before he (finally) came to dwell in Charran," and refer it to a legendary missionary journey of Abraham, mention of which occurs in the pseudepigraphic Apocalypse of Abraham (ed. N. Bonwetsch, in Studien zur Gewhichte der Theologie and Kirche, i. 1, Leipsic, 1897; see PsEuDEPIGRAPHA, II., 21). The history of Jacob is also connected with Mesopotamia proper (Gen. xxix. 1). The narrator in Gen. xxiv. 10 calls the region Aramnabaraim (cf. R. V. margin), the Nahrina of the Egyptian inscriptions and the Narima of the Amarna Tablets, and in Gen. xxv. 20 it appears as Padan‑aram (" plain of Aram," cf. Hos. xii. 12, R. V.). See ARAM, ARAMEANB. (A. JEREMIAS.)
BiBLroaRAPRY: On the geography: C. Chesney, The Expedition of the Survey of the Rivers Euphrates and Tigris, vol. i., London, 1850; J. C. F. Hoefer, Chaldde, Amyrie, M6die, Babylonie, Mhopotamie, pp. 151‑192, Paris, 1852; W. K. Loftus, Travels and Researches in Chaldea and Susiana, London, 1859; H. Kiepert, Lehrbuch der alien Geopraphie, Berlin, 1878, Eng. tranal., Manual of Ancient Geography, London, 1881. On the history: H. Winckler, in Schrader, KAT, i. 26‑32 et passim; F. Vigouroux, La Bible et les dicouvertea modernes, vol. iii., 4 vols., Paris, 1881‑82; G. Maspero, Hiet. ancienne des peoples de 1'orient classique, i. 551‑564, ib. 1895; L. B. Paton, Early Hilt. of Syria and Palestine, New York, 1901.

MESROB (MESROP, MASHTOZ) : The inventor of the Armenian alphabet, founder of Armenian literature, and one of the original translators of the Bible into that language; b. at Hazegaa (Hatzik) in the province . of Taron, Armenia, c. 350; d. at Valarsabad Feb. 19, 441. He was a son of a certain Wardan, and studied Greek, Persian, and Syriac under the Catholicos Nerses I. the Great (see ARMENIA, III., § 3), whose secretary he became. After the death of Nerses, he was for seven years a royal seoretary under King Vramshapuh, having under his charge matters concerned with the Persian tongue. He then followed his bent for the ascetic life and entered a monastery, but very soon from the Catholicos Sahag (Isaac) the Great, successor of Nerses, he received the commission to preach the Gospel, which he did in various parts of the country. In this work his attention was called to the lack of Armenian Christian literature and indeed of a vehicle for it, since Syriac and Persian were used respectively in the churches and at court. He set himself to supply the need of an Armenian script and provided an alphabet. His important work for Armenia having become known in Georgia and Albania, he was invited thither by Bakur, the ruler of Georgia, and by the Archbishop Moses, and created the Georgian and later the Albanian alphabet, one result of which was the foundation of schools in Albania for the teaching of Christianity under the patronage of King Arswagh and Bishop Jeremiah. Returning then to Armenia, Mearob assisted Sahag in translating the entire Bible into Armenian (see BIBLE VERSIONS, A, VI.).
The political and religious persecutions set in motion by the Persian king after the death of VramEhapuh drove Sahag and Mesrob for a time into Grecian Armenia. After the subsidence of these disturbances, both returned to their own region and engaged in translating into Armenian Syriac

Xess`i hue`s	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	gag
and Greek patristic work. Pupils were sent to Alexandria and Athens to lay a foundation in accurate knowledge of Greek for correct translation of works into Armenian.
	Mesrob was a zealous opponent of heresy, and
brought about the exile of the heretical teachers
Barbarianus and Theodius. He was also active in
promoting the monastic life, and many monasteries
were built on his initiative. The Armenian alpha
bet invented by him has thirty‑six characters,
arranged in general after the order of the Greek
alphabet with signs peculiar to the Armenian in
serted. It was based neither on the Syriac nor on
the Middle Persian, but on the Greek. The script
is written from left to right. See ARMENIA, II.,
	1‑3. 	(K. KE88LER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Life by Goriun exists in Germ. transl. by Welts, Tilbingen, 1841 (weighted with legend). The " History of Armenia " by Moses of Chorene (a pupil of Mesrob), printed often (e.g., Venice, 1827), is found in translations‑Latin by Whiston, London, 1738; French (with Armenian text) by Le Vaillant de Florival, Venice, 1842; German by Lauer, Regensburg, 1842. Consult: E. Bort;, Saint Laaare, pp. 90 sqq., Venice, 1835; V. Langlois, Notice cur Is convent armtnien de Tile S. Lazare h Venice, Venice 1889; J. Nirschl, Patrolopie, iii. 215‑262, Mainz, 1885; KL, i. 1347‑48, viii. 1305‑09; and the literature under ARMENIA, especially the works by P. Lukiaa Somal, M. Patcanian, V. Langloie, and F. Nbve.

MESSALL4ftS, mss‑stA'li‑anz (from Aram. mezallin, participle of zela, " to pray "): A Syrian sect of the fourth century, also called Euchites, Euphi=mites or Choreutes.
Epiphanius tells of assemblies of pagans who were neither Jews nor Christians but were strongly influenced by both. They worshiped only one God, the Almighty, meeting for this purpose in the evening and at dawn and directing their prayers and hymns to God. On this account they suffered persecutions and therefore called themselves Martyrians. A close connection between these pagan Euchites and the Christian Messalians can not be shown. From the name Messalians it is plain that the Christian sect arose in Mesopotamia, which sect Epiphanius is the first to mention, their heresy being the last described in his Panarion. He knows nothing of their origin and affirms that they can not be called a definitely organized sect. They declared themselves to be Christians in the fullest sense since they had renounced the world and forsworn the possession of private property. They had no scruples in calling themselves prophets, patriarchs, angels; they even applied to themselves the name of Christ. They considered it fitting to their perfection as Christians to abjure all work and to live wholly upon alms. They did not fast, but devoted themselves to constant prayer. The men and the women slept in the same apartment, during the summer in the open air.
Later Theodoret and Timotheus give an account of them. Amphilochius, who presided at the Synod of Side, convicted them of heresy on account of their writings, and Theodoret relates that Flavian, the patriarch of Antioch, induced them to expound their views on religious themes. Evidently they were a sect of enthusiastic mystics, who had, however, no intention of separating themselves from
the Church. They believed they could attain to a perfect realization of Christianity, without reliance on the Church's means of grace, though still within her fold. They taught that through Adam's fall human nature acquired such a strong bent toward evil, that every one from his very birth is the dwelling‑place of a devil. Baptism removes former sins, but it can not destroy the root of sin. That can be done only by constant prayer. Through prayer, to which therefore they devoted themselves, especially at night, they believed they could drive out the devil, and Augustine tells of their assertion that they saw swine issuing from their mouths and instead shining unconsuming fire entering. In perceptible fashion did the Holy Spirit enter the worshipers and accomplish the betrothal of their souls with the heavenly bridegroom. Thereby they were enabled to become prophets not only of the future but also of the secrets of the Trinity. Even the body of Christ had to be purified from devils by the Logos, but through its glorification he became like unto the Father. So the man who has been united to God needs no longer ascetic practises nor inatruotion, but assumes the divine nature. No longer is it necessary for him to partake of communion; he can sin no more. Women were teachers among them.
Their origin was certainly in Mesopotamia, whence they spread to Syria. Their progress may be followed in the acts of several synods. Flavian brought them from Edessa to Antioch and gained in an underhand way the confidence of their leader Adelphius. When from him he had learned their teachings, he condemned them, and refused to receive them again into the Church. From Antioch they removed to Pamphylia. Some decades later the Synod at Ephesus condemned their writings and threatened them with excommunication. Later still Lampetius was accused of heresy and was removed from office by Hormisdas, and two bishops, both named Alphteus, who defended him were likewise degraded. In the fifth century in Armenia proceedings were instituted against the sect. Priests and deacons who were convicted of this heresy were branded and forced to become hermits in expiation. Those who fell into their errors a second time were hamstrung, even the laity being treated in this way. In Greece in the time of Justinian a certain Marcian became their leader whence they were called Marcianites, just as before they had been called Adelphians and Lampetians. Gregory the Great vindicated an elder, accused of being a follower of Marcian, from the charge of heresy. As time went on their doctrines became more spiritual and less purely ascetic. On the Messalians of a later time See PAULICIANB; NEw‑MANICHEANB.
(N. BONWETSCH.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The sources are Epiphanius, Har., lxxx.;
Cyril of Alexandria De adoratione in MPG, lxviii. 282; Theodoret, Hist. eecl., v. 10; Augustine, De ha'reeibus, mi. Consult: DCB, ii..258‑261 (best); J. H. Blunt, Dictionary o,/ Sects arid Heresies, pp 150‑151, Philadelphia, 1874; Karapet Ter‑Mkrttachia, Die Paulikianer im byzantiniachen Kaiaerreiche, Leipsic, 1893• F. C. Conybeare, The Key of Tm.th, Oxford, 1898; H. Achelis, Virpines sub.. introducta, Leipsic, 1902; K. Hall, Amphilochius von Iko. nium in seinem Verhdltnis zu den priechiaden Kappado. ziern, pp. 30 aqq., Tfibingen, 1904.

828	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	XeuesUano
Xe.siah
MESSIAH, MESSIANISM.
Influence of Eschatology (¢ 1).
Measianiam of Earlier Part of Enoch (§ 2).
The Psalms of Solomon (§ 3).
The Later Part of Enoch (§ 4).
The Apocalypse of Baruch (¢ 5).
The Apocalypse of Ezra (§ 8). III. Late Jewish Messianism.
General Characteristics (§ 1).
L In the Old Testament. The Original Signification (¢ 1). Failure to Realize the Ideal (§ 2). Early Prophetic Doctrine (¢ 3). Doctrine of the Later Prophets (§ 4). Individualization of the Messianic Idea (§ 5). II. In the Paeudepigmpha.
	I. In the Old Testament: In the Old Testament
the word " Messiah " is not used alone as an abso
lute title, but is usually met in the phrase " the
anointed of Yahweh," meaning Yahweh's conse
crated king. It is a title of honor of the reigning
king of Israel from the time of Saul and David
(I Sam. xxiv. 6, 10, and often). Once Yahweh ap
plies the term to the Persian King Cyrus, because
		he had appointed him to carry out his
	:. The designs (cf. also I Kings xix. 15, where
	Original a heathen is to be anointed king over
	Significa‑ Syria because Yahweh intends to use
	tion. him as an instrument of punishment).
		The implication of the term was that
something of the sublimity and sacredness of his
God had been communicated to the king, and he
stood before the people as the representative of
Yahweh, governing in his place. The relationship
of Yahweh to the people of his covenant became in
the case of the king a personal relationship. The
religion of Yahweh, which had originated in indi
vidual revelations of God to a few, tended, after it
had assumed a national form, toward the concen
tration of this relationship to God in a person. The
king was the natural focus for this tendency. He
was placed by the word of the prophet in that filial
relation to God in which the whole people had
long.been conscious of standing (II Sam. vii. 14;
Ex. iv. 22; Deut. xxxii. 6; Hos. xi. 1; see KINGSHIP
IN ISRAEL). The relationship became in this way
a more lifelike and intimate one. This religious
idealization of royalty had already attained a high
development in the period of the united kingdom,
especially under David. As Yahweh had been from
of old the king of Israel, so David, who had brought
the ark of the covenant to Zion, endeavored to
realize the ideal. Psalms ii., Ludi., ex., state the
consequences of such a rule: Yahweh rules from
Zion over the whole world, and his anointed is
unconquerable and virtually Lord of all the earth.
This induced the prophets Amos, Hosea, Isaiah,
Micah, and others to take their stand upon the
synthesis of Yahweh's residence in Zion and his
establishment there of a kingdom of the house of
David which was never to be overthrown (cf. Joel
iii. 16; Amos i. 2; Isa. ii. 2 sqq., iv. 2 sqq.).
But the actuality in the royal person and in his government never corresponded to the lofty ideal of the prophets. Even in the time of David this fact appears, and consequently the consummation of this kingdom was postponed to the future. Thus according to the " last words " of David (II Sam. xxiii. 1 sqq.), the full glory of this kingdom had as yet only dawned, although with great promise; but under Solomon there was brought about the destruction of those beginnings which had been so
In the First Christian Century (¢ 2). Early Rabbinic Ideals (§ 3). The Functions of Elias (14). Duration of Messianic Rule (§ 5). The Person of the Messiah (¢ 8). The Messiah's Activities (¢ 7). Accompaniments of the Messiah's Coming (¢ 8).
full of promise. Only a poor remnant of David's kingdom remained for his heirs; nevertheless, the kings of the divided kingdom held
	Z. Failure	firmly to their Messianic relationship
	to Realize	to Yahweh, as is shown by the royal
	the Ideal.	psalms, and the spiritual inheritance
		from the time of David remained a
nourishing soil, whence new hope in a greater future
would arise spontaneously or could be evoked by
the words of the prophets. Indeed, the less actual
ities in the kingdom of Judah corresponded to the
sublimity of the ideal, the more probable it ap
peared that they would be fully and completely
realized in the consummation of the kingdom of
Yahweh. It is true that this consummation was
to be preceded by the judgment of the Day of Yah
weh (q.v.). This is the hope which is in a broader
sense Messianic. The whole of God's activity in
judgment and in mercy, to which the prophets bear
witness, points toward such a consummation; but
they do not always speak of such a personal Messiah
in the language which later Judaism and the New
Testament employed in describing the new king
from the house of David, in whom the prophetic
ideal of a divine and human king was to be fully
realized. Some of the prophets are entirely silent
regarding this organ of divine rule and speak only of
Yahweh as the one to whom will belong universal
dominion, while others describe as the Messiah the
human bearer of the divine power and mediator
of the divine mercy to his people. Indeed, some
prophets recognize the Davidic king as the central
point of the future kingdom of God, yet in other
descriptions of the future speak solely of the com
ing of Yahweh and of his future residence in the
midst of his people.
It was the firm conviction of the prophets of the northern kingdom that the royal house of David, in spite of its political insignificance, had an indestructible support in God's settlement
	3. Early	upon Zion and his covenant with
	Prophetic	David; and Amos and Hoses discerned
	Doctrine.	there the point of crystallization for
		the future kingdom of Yahweh. Amps,
however, alludes in more general terms to the re
establishment of the tabernacle of David, whose rule
is again to be extended over the lands promised to
him (Amps ix. 11 sqq.). Hoses speaks more indi
vidually of " the king, David " of the future (iii.
5) under whose rule the whole people will unite (i.
11) and around whom will gather those scattered
and driven from the land by the judgment. In
Hoses preparation is made for the portrayal of a
Messiah in the later sense of the word, that is, of
an ideal future king who will fully realize the sub
lime assurances of grace because he will be entirely

Xsssish	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	324
worthy of them. [The passages referred to above are thought by most recent interpreters to be additions by later hands. If so, they illustrate the stages described in the sequel.] Subsequent prophets have drawn the picture with great individuality, for example, Zech. ix. 9 sqq., where the Messiah is praised as a king of peace, bringing salvation and help to his city and people. Similarly Isaiah's expectations were founded upon the house of David. For this reason they revolve about a double center, Yahweh's seat in Zion and a particular king, who, endowed with all the gracious gifts of a ruler blessed by God, is to reestablish the throne of his father. This ruler appears vaguely to the prophet in Isa. vii.; he will be born in the deepest humiliation of the royal house of David, for Immanuel is not some undetermined child who was then to be born, but the future possessor of the land (viii. 8; cf. viii. 10 with ix. 6). From this time, the figure of the descendant of David becomes continually clearer and larger to the prophet. The superhuman attributes which are heaped upon this king in ix: 6‑7 should not be taken as mere hyperbole, for nothing was farther from Isaiah's mind than excessive exaltation of human greatness. The prophet would have sternly rejected any mixture of human and divine honors. such as was habitual with Assyrians, Babylonians and Egyptians. The sublime predicates applied to the scion of David can be understood only as meaning that he recognized in this future ruler a wonderful in‑dwelling of God, and this affords the answer to the question as to how the texts regarding the heir to Davidic dignity can agree with the sayings of the same prophet wherein there is no mention of this human king, but only of Yahweh's sublime self‑manifestation in Zion. This rule of Yahweh in Zion is the essential and most intimate part of the divine plan for the future. The son of David is only the organ, though a pure and worthy organ, of the invisible ruler. Micah, the contemporary of Isaiah, also described the coming son of David as a mysterious, sublime figure, full of the divine, ruling with infinite beatitude and peace. He, too, makes this ruler in his lofty majesty proceed from humble surroundings in David's ancestral home at Bethlehem. Micah, also, prophecies concerning Zion as God's seat, where Yahweh will reveal himself to all nations. In the prophecies of Isaiah regarding foreign nations there is again a remarkable confirmation of this universal rule of Yahweh from Zion as well as of the idealized human kingship there; Egypt and Ethiopia (Cush) and Tyre will do homage to the God of Israel, and the Moabites will seek protection and justice at the gracious throne of David.
The utterances of Obadiah and Joel (which are
here placed before those of Amos and Hosea) belong
to the prophecies which do not treat of the Messiah,
		but of the consummation of the rule of
4. Doctrine Yahweh over Israel and over the na
	of the tions; later come those of Nahum,
	Later Habakkuk (cf., however, iii. 13) and
	Prophets. Zephaniah. In Jeremiah and Ezekiel,
		also, the promises which refer in general
terms to God's kingdom are preponderant. The nearer
the political rule of the house of David approached its
fall, the more definitely did the prophets claim that to no one but to him would belong the rule over the earth, and that the remnant of his people would be distinguished before the whole world by his selfmanifestation in his holy dwelling‑place. However, the hope of a vicegerent of God, who will procure salvation and blessings for his people, often appears as an accompanying factor of this expectation (cf. Jer. xxiii. 5‑6 with xxxiii. 1 aqq., 15 aqq.; also, Jer. xxx. 9; Ezek. xvii. 22 sqq., xxxvii. 23‑24; against the attacks of those who deny the existence of Messianic prophecies in the preexilie period, or are at most willing to admit them after the time of Josiah, cf. W. Moeller, Die. 7nessianische Erwartung der varexilischen Propheten, Giitersloh, 1906). In the " servant of Yahweh " of Deutero‑Isaiah, instead of the Davidic king there appears another human figure as the medium of the consummation of the divine plan of salvation for Israel and for humanity. By his designation, he realizes fully and purely the ideal which should constitute the vocation of the whole people: to serve Yahweh in intelligent and willing obedience. Submission to the will of God is with him so complete and so thoroughly unselfish in contradistinction to the obstinacy of the people, that he endures without resistance the extreme of humiliation, the bitterest suffering and death, although he has in no wise deserved it. Precisely through such patient endurance of the unbearable does he fulfil his all‑embracing mission and move onward to his exaltation. Whatever may be the difference between the appearance of this generally rejected and despised " servant of Yahweh " and the glorious king whose picture has been drawn in Isa. ix., xi.; Micah iv., etc., there exists an intimate relationship between them; Delitzsch, therefore, is quite right in calling this servant " the mediator of salvation as prophet, priest, and king in the same person." It is also true that there is no lack of testimony in favor of the external lowliness of the Godchosen prince in the earlier Messianic utterances. In Isa. xi. and elsewhere, the Messiah grows up in the lowliest surroundings. If Zech. xii.‑xiv. was composed before the exile, not only was the synthesis between the royal and the prophetic vocation already completed, but the chastisement and the death of the trusted companion of God, of the true shepherd of his people, had also been predicted. It is the bitter sorrow over his death which brings the saving change of heart among the people. After the Babylonian exile Messianic prophecy revives both in a narrower and a broader sense. Haggai and Zechariah at first had in view the rebuilding of the temple as the place where Yahweh would reveal himself more sublimely than ever be‑
fore. But tW future revelation of tho inuiIihlt Gad
can not be separated from the elevation of the house of David (Hag. ii. 20 sqq.), nor from the appear‑
ance of the " sprout " of this race, which, springing from such small beginnings, is to complete the divine structure on Zion and unite the royal with
the priestly dignity for the blessing of his people (Zechariah). Malachi, without alluding to this personality, speaks of the coming " angel of Yahweh " who will sit in judgment on his people; and, as re.

325	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Messiah
gards human instruments, he thinks only of an " Elias," who will prepare the way for him. Finally, in the book of Daniel, the kingdom of God appears and is to triumph over the successive empires through the " people of the saints," i.e., Israel, which has remained faithful. But this people is to have a human chief who is designated as the "son of Man," vii., 13. Here the Messiah acquires a universal designation which Jesus assumes in the New Testament.
When, however, the figure of the great future king had become rooted in the hope of the community, prophecies concerning him were found not only in such utterances as expressly
5. Indi‑ mentioned him, but passages which revidualiza‑ ferred in the first place to the living tion of the and ruling kings of Israel and Judah Messianic were also brought into relationship Idea. with him. His figure was embellished from Psalms such as ii., xlv., lxxii., ex., and, indeed, from the royal psalms in general, and words which were used in regard to the rise or glorification of royalty in Israel were referred to the Messiah personally (as Num. xxiv. 15‑19). Even such passages as Gen. ix. 25‑27, xii. 1‑3, and the analagous sayings of the patriarchs were interpreted in the same way; more especially Gen. xlix. 10 and similar texts were conceived in a directly Messianic sense. Later the Church placed Gen. iii. 14‑15 at the head as the protevangelium, since it announced the victory of the seed of the woman (which was taken in an individual sense) over the power of evil. The words of Deut. xviii. 15, also, were interpreted to signify an individual prophet, and he was partially identified with the Messiah. The tendency to interpret many passages as Messianic had become habitual in the Jewish community before Christ. In the so‑called apocryphal writings of the Old Testament the Messianic hope is not prominent. The reason for this is to be sought partly in the historical and didactic character of the class of writings to which these books belong, partly in the fact that expectations regarding the future were not so much in the foreground in the circles in which these writings originated. On the other hand, the Pseudepigrapha (q.v.) prove that after the Maccabean period the Messianic hope, both in a wider and in a narrower sense, awakened to new life. As long as it seemed that the honored Hasmoncans (q.v.) would be able to lead the people to a new and happy future, the parties attached to them had no longing for the dynasty of David. It was rather a subject of satisfaction that the theocratic offices were united in them, as when John Hyrcanus, in addition to his princely dignity, was also endowed with that of high priest and was even regarded as a prophet with whom God communicated (Josephus, Ant. XIII., x. 7; War I., ii. 8). Prophecies such as Ob. 19 sqq. and Amos ix. 11‑12, seemed to be fulfilled by him when he conquered Samaria and Idumaea, destroyed the temple on Gerizim, and forced circumcision upon the Edomites. The narrow and formal spirit which reigned among the devotees of the law was as little favorable to the comprehension of the prophecies regard‑
ing the future salvation of the people as was Philonic Hellenism.
II. In the Pseudepigmpha: In the mean time eschatology, which had been neglected by the teachers of the law and by the philosophers, found all the more zealous adherents in certain z. Influence circles and was brought into conneo‑
of Escha‑ tion with the general historical inter‑
	tology.	ests of the time, resulting in the pro
		duction of apocalyptic writings. The
newly won and often quite modern conceptions
were put in the mouth of some seer or sage of primi
tive times, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Elias, Ezra,
Baruch, or Solomon. Whether this was understood
by contemporaries as being only a disguise, or
whether it was taken in earnest, the trivial origin
and character of these apocalyptic books, as com
pared with those of former times, was well under
stood in the higher circles of Judaism, and the
pseudepigrapha were not read in the synagogue.
Nevertheless, in a more private way they were
widely circulated, and exercised a potent influence
upon the religious conceptions of the people and
upon their hopes. These aspirations regarding the
future were even placed in the mouths of the heathen
Sibyls by Hellenistic Jews. The mystic tendencies
of Greek civilization were appealed to by Jews who
were in touch with the Greeks, and they presented
these mysterious prophetesses, in whom the old
heathen oracles were personified, as the bearers of
Jewish ideas, above all of the belief in one God in
contrast with idolatry. This was done in such a
way, however, that the general history of the peoples
as well as heathen mythology, which was treated in
a euhemeristic manner, were freely interwoven with
these sayings. The Sibylline Books (q.v.) arose in
this way, and their beginnings should be placed not
long after the time of the Maccabees. Of the collec
tion of Sibylline Books extant, the larger part of
book iii. comes from the period of Ptolemy VII.
Physkon (145‑117), probably from the time after
140 B.C. In this writing, the history of the world is
passed in review from the building of the tower of
Babel until the period of the author; then the end
of the world is predicted as imminent, coming to
pass through the manifestation of the God of Israel
and of his Messiah (verse 652 aqq.: " Then will God
send a king from where the sun rises " in agreement
with the passage Isa. xli. 25, which was used in a
Messianic sense) who will make an end of wicked
war over the whole earth, by killing some and ma
king binding treaties with the others" (cf. Isa. xi.
4 with ii. 2 aqq.), etc.
The eschatological hope was, however, even more frequently and exhaustively treated in an esoteric form, as is shown above all in the Book of Enoch (see PBEUDEPIGRAPHA), the original version of which, chaps. i.‑zxgvi., Lxeii.‑‑cv., may
a. Messia‑ probably be referred to about 110 B.C.
	nism of	The Messiah appears in chaps. lxxxv.
	Earlier	xc. For the period between the de
	Part of	struction of Jerusalem and the erection
	Enoch.	of the Messianic kingdom, Israel will
		be placed by God under seventy shep
herds (lxxsia. 59). The seventy years of servitude
of Jeremiah become seventy heathen rulers, who

Xessish	THE NEW SCHAFT‑HERZOG	320
each reign for one hour, as in Daniel for seventy weeks of years. The shepherds are not human kings but angels of the peoples (Von Hofmann, Schiirer), each feeds his flock for one hour. The first (Aseyrio‑Babylonian) period comprises twelve hours (lxxaix. 72), the second twenty‑three hours (Cyrus to Alexander; the reading of the text, " thirty‑five," includes the preceding twelve); this is the central point of the era (xc. 1). After this follow other twenty‑three hours (Alexander to Antiochus Epiphanes, xc. 5) and twelve still remain from Antiochus to the time of the writer (xc. 17). If the great horn (xc. 9) refers to Hyrcanus, then the time of this ruler must be looked upon as that of the author. After this goat with the great horn has been sorely beset by all nations, the saving angel appears and causes the destruction of the enemies. The nations fall beneath the sword of the obedient sheep, that is, the faithful Israelites. God sets up his throne in the holy land and holds his judgment there over the fallen angels, and also over the seventy shepherds; they are found guilty and cast into a fiery abyss. Into a similar fiery pit, which opens up at the right of the house of God (Gehinnom), come the blinded sheep, that is, the apostate Jews. Thereupon God erects a new temple wherein he dwells in the midst of the good sheep, before whom the remaining nations bow down in adoration. The scattered and slain sheep are also gathered together again in this house. Then a white steer is born, the Messiah, to whom all nations do homage, and thereupon all the sheep change into white steers, that is to say, into men resembling patriarchs (for the first men from Adam on have appeared to the seer as white and black steers, h=v. 3 sqq.). This first‑born steer of the new race, however, the Messiah, changes into a buffalo [wild ox] with large black horns. Since then the tried companions of the kingdom become like the Messiah, he himself is exalted and becomes a superior being. The vision closes harmoniously with the untroubled joy of God in all men. Here the Messiah does not erect the kingdom of God on earth and also does not hold the last judgment, but only appears at the end, after the earth has been purified and subjected to God, as the keystone of the edifice.
It is otherwise in the Psalms of Solomon (see PSEBDEPIGRAPAA), which show that in the middle of the last century before Christ a vigorous interposition in history for the salvation of his people
was expected from the Messiah. These 3. The Psalms may be more exactly assigned Psalms of to about the period 63‑45 B.C. The
Solomon. Messianic hope must have penetrated
deeply into the popular mind at that Period, especially among the Pharisees (cf., e.g., iii. 8 sqq.), and the idea that eternal salvation was promised to Israel was firmly held (xi. 7, xii. 6, xiv. 4‑5, 9‑10, xv. 12‑13). More definitely, a salutary action was awaited from the " Son of David," the " anointed of the Lord," whom God will raise up, that he may conquer the heathen rulers, purify the desecrated land of the Lord, gather together the members of his people and reestablish their nationality, while the heathen do homage to him (xvii. 21 sqq.). He is just and sinless and brings to
his people eternal peace and eternal salvation, so that to live beneath his rule will be a blessed condition.
Much more highly developed is the conception of the Messiah contained in the later portion of the Book of Enoch, chaps. xxxvii.‑hnti., written after 38 B.C. While in the older book the
4. The perfect just live upon the earth, in the
Later Part spacious and new house of God, in the
	of Enoch.	later writing the abode of the blessed is
		celestial (xxxix. 4 sqq.), and they will
also inhabit the new earth when the evil‑doers have
been rooted out (xlv. 5). The kingdom of God as
described by the later writer is conceived in a more
transcendental manner. Heaven is the home of
holy men where they live forever like the angels of
God; among them there the Messiah dwells eter
nally (xxxix. 6 sqq.), is called the " chosen one "
(xxxix. 6, xl. 5, xlv. 3), the just one (xxxviii. 2),
the anointed (Iii. 4), the son of man (x1vi. 1 sqq.);
in one passage God himself calls him " my son "
(cv. 2, of. Ps. ii. 7). He is the possessor of all jus
tice and wisdom (xlix. 3); from him proceeds intel
ligenoe and power, he is the staff of the just and
the holy, the light of the nations, and the hope of
those whose heart is troubled (xlviii. 4); he leads
all the inhabitants of the earth to sing the praises
of the true God (xlviii. 5); in him dwells the spirit of
those who have fallen asleep in righteousness (xlix.
3). Through his wisdom the resurrection takes place,
and through his unfailing justice the last judgment
(1i.‑liv., LIi. 7 sqq.). With him the just will enjoy
a glorified existence for eternity; the unjust, on the
other hand, and especially the kings, the high and
mighty ones of the earth, will languish in hell (lxii.
13 sqq., lxiii. 10). In chap. Ixxi. Enoch himself is
declared to be the son of man and by his transla
tion from the earth is established in heaven in this
character, and the later rabbinical theologians
make him the equal of the Metatron, that is, the
highest spirit, who stands nearest to God and serves
him and governs with him. This section was not
written by a Christian, since the human personality
of the Messiah conceived by Christians as a living
reality is entirely lacking in this writing. Even a
Christian " reviser " would assuredly have intro
duced something of this and especially of Christ's
sufferings, death, and resurrection. In favor of the
opinion that the book was written after the time of
Christ is the circumstance that, according to the
Gospels, the expression " son of man " was in no
wise so common a designation of the Messiah among
the contemporaries of Jesus as it must have become
after this work was generally known.
Baruch and the Apocalypse of Ezra (IV Ezra), which have been preserved in a Syriac version, belong to the period after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. Baruch seems to have been composed not long after that event.
g. The It proves that the longing for the splenApocalypse did future promised by the prophets
of Baruch. had been newly and powerfully stimulated by the destruction of Jerusalem and of its sanctuary, and that the people, by manifold explanations and embellishments of these promises, consoled themselves in their unhappy

327	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Xessiah
situation. Bitter oppression, devastations, wars, and unrest were expected in the immediate future as precursors of the end (xxvii., cf. Ixix.‑lxx.). Then the Messiah will reveal himself and will shield the remnant of his people in his land (bud.). He will usher in a period of great prosperity (xxix. 5 sqq., cf. lxxiii.‑lxxiv.), and the earth will give forth her fruits a thousand fold. Then he will return to heaven (xxx. 1), whereupon the resurrection of the dead and the last judgment will take place. The four kingdoms of Daniel appear in chaps. xxxv. sqq., wherein the Roman empire is explained to be the fourth kingdom. Under this rule the Messiah appears; he uproots this kingdom (xxxix. 7), kills the unjust ruler of the world (xli.‑xlii.), and the nations are delivered into " the hands of my servant," the Messiah (Ixx. 9, btxi. 1). Some of the nations will be destroyed, while others will be spared, according to their conduct toward Israel, to whom those that are spared shall be subject (Ixxii. 2 sqq.). At the resurrection the dead are given up by the earth in the form in which it received them; then, however, the corporeal form changes according to the conduct shown in life. The just receive an ethereal body, which can not age and resembles that of the angels, with whom they live in the heavenly paradise (xlix. sqq.). According to this book, therefore, the kingdom of the Messiah precedes the end of the world; it belongs to " this eon " and constitutes its last period. On the other hand, the future life of the just in the coming eon is described as transcendental and heavenly.
Related to the Apocalypse of Baruch is the Apocalypse of Ezra, commonly called IV. Ezra, which is probably of somewhat later date. Chaps iii.‑xiv. were written under Domitian, about 96 A.D., chaps.
i., ii., xv. and xvi. are additions by a
6. The Christian writer. This book is a
Apocalypse species of theodicy in apocalyptic
of Ezra. garb. It is revealed to the Jewish
author that the eon approaches its end (iv. 26); the world has grown old (v. 50 eqq.); wonderful signs of the last revelations will be manifest on earth (vi. 11 sqq., cf. ix. 1 aqq.). The men who have been translated without enduring death (Enoch, Elias, Ezra) will show themselves, evil will be rooted out, faith will flourish, and truth will be manifested (vi. 25 sqq.). Since the world was created for the Jews (vi. 55), they will rule over it after the godless have been swept away by plagues. Then the Messiah (vii. 28) will appear and will fur 400 years give joy to all who have survived; then he will die and all men with him (vii. 29). After seven days of silence, there follow the resurrection of the dead and the day of judgment, lasting a week of years, when the Most High will sit upon the throne. The conception of the Messiah appears in the vision of the eagle, by which the Roman empire up to the time of Domitian is represented (xi. 1 sqq.). Against this eagle (the fourth worldkingdom of Daniel, xii. 11 sqq.) there finally comes a lion speaking with the voice of a man (xi. 36 sqq.). He is a symbol of the Messiah (xii. 32) whom the Most High has reserved for the end of days. He will then arise from the seed of David and will pass
judgment on mankind. He will redeem the remnant of his people and give them joy until, after 400 years, the final judgment occurs. In the following vision (xiii. 1 sqq.) a man appears from the sea and flies upon the clouds of heaven; he sends from his mouth a stream of fire against all who oppose him, while God calls him " my Son " (xiii. 32). He will judge and destroy the froward by his word alone (cf. Isa. xi. 4), and then will lead back to their native land the ten exiled tribes.
III. Late Jewish Hessianism: Apocalyptic literature was far from being exhausted in this period and continued to be cultivated in Jewish (cf. M.
Buttenwieser, Outlines of the Neo‑He‑
:. General brrsic Apocalyptic Literature, Cincin‑
Character‑ nati, 1901) and Christian circles for
istics.	several centuries. The Christians as
a rule only elaborated Jewish originals and sometimes simply provided them with annotations. These writings offer fantastic pictures of future conditions, since in the domain of eschatology a large field was left open to the imagination of the individual writer. From the first century before Christ, the Messianic hope was drawn only partly from the writings of the Old Testament. It is, then, very easy to understand that although this hope was very wide‑spread and held powerful sway over religious sentiment and expectation, it had neither clear outlines nor a well‑defined unity. It had a popular side, promising material blessings, and also a more spiritual side, which is found in the Gospels and in Jewish writings after the time of Christ. The rabbinical view of the Messiah runs in the following manner:
That, in the time of Jesus, the hope of a proximate appearance of the Messiah was part and par eel of the Jewish common belief, is apparent in the
Gospels. Naturally this hope was
s. In most stedfastly maintained and faith‑
the First fully cherished among such faithful
Christian Israelites as Simeon and Anna (Luke
Century. ii. 25‑26, 36‑37), John the Baptist and
his followers, and the disciples of Jesus. Even the Pharisees, the opponents of Jesus, expected the coming of the son of David who was to bring about the realization of the kingdom of God. The common people also held so firmly to this conviction that they were more than once tempted, to make Jesus king, and for this very reason he exercised extreme caution and self‑restraint in the revelation of his Messianic character. Even the illfated insurrection that led to the destruction of the temple in the year 7o was caused in part by Messianic expectations of a political character (Josephus, War, VI., v. 4, probably bid on Dan. ix. 24‑27, viii. 13‑14). Josephus luminously refers to false prophets and seducers (War, II., xiii. 4), and says that till the end of the siege the zealots hoped that salvation would suddenly be accorded from above (War, VI., v. 2). Once again did the Messianic hope, attaching itself to Bar Kokba (q.v.), animate the people to a daring struggle for freedom in spite of warnings. on the part of some teachers. Against this expectation a few voiced their dissent, as in the case of Rabbi Hillel, to whom the celebrated Rabbi Joseph of Pumbedita replied.

Nessish	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	333
The rabbis usually placed the coming of the Messiah in the age then present. The " days of the
Messiah " was an indefinite period,
3. Early which, however, was to form the transi‑
Rabbinic tion to that state of perfect retribution
Ideals which begins with the resurrection of
the dead (cf. Luke xx. 34‑35, xviii. 30; Matt. xii. 32). Sometimes the age of the Messiah was placed in the future. After the temporally limited Messianic kingdom, the destruction of this world and the creation of a new world were to follow. In the future world there is neither eating nor drinking nor procreation. Messianic times would be preceded by a great humiliation of the Jews and a war of all kingdoms against each other, which would mark the birth‑pangs of the Messiah. All manner of plagues, the sword, hunger, pestilence, earthquakes, are to occur. Israel will find rescue from these tribulations by holding fast to the Torah and by works of mercy. But the Jewish nation will have been reduced to extremities. Nevertheless, the belief is not lacking that the Messiah would find a people worthily prepared.
As a rule, the preparation of the nation for the coming of the Messiah was expected through Elias, whose reappearance was awaited by the scribes
(Ecclus. xlviii. 1‑10, on the basis of
4. The Mal. iii. 1 aqq.; cf. Matt. xvii. 10‑11,
functions xi. 14). This is indeed usually un‑
of Elias. derstood in a purely material sense;
however. Malachi did not exclude a spiritual purification and unity. According to rabbinic teaching, Elias was to purify the law from spurious intrusions, and restore clauses wrongly excluded, to decide questions under debate, bring about the final atonement for Israel, and even cause the resurrection of the dead (cf. C. Sch6ttgen, Horse Ebraictv, pp. 533 sqq., Leipsic, 1733‑42; J. Lightfoot, Horee Hebraica, ii. 384, 609, 965, Leipsic,1679). Other great prophets, as Moses and Jeremiah, were expected to arise from the dead at the beginning of the Messianic epoch and aid the Messiah in his work.
The duration of the Messianic kingdom was expected to be limited (cf. Baba. Sanhedrin, 97 sqq.: " It is a tradition of the school of Elias that the world will last 6,000 years: 2,000 tohu, 2,000 torah,
2,000 days of the Messiah; but, be‑
g. Duration cause of our sins, which are many, a of Messi‑ part of this time has elapsed "). In
anic Rule. another view the duration of the world
is placed at eighty‑five jubilee periods, in the last of which the son of David comes, " whether at the beginning or at the end of it, no one knows." Others, on the contrary, reject any chronological calculation regarding the coming of the Messiah. When calculation is made, the durar tion of the days of the Messiah rests upon many different methods and reaches divergent results. Some reckon it at forty years (cf. Ps. xcv. 10); others, again, conjecture seventy years (Isa. xxiii. 15); R. Akiba, forty years, from the forty years in the wilderness; in Sifre, 134a, the Messianic period is extended to three generations (cf. Ps. jxxii. 5, where, however, the duration is not given). Still others discover 100, 365, 1,000, 2,000, or even 7,000 years.
The person of the Messiah, the son of David, is usually conceived as human, and this is more and more sharply insisted on in contradistinction to Christianity. The strongest statement
6. The of this kind is that in Justin Martyr, Person Trypho, xlix., ANF, i. 219: " We all of the expect that Christ will be a man." The Messiah. passage Taanith, ii. 1, is also sharply polemical: R. Abbahu spoke: " If a man say to you, ` I am God '‑he lies; 'I am the Son of Man'‑he will repent it at the end; ` I shall ascend to heaven '‑he will not prove it." In general, the mysterious quality of the prophetic utterances is reduced to the standard of common humanity. The names of the Messiah in Isa. ix. 6 are for the most part attributed to God, even though this requires arbitrary exegesis. Hence the Messiah comes like others of the race of David. The assertion that the Targums sometimes identify the Messiah with the memra de Yahweh (" word of Yahweh ") is incorrect. On the contrary, this divine word is expressly distinguished from the Messiah, as in Targum Jonathan to Isa. ix. 6‑7, where the concluding sentence is rendered: " through the memra of Yahweh will this be performed." It is however, quite true that a kind of preexistence of the Messiah in heaven was taught. Thus his name was pronounced by God even before the creation (Bereshith rabba, chap. i.), though this signifies merely that he was from the beginning an object of the divine plans of salvation. A more real preexistence is implied in the Book of Enoch and the related apocalyptic writings, and even in some Midrashim appears the doctrine that the Messiah is a superior being who existed before all time. Still, such passages as Bereshith rabba to Gen. i. 2 do not prove that the Messiah was regarded as a divine being in the metaphysical sense.
The Messiah was to appear suddenly (Baba San.. hedrin 97: " Three things come unexpectedly: the Messiah, a thing that is found, and a
7. The scorpion "), though the exact time is Messiah's a subject of dispute. A period of con‑
	Activities.	cealment on earth, however, precedes
		his appearance (Justin Martyr, Trypho,
viii.). Christ when he comes is unknown, does not
even know himself (as Messiah) until the prophet
Elias comes, anoints him, and reveals everything
(Trypho, ex.). In the mean time, he perfects him
self in the knowledge of God and of the Law,
instructed by God as were Abraham, Job, and
Hezekiah (Bammidbar rabba, xiv.), and submits to
discipline in good works. According to Sanhedrin,
98a, he sits in Rome at the gate, surrounded by the
wretched and the sick, whose wounds he binds,
waiting for that " to‑day " (Ps. xcv. 7) when the
conversion of his people will allow him to come to
them. By this recognition of a state of lowliness
and disesteem an effort was made to do some slight
justice to the picture of the suffering Messiah in
Isa_ Iii., liii., recognized as Messianic by the Targum,
although with a weakening of the vicarious expia
tory sufferings and death there portrayed. Later,
this suffering figure, if it were at all accepted, was
referred to another and subordinate Messiah (see
below). Regarding the form in which the son of

329	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Messiah
David was to appear, there was never a very clear idea. The distinction between Dan. vii. 13 and Zech. ix. 9 presented an enigma to the rabbis. His work consists in breaking the foreign yoke (Targum Jonathan. to Isa. x. 27) and bringing his people back from captivity. In order to erect his kingdom (Targum Onkelos to Num. xxiv. 17; Targum Jonathan to Amos ix. 11; Origen, Contra Celsum, ii. 29) he endures mighty struggles with the nations (Targum Jonathan to Zech. x. 4). The principal enemy is the Roman empire, whose leader Armilius, who is the anti‑Messiah, will be killed by the breath from the lips of the Messiah (cf. II These. ii. 8, and J. A. Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum, ii. 705 sqq., Frankfort, 1700). The dispute whether the ten tribes are or are not included in this bringing back of the exiles was decided in later times by assuming the coming of a second, subordinate Messiah, the son of Joseph, to be the precursor of the son of David (Baba Sukkah, 52a). This Messiah is to be a descendant of Ephraim; he will lead back the ten tribes from their exile and subject them to the son of David, and will then be killed in the war with Gog and Magog. His death, according to a later conception, will serve as an expiation for the sins of Jeroboam (cf. Eisenmenger, ut sup., ii. 720 aqq.). By this assumption of two Messiahs a place was sought for those features of the suffering and murdered Messiah which are present in Isa. liii. and Zech. xii. 10, yet were not easily included in the usual conception of the Messiah. At an earlier period, however, the rabbis knew of only one Messiah, and while they often acknowledge the prophecies concerning his sufferings, they attenuate them by saying that the Messiah is at first to work in lowliness among the poor and wretched and to suffer because of the sins of his people, which delay his revelation (so Targum Jonathan to Isa.liii.). The suffering servant of Yahweh is an especially favorite theme. Later Judaism with its ceremonial righteousness was little inclined to receive the more earnest Biblical promise of a complete atonement. The activity of the Messiah will, therefore, consist in bringing about the universal rule of the Jewish theocracy. He will rebuild the temple in Jerusalem and establish the authority of the Torah.
The fruitfulness of the land and the prosperity of the nation are described in glowing terms, and in these blessings the repatriated exiles and even the departed just will also share, since a first resurrection of the dead takes place in
8. Accom‑ the land of Israel, the faithful who
paniments have died in other lands being transof the ported thither beneath the surface of Messiah's the earth (Eisenmenger, ut sup., ii. Coming. 893 sqq.). The reawakening of the dead is sometimes ascribed to God and sometimes to the Messiah; it occurs at the sound of a trumpet, but the Samaritans will be excluded from it. Kethubot (lllb) says that even the unlearned will have no part in it. The living heathen will offer, homage to the Messiah and to the sanctuary at Jerusalem, though there will be a great difference and a strict barrier between them and Israel. Following the order of events as given in Ezekiel,
at the end of the Messianic epoch, there will again ensue a general uprising of the heathen nations against the rule of the Messiah, the originators and leaders of which will be Gog and Magog, though according to other views they are the bitterest enemies of the Messiah at the beginning of the Messianic era. This uprising is succeeded by a final and universal judgment of the world, with the resurrection of all the dead to eternal happiness or to condemnation. Then begins the state of perfection, for which a new heaven and a new earth are created. The just enter into paradise, the godless into the pains of hell. Still, it must be admitted that this distinction is not always maintained, and the two epochs often run into one another. In one particular, however, there is agreement: the Messiah brings about the consummation of all things and the resurrection of the just to new and eternal life precedes the state of final retribution.
C. VON ORELM.

BIBLIOQRAPRT: The material on Messianism is abundant. The reader is referred to the commentaries on the Biblical books containing passages regarded as Messianic, to works on Biblical theology, especially those of Schultz and Dillmann: the subject is also treated more or less fully in the literature given under APooaTPHA; ISRAEL, HISTORY OF; PROPHECT; and PBEITDEPIGRAPHA. On the Messianism of the Bible there is nothing better than the works of C. A. Briggs on the subject: Messianic Prophecy, New York, 1888; and Messiah of the Gospels, 3 series, New York, 1893‑95. A thoroughly worthy book on OldTestament Messianism is F. H. Woods, The Hope of Israel, ib. 1898. Considerably broader in scope, but based on what used to be called rationalistic exegesis, is the scholarly work by J. Drummond, The Jewish Messiah, London, 1877, covering the period down to the close of the Talmud. A book which has caused much debate from its extreme positions is A. Kuenen, Prophets and Prophecy in Israel, ib. 1877. Consult further: J. C. K. Hofmann, Weiaaagunp and Erfallung, NSrdGagen, 1841‑44; J. J. Stahelin, Die meaaianischen Weieeagunpen des A. T., Berlin, 1847; E. W. Hengetenberg, Chriatologie des A. T., 3 vole., Berlin, 1854‑57, Eng. tranal., Chriatology q/ as O. T., Edinburgh, 1854‑1858; A. Tholuek. Die Propheten and ihre Weiasagungen, Gotha, 1887; R. Anger, Geachichte der mesaianiachen Idea, Berlin, 1873; E. C. A. Riehm, Die meananiwAe Weiasaguny, Gotha, 1875, Eng. transl., Messianic Prophecy; Edinburgh, 1891; E. B&I, Chri8talogie des A. T., Vienna, 1882; W. F. Adeney, The Hebrew Utopia; a Study o,/ Messianic Prophecy, London, 1879; P. J. Gloag, Messianic Prophecies, Edinburgh, 1879 (oonser, votive); C. yon Orelli, Die allkatamentlide Weiasagung, Vienna, 1882, Eng. trend.. Old Testament Prophecy of Consummation q/ God's Kingdom, Edinburgh, 1885; B. W. Saville, Fulfilled Prophecy, London, 1882; A. Edersheim, Prophecy and History in Relation to the Messiah, ib. 1885; E. H. Dewart, Jesus the Messiah in Prophecy and Fulfillment, Cincinnati, 1891; G. S. Goodspeed, Israel's Messianic Hope, New York 1900; F Delitzeeh, Die measianiache Weiaaagunpen, Berlin, 1899, Eng. tranel. of earlier ed., Messianic Prophecies in Historical Suecesaion, Edinburgh, 1891; J. Richter, Die meaaianiachen Weiasagunpen and ihre ErftWung, Giessen, 1905; J. H. Greenstone, The Messiah Idea in Jewish History, Philadelphia, 1907; W. O. Oeaterley, The Evolution of as Messianic Idea, London, 1908; Lagrange, Le Mesaianiame ehez lea Juifa, Paris, 1908; E. P. Berg, Our Lord's PreparationJorMesaiahahip, London, 1909; A. Causse, L'Evolution de 1'eaphrance memianique done Is christianiame primitif, Paris, 1908.
On the late Jewish ideas the works of Eisenmenger and Sch6ttgen mentioned in the text are to be placed among the important contributions. Consult further: R. Young, Chrietolopy of the Targuma, Edinburgh, 1853; A. Hilgenfeld, Die jfidieehe Apokalyptik, in ihrer peachichtlichen Entwickelung, Jena, 1857; T. Colani, Jesus Christ et lea croyances messianiquee de son temps, Strasburg, 1884; Holtzmann, in Jahrbficher fur deuteche Theologie, 1887,

Meetrezat
1Hetale	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	330
pp. 389 sqq ; A. Wiinsehe, Die Leiden des Meseiae, Leipsic, 1870; M. Vernes, Hiet. des ides measianiques, Paris, 1874; F. Weber, System der altsynagogalen paldatinischen Theologie, Leipsie, 1880; J. Hamburger, Realencykloptidie far Bibel and Talmud, vol. ii., Strelitz, 1883; G. Dalman, Der leidende and aterende Memias der Synagoge, Berlin, 1888; J. Wellhausen Skizzen and Vorarbeiten, part vi., Berlin, 1899; E. Huhn, Die messianischen Weissagungen, TObingen, 1899; W. Wrede, Das Mesaiahgeheimniss in den Evangelien, Gbttingen, 1901; Schiirer, Geschichte, vols. ii.‑iii., and the Eng. transl. The articles in DB, EB, and JE are also to be used on the Biblical side.

MESTREZAT, mes"tre"wI', JEAN: French Reformed; b. in Geneva 1592; d. in Paris May 2, 1657. He studied in Saumur, then accepted a call from the church at Charenton, and remained there till his death. He was a learned theologian, a distinguished preacher, and one of the main supports of the French Reformed Church in the seventeenth century. He was active in its synods, in its disputations with the Jesuits, and in its negotiations with the court. He published many sermons, which are interesting to the historian of the Reformed preaching because of their expository character (e.g., Exposition de l'epitre aux Hebreux, 5 parts, Geneva, 1653‑55). His other writings are polemical; a treatise, De la communion h Jesu Christ au saerement de l'eucharistie (Sedan, 1624), was translated into German (Frankfort, 1624), English (1631), and Italian (Geneva, 1638).
(C. SCHMIDTt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Andrd, Essai sur les amvres de J. Mestrezat, Strasburg, 1847; A. Archimard, in Memoires et documents, xv. 29‑72, published by the Society of History, Geneva; Lichtenberger, ESR, ix. 113‑121.

METALS, HEBREW USE OF.
Mineral Poverty of Palestine (§ 1). Gold (§ 1). Silver and Copper (§ 3). Iron (§ 4). Other Metals (§ 5).
The mountains of Palestine show strata of the Upper Cretaceous formation, older deposits occur only sporadically, and the coast plains and valley of the Jordan contain fluvial deposits; all these formations are notably poor in metals. The reference in the latter part of Dent. viii. i. Mineral 9, where the Holy Land is extolled as Poverty of a " land whose stones are iron, and Palestine. out of whose hills thou mayest dig copper," can not be to [modern] oreless Palestine; while in the first clause the author may have had in mind the black basaltic rocks east of the Jordan. It is furthermore probable that he consolidates with the promised land a large portion of Lebanon, where mining was practised. The neighboring regions are in this respect more favorably endowed. On Mt. Sinai, mining (of copper) dates back into the fourth dynasty (c. 3000 B.c.). And in the north, Lebanon yields ore, though in small quantities. Traces of old copper mines and iron mines occur north of Beirut in the Kesravan range, described in the annals of Sargon as one that contains mines. The Septuagint of I Kings ii. 46c of Swete's ed. (= ii. 48 of Lagarde) has a passage bearing on this point, which is wanting in the Hebrew and reads: " And Solomon began to open up the mighty riches of Lebanon." Jeremiah (xv. 12)
also speaks of" iron from the north." On the other hand the mines which so strongly impress the poetical Job should be sought in the Sinaitic peninsula or in Nubia. At all events the Israelites for the most part derived their metals from the neighboring peoples, but they soon learned the art of working them. It was known that the ores must be cleansed of their impure ingredients, a result mainly achieved by the smelting‑process. In order to accelerate the separation of metals in fusion, they added some such vegetable alkaline salt (beir) as the carbonate of potash obtained from wood ashes, or a mineral alkaline salt (nete; cf. Isa. i. 25; Ezek. xxii. 18‑22).
Gold (zahabh, paz, " fine gold," Ps. xix. 10, xxi. 3; Isa. xiii. 12; chiefly in poetical passages; kethem and haruz almost exclusively in poetic style: Isa. xiii. 12; Job xxviii. 16, etc.; Zech.
	z. Gold.	ix. 3; Ps. 1xviii. 13; Prov. iii. 14),
		according to the Old Testament,
comes principally from Ophir (I Kings ix. 26 sqq.),
Havilah (Gen. ii. 11) and Sheba (I Kings x. 2). The
gold of Ophir was deemed peculiarly fine (Job xxviii.
16; Ps. XIV. 9). During Solomon's reign, the gold
from those countries reached the Israelites in course
of the king's direct mercantile operations; other
wise through the Phenicians. Early narratives
ascribe wealth in gold to the patriarchs (Gen. xiii.
2, xxiv. 22, 53). Solomon's ships are supposed to
have brought from Ophir gold to the amount of 420
talents (about $25,000,000)‑an enormous sum for
those times, yet consistent with legendary embel
lishment (cf. I Kings x. 21). It was the Phenicians,
recognized as expert goldsmiths, who served as
guides to the Israelites in the goldsmith's art, and
from them the Israelites obtained the finer prod
ucts of the metal. Nevertheless, the goldsmith's
craft was early plied among the Israelites (cf. Judges
viii. 27, xvii. 4). For gold as a medium of exchange
see MONEY OF THE BIBLE. The earliest gold coin
in Palestine was the daric. Yet even in early times
the gold employed as money had its fixed forms in
the shape of bars ["wedges" or " tongues "; see
GEZER] and rings of defined weight. Otherwise, gold
was chiefly wrought into objects of adornment
rings, chains, jewels, drinking‑vessels, cups (see
DRESS AND ORNAMENT, HEBREW). The account of
the building of the Temple says much of the golden
utensils for use there (I Kings x. 21) and of over
laying the walls and doors with gold‑leaf (I Kings vi.
and vii.). Possibly this belongs to the later legend
(cf. Benzinger on I Kings vii. 48 sqq.); the Temple
in later times had great treasures, which in seasons
of necessity served as a state reserve (cf. II Kings
xii. 14; Ezra i. 7 aqq.; I Mace. i. 21 aqq.). In spe
cial favor stood the art of inlaying with gold
leaf; idolatrous images were overlaid with gold
(Judges viii. 27; Isa. xxx. 22); Solomon's throne
was of ivory, "overlaid with the finest gold"
(I Kings x. 18); and his officers had " targets
of beaten gold" (I Kings x. 16; cf. I Mace. vi. 2).
Textures interwoven with gold threads were
much esteemed (Ps. XIV. 13; Judith x. 21; Ecclus.
XIV. 10).
Silver (keseph) also came to the Israelites by way of the Phenicians, and principally from Tarahish

331	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Mestrezat
Xetals
(Jer. x. 9; Ezek. xxvii. 12). Pliny reports that when the Phenicians made their first voyage to
Spain, they had silver anchors cast in 3. Silver that country. Unfortunately it is not and Copper. stated where Solomon obtained his
abundant silver (I Kings x. 27). The practical uses of silver answered in general to those of gold; for current exchange (Gen. xxiii. 16, xliii. 21), for utensils and ornament (Gen. xliv. 2; Ex. xxviii. 27 sqq.; I Chron. xxii. 14). [In the earliest times gold was more plentiful and less precious than silver, which had to be purified by smelting. But after the Phenicians had utilized the great deposits of Spain, the abundance of silver caused its relative deterioration in value, and it has ever since been worth less than gold.] The ratio of value between silver and gold was constant throughout the East, one to thirteen and one‑half, the ratio between the moon's revolution and that of the sun, silver being " moon metal " and gold belonging to the sun. Copper, however, belongs to Venus‑Ishtar, and its ratio to silver is as one to sixty. It has been known in the East from very remote times; and it was known there at a very early period that the combination of copper with tin, or bronze, shows a much greater degree of hardness than pure copper. Reference has been made to the ancient copper mines on Sinai, and in Babylonia the copper utensils of Telloh date from about the same era, c. 3000 B.C. In Canaan copper was known long before the incursion of the Israelites. The specimens discovered in Tell Hesy (probably Lachish) date from about 1500 B.C. Bronze appears in that country from c. 1250, and from c. 800 B.C. was more and more supplanted by iron. Goliath had bronze weapons, and his spear's head alone is iron (I Sam. xvii. 5). In Jericho, the Israelites acquired copper and bronze vessels. Because the Phenicians fetched their material from Cyprus, a principal mart of native copper, it came to be termed " Cyprian ore," or cyprium, cuprum. Many objects were wrought of bronze; bow, shield, spear, greaves (II Sam. xxi. 16, xxii. 35); all sorts of household and cooking utensils (cf. I Kings vii.), mirrors (Ex. xxxviii. 8; Job. xxvii. 18), chains, bars, and doors (II Sam. iii. 34; Deut. xxxiii. 25; Ps. evii. 16; Isa. xlv. 2); also sacred images (Num. xxi. 9); in the Temple the utensils of the court and for sacrifices‑the altar, the " sea," the pillars Jachin and Boaz, the basins, etc. (I Kings vii. 13‑46). That the Israelites, even though not strangers to bronze‑casting, were not equipped for elaborate and artistic achievements in Solomon's time is plain from the circumstance that Solomon had the Temple utensils designed by Hiram of Tyre (I Kings vii. 13 sqq.). The imagery of the Bible makes bronze. the symbol of hardness and stability (Deut. xxviii. 23; Lev. xxvi. 19; Job. vi. 12, xl. 18; Isa. xlviii. 4).
Iron is of considerably later date in Palestine than copper. To the Babylonians it came to be more generally accessible in the period between Tiglath‑Pileser I. (1100) and Asshurnasirpal (886). Under the latter, iron weapons were already in use; for other implements, iron was employed along with bronze. After 800 B.C., iron displaced bronze as a metal for practical use; and in Khors‑
abad there was discovered a great iron couch of Sargon's (722‑705). In Canaan iron begins to appear about the same time as in
	4. Iron.	Babylon; in Tell Hesy, from 1100
		B.C.; in Gezer (q.v.), it was of rare
employment prior to Solomon's time, but it
seems to have been earlier in use there for im
plements of husbandry than for weapons, since
coincidently with iron hooks and sickles there
appear bronze knives, daggers,. and arrow‑heads.
Hence the introduction of iron was contempo
raneous with the colonization of the Israelites.
The statement that the war chariots of the
Canaanites were tired with iron (Judges i. 19; cf.
iv. 3; Josh. xvii. 18) is an anachronism, since
bronze was the metal thus employed. The vari
ous discoveries through excavations and from the
reports of the Old Testament during the royal period
show that bronze long remained predominant over
iron. Weapons are of bronze, while the earliest
use of iron was for implements in the time of David
(II Sam. xii. 31; cf. Amos i. 3). Subsequently,
iron is mentioned more frequently; doors with iron
bars (Isa. xlv. 2), coat of mail (Job xx. 24), chains
(Ps. cxlix. 8), ax‑heads and hatchets (II Kings vi.
5; Deut. xix. 5, xxvii. 5), nails and " styles " (Jer.
xvii. 1; Job xix. 24). Dent. xxvii. 5 assumes that
stone‑cutting instruments are of iron as a rule. The
Israelites had knowledge of iron furnaces for smelt
ing the ores (Deut. iv. 20; Jer. xi. 4; I Kings vii.
16), but did not cast iron; for skilled craftsmen the
metal used was always bronze, not iron. The
widely current assumption that they knew how to
harden iron into steel is erroneous. Hebrew imag
ery frequently made use of iron in similes and the
like.
Tin (bedhil), which is mentioned in the Old Testament among the metals of which utensils were made (Num. xxxi. 22; Ezek. xxii. 18, 20), appears rarely to have been employed by itself alone. In one instance a tin plummet is men‑
5. Other tioned (tech. iv. 10); otherwise, the
	Metals.	plummet is of lead. Tin is ordinarily
		employed as an adjunct with other
metals (Ezek. xxii. 18, 20). Bedhil also designates
the baser elements of silver ore (Isa. i. 25). The
Phenicians imported tin from Tarshish (Ezek.
xxvii. 12). Lead (`ophereth) is seldom mentioned;
it came from Tarshish by way of Phenicia (Ezek.
xxvii. 12; cf. Pliny, III., vii.). It ranked as a base
metal (Jer. vi. 28 sqq.). Its gravity rendered it
suitable for the plummet of carpenters and masons
(Amos vii. 7 sqq.), and the " lead " of ships (Acts
xxvii. 28). There were leaden tablets for writing
(cf. Job xix. 23 sqq.; Pliny, XIII., ii.). It was
also employed as an adjunct With certain alloys
(Ezek. xxii. 18‑22), and in the refining of silver
from other mineral ingredients (Jer. vi. 29). An
timony (stibium, pukh) is employed by the Hebrews
in preparing the black powder that was used by the
women for painting their eyelids and eyebrows, and
is still used in the East (Jer. iv. 30; Ezek. xxiii. 40;
Job xlii. 14; II Kings ix. 30; Josephus, Wars, IV.,
ix. 10). Since it was rare and costly, substitutes
were used in preparing the paint. The Hebrew
word pukh is used to denote in general paints of this

Xetcalfe	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	332
Xethodists
	character, hence the term is not to be construed as
	everywhere identical with stibium. Whether the
	Hebrew hashmal (Ezek. i. 4, 27; viii. 2) is to be iden
	tified with the elektron, " amber," of the ancients,
	and whether "amber" is the designation of a me
	tallic substance are matters of debate. Neither is it
	certain that the "fine brass" of Rev. i. 15, ii. 18, and
	the " burnished braes " of Ezek. i. 7; Dan. a. 6; the
	" bright brass " in Ezra viii. 27, should be inter
	preted to mean the " Corinthian brass," an alloy
	of gold, silver and copper, although in these in
	stances the reference is to an alloy more valuable
and finer than ordinary brass.	I. BENZINGER.
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: K. C. W. Bahr, $ymbolik den mosaischen
	Cultus, i. 258‑295, Heidelberg, 1837; R. F. Burton, Gold
	Mines of Midian, London, 1878= Bensinger, Arddolopie,
	pp. 148‑149; Nowack Archdolopie, pp. 243 eqq.; J. P. A.
	Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, New York, 1894; G. Mas
	paro, Hiat• ancienne des peuplea de 1'orient, i. 750‑757,
	ii. 534, Paris, 1898, Eng. trans]., Passing of as Empires,
	and Dawn of Civilization, London, 1899‑1902; F. Vigour
	oux, Dictionnairs, part xxvi. columns 1045‑47; idem,
	La Bible et lee &couvertm modernes, iv. 299‑302, Paris.
	1898; JE, viii. 513‑515; the articles in DB and EB on
	the individual metals (gold, silver, iron, etc.), and EB,
	iii. 3097‑98, with the references to other articles there
indicated.
	METCALFE, WILLIAM MUSHAM: Church of
	Scotland; b. at York, England, Sept. 14, 1840. He
	was educated at New College, London, and after
	being minister of Tigh‑na‑bruaich, Argyllshire, from
	1873 to 1878, became minister of South Parish,
	Paisley, which position he still retains. He was
	likewise assessor to the lord rector of St. Andrews
	University from 1892 to 1898, and is chairman of
	the Local Endowment Educational Trust, and a
	governor of the Paisley Technical College and
	School of Arts. In theological position he is liberal.
1. In England.
1. Wesleyan Methodists.
	John Wesley; Early Life (§ 1).
	Early Associations (§ 2).
	Bands; Class Meetings (¢ 3).
	Love Feasts, Prayer‑meetings, Lay
		Preaching (§ 4).
	Origin of Conferences; George Bell
		(§ 5).
	The Deed of Declaration (§ 8).
	Events after Wesley's Death (¢ 7).
	Polity (¢ 8).
	Eminent Officers and Representa
		tives (¢ 9).
	Educational and Missionary Agen
		cies (§ 10).
	Wesleyan Methodism in Ireland
		(§ 11).
2. Calvinistic Methodists.
3. The Methodist New Connection.
4. Primitive Methodists.
5. The Protestant Methodists.
8. The Wesleyan Methodist Associa
		tion.
The United Free Churches.
7.
L
Besides editing the quarterly Scottish Review from 1882 to 1900, he has written or edited The Natural Truth of Christianity (Paisley, 1880); The Reaaonablenesa of Christianity (1882); Pinkerton's Vita! Antiques Sanctorum Sconce (2 vole., 1889); Ancient Lives of Scottish, Saints from the Latin and Icelandic (1895); Scottish Legends of the Saints (3 vole., Edinburgh, 189s); Charters and Documents relating to the Burgh of Paisley (Paisley, 1902); The Legends of Saints Ninian and Machar in the Scottish Dialect of the Fourteenth Century (1904); and History of the County of Renfrew (1905).

METEMPSYCHOSIS. See COMPARATIVE RELIGION, VI., 1, a, J s•

METH, EZEKIEL: German mystic and leader of a band of enthusiasts; b. in Langensalza (19 m. n.w. of Erfurt) late in the sixteenth century; d. at Erfurt Oct. 26, 1640. The founder of the sect was Meth's uncle, Esaias Stiefel, but Meth appears to have been the real leader. For the characteristics of the sect, which entertained beliefs partaking of the peculiarities of those of the Quakers, Anabaptists, and Schwenckfeldiana, see STCE1rEr., E$wIw$. Stiefel was supposed to be immortal, and after his death in 1627 proved this supposition to be mistaken, Meth returned to the Lutheran Church.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: B. F. GSeehel, Chronik der Stadt Lunpensalza, ii. 310, Leipeie, 1820; G. Arnold, UnparEeyische Kirrhen‑and Ketzer‑Hiatorie, Theil III., cap. iv., 4vols., Frankfort, 1700‑1b.
METHODIST NEW CONNECTION. See METHODISTS, L, 3.
METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. See MExaont$x$, IV., 3.
METHODISTS.
8. Bible Christians.
9. The United Methodist Church.
II• In Australasia. History (§ 1). Agencies and Activities (§ 2). III. In Japan. IV. In America.
1. Methodist Episcopal Church. Beginnings (§ 1). Dimensions; Wesley's Device (§ 2). The New Organisation (§ 3). The General Conference (¢ 4)• Slavery and the Church in the South (¢ 5). Lay Representation f§ 8)• Female Representation f § 7). Government (¢ 8). Missions (§ 9). Brotherhoods (§ 10). Other Agencies (§ 11). Notable Representatives (§ 12).
2• The Methodist Episcopal Church South. Organisation (§ 1). Property end Development (§ 2).
In England. 1. Wesleyan Methodists: John
Wesley, in his Short History of Methodism, gives the names of four Oxford students who, in Nov., 1729, began to spend certain evenings in a week in reading together, chiefly the New Testament in Greek. The number slowly increased and, in 1735, George Whitefield affiliated with them. " The exact regularity of their lives and studies occasioned s gen‑
Government and Activities (¢ 3).
Representatives and Results (§ 4).
3. The Methodist Protestant Church.
4. Wesleyan Methodist Connection or Church of America.
b. The Free Methodist Church.
8. The African Methodist Episcopal Church.
7. The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church.
8• The Colored Methodist Episcopal Church.
9. Minor Methodist Churches.
10• In Canada end the Maritime Provinces.
Beginnings (§ 1).
Division sad Denominations (§ 2). Unification (¢ 3).
V. The Doctrinal Standards of Methodism.
Doctrinal Bases (6 1).
Distinctive Doctrinal Features

American Position (¢ 3).
Purpose and Results (§ 4).
tleman of Christ Church to say, ` Here is spnmg up a new sect of Methodists.' "
The undisputed founder of Wesleyan Methodism, John Wesley (q.v.), was the great‑grandson of Bartholomew Wesley, a clergyman educated at Oxford, and one of 2,000 ministers ejected from their pulpits in 1662 under the Act of Uniformity (see UNl>rox>afi'x, ACTS or). His son John also studied

gag	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Metealfe
		Methodists
in Oxford, became a clergyman, and, like his father,
for being true to his principles, was expelled
	from his parish. He was the father
	1. John of Samuel Wesley, also an Oxford
	Wesley; scholar, and the father of a large and
	Early Life. notable family, including John and
	Charles Wesley. Their mother came of
an intellectual, devout, and non‑conformist ancestry.
	The spirit of independence was hereditary, and the
	environment was favorable to its expression. During
	the childhood and youth of John Wesley everything
	relating to religion " except morals " received at
	tention in England, and from early manhood his
	life was a continual protest against the prevailing
	religious laxity and immorality. He took his mas
	ter's degree Feb. 14, 1727; and from August of that
	year to Nov., 1729, having been ordained deacon
	and priest, officiated as his father's curate at Ep
	worth. Soon after his father's death Wesley be
	came a missionary to Georgia, and, accompanied by
	his brother Charles, who was secretary to James
	Oglethorpe, founder of the colony, arrived Feb. 5,
	1736, expecting to be pastor to the English and
	missionary to the Indians. Upon the ship were
	certain devout Moraviana, who, during a fearsome
	storm, manifested a degree of calmness and faith
	in the face of death beyond that possessed by Wes
	ley, and he ever after acknowledged his indebted
	ness to them. In Georgia he met a Moravian,
	Peter Bohler, who told him to preach faith until he
	experienced it. His career in Georgia was disap
	pointing. The whites in that colony would not en
	dure his asceticism. His government of the parish
	was imperious, though none impeached his mo
	tives. Social relations impeded his work; a com
	bination was formed to drive him from the colony;
	the civil law was invoked against him, and he de
	termined to return to London and submit hiss griev
	ances to the authorities. On the voyage home
	ward his mind was wholly occupied in ‑the search
	for a self‑sustaining faith, fortified by the witness of
	the Spirit. After his return to England he spoke fre
	quently in small societies, consisting chiefly of mem
	bers of the Established Church seeking for clearer
	spiritual life. The crisis came on the evening of
	May 24, 1738, while he was listening to the reading
	of Luther's preface to the epistle to the Romans.
	His own account is: " I felt my heart strangely
	warmed, I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for
	salvation; and an assurance was given me that he
	had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me
	from the law of sin and death." In that moment
Evangelical Methodism was born.
	When George Whitefield (q.v.) returned from
	America he promptly visited Wesley. The reputa
	tion of Whitefield as the greatest of pulpit orators
	had spread on both continents; and as
	8. Early no building could contain the number
	Associa‑ who desired to hear him he resorted to
tions.	the fields. Wesley found it difficult to
	approve this; but as he continued to
	preach with the terrible energy and unction of a
	first believer, he was not usually allowed to speak
	a second time in the churches: on this account and
	because of the crowds, he also was led to preach in
	the open sir. For doing the same thing the
archbishop of Canterbury threatened Charles Wesley with excommunication. Wesley's ArminianlBm caused an estrangement from the uncompromising Calvinist Whitefield. When controversy had become intense, Wesley summed up by saying that " those who believed in universal redemption had no desire to separate, but that those who held particular redemption would not hear of any accommodation, being determined to have no fellowship with men who were in such dangerous errors; so there were now two sorts of Methodists‑those for particular and those for general redemption." The break between Wesley and Whitefield lasted but a short time, but the result was the formation of two sorts of organized Methodists, " Wesleyan Methodists " and " Calvinistic Methodists." Before this separation numerous societies had been formed, but, not having proper supervision, most of them dissolved. Peter Bohler suggested to Wesley the formation of another in London, and it was established in Fetter Lane, conducted in connection with the Moravian Church. In the summer of the same year, several small companies in Bristol united under the name of the Methodist society; a similar union took place in Kingswood, and another in Bath. These received the name of " United Societies." Wesley places the time when the first of these was formed toward the close of the year 1739.* Dissensions arose in the Fetter Lane society. Errors were so strongly advocated that on Sunday, July 6, 1740, Wesley read to the society his objections to them. The principal horosioa were " donupdatiol; of the Christian ministry as an institution "; " opposition to all ordinances "; and the affirmation that " silence is the best substitute for the means of grace." Wesley repelled these views, and he and about seventy‑five seceding members met at the Foundry instead of at Fetter Lane; and thus, on July 23, 1740, " the Methodist Society in London " was founded.
While affiliating with the Moravians, Wesley's followers had instituted " Men's Bands " and " Women's Bands," which were to meet at least once a week to sing, pray, and exhort. They were expected to reveal the true state of
8. Bands; their souls as they understood it, and
	Class	confess their faults one to another.
Meetines. Wesley met the men every Wednesday
		evening, and the women p8 §Ipolyl
Some objected on the ground that the Band. were " man‑made." Wesley replied: " They are prudential helps, grounded on reason and experience, in order to apply the general rules given in Scrip. ture according to particular circumstances." Others stigmatized them as " mere popery." Wesley answered: " Do they not yet know that the only popish confession is the confession made by a single person to a priest? . . Whereas what we practise is the confession of several conjointly, not to a priest, but to each other." Members of the "Bands " were selected from the united societies. The united
* Thomas Jackson, author of The Cent‑ry of Wealeyan Methodism (London, 1839), says: " From that time Wesley distinguishes what e sometimes designate. the united societies, and at other times the United society, from all re‑
ligious associations with which he had been previously connected."

Nethodists	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	884
societies consisted of the awakened, but the " Bands " of those only who were supposed to have received remission of sins. Later there were select societies composed of those who were believed to walk in the light of God's countenance. Members were bound " to abstain from evil, especially buying or selling on the sabbath; tasting spirituous liquors; pawning; backbiting; wearing needless ornaments, as rings, earrings, necklaces, laces and ruffles; taking snuff or tobacco; to maintain good works, especially alms‑giving and reproving sin, to attend the service at church, to receive the sacrament once a week, and to observe Fridays as days of fasting or abstinence." Wesley had built a meeting‑house in Bristol, but though subscriptions and collections were made to pay the debt, a large amount remained due. On Feb. 15, 1742, the principal members of the Bristol Society met to devise measures whereby the debt might be discharged. One said: " Put eleven of the poorest with me, and if they can give nothing, well; I will give for them as well as for myself. And each of you call on eleven of your neighbors weekly, and do the same." This was done. Wesley had instructed the collectors to inquire into the conduct of the members, and after a while some of these informed him that " such and such did not live as he ought." It struck him immediately, " this is the thing, .the very thing, we wanted so long." From this sprung the classmeeting. Six weeks afterward Wesley instituted it in London, where it had long been difficult to become acquainted with the members personally. They divided the society into classes like those at Bristol, Wesley appointing as leaders those in whom he could confide. In process of time the classmeeting incorporated all the elements in the Bands found to be useful, and the Bands were discontinued.
Love Feasts originated in the proposal that, on one evening in the quarter, the men, and on the next, the women, in the Bands should meet, and
on a third day they should meet to4. Love gether. The latter Wesley called a
Feasts, Love Feast. In these assemblies bread
Prayer‑ and water, partaken of by all present,
X‑tines, are the symbols of fellowship. Prayer,
	Lay	singing of hymns, and testifying to ex
Presohiag. perimental religion succeed each other,
and in the early period of Methodism developed the greatest enthusiasm.
Public prayer‑meetings were established in 1763 by two young men who introduced them in places where there was no Methodist preaching. They soon became general, for it was found that they exercised the talents of young men, training them in the various services of the church. When Wesley visited the Germans he heard Christian David (see UNITY OF THE BRETHREN) preach, was deeply impressed, and was prepared by David's career to establish lay preaching, when a suitable person should appear. John Cennick, a spiritual, and intellectually capable man was invited to hear a brother read a sermon to the colliers, but, the reader not arriving, Cennick was requested to speak to the people; he reluctantly complied, and " the Lord bore witness with his words in so much that many believed in
that hour." When Wesley came many desired him to forbid Cennick to preach, instead of which he gave encouragement, and for the neat eighteen months Cennick preached constantly, sometimes supplying Wesley's place in Bristol. Writers before Tyerman assumed that Thomas Maxfield was the first lay preacher; Tyerman maintains that John Cennick preceded him.
As unity, direction, and instruction of the lay preachers and actively sympathizing clergymen who affiliated with Wesleyan Methodism were essential to the integrity and spirit of the movement, they were assembled for consultation.
b. Ortaia The first conference was in the Foun‑
of Con‑ dry in London on June 25, 1744. John
forenoon: and Charles Wesley, John Hodges,
George Henry Piers, Samuel Taylor and John
	$eu.	Meriton, clergymen of the Church of
		England, were present; and four lay
preachers, Thomas Rogers, Thomas Maxfield, John
Bennett, and John Downs. They evolved a system
of doctrine, discipline, and practise. At the third
conference the country was divided into seven cir
cults. Copies of the minutes of the conference were
to be given to those who were present, but were
ordered read to the stewards and leaders of Bands
the Sunday and Thursday following each confer
ence. At the conferences the preachers were sta
tioned at the various circuits: the result of their
systematic and energetic labors amazed the United
Kingdom. The most distinguished clergyman in
sympathy with the work of Wesley, and for many
years the most useful to him neat to his own brother
Charles, was John Fletcher (q.v.), vicar of Madeley.
A Swiss by birth, a man of culture and rare gifts in
speech and literary composition, he had been con
verted by Methodists. As in the apostolic era and
in every religious movement since, excess of enthu
siasm turned the heads of some, so George Bell, one
of Wesley's local preachers, became a fanatic, be
lieving that he could work miraculous cures. He
became almost if not actually insane. Wesley bore
with him long, Methodism suffering in reputation
thereby. To the grief and astonishment of Wesley,
Bell secured the support of Thomas Maxfield, who
had been converted under Wesley's preaching dur
ing his first visit to Bristol, and had been ordained
by the bishop of Londonderry who, in laying hands
upon him, said, "Sir, I ordain you to assist that
good man, John Wesley, that he may not work
himself to death." Bell, whose fanaticism daily
intensified, caused a panic by prophesying that the
world would end on a given day, and Wesley was
obliged to expel him. Many in London withdrew
from the societies, exclaiming, " Blind John is in
capable of teaching us; we will keep to Mr. Max
field." Subsequently Bell lost his religious ardor,
became a skeptic, and then a politician, " as ultra
in his political opinions as he bad been in religion."
Maxfield opened an independent chapel (A. Stevens,
History of Methodism, i. 409, New York, 1858).
It was not wonderful that thousands flocked to Wesley's standard, that many societies were established and chapels reared, since he was apparently ubiquitous, .traveling constantly and preaching often ten times in a week, inspiring the people by his

885	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	lslethodists
sermons, the immortal hymns of his brother Charles, and his ability to converse in the German, Spanish, and Italian tongues. Many clergymen of the Church of England secretly, and not a few openly, sympathized with the apostolic brothers. The growth by the year 1767 is shown by the following table.
		Circuits. Preachers. Members.
	England 	26	75	22,410
	Ireland 	9	19	2,801
	Scotland 	5	7	468
	Wales	1	3	232

41	104	25,911
These had endured the scrutiny and discipline of Wesley. As Wesley advanced in years the necessity for measures to prevent the dissolution of the societies became obvious, not only to the magician who had wrought such marvelous results, but to leading minds among the clergymen who affiliated with him, lay preachers, and the more astute members of the society.
To meet the emergency, in the year 1784 Wesley gave to the conference " a legal settlement." From an early period the deeds of chapels and preachers' houses or parsonages had conveyed the said buildings to trustees for the use of such
	e. The	preachers as John or Charles Wesley
	Deed of	should send, and, after their death, as
Deolaration.the conference should appoint. Thomas
		Coke, a wealthy clergyman, educated
for the bar, who had devoted his time and posses
sions to Methodism, advised Wesley to consult the
civil authorities; and he ascertained that the con
ference could not be recognized unless more pre
cisely defined, and that, as things then were, it
could not claim control over the pulpits. Wesley
reported this to the conference, which requested
him to " draw up a definition of its character and
powers." Under the guidance of the best legal
counsel he executed a deed of declaration, in which
the names of one hundred preachers were recorded,
to constitute a legal conference after his death. He
deemed this number sufficient to secure the prop
.erty and insure the unity of the body, and also as
many as could wisely be withdrawn annually for a
week or more from pastoral work. Wesley re
corded that " in naming these preachers, as he had
no advisers he had no respect to persons, but sim
ply set down those which according to the best of
his judgment were most proper." The deed pro
vides that the conference meet once a year at Lon
don, Bristol, Leeds, or any other place which the
members should select. The sessions were never
to last over three weeks, nor less than five days,
and the conference was empowered to fill vacancies.
To give validity to any act or vote, forty members
must be present, with the exception that if the legal
hundred should by death or other cause be reduced,
those present might conduct business. In order to
secure attendance, any member who should remain
away from two successive annual sessions forfeited
membership, unless he appeared on the first day of
the third session, or was voted exemption. It was
forbidden to appoint to any of the chapels a preacher
not a member of the Methodist connection. " No
appointment could be made for a longer term than
three years, except in the cases of ordained clergymen of the Church of England." The conference had power to commission members of the body to represent it in any part of the earth, their " official acts being recognized as acts of the conference." The life estate of John and Charles Wesley in the houses and chapels of the connection was not to be affected by this deed. As there were 191 members of conference, the names of ninety‑one were not included in the deed and they were not allowed to participate in the conference on equal terms with their brethren. Controversy ensued, and several preachers left the connection. Those who remained were permitted to vote, and such as had been members a given number of years were allowed to vote for the president in nomination, for the confirmation of the legal hundred.
After the death of Wesley serious contests arose and continued for several years. Influential laymen and ministers proposed to adhere to the Church of England, and a few attached them‑
7. Events selves to various dissenting bodies.
after Wes‑ The conference of 1791 expressed its ley's Death. views equivocally, and that of 1792 cast lots to determine whether the sacraments‑should be administered in the ensuing year. Eventually the following rules were enacted:
" No ordination shall take place in the Methodist Conneotion without the consent of the Conference.
" If any brother break the above‑mentioned rule by ordaining or being ordained without the consent of the conference, the brother so breaking the rule does thereby exclude himself. The Lord's Supper shall not be administered by any person among our societies in England and Ireland for the ensuing year on any consideration whatever except in London."
In 1793 the conference resolved that‑
" Where the Societies desired it they should have it, and that there should no longer be any distinction between ordained and unordained preachers, that no gowns, cassocks, bands nor surplices, nor the title of Reverend should be used."
Neither party was satisfied. The substance of the plan adopted in 1795 was that where the sacraments were being peaceably administered they should be continued; but that they should not be administered elsewhere unless a majority of the trustees and of the leaders and stewards concurred in desiring it; not for many years was the practise of laying‑on of hands in ordination adopted.
Wesleyan Methodism is a form of Presbyterianism, yet, " strictly speaking, it is neither Episcopal, Presbyterian, nor Congregational," but has characteristics of each. Wesleyan Methodism denies a radical distinction between teaching
	8. Polity.	and ruling presbyters, but reserves for
		the presbyters or pastors the deter
mination of questions of doctrine and discipline.
When the society developed into a church, the lead
ers and stewards became the local church council.
There is a distinct local preachers' quarterly meet
ing, over which the superintendent minister of each
circuit presides. There are also lay officials, formerly
called general, but now circuit stewards; these re
ceive the moneys from stewards of the societies in
the. circuit. Such society and circuit officers are
appointed to office by the ministers, and chosen by
the members of the meeting into which they are to

Methodists	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	33e
be introduced. The administration of the spiritual affairs of each society or local church is vested in the leaders' meeting; and that of the general business of the circuit in the quarterly meeting or collective assembly of the lay officers of the circuit. These invite ministers, determine their allowances, review all interests of the circuit, and send resolutions to the district synod or memorials to conference. A peculiar feature of the polity of Wesleyan Methodism is that in case of the enactment of a new law intended to be binding in the circuits and societies, each quarterly meeting has the right to suspend the operation of the law for one year, until reconsidered by the conference. Subject to the conditions laid down in the deed of declaration as constituted and defined by Wesley, the conference rules the whole body. At the present time it is an annual assembly of oopastors, meeting to exercise mutual discipline and take mutual counsel in regard to specifically pastoral subjects; and in part it is a conjoint assembly of ministers and lay brethren convened to receive reports, deliberate and determine in regard to the general interests of the connection. At the close the " Legal Conference " " as a matter of necessary legal form and solemnity " adopts what has been done in the sessions of the general conference. Between the conference and circuits are district meetings, which are praotioally provincial " synods," so called since 1893. These were originally organized as committees of the conference. During the transaction of pastoral business they are assemblies of pastors only; for other business, they are lay and clerical assemblies; the circuit stewards, the specially elected representatives of the circuit quarterly meetings, district treasurers of connectional funds, lay members of district committees of " Sunday and day school affairs " and of the district organization of the Foreign Missionary Society. At the pastoral sessions of the synod ministers exercise discipline, counsel concerning spiritual interests, candidates for the ministry, and the like. The conference receives recommendations from the synod, and remits questions to it. The synod is also a court of appeal; nor can legislation adopted by the conference become binding law till it has been ratified by a majority of the synod.
	The conference confers great power on its presi
dent; but, in general, the presidents have been
both defenders and guides. The most dominating
ruler was Jabez Bunting (q.v.), four times presi
dent, and, whether in or out of that office, for more
		than a third of a century the control
9. Eminent ling spirit. Robert Newton, a chaste
	Officers	orator, was also four times president.
and Repre‑ Adam Clarke (q.v.), oriental scholar,
sentatives. vigorous preacher and Biblical com
		mentator, three times; and Thomas
Coke (q.v.), Joseph Bradford, John Pawson, Thomas
Taylor, Thomas Jackson, historical and oonneo
tional book editor; John Hannah, John Scott,
Richard Reece, Joseph Entwisle, Henry Moore, one
of the appointed biographers of Wesley; John Bar
ber, James Wood, George Marsden, John Farrar,
George Osborne, and James Harrison Rigg (q.v.)
each twice filled the chair. The last‑named was
one of the most eminent in the list, in force of character and clearness of mind, who was long connected officially with public education. There is one living ex‑president, who has served twice, Charles H. Kelly, beloved as a personality, and useful in high connectional offices. Several of the most notable men in the presidency served but once. Of these, perhaps the greatest was William Arthur (q.v.), conspicuous for fifty years throughout the religious world. Hugh Price Hughes (q.v.), of the modern type, was known as an evangelist and promoter of enterprises for uplifting the submerged classes and popularizing the Christian religion and church. Among the noteworthy men that Wesleyan Methodism has produced are Richard Watson, William B. Pope, theologians, and William Morley Punahon (qq.v.), the orator; from the beginning laymen have increased in influence, many being as well known and as useful as the most distinguished of the clergy.
Wesleyan Methodism has always placed a high estimate upon education. The views of Wesley on this subject were in some particulars unendur‑
ably ascetic, but mingled with these 10. Educa‑ were principles of permanent value. tional and In 1836 the conference took up the Missionary subject of education in general and a
Agencies. Wesleyan Educational Committee was
appointed. Week‑day and infant schools were established in 1843. In 1851 a training‑college at Westminster was opened, and in 1872 a second training‑college for female teachers. Houses for the Wesleyan schools are held in trust for the connection. The conference of 1875 approved the Education Committee's plan for establishing middleclass schools, of which there are ten or more. The first great movement in the direction of higher education was the establishment of Wesley College, Sheffield; the next, the institution now known as Queen's College, Taunton. A theological institution was established in 1834, and there are four branches, situated respectively at Richmond, Didsbury, Headingley, and Handaworth. Besides these are the Methodist College at Belfast, Ireland, the Westminster Training School and the Leys School at Cambridge. Missions to the heathen were not undertaken until 1786, when Thomas Coke started a mission to negro slaves in the British West Indies. At his instigation a mission to West Africa was begun in 1811, and in 1813 another in Ceylon. In 1815 missions were opened in Australasia, in Germany in 1830, in Switzerland in 1839, in Italy in 1860.. Many of the missions established are now independent. The missions under the immediate direction of the British conference are: in Europe: Italy, Spain, Portugal, Gibraltar, and Malta; in Africa, Cairo; in South Africa, Transvaal, Swaziland, Rhodesia; in West Africa, Sierre Leone, Gold Coast, Lagos; in Asia, Ceylon, India (north and south), and China; in the western hemisphere, the Bahamas, Honduras, and the West Indies. In general, Wesleyan Methodist foreign missions have prospered greatly. Home missions are reduced to a most efficient system. The Wesleyan Methodists report for 1909 in Great Britain, 520,868 communicants; foreign missions, 143,467; French confer

$37	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Xethodists
ence, 1,675; South African, including English and native, 117,146.
Methodism was introduced into Ireland i>t 1747 by Thomas Williams. In the same year Wesley visited that country, and on his return
11. Wes. to England sent back his brother leyan Charles and Charles Perronet, who reMethodism mained six months preaching and orin Ireland. ganizing societies. As Methodism increased so did the efforts of the Roman Catholic Church to crush it. Mobs attacked the " Swaddlers," as Methodists were called, but Wesleyan Methodism gained many converts from the Roman Catholics, as well as from the unattached peasantry, whatever their belief or non‑belief. Wesley visited Ireland more than twenty times, and after his death Coke became the apostle of Ireland, visiting it twenty‑five times, at his own charge, giving freely to needy preachers and for the erection of chapels. In 1782, when he presided at the Irish conference, there were fifteen circuits and 6,000 members. In 1813 there were fifty‑six circuits and 28,770 members. Among the untiring laborers Gideon Ouseley was foremost. Disputes arose concerning the sacraments, which, after the death of Coke, the people received from Presbyterians or the Established Church, according to the tendency of the Methodist preacher. In 1816 a large number seceded, claiming to be members of the Established Church of Ireland, and organized the Primitive Methodist Society of Ireland; but in 1878, after serious vicissitudes, they reunited with the Wesleyan Church of Ireland. A permanent difficulty in the way of retaining a large number of Methodist communicants in the Emerald Isle has been the constant emigration to America; by this means the church for years lost more than 1,000 members per annum. Yet in the centennial year 1839, the 26,000 members contributed $75,000 to the fund, established schools in Dublin and Cork, and, with the aid of friends in the United States and Canada, founded in 1868, and have since maintained, a college of high repute in Belfast. Prominent laymen and ministers have been converted and developed in the Irish Wesleyan Methodist Church; among the ministers, William Arthur, Adam Clarke and Henry Moore, the more distinguished. In 1877 laymen were admitted to the conference. The acts of the Wesleyan conference in Ireland, in accordance with the provision in the conference deed‑poll, are made valid byrthe official concurrence with the said acts of a delegate from the British conference, which concurrence is to the Irish conference what the legal hundred is to the British conference. Ten ministers of the Irish conference are members of the legal hundred of the British, and the ex‑president of the British conference presides in the sessions of the Irish conference.
The report for 1909 is 246 ministers, 621 lay preachers, 421 church buildings, 1,606 other preaching‑places, 25,969 communicants.
8. Calvinistic Methodists: After the death of Whitefield, the Calvinistic Methodists divided into three sects. The first, known as Lady Huntingdon's Connection (see HUNTINGDON, SELINA HASTINGS, COUNTESS or), observed strictly the litulVIL‑22
gical forms of the Church of England, and instead of an itinerant ministry instituted a settled pastorate. As practically a congregational .polity was adopted, many of the congregations became associated with the collection of Congregational churches. The second division was the Tabernacle Connection, or Whitefield Methodists. As each society considered itself independent, they soon disappeared as a distinctive denomination, most of them affiliating with the Congregationalists or Independents. The third was the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists (see PRESBYTERIANS), organized in 1743. They have prospered, extending principally in Wales and reaching the United States by way of immigration. They are influential and vigorous, at times experiencing revivals of such intensity as to attract the attention of the Christian world. After contributing for many years to the London Missionary Society, the Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Foreign Missionary Society was founded in Liverpool in 1840. Its first attempts were in India, where persevering faith has been rewarded. There are more than 500 preaching‑places, 450 day schools, 6,000 communicants, and nearly 20,000 attendants.
8. The Methodist New Connection: Alexander Kilham, born in Epworth, 1762, of Methodist parents, became a local preacher, and in 1785 Wesley received him into the regular itinerant ministry. As he grew in influence he proposed various alterations. Three years before the death of Wesley, Kilham made known his design of petitioning the conference " to let us have the liberty of Englishmen, and to give the Lord's Supper to our societies." He sent petitions to the conference of 1791, anilrsubmitted a new system of government for the connection. As discussion progressed he grew more determined, appealing to God " to destroy everything that belongs to despotism wherever it appears." At the conference of 1796 he was put upon trial. After hot debate the conference unanimously adjudged him " unworthy of being a member of the Methodist Connection." Soon afterward he began the formation of the Methodist New Connection. In places where the Wesleyans would not allow him to preach in their chapels, dissenters opened their houses of worship. To disseminate his views he established, at Leeds, a periodical called The Monitor. In Leeds 167 class‑leaders and other officers, and sixty‑seven delegates from the trustees of the connection appeared at the conference of 1797, calling for changes in the government. The spread of sympathy with Kilham's projects within the pale of the Wesleyan connection caused alarm.
The conference of the Methodist New Connection was constituted upon the representative system, laymen having an equal voice with the clergy in the government of the church; while in doctrine and general us" they did not differ from the old connection. This church at first gained rapidly, and later at a slow but steady pace. At the first ecumenical conference, held in London, 1881, it was reported to have 31,652 members.. It took the first step in mission work in 1824, and soon after established missions in Ireland. It began a mission in Canada in 1837, and thirty‑eight years after,

Methodists	THE NEW SCHAFF ‑HERZOG	338
when it united with other Methodist bodies in that province, it contributed 7,661 members. In 1859 this church began mission work in China, and in 1862 in Australia.. This mission affiliated with other Methodisms. The China mission prospered, having more than 4,466 communicants, 100 churches, and many chapels. In 1907, it reported 41,875 communioaats in the United Kingdom.
4. Primitive Methodists: The Primitive Methodists arose in 1810. Lorenzo Dow (q.v), an eccentric American Methodist preacher, with a spark of genius, visited England and Ireland and there introduced camp‑meetings. The story of the remarkable meetings in the western forests of the United States recalled to older members the marvelous open‑air triumphs of Wesley and Whitefield. Dow was master of a weird eloquence and absorbed by his conviction that the Lord had sent him to England to revive the spirit of the ancient days. A few regular Wesleyan preachers permitted the camp‑meetings to be held within the bounds of their circuits, and attended them; but the conference denounced this as highly improper. About this time young Hugh Bourne was passing through an experience in some respects similar to that of John Wesley. When he was twenty‑seven years of age he read The Life of Fletcher, several of Wesley's sermons, Alleine's Alarm, and Baxter's Call to the Unconverted, and these works seemed to meet his spiritual needs. He joined the Wesleyans and zealously sought the salvation of certain rough Iumbermen in his employment. In May, 1807, assisted by several Wesleyans, especially by William Clowes and Thomas Cotton, he held a camp‑meeting at Mow Cap, " a border‑line between StaffordshirqAnd Cheshire." The next summer special meetings of like character were held. The Wesleyan preachers of the circuits adjacent to Mow Hill, fearing the spread of a fanaticism which might bring scorn upon true religion, issued hand‑bills repudiating the movement. At the next session of the Wesleyan Methodist conference the following resolution was passed: " It is our judgment that even supposing such meetings to be allowed in America, they are highly improper in England and likely to be produetive of mischief; and we disclaim all connection with them." Thereafter, most of the leading Methodists held aloof from the camp‑meeting. Bourne and a few others persisted and, securing recognition of their meeting bythe civil authorities, were enabled to preserve order. The Wesleyan conference would not endure what it described as Bourne's " insufferable contumacy." Bourne and Thomas Clowes were expelled from the connection, which naturally made them yet more zealous. In 1809 Hugh Bourne and his brother James hired James Crawfoot, noted for piety, to preach in neglected places for three months, the salary being ten shillings per week. " This is generally looked on as the commencement of the Primitive Methodist ministry." In the spring of 1810 those converted in meetings held by Hugh Bourne were formed into a class, which was offered to the Burslem circuit (Wesleyan), but the authorities declined to accept its members " unless they pledged to sever their connection with Hugh Bourne." Bourne took the class under his per‑
sonal charge as a distinct society, Sept., 1810; and this is considered to be the birth of the connection. The name " Primitive Methodist " was formally assumed in 1812. Two years later a comprehensive body of laws was adopted. The form of church government is in substance Presbyterian, but with a larger mixture of the lay element than is found in Presbyterian, or, even at this day, in other Methodist denominations. The general conference convenes yearly, and consists of twelve " deed poll " members, four persons elected by the previous conference, and delegates chosen by the district meetings, in the unusual proportion of two laymen to one traveling. preacher. In 1829 a deed poll was " enrolled in chancery " to make more effectual the deeds, leases, etc., and to render donations and trusts secure; it was also valued as a permanent statement for the settling of controversy. An appeal is ,allowed from court to court to the final arbiter, the conference. This communion has paid much attention to education. One of the foremost scholars of to‑day, Arthur Samuel Peake (q.v.), is associated with other accomplished persons on the staff of the Hartley College of this church, located at Manchester, England, and named after the philanthropist, W. P. Hartley, who has given munificently for its endowment. Famous preachers such as James Macpherson, William Antliff, Samuel Antliff, James Travis, and John Flanagan have been among the leaders of this enterprising and growing section of the Church of Christ. The Primitive Methodist Church is by far the largest of those which follow Wesley in Great Britain, with the exception of the original Wesleyan body. It has constantly grown; in 1881 it had 185,316 communicants, 1,150 ministers and more than twelve times as many local preachers, the majority preaching every Sunday. This denomination formed a foreign Missionary Society in 1844, opening missions in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. These missions were affiliated with the other Methodist bodies of those countries. It also carries on energetic missions in Africa among the natives. Statistics for 1909 show 212,168 members, 5,148 church buildings at home and 5,018 members and probationers in foreign missions.
b. The Protestant Methodists: The Protestant Methodists, who in 1828 organized themselves into a separate body, resulted from irreconcilable differences of opinion in the society over the introduction of an organ into the largest chapel in Leeds. Until 1820 trustees of chapels could obtain this " risky innovation " only by direct application to the conference. In this case the conference had prematurely consented, and a local preacher convoked unauthorized assemblies for the purpose of agitation. When, at the appeal of the superintendent, he would not desist, the latter sentenced him to three months' suspension from his office. Thereupon seventy local preachers made common cause, and refused to preach, affirming that they would sit in silence with him. He was expelled, and a futile attempt made to secure pacification. A large number seceded, assuming the name of nonConformist Methodists (popularly called " NonCons."). This name they changed for that of Prot‑

Sao	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Biethodists
estant Methodists. In Leeds alone 1,040 members were lost, and elsewhere the depletion was even more serious. As a separate body they have long ceased to exist.
8. The.Wesleyan Methodist Association: The Wesleyan Methodist Association began in the determination of the Wesleyan conference to establish a theological seminary. Two days before the conference of 1834, a number of ministers and laymen met to discuss the project of such an institution, to be presided over by Dr. Jabez Bunting. In the progress of the controversy, Samuel Warren found himself in a minority; and as soon as the conference adjourned he began a general agitation. The Manchester district meeting suspended him, and Robert Newton was requested to undertake the superintendency. Warren applied to the court of chancery for an injunction against Newton and the trustees of the Oldham Street Chapel. The vice‑chancellor sustaining the district meeting, Warren appealed to Lyndhurst, the lord chancellor, who, after a thorough review of the Methodist polity, as established by Wesley's deed of declaration, and of the chief events in the history of the conference, affirmed the decision of the vice‑chancellor. Warren was expelled, as were two others on charges of lawlessly abetting him. Circulars had been distributed denouncing the action of the conference, as well as the leaders who directed the acts. All who had anything to do with the distribution were under censure, and others under suspicion. The disruption of 1849 began with the expulsion of James Everett, Samuel Dunn, William Griffith, James Bromley, and Thomas Rowland, suspected of connection with the " fly‑sheets." No formal and general secession took place until after the conference of 1850. Within five years after that date the original Wesleyan connection was depleted by 100,469, and " some of the fairest and most fruitful circuits in Methodism were laid waste." But, less than half of those who left the Wesleyan connection entered the new denomination.
7. The United Free Churches: The Protestant Methodists, the Wesleyan Methodist Association, and the " Wesleyan R‑formers " (the title taken by those who organized after the expulsion of Everett and his companions), certain societies calling themselves " Arminian " Methodists, and others styling themselves Welsh Independent Methodists, united in the year 1857 under the name of the United Free Churches. This body at once became the third in numerical importance of the Methodist denominations in England. When consolidated it had 39,986 members and 2,152 probationers. At the end of twenty years the church included 72,997 members and 6,984 on probation. The government is democratic. The home circuits are divided into districts, but district meetings are not possessed of remarkable powers; the annual assembly controls only matters of connectional interest. The connectional officers are the president of the assembly, elected annually, the connectional secretary, treasurer, and the corresponding secretary. The church has shown commendable interest in foreign missions, continuing those which came in with the union, and establishing others in the West Indies,
Africa, and China. Among the most eminent of British Methodists in his day was Marmaduke Miller, heard on religious and civic questions with great interest. At the end of 1907 it had 84,464 members and probationers at home, and in the foreign field 18,739 members and probar tioners.
8. Bible Christians: The denomination known as " Bible Christians " originated in Cornwall. William O'Bryan was one of its founders, and in May, 1810, was formally excluded from the Methodist society, " in the chapel of which he had given the freehold beside one‑half the cost of the building, for no crime except irregular attempts to save souls." In 1814 he retired from business in order " to be ready to go whithersoever providence directed his steps." He sought out parishes in which there was no evangelical preaching and wrought much good. After a few years of independent action he reunited with the Methodist society, but subsequently his " ticket " was withheld on the ground that he had not been excluded, but that he had excluded himself. He then began to form his own plan of appointments, and a new society resulted. James Thorne was an associate founder of the " Bible Christians." During 1815 and 1816 throngs were converted, O'Bryan being so active that the converts were characterized as " Bryanites." Societies were formed in various parts of England and adjacent islands. The first conference consisted of twelve of the itinerant brethren. Every circuit was empowered to send one of its stewards to the annual district meeting, " and, to prevent priestly domination, every fifth year additional representatives were to be so appointed as to make the number of the itinerant preachers and represents, tives equal." A contention began in 1827.aa to the authority of conference, and O'Bryan developed a spirit similar to that of those Wealeyans who had disfellowshiped him. In the struggle both O'Bryan and those who formulated their demands used the iron hand without the velvet glove. In the end O'Bryan migrated to America and had no further connection with the Bible Christians. The work had spread throughout the outlying provinces of England. The first chapel was built in 1818; in 1859 the connection occupied 453 chapels at home, and in 1900 the number had increased to 607. Between the years 1851 and 1860 separate conferences were established in Canada, South Australia, and Victoria. The enterprising spirit of the society was apparent in the fact that, in 1821, a missionary society was established for sending missionaries into dark parts of the United Kingdom and other countries, " as divine providence might open the way." In 1831 two missionaries were sent to British North America; and in 1850 James Rowe and the devout James Way were set apart to open a mission in South Australia, which prospered exceedingly and extended into the neighboring colony of Victoria. Missions were established later in New Zealand, Queensland, and China. In the report to the ecumenical conference in 1881 its number of communicants had reached 31,542. At home it had long maintained a force of missionaries working among the lowest stratum of London's popula‑

Xethodists	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	340
tion, and in other parts of England. See BIBLE CHRISTIANS.
9. The United Xethodist Church: In 1902 the United Free Churches had 83,803 members, and raised more than £104,000 for the twentieth‑century fund. The organization declared that its denomination was a practical illustration of the advantages of union, and that it believed that those who are nearest to each other in their foundation principles should unite. The United Free Churches, the Methodist New Connection, and the Bible Christians in 1905 prepared a basis of union. Substantial agreement was reached; and in Sept., 1907, at Wesley's Chapel, City Road, London, the adjourned conferences of these three churches met as a " uniting conference," and by permission of an act of parliament formed the United Methodist Church. The total membership of the three amalgamating bodies is 186,905.
Methodism in Great Britain and Ireland now consists of three large bodies, Wesleyan Methodists, the Primitive Methodist Church, and the United Methodist Church.
Besides these are two smaller societies, the Wesleyan Reform Union, 8,489, and the Independent Methodist Churches, 9,442. There are in all these bodies 969,078 members, exclusive of members of the foreign missions.
II. In Australasia: The Rev. Samuel Leigh, the first Methodist preacher to go to Australia, arrived in Aug., 1815, and began his work in New South Wales. By Mar., 1816, an address of the Methodist societies in New South Wales was sent to the
Wesleyan mission committee in Lon‑
:. History. don. The history of his subsequent
work and that of his successors is as interesting as the civil and personal history of the country and its inhabitants. Thirty years after Mr. Leigh began his work, the Primitive Methodists appeared; and later the Bible Christians, United Methodist Free Churches, and the Methodist New Connection planted missions. The Wesleyan spread among the English in the seven colonies, and established missions in Fiji, Tonga, and New Guinea. The Primitive Methodists were also at work in all the colonies save West Australia. The Bible Christians labored in South Australia, Victoria, and New Zealand, maintaining a few circuits in New South Wales. The United Free Methodists were represented in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, and New Zealand. The Methodist New Connection had established but two circuits in Australia. About 1888 these circuits were incorporated with the Wesleyan and Bible Christian churches. In 1895 the Wesleyan Methodists had in Australasia 51,702 members, and there were in the missions 34,691 members. According to the number of members at that time the Bible Christian denomination was twice the size of the United Methodist Free Churches, and the Primitive Methodist body double the size of the Bible Christians. These smaller bodies were two‑fifths the size of the Wesleyan Church in Australia, New Zealand, and Tasmania, and one‑fourth that of Wesleyan Methodism in the whole southern world. Methodist union in Australasia was agitated for a long time before
effective steps were taken. In New Zealand, after prolonged negotiation, the ministers and members included in the Wesleyan conference, the United Free Methodist Churches, and the Bible Christians formed a union in the year 1896. The only section of Methodism in that island which declined to enter into the union was the Primitive Methodist. Two years later a union of the denominations was effected in Queensland. The Primitive Methodists and the Bible Christians in South Australia came together, and later the Methodist New Connection; and in 1900 the Wesleyan Methodists, the Primitive Methodists, and the Bible Christians, joined by the United Free Church, were consolidated into one body in South and West Australia. By this time preparations for the complete union of all Methodists in Australia reached a culmination, and from Dec. 31, 1902, Methodism became one in Australia, a continent nearly as large as Europe, and almost one in New Zealand, about as large as the British Isles; there was, therefore, a united Methodism throughout Australasia, except the Primitive Methodists in New Zealand, who represented only one‑eightieth in numbers of the Methodism of Australia.
The Methodist Missionary Society of Australasia supports missions in Samoa, Fiji, and New Britain. Tonga was formerly connected with the board of missions. The latest mission is that
a. Agencies to Solomon Islands. The list of naand tive ministers is long, and includes
	Activities.	such names as Philemon Waqaniveit
		agavi, Ananias Tagavi, Tychicus Noke,
Moses Mamafainoa, and Zephaniah Bilavucu. The
Fiji district synod has reached such a degree of de
velopment that the conference resolved that the
principle of lay representation be brought into op
eration in 1908. It is also under contract to accept
from the Wesleyan Missionary Society of England
a definite field of work in India, and a complete
plant in one of the presidencies in that country.
A recent conference recorded its gratitude to God
for the signal success which he has given to its mis
sions in the South Seas; for the islands which have
been won from savagery and cannibalism and that
are now Christian; for the thousands of men and
women savingly converted to God, and for the na
tive ministers, local preachers, and teachers raised
up, by whose labors, in conjunction with those of
the missionaries sent from England and Australia,
so great a work has been done. These inoontestar
ble statements constitute a pillar of defense against
attacks upon missionary effort in behalf of the un
civilized races. The Australasian Methodist Church
is devoting itself to education. It supports a theo
logical college and other institutions for training
purposes and a number of high and village schools.
The progress of Australasia, though unequally dis
tributed in the various colonies, of recent years has
been extraordinary, and not only the British Em
pire but all leading nations have watched with in
terest its various experiments in legislation which
have dealt with the burning questions of the age.
As in other continents Methodism has shown in
Australasia its ability to stem a dangerous tide or
swell a beneficent one. Many able ministers and

341	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Methodists
laymen have been developed and some of them sent abroad as fraternal delegates. Their communications, no less than the indications of a vigorous church life, attested by the comments of the secular press, give good ground to believe that Australasian Methodism is, and is to continue, a powerful civilizing and Christianizing factor. The total number of ministers is 1,820, of whom 77 are of native races. The total number of members is 150; 751, of whom one‑third are natives. Besides these are 10,465 on probation. The attendance on preaching services reaches the great number of 644,183.
III. In Japan: The Methodist Episcopal Church established a mission in Japan in the year 1873. In the same year the Canadian Methodist Church began a similar work in that country. Twelve years later, the Methodist Episcopal Church South also sent missionaries there. The work of the Methodist Episcopal Church has expanded into two annual conferences, and that of the Canadian Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church South into two more. As the same doctrines were taught, and the same spirit infused, a sentiment arose in favor of a union of the Methodist Churches in Japan. The churches in America appointed commissioners to effect a union and, in July, 1906, they unanimously agreed upon a plan. In accordance therewith, a general conference was convened in Tokyo, Japan, on May 22, 1907, composed of delegates, previously elected by the four annual conferences of the three uniting churches in Japan, and the Nippon Methodist Kyokwai was formally organized. A system of government was adopted, and went at once into effect, the first general conference under the same being held in June, 1907. The relation of the churches in the United States and Canada to the Methodist Church of Japan is cooperative. The missionaries from America hold their conference relation in their home conferences, and are supported by them; but they are entitled to the rights and privileges of membership in the annual conference to which their work of the preceding year has been related, except when the character or relations of Japanese preachers are under consideration.
IV. In America.‑1. Methodist Episcopal chnmh: Philip Embury (q.v.), an Irish Methodist local preacher, accompanied by his wife, Paul Heck, Barbara, his wife, and several others, emigrated in 1760 from Limerick to New York. Five years later came five families, some of whom were re‑
f. Begin‑ lated to Embury. In 1766 Barbara pings. Heck, finding several of them engaged in card‑playing, expostulated, and begged Embury to sound a note of warning. He opened his house for a meeting, preaching there to Mrs. Heck and four others who had responded to her invitation. Those present at this first service were enrolled in a class. Numerous conversions followed and additional classes were formed. Embury was strongly reinforced by Thomas Webb (q.v.). a Wesleyan local preacher and captain in the British army, and soon it was necessary to build a church. While Embury and Webb were preaching in New York a similar awakening was creating excitement in Maryland. Robert Strawbridge (q.v.), an Irishman, had emigrated to Maryland, and, as
he was persuasive in private, convincing in public, and ever active, many accessions resulted from his labors. The society in New York continued to prosper, and Thomas Taylor, a layman, besought Wesley to send over a preacher of wisdom, sound in faith, and a good disciplinarian. The twenty‑sixth annual British conference, held in 1768, sent to the church in New York City fifty pounds, also passage money for two missionaries, Richard Boardman and Joseph Pilmoor. In 1771 came Francis Asbury (q.v.), as devoted and untiring as Wesley, who, in Oct., 1772, appointed him " assistant superintendent." Pilmoor and others objecting to his methods as a disciplinarian, Wesley appointed Thomas Rankin (q.v.) " superintendent of the entire work of Methodism in America"; and with him sent George Shadford, who received a letter from Wesley which reveals the vastness of his imagination and expectations, all of which have been more than fulfilled. " . . . I let you loose, George, on the great continent of America. Publish your message in the open face of the sun, and do all the good you can. I am, dear George, Yours affectionately, John Wesley." Asbury came to America to stay, determined to identify himself fully with its people and their institutions; Rankin was full of notions and emotions of loyalty and government, and so magnified authority that those who had thought Asbury's hand iron found that of Rankin to be of steel. The first American conference was held in Philadelphia in 1773; ten preachers were present. It acknowledged the authority of Wesley and the Wesleyan conference; resolved that the doctrine and discipline of Methodism, as contained in the minutes, should be the sole rule of conduct; and that the members of the conference should " strictly avoid administering baptism and the Lord's Supper." Strawbridge had administered the sacraments before any of We&. ley's regular missionaries arrived, and would not comply. Asbury explained that the rule was adopted with the understanding that " no brother in our connection shall be permitted to administer the ordinances at this time except Mr. Strawbridge, and he under the particular direction of the assistant." But Strawbridge refused to administer under such direction. At the second conference there was sharp conflict between Rankin and Asbury. The latter records, " My judgment was stubbornly opposed for a while, but at last submitted to." Unable to take the test‑oaths or to sympathize with the colonies, Rankin left the country, and Rodda, another English preacher, also fled. Finally, Asbury of all the European Wesleyan preachers was left alone. The conference of 1778 showed a loss of 873 members; but in 1779, extensive revivals having occurred in those parts of the connection not directly affected by the war of the Revolution, the loss was made up with a gain of 1,600.
The first serious controversy occurred in 1779 the preachers in the South having determined toy secure authority to administer baptism and the holy communion. A committee was chosen by those thus minded, who ordained themselves and others, and to the satisfaction of most of the Methodists in that region began at once to administer the sacraments. The preachers north of Virginia

Xethodists	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	842
opposed the	step, and the conference of 1780
took harsh measures. The members declared their
	unanimous disapproval of the step of
	8. Dissen‑	the brethren in Virginia, and declared
sions; Wes‑ that, until retracted, they would not
ley's Device. consider them as Methodists in con
		nection with Wesley and the confer
ence. The question was temporarily settled by an
agreement to refrain until Wesley should be heard
from. At the close of 1783 Asbury received direo
tions from Wesley to act as general superintendent,
to receive no preachers from Europe not recom
mended by him, and neither to accept nor to re
tain any in America who would not submit to the
minutes of the conference. Wesley perceived that
unity upon the subject of administration of the
sacraments had not been reached; that the truce
would be but temporary, and that the societies
would disintegrate unless relief should be speedily
given. To meet the emergency he performed an
act unparalleled in the history of organized Protes
tantism. In Feb., 1784, he proposed to Thomas
Coke to receive ordination from him and go to
America to ordain others and establish an adequate
system of church government. In July Wesley
adopted the measure. Richard Whatcoat and
Thomas Vasey offered to accompany Coke as mis
sionaries, and at Bristol, Wesley, assisted by Coke
and James Creighton, presbyters of the Church of
England, ordained them as presbyters for America.
Coke was ordained as a superintendent; Wesley
accredited him by a document explaining the
grounds for the step, the substance of which was
that Lord King's account of the primitive church
and the Irenicum (London, 1661) of Bishop Stil
lingfieet, which maintained that neither Christ nor
his apostles prescribed any particular form of
church government, had convinced him (Wesley)
" that bishops and presbyters are the same order,
and consequently have the same right to ordain ";
that he had been " importuned from time to time
to exercise his right by ordaining part of the travel
ing preachers, but had refused, not only for the sake
of peace, but because he was determined to violate
as little as possible the established order of the na
tional church," to which he belonged. The case
was different between England and North America,
as in the latter no bishops have legal jurisdiction.
The closing words of this letter were: " They [the
Methodists in the United States] are now at full
liberty simply to follow the Scriptures and the primi
tive Church. And we judge it best that they should
stand fast in that liberty wherewith God has so
strangely made them free."
Coke ansi his companions landed in New York on Nov. 3, 1784. On Sunday the 14th, by appointment, he met Freeborn Garrettson at the residence
of Judge Bassett of Delaware, and in 8. The a neighboring chapel preached to a
New or‑ multitude, administering the Lord's ganization. Supper to more than 500. At this
service sixteen preachers, including Asbury, learned the purpose of the commissioners in coming to this country. A special conference was opened Dec. 24 of the same year, and about sixty preachers agreed to organize themselves into
a Methodist Episcopal Church " in which the liturgy (as presented by the Rev. John Wesley) should be read, and the sacraments administered by a superintendent, elders and deacons, who shall be ordained by a presbytery, using the Episcopal form, as prescribed in the Rev. Mr. Wesley's prayer book." Asbury was ordained deacon by Coke, assisted by Vasey and Whatcoat; on the following Sunday was ordained an elder, and on Monday consecrated superintendent. Before receiving ordination Asbury was unanimously elected superintendent, having stated that he could not serve as he had hitherto done, merely by Mr. Wesley's appointment. Coke also was elected superintendent. Several days were spent in perfecting a code of rules, selecting preachers to receive orders, and in ordinations. The first Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church was adopted by this convention. The prayer‑book which Wesley had prepared and printed for the use of the church in America was entitled, A Sunday Service of the Methodists in North America, with Other Occasional Services. The articles of religion of the Church of England were reduced from thirty‑nine to twenty‑four, and those retained were so altered as " to eradicate all traces of Romanism, High‑church ritualism, and the distinctive points of Calvinism." The church now formed consisted of 18,000 members, 104 traveling preachers, as many local preachers, and twice as many licensed exhorters. There were sixty chapels and 800 recognized preaching‑places. Coke went everywhere baptizing children and administering the Lord's Supper, as did Asbury wherever opportunity offered. In the mean time the general superintendents at their own initiative assumed the title of bishop, asking the conference to approve it, not to the exclusion of the name general superintendent under which they were ordained, but for brevity's sake, as its equivalent and alternative.
By the year 1789 it became necessary to hold eleven conferences. A plan was devised by Bishops Coke and Asbury, which involved the establishment of a council to be invested with extraordinary powers, and to consist of general superintendents (i.e., bishops) and presiding elders. The council met that year, and a second was con‑
4. The vened in 1790, which boldly claimed
	general	additional power. Its proceedings
Conference. created such dissatisfaction that the
		plan was abandoned, and it was do
cided to provide for a general conference. The an
nual conferences unanimously authorized the bish
ops to call such an assembly to meet in Baltimore
the first of Nov., 1792. The moat important event
was a conflict between Bishop Asbury and James
O'Kelly (q.v.), a strenuous elder, who presided over
a wide district. He proposed that preachers not sat
isfied with their appointments might appeal to the
conference. The motion was lost by a large ma
jority and O'Kelly and several other preachers so
ceded. The second general conference met in Bal
timore in 1796, and the subject of slavery was
discussed at length. An earnest debate, concerning
the relations of Coke to the Methodist Epispocal
Church, occupied two days. Jesse Lee‑& power
ful debater and preacher‑and others, who opposed

343	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Methodists
a conditional offer by Coke, were rapidly gaining adherents, until Bishop Asbury intervened. Coke himself made a conciliatory speech, and Lee's party lost the day. Coke, while remaining a member of the Wesleyan conference, continued to perform the duties of general superintendent when in America. The general conference of 1800 from the beginning took on a radical form, but conservative views prevailed. Richard Whatcoat was elected to the episcopacy by only four majority, his competitor being Jesse Lee. The general conference of 1804 is celebrated for the enactment of the rule forbidding bishops " to allow any preacher to remain in the same station or circuit more than two consecutive years," except presiding elders. In 1807, the New York conference adopted a memorial expressing its conviction that a representative or delegated general conference, composed of a specific number, on principles of equal representation, from the several annual conferences, was essential to unity. This was submitted to the other conferences, and presented to the conference of 1808, in which the proposition was‑ launched by a motion to proceed to " the business relative to regulating and perpetuating general conferences." A committee was formed of two members from each annual conference, who agreed upon a plan, the first provision of which was: "The General Conference shall be composed of delegates from the annual conferences." This was lost by a majority of seven in 121 votes. Confusion reigned, and various members from distant conferences began preparations to return home, but unanimity being attained, the conference provided for a delegated general conference to have full powers to make rules and regulations for the church under six restrictions. At this conference William McKendree was elected bishop, the first of American birth to be invested with that responsibility. The membership was now 144,590 laymen and 516 preachers. There were more than four times as many adherents. The general conference of 2812, the first delegated body in the history of the church, gave attention to the operation of the restrictive rules, and it was soon seen that in McKendree a will as firm as that of Asbury was being rapidly developed. In 1820 the conference enacted that the bishop should nominate three times the number of presiding elders needed and the conference, without debate, should elect from those thus nominated the number desired, and that presiding elders should become the advisory council of the bishop or president of the conference in stationing the preachers. The passage of these resolutions caused Joshua Soule, who had been elected‑but not consecratedto the episcopacy, to state that he considered them unconstitutional, and that he would not be governed by them. The conference was equally divided, and Souls resigned; but action on the resolutions was by vote " suspended " for four years. After adjournment McKendree wrote a circular letter to the annual conferences protesting against the suspended resolutions as unconstitutional. Seven conferences voted them to be so, but six of these recommended their legalization by a change in the constitution. The remaining conferences, indignant at what they considered the dominating manner of the senior
bishop and the obstructive attitude of Soule, refused to pay any attention to McKendree's letter. In 1824 these resolutions were pronounced void, and Soule and Elijah Hedding, representing opposite sides on the presiding‑elder question, were elected bishops.
By 1828 the astonishing increase in members became a topic of public discussion. The increase in the next quadrennium was thirty‑three per cent., and placed the membership more than 13,000 beyond the half‑million mark. In 1836 the church established an annual conference in Africa, and plans were made to enter China.
Notwithstanding several petitions, the conference refused to change the section on slavery, or to countenance the agitation on the slavery question then assuming the aspect of a crisis. Perplex‑
ing questions presented themselves in 6. Slavery 1840. A resolution was adopted " that
and the it is inexpedient and unjustifiable for
j	Church in any preacher among us to permit col
	the South. ored persons to give testimony against
white persons in any state where they are denied that privilege in trials at law." To quell the commotion which this created, explanatory resolutions were passed. The material and spiritual progress of the denomination is indicated in part by the election of four book‑agents, editors of the Quarterly Review, Christian. Advocate, Western Advocate, Christian Apologist, Ladies' Repository, Southern Christian Advocate, Richmond Advocate, and the South‑Western Advocate; and the fact that, in addition to the main centers, depositories were appointed at Charleston, Pittsburg and Boston. The subject of slavery came up with explosive force in the conference of 1844. The Baltimore conference had expelled a member for holding slaves through his wife. He appealed to the general conference, which affirmed the expulsion by 117 to 56. The numerous petitions for the enactment of laws to exclude slave‑holders from the church might have been dealt with to the pacification of a majority; but a fatal element entered with the knowledge that Bishop James O. Andrew had become a slaveowner by inheritance and marriage. A motion was made that he be asked to resign. Efforts to reach a peaceable solution were futile, and the conference finally declared, by a vote of i l l against 61, " That it is the sense of this conference that Bishop Andrew desist from the exercise of his office so long as this impediment remains." The southem delegates presented a protest " in behalf of thirteen annual conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and portions of the ministry and membership of several other conferences,. embracing nearly 5,000 ministers, and a membership of nearly 500,000 constitutionally represented in this general conference." A plan of separation was passed, and a prominent member, Leonidas Lent Hamline, educated to the law, maintained that the only point in it which touched the constitution related to the division of the funds of the Book Concern, and that was the only one to be sent to the annual conferenore. On a test resolution there were 135 votes in the affirmative, and fifteen in the negative. After ten months of excited discussion throughout the country, the

Methodists	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	344
protesting conferences elected delegates to a convention which met May 1, 1845, in Louisville, Ky., and organized the Methodist Episcopal Church South. The general conference of 1844 elected Edmund S. Janes and Leonidas Lent Hemline to the episcopacy‑the last to be chosen by the undivided Methodist Episcopal Church. A portentous reaction soon began in the Methodist Episcopal Church. The annual conferences declined to grant the request for a division of the property of the Book Concern. The general conference of 1848 would not receive, in an official capacity, a fraternal delegate from the Methodist Episcopal Church South. It maintained that the plan of separation was unconstitutional, if not that the Southern conference had not acted in harmony with it. It replied to the commissioners of the Southern body that it had no power to negotiate.a division of the property with the Southern church without the concurrent vote of the annual conferences, which had been refused. This led to legal proceedings in state and federal courts. The general conference of 1856 contended over several aspects of the slavery question, particularly the church membership of slave‑holders. This conference began a movement which, when perfected, altered the constitution so as to permit the election of missionary bishops, the exercise of whose functions should be restricted to a definite territory. Slavery, in 1860, was still a thorn in the church. The general conference of that year, responding to many petitions, replaced, by one more radical, the chapter on slavery, which had come down from 1780. A plan for the introduction of lay representatives included an informal vote of male members over twenty‑one years of age, to be followed by a vote by the members of the annual conferences. Two of the border conferences practically repudiated the new chapter on slavery, and, as the civil war was imminent, excitement on that subject was heightened by the rancor prevailing in both the body politic and the body ecclesiastic. The Baltimore, Pittsburg, Philadelphia, and Ohio conferences, Maryland, Delaware, and a part of Virginia, became centers of competition for members between the two Episcopal Methodisms. Before 1864 the Baltimore annual conference had lost more than sixty members, and five of its districts had become incorporated with the Methodist Episcopal Church South. The general conference of that. year took a constitutional vote so as to make the rule on slavery read, " slaveholding, buying, or selling slaves." The informal vote of the laity on lay representation gave a majority against the proposition. A deputation of laymen addressed the conference, criticizing the method of taking the vote, and plans were made to reballot. This conference lengthened the possible duration of pastorates from two years to three, and passed a rule on class‑meetings unintentionally so framed as in practise to make attendance voluntary. When the general conference of 1868 convened, the war was/over and slavery abolished. The reports justified the claim of 1,146,081 members, with an increase of 222,687 during the past four years. With the exception of the gain of the last quadrennium of the undivided church, this was the
largest in the history of the denomination; of this gain 117,326 were in the southern states.
The second vote for lay representation had failed, but in the interim the Methodist Episcopal Church South had admitted lay delegates, and
6. Lay sentiment speedily changed throughRepresen. out the whole church. Nearly all the
	tatioa.	members of this conference were ready
		to concede this long‑deferred boon,
but there were differences of opinion concerning the
modus operandi. The plan adopted provided for a
lay vote, and, should there be a majority for the
innovation, the annual conferences were to vote to
change the constitution so as to enable the ensuing
general conference, after ratifying that action by a
vote of two‑thirds, to admit laymen provisionally
elected. The required three‑fourths were obtained,
and on the first day of the general conference of
1872, the lay representatives were seated. The con
ference selected episcopal residences, and prescribed
a method of residential assignment. A law was
passed, that the general conference should declare
" who of the bishops are effective, and who are non
effective." In 1876 the election of presiding elders
was strongly advocated, but being opposed on the
grounds of unconstitutionality and inexpediency,
the proposition was lost. The body also refused
to approve the licensing of women to preach, and
allowed conferences having both white and colored
members to be divided on race lines " when it shall
be requested by a majority of the white and also a
majority of the colored members; but in no case
where it is not clearly to be seen that such division
would improve the work," etc. When the general
conference of 1848 refused to receive Lovick Pierce
as delegate from the Methodist Episcopal Church
South, he announced that, should there ever be
official fraternal relation, the Methodist Episcopal
Church would be obliged to initiate it. Such pre
liminary steps having been taken by the Methodist
Episcopal Church, the first fraternal delegates from
the Methodist Episcopal Church South were wel
comed with every demonstration of satisfaction,
and their message augmented the spirit of frater
nity. From that time the relations between the
two churches have been increasingly friendly. The
conference of 1880 is notable for having revised the
ecclesiastical code. In 1884 William Taylor (q.v.),
already the most renowned world‑exploring volun
tary missionary, was elected missionary bishop for
Africa. The general conference also adopted and
ordered inserted as a preface to the " Form of Con
secrating Bishops," the following:
"This service is not to be understood as an ordination to a higher Order in the Christian Ministry, beyond and above that of Elders or Presbyters, but as a solemn and fitting Consecration for the special and most sacred duties of Superintendency in the Church."

At the conference of 1888 several women presented credentials of election, but their right to seats was challenged on the ground of sex, and by a small majority they were denied admission. It was maintained that the constitution did not allow women to act as representatives; therefore the conference sent the issue to the annual conferences that there might be a lay and clerical vote as

346	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Xetaodists
to such a change in the constitution. James M. Thoburn (q.v.) was elected a missionary bishop for India.
This conference lengthened the pos7. Female sible pastoral term from three years
Berresen‑ to five. The conference of 1892 dealt
tation. chiefly with matters relating to the ordi‑
nary work of the church and did not add to the number of bishops. In 1898 two bishops were consecrated and a missionary bishop for Africa to succeed William Taylor, retired on account of declining health. Four women were elected to the general conference, and the usual debate arose, but this compromise was reached, that the claimants might remain, but under a title in dispute, and that the conference should adopt an amendment to the constitution legalizing the admission of women to the body, to be ratified by the annual conferences. Under the circumstances the women preferred not to remain. The annual conferences failed to adopt the amendment. During the next four years the church was agitated by a controversy concerning the inequality of clerical and lay representation. The annual conferences having given a constitutional majority for doing away with this inequality, the general conference of 1900, after completing the action, admitted the needed number of delegates, who had been provisionally elected. It also removed the time limit of the pastorate, leaving the appointments entirely to the judgment of the bishops. The same conference amended the draft of a revised constitution then pending by substituting " lay members " for " laymen." The annual and lay electoral conferences confirmed the constitution; thus the struggle of twelve years ended. In the succeeding conferences the few women elected have performed the duties of their office creditably. The constitution as revised contains several regulations long in the discipline, the constitutionality of which some disputed, and also some recognized essentials, which were before but rules. The most important change was in the number of votes of ministers in the annual conferences necessary to a vote to initiate or confirm a change of the constitution. Formerly it was three‑fourths, now but two‑thirds. The lay electoral conferences were invested with the same power, conditional on two‑thirds of their members. The conference of 1908 substituted the title " district superintendent " for that of " presiding elder," and removed the time limit upon probation for membership in the church, placing the responsibility jointly upon the pastor and the official board, who must concur as to the fitness of a candidate and the time when he may be received into full membership.
The general conference is the supreme legislative, judicial, and executive body, having " full power to make rules and regulations for the church," with
certain constitutional restrictions. It 8. Ctovera‑ can not do away with episcopacy, nor ment. destroy the plan of itinerant general
superintendency. This plan excludes diocesan bishops, gives the power of ordination to the bishops, makes them presidents in the annual conferences, and gives them authority to decide questions of law when presiding there, subject to appeal to the general conference. To them belong
the power and duty of appointing the preachers and district superintendents, and to transfer pastors. Each annual conference is divided into districts, of which, in the absence of a bishop, the district superintendent has the charge. The quarterly conference is the ultimate body in the local church. The annual conference has substantially the function of a Presbyterian synod, except that, as a conference, it has no legislative function. It is the sole decider whether candidates for the ministry shall be received on trial, and, if so, who among them shall be ordained deacons and elders. Appointments are in the power of the bishop in charge and of his agents the district superintendents. Deeds to church property contain the provision that the pastors sent by the general conference through a bishop (and such only) shall be received. A bishop presides in the general conference, but in the absence of a bishop, the conference can elect one of its members president pro tempore. As an appeal can be taken from the presiding officer's decisions on parliamentary law direct to the conference, and he has no right to make decisions of law or interpret the constitution before the general conference, his functions are strictly those of a moderator. But the veneration felt for his office as bishop adds moral influence to his office as president, and it is rarely that his parliamentary decisions are contested. The bishop is amenable to the general conference. It can superannuate him, as annual conferences do their members, and can order the manner of his trial, and expel him if, in its judgment, this be just and necessary. From its decision there is no appeal. The rights of members and ministers to trial before a committee and to an appeal are guarded. The profits of the Book Concern and chartered fund are restricted to the purposes specified in the constitution. The general rules can be changed only as the constitution provides, and the ratio of representation is to be determined in the same manner. The doctrines of the church are protected by a double constitutional guard. They can not be changed by the general conference, nor by the constitutional methods which apply to other protected subjects. The method of change must itself be revoked before the doctrines, as embodied in the " Articles of Religion," the Sermons of Wesley, and his Notes on the New Testament, can be modified in the least degree.
The Missionary Society was founded in 1819, having the compound title of " The Bible and Mis‑
sionary Society." The next year the
9. Mis‑ title of " Bible " was eliminated, and sdone. the society made entirely missionary.
It was adopted by the church in 1820, and dealt at first strictly with the home field. Foreign fields were entered in the following order: Africa, in 1833; South America, 1838; China, 1847; India, 1858; Bulgaria, 1857; Japan, 1872; Mexico, 1873; Korea, 1885; Malaysia, 1885; Germany, 1849; Norway, 1853; Sweden, 1854; Switzerland, 1856; Denmark, 1857; Italy, 1871; Finland, 1884; France, 1906; Russia at St. Petersburg, 1907. The missions in Scandinavia, Germany, and Switzerland received their initial impulse by citizens of those countries migrating to the United States, coming

Methodists	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	348
there under the influence of Methodism and reporting doctrinal and spiritual transition to their friends in the Fatherland. In 1906 the missions of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Japan and the missions of the Methodist Episcopal Church South and the Methodist Church of Canada, with the consent and under the direction of their respective churches, united to form the Japan Methodist Church; and the first general conference of that church was convened in Tokyo on May 22, 1907. The Woman's Foreign Missionary Society, founded in 1869, succeeded a number of other organizations of limited scope. As an adjunct to the " parent " society, and as an independent missionary force, it has been of incalculable value. Within thirty‑eight years it has raised and expended in foreign lands $9,244,187, of which $984,975 was collected in the year 1908‑9. The Woman's Home Missionary Society was organized in 1880. It has accumulated $1,250,000 in property, invested in industrial homes for girls; others for children, deaconesses, and training‑schools for missionaries, deaconesses, and nurses for hospitals. Its annual income is about $200,000. In the general missionary work of the church, until 1907, domestic or home missions were dealt with by the Missionary Society and included under the general term of missions. This included mission conferences and missions to the English‑speaking churches needing help in the annual conferences, and non‑English‑speaking citizens of the United States, such as Germans, Scandinavians, Chinese, Finns, and Italians. In conformity with action taken by the general conference of 1904, and consummated by a commission appointed for the purpose, all such domestic missions were transferred to the care of the Board of Church Extension; and in conformity with the action in and by the states of New York and Pennsylvania, the title was changed to the Board of Home Missions and Church Extension. This board is located in Philadelphia. The name of the original society was changed to the Board of Foreign Missions, its headquarters remaining in New York.
The origin and organization of the Methodist Brotherhood is as follows: In 1877 Dr. A. B. Kendig organized a group of men in the church of which he was pastor, which he styled the Mizpah Brother‑
hood. He continued to organize such 10. Broth‑ societies until 1898. Bishop T. B. erhoods. Neely, independently of this move‑
ment, organized in the churches of which he was successively pastor what was termed a Wesley Brotherhood. The first of these was organized in 1890. Meanwhile societies of men in local churches had been springing up. Some of these were called the International Brotherhood of St. Andrew and Philip (see ANDREW AND PHILIP, BROTHERHOOD OF). Besides these there were 6x_ ford Clubs and Brotherhoods, Embury Brotherhoods, etc. In 1896 Dr. F. D. Leete organized in his church the Brotherhood of St. Paul. In the succeeding two years the Wesley Brotherhood and the Brotherhood of St. Paul began to spread. In 1898 Dr. Neely invited representatives of all local and general brotherhoods to a convention. There was a union of several, and those bodies that united
took the name, first, of the Brotherhood of the Methodist Episcopal Church, which later was changed to " The Wesley Brotherhood‑the Brotherhood of the Methodist Episcopal Church." This was its legal title. As the Brotherhood of St. Paul had not affiliated with this body, there arose in the church two distinct movements, and this brought about the wide‑spread organization of independent brotherhoods. In Nov., 1907, the first real convention of the Wesley organization was held at Louisville, Ky. At the convention of the Brotherhood of St. Paul, and at the instance of Bishop Berry, a resolution was adopted calling for union with the Wesley Brotherhood. Commissions were appointed by each body and the joint commission of unification met in Buffalo Mar. 11, 1908. The two brotherhoods then went out of existence and the Methodist Brotherhood was formed. The Methodist Brotherhood memorialized the general conference of 1908 for recognition and adoption, which was granted. In these later movements from the year 1905 Mr. William B. Patterson, corresponding secretary of the Wesley Brotherhood, was very influential, and he was elected general secretary and still holds that position.
In the Methodist Episcopal Church, almost from the beginning, education has been in the front rank of denominational enterprise. The official list shows that the church sustains 173 in‑
	11. Other	stitutions of learning: 26 of these are
	Agencies.	theological institutions; 54 univer
		sities and colleges; 27 classical semi
naries; 8 institutions exclusively for women; 55
foreign‑mission schools; and 4 missionary institutes
and Bible training‑schools. Wesleyan University
was founded in 1831. It is the first institution of
its grade established under distinctively Methodist
auspices. The Northwestern, Syracuse, Boston,
and Wesleyan universities have the largest endow
ments; and the first three the largest number of
students.
The first theological institution established by American Methodists was located at Concord, N. H., in 1847. Its corporate name was the Methodist General Biblical Institute. After Boston University was established, the Institute was transferred from Concord, and became in 1871 The Boston University School of Theology. The Garrett Biblical Institute, incorporated by the legislature of Illinois in 1855, situated in Evanston, Ill., was endowed by the philanthropic woman whose name it bears. Drew Theological Seminary, formally opened in 1867, at Madison, N. J., was made possible, furnished with buildings, and endowed by Daniel Drew. The value of the property held for the church by the trustees of these institutions is twenty‑six million dollars, and the sum total of the endowment twenty‑four million dollars. In addition to the Missionary and Church Extension societies, the church supports a Board of Education, a Board of Sunday‑schools, and a peculiarly interesting Board of Freedmen's Aid. It has, in the southern and neighboring states, 217,011 communicants of African descent. Vast sums have been expended in aiding them to maintain churches and schools. To an intelligent and sympathetic appreciation,

347	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Methodists
the results appear commensurate with the expenditures and efforts. These members have every ecclesiastical right and privilege, including representation in the general conference and eligibility to all offices. Methodism has always made extensive use of the press. Nearly all the churches bearing that name have Book Concerns and Advocates. Hospitals were introduced in 1880. The first is the MethodisCEpiscopal in Brooklyn, N. Y., founded by George I. Seney; and the second, in Philadelphia, was founded by Scott Stewart, M.D., who provided for it in his will. Twenty‑six hospitals are now directly under the care of the church. Deaconesses were authorized in 1888. More than sixty institutions are now managed by them, including training‑schools, hospitals, and homes, and they are numerous and increasingly useful in the foreign mission fields. Children's institutions are growing in numbers, proportions, and endowment. Homes for the aged are not yet in sufficient numbers, but some of the few that exist are models for those that should be built. That phenomenon of growth‑the Epworth League, was the result of a union of several Young People's Societies. Though founded only in 1889, its membership long since passed the million line. At all times, local preachers, in every denomination of Methodism, have been most efficient helpers of the regular ministry, maintaining worship and raising up societies where traveling preachers were not available, and, usually supporting themselves, have been true builders of the church.
The episcopacy has been the most potent personal force in the development of those bodies in which it exists. After Coke and Asbury, the most representative directing and constructive bishops
were William McKendree, Joshua Soule
12. Notable (q.v.), and Elijah Hedding. Since 1844,
8epresen‑ Edmund S. Janes (q.v.), who was most
tatives. efficient for more than thirty years,
Edward R. Ames, who was a dominant factor for a quarter of a century, and Matthew Simpson (q.v.), who combined administrative skill with unsurpassed persuasive oratory, were the most notable. The last‑named probably did more to popularize his denomination in the United States, and other countries, than any other of its bishops. In higher education, Wilbur Fisk (q.v.) occupies the first place in time and value of influence. In the organization and promotion of foreign missions, John Price Durbin (q.v.) stands forth most clearly; and among the missionaries whose work is done William Butler, William Taylor, and Robert Samuel Maclay (qq.v.) will be recognized as leaders. The relation of William Nast to his countrymen in Germany, and in this country, is similar to that of the men who, having migrated from Sweden, Norway, and Denmark to this country and falling under the influence of Methodism, have returned and laid the foundations of that form of Christianity in those countries.
The whole number of communicants in the United States at the close of 1909 was 3;159,913; and the number of communicants in the foreign missions of the church, 313,818‑a total of 3,473,531 members.
2. The Methodist Episcopal Church South: The separate history of‑ this body, the second in number of communicants in the Methodist world, begins with the close of the fourteenth general conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The momentous proceedings of that body are recorded
above. It adjourned at midnight June 1. organ. 10, 1844. The next day the southern
ization. delegates met to determine what course
should be pursued. Wisely they suggested to their constituents that nothing be done till " all the conferences represented " could assemble in a general convention. It was decided to meet in Louisville, Ky., May, 1845. In the interim the quarterly conferences, stations and circuits, and annual conferences discussed the subject and concluded that " dire necessity " was upon them to be freed from the jurisdiction of the northern conferences. All recommended strict adherence to the Plan of Separation adopted by the general
li	conference. The convention assembled, and a committee on organization was instructed to consider events and influences which had a bearing on the possibility of maintaining the " unity of Method‑
;	ism under one General Conference jurisdiction, without the ruin of Southern Methodism." It reported that ninety‑five per cent of the ministry and membership in the south deemed a division of jurisdiction indispensable, and on May 17, by a vote of ninety‑four to three, the convention adopted a report which declared:
" The jurisdiction hitherto exercised over said Annual Conferences by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church entirely dissolved; and that said Annual Conferences shall be, and hereby are, constituted a separate ecclesiastical connection under the provisional Plan of Separation aforesaid, and based upon the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, comprehending the doctrines and entire moral, ecclesiastical, and canonical rules and regulations of said discipline, except only in so far as verbal alterations may be necessary to a distinct organization, and to be known by the style and title of the Methodist Episcopal Church South."

The first general conference (under this plan of withdrawal and organization) met in May, 1846, in Petersburg, Va., and its successors were to convene in the month of April or May, once in four years successively. There Bishop Soule formally declared his adherence to the Methodist Episcopal Church South, upon which, by a unanimous rising vote, he was received as one of the bishops of that church. A permanent Board of Missions was organized, and an agent chosen to establish a Book Concern. Three commissioners were elected to confer with a similar body from the Methodist Episcopal Church concerning the division of the property of the Book Concern. Lovick Pierce (q.v.) was elected fraternal delegate to the ensuing general conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. William Capers and Robert Paine were elected bishops, and ordained by Bishops Soule and Andrew. The pastoral address, sent out to the conferences, declared:
" No recognized principle of the Methodism of our fathers has been in any way affected by these changes. All the doctrines duties, and usages, the entire creed and ritual of the Church before the separation, remain without change of any kind."

Xethodists	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	348
The report to this first conference showed the following constituency:
Traveling preachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,519
	Load preachers 	2,833
	White members . 	. 327,284
	Colored members 	124,961
Indian members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,972

	Total	459,589
In 1849 the Methodist Episcopal Church South entered suit, in the United States courts of New York and Ohio, for a gyro rata part of the property of the Book Concern. That brought 2. Property in New York was decided in 1851 in and Devel‑ favor of the claimants on every mateopment.. rial point; that in Ohio was, in 1852, decided adversely to them and the commissioners appealed to the supreme court of the United States, when the judgment was reversed by a unanimous decision. The conclusions of the court are thus stated:
" The division of the Church as originally constituted, thus became complete; and from this time two separate and distinct organizations have taken the place of the one previously existing. . We entertain no doubt that the General Conference of 1844 was competent to make it; and that each division of the Church, under the separate organization, is just as legitimate, and can claim as high a sanction, ecclesiastical and temporal, as the Methodist Episcopal Church first founded in the United States. The authority, which founded that Church in 1784, has divided it, and established two separate and independent organizations, occupying the place of the old one. . . As a division of the common property followed, an matter of law, a division of the Church organization, nothing short of an agreement or stipulation of the Church South to give up their share of it, could preclude the assertion of their right; and it is quite clear no such agreement or stipulation is to be found in the Plan of Separation."
By this decision the Methodist Episcopal Church South secured the printing‑establishments in Richmond, Charleston, and Nashville. " To them were transferred the debts due from persons residing within the limits of their annual conferences, and in addition $270,000, in cash, the defendant also paying the cost of the suit." The second general conference, held in 1850, showed an increase of 60; 000, of which four‑fifths were white. Two years before the meeting of this conference, California was ceded to the United States. The bishops, urged by southern emigrants, sent missionaries " to unfurl their banner in that distant and interesting portion of the great republic." Another large increase of membership was noted when the general conference of 1854 convened. New conferences were required, and Drs. Pierce, Early, and Kavanaugh were added to the episcopacy. The general conference of 1858, in session at Nashville, Tenn. , permanently located the publishing‑house in that city. This " determined the future rank of Nashville as the ecclesiastical center of Southern Methodism." The general conference provided the organization of the Rio Grande Mission Conference, recommended the establishment of a mission in Central America, and requested the bishops and Board of Missions to organize a mission at such point in Africa as should he deemed expedient. New Orleans was chosen as the place for the conference of 1862. The historian Gross Alexander says " Little did the delegates dream of the events and
changes that were to take place in the interval." During the war " halls were vacated, schools deserted, endowments swept away, hundreds of schools as well as churches burned or dismantled by use as hospitals, warehouses, or stables; mills destroyed, plantations and farms laid waste." "In April, 1862, New Orleans was in the possession of the Federal Government, which was represented there by General Butler." Delegates were appointed, but it was impracticable to hold a conference at that time and place. Not till 1866 was a general conference held, which met in New Orleans. The Baltimore conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church at the time of the separation had adhered to that church, but in 1861 a large part of it withdrew from its jurisdiction and maintained a separate existence. Now it was received into the Methodist Episcopal Church South. The statistics showed a loss of 246,044 members during the Civil War, " practically a threefold decimation." The Missionary Society of the church was $60,000 in debt, and the publishing‑house practically in ruins. Of the 207,776 colored members in 1860, in the southern body, there remained at the close of the war only 48,742. Attendance upon class‑meeting was made voluntary, and the rule requiring a probation of six months before membership, set aside. The pastoral term was extended from two to four years. The reconstructive spirit of this conference and the statesmanship manifested in the introduction of equal lay and clerical representation into the general conference, and a limited representation of the laity in the annual conferences, was a prophecy that the ravages of war would soon he repaired.
The government of the Methodist Episcopal Church South is still, in most respects, in agreement with that of the undivided church, but the general conference of 1870 initiated a constitutional change of vital import, which the ang. Govern‑ nual conferences confirmed. It was,
	ment and	that when any rule is adopted by the
	Activities.	conference which, in the opinion of
		the bishops, is unconstitutional, they
may present their objections in writing, and if the
general conference shall by a two‑thirds vote ad
here to its action, the rule shall take the course pre
scribed for altering a restrictive rule. The bishops'
veto, therefore, in any case, delays the consumma
tion for four years. In the first instance, if the con
ference should not by a two‑thirds vote. adhere to
its action, it is made by the objection of the bishops
null and void. Another feature of the government
is that when a bishop decides a question of law in
an annual conference, it controls for that time and
place; but is not binding elsewhere unless the col
lege of bishops approves it. The making of and
dealing in intoxicants is treated unequivocally and
laconically as follows: " If any preacher or member
shall engage in the manufacture or sale of intoxi
cating liquors to he used as a beverage, let the dis
cipline be administered as in cases of immorality."
From 1845 to 1860 the church, as its members had
been from the beginning, was much occupied with
the instruction and conversion of the slaves. When
the Civil War began, there were " 207,776 negro

349	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Kethodists
members with 180,000 children under regular catechetical instruction." In 1848 the church organized a mission in China. About thirty missionaries, exclusive of those connected with the Women's Foreign Missionary department, were sent to China before 1890. At present there are 21 missionaries and their wives, 22 native preachers, 1,883 members. The Mexican mission, founded in 1873, has been successful, having at present 6,405 members, 16 missionaries and 63 native preachers. The Brazilian mission, dating from 1875, shows the largest increase in membership, the largest collections in the field, and more self‑supporting churches than any other. The Japan mission, together with the Methodist Episcopal and the Canadian Methodist missions, has become an integral part of the Japan Methodist Church (see JAPAN). There were included in this mission of the Methodist Episcopal Church South 26 missionaries and 1,573 members. The missionaries are still under the final control of the church which sent them out. The Korean mission (see KOREA), but 12 years old, has 15 workers and has gathered 1,600 members. Prior to the Spanish War, mission work was done in Cuba. After independence was achieved, the mission was reorganized, and has already, resident in five cities, about 2,500 communicants. The Methodist Episcopal Church South sustains many schools and colleges, the most important being Vanderbilt University, Nashville, founded in 1872, largely endowed by members of the family whose name it bears. Its theological department is steadily advancing in reputation and efficiency. Altogether there are 175 institutions, the titles to which are held by the Methodist Episcopal Church South. These institutions, of every grade, with the exception of perhaps fifteen, have been founded since the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church South. The church supports twelve orphanages in as many states.
No small elected body has included a larger majority of competent men of different types than the college of bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church South. In its early period Bishops
	4. Repre‑	Soule and Andrew and William Capers
	sentatives	and Robert Paine were the most re
andResulte.vered. H. B. Bascom, already re
		nowned, died less than six months
after he was elected. The oratorical fame of Bishop
George Foster Pierce spread throughout the United
States, and he lived to diffuse it more than thirty
years after his election. No more potential bishop
arose in that body than Holland Nimmons McTyeire
(q.v.), legislator, administrator, historian. John
Christian Keener (q.v.) was for half a century un
usually influential in several spheres. The sage
Lovick Pierce, who survived to be appointed frater
nal delegate to the general conference of the Meth
odist Episcopal Church, the Nathaniel of the church,
and John Berry McFerrin, the rejuvenator of every
embarrassed enterprise, were pillars amidst the
changes of their times. In all the diverse and
increasing modes of Christian effort upon which
Methodism, in Europe and America, has been so
ready to enter, the Methodist Episcopal Church
South is energetically working, being rewarded by a
constant increase of members and liberality. The tendency to federation, if not to union, between the two great divisions of Episcopal Methodism is shown in their copartnership in the publishing‑work in China, a common catechism, and a common hymnal, compiled by joint commissioners, authorized by the general conferences and introduced to the congregations by the signatures of the bishops of both communions.
The membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church South was computed at the end of 1909 to be 1,780,778, and in the foreign missions over 15,000, making a total membership of about 1,800,000.
8. The Methodist Protestant Church; William S. Stockton, an influential layman of the Methodist Episcopal Church, began, in 1821, the publication of the Wesleyan Repository, its contributors being ministers and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church. " Church polity " was criticized in successive numbers by Nicholas Snethen (q.v). As its circulation increased, its utterances became more aggressive, and it encountered wide opposition, but on account of an announcement in the Methodist Magazine of 1823 that its editors would not admit " subjects of controversy which act to disturb the peace and harmony of the church," the Wesleyan Repository gained a large patronage.
While the general conference of 1824 was in session in Baltimore a convention of reformers was held there. It consisted of local and itinerant ministers, several of whom were members of the general conference, and numerous laymen. To take the place of the Wesleyan Repository this convention established a periodical entitled The Mutual Rights of the Ministers and Members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and made preparations to organize union societies in various parts of the country. The Methodist Episcopal Church, considering this movement revolutionary, took steps to suppress it. Dennis B. Dorsey, a member of the Baltimore conference, was excluded from the church for refusing to pledge himself to desist from" spreading incendiary publications." W. C. Pool was similarly dealt with, and within thirty days eleven local preachers and twenty‑two laymen were expelled in Baltimore; they took an appeal. When the general conference of 1828 drew nigh, the reformers adopted a memorial to be presented to that body and also issued an address to the public. Thomas Emerson Bond, a physician of Baltimore and a local preacher, issued a powerful appeal to Methodists in opposition to the changes proposed by the reformers; these were the elimination of the episcopacy and the presiding eldership, and the admission of laymen to the general and annual conferences. The general conference confirmed the expulsion of Dorsey and Pool. Prior to this a number of expelled members and their sympathizers formed themselves into a society named Associate Methodist Reformers. Its members were. most numerous in New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburg, and Cincinnati. A book issued by one of their number, Alexander McCaine, which proved peculiarly irritating, was chiefly devoted to attacks upon episcopacy as a form of government, and upon the

Methodists	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	$50
personal administration of the bishops. Continual secessions from the church followed and local combinations were made. A general convention of such was assembled, which framed a constitution and discipline; this was amended and adopted, and a new denomination formed, The Methodist Protestant Church. According to its last analysis, the reformers declared the point of controversy to be an unmixed question of representation of the laity. In twelve years the Methodist Protestant Church included eighteen conferences and 50,000 members. The Methodist Protestant Church included, among those who formed it, many whom the Methodist Episcopal Church could ill afford to lose, such as Asa Shinn, orator, debater, and powerful preacher, and Nicholas Snethen, seldom equaled as a‑polemic speaker and author. The Methodist Episcopal Church South and the Methodist Episcopal Church have fulfilled the prediction of Snethen made in 1864:
" If we are true to it [the pure, unmixed question of representation], if we are not ashamed of it, if we glory in it, it must finally prevail, and proselyte every Methodist in the United States. They may, indeed, remain episcopal Methodists, but so sure as we are not moved away from our high calling, the whole lump will be leavened into representative Methodists."
Its government is the embodiment of the representative principles for which it contended. In no period of its existence has it failed to be. represented by men of rare ability. Among those of the middle period was Thomas Hewlings Stockton (q.v.), who had few if any superiors as a preacher. Another was Dr. Alexander Clark, orator, author, editor, traveler, no mean poet, and the principal compiler of the Voice of Praise, the hymn‑book of the denomination. This communion has always been interested in education, and maintained useful institutions. For many years it aided the for‑. eign mission work of other denominations. The Woman's Foreign Missionary Society was formed in 1879, and the Board of Foreign Missions in 1882. Its work has been chiefly in Japan and China.
The membership in 1909 numbered 188,806, a gain of over sixty per cent since 1892.
4. Wesleyan Methodist Connection or Church of America: Divers uncompromising abolitionists conferred together in 1842 as to the wisdom of secession from the Methodist Episcopal Church. In that year Orange Scott, Jotha,m Horton, and Leroy Sunderland announced, in a paper called the True Wealeyan, their withdrawal, and issued a call for a convention of all who agreed with them to prepare a plan of government and to organize a church which should be non‑episcopal and anti‑slavery. The convention met May 31, 1843, at Utica, N. Y., and founded the Wesleyan Methodist Connection of America. About 6,000 joined, twenty‑two of whom were traveling ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and as many more from the Methodist Protestant and Reformed Methodists. To these were added forty‑four who reported by letter. The discipline of the Wesleyan Methodist Connection of America differs in various particulars from that of other sections of the Methodist family. Members are forbidden to join any secret society, and if any break this rule and refuse to
withdraw " they shall without trial be declared withdrawn from the church." Unatationed ministers are allowed to speak in. the conference but not to vote. In less than eighteen months after it was founded the membership increased from 6,000 to 15,000; but thirty‑two years later it had no more. Its rigid condemnation of secret societies repelled many, and after slavery was destroyed, nearly one hundred ministers, accompanied by thousands of communicants, returned to the Methodist Episcopal Church. This denomination of Christians strives faithfully to convert men, and to enforce the stringent rules which it conscientiously holds to be just‑‑to be Christian. Its present roster shows 19,485 members.
5. The Free Methodist Church: This church was organized in 1860 at a convention of ministers and laymen. The action was the culmination of an agitation in the Genesee conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Certain ministers in that body had, for several years, been declaring that the church was tolerating worldly practises, and contradictory teachings on entire sanctification; that primitive Methodist simplicity was disappearing, unconverted persons being received into the church; that little attention was paid to discipline, and that many Methodists were allowed to belong to secret societies. They condemned the renting of pews, choir‑singing, all worldly amusements, and the building of costly churches. In 1858 B. T. Roberts and Joseph McCreary were expelled from the Methodist Episcopal Church on charges of contumacy and alleged immoral and unchristian conduct. The charge of contumacy was based upon Roberts' publishing and circulating a second edition of New School Methodism and a pamphlet giving a short account of his previous trial. Many considered the expulsion of these ministers as persecution. Several ministers of the conference publicly expressed their sympathy, and four of them were expelled on similar charges, and two others were retired from the itinerant ministry to the local. At the general conference of 1860 the cases were taken up and the appeal of Roberts was not allowed. The conference affirmed that an unendurable spirit of censoriousness and insubordination was the cause of the action against them, and that their expulsion was in harmony with the regular forms. In the government of the Free Methodist Church a general superintendent, elected quadrennially, was substituted for the episcopacy. In all church courts the number of laymen was made equal to the ministry. The office of presiding elder was retained, but the officer is entitled district chairman. Two articles of faith were added to those of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The first is on entire sanctification, and the second on future reward and punishment. B. T. Roberts, who was long general superintendent of the body, having been reelected several times, was an alumnus of Wesleyan University, a good writer, and in private intercourse a man of both commanding and per suasive ability. The Free Methodist Church has furnished many illustrations of heroic self‑denial. Limited as are the resources of the body, it has small missions in Africa, India, San Domingo, and